20100952 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20101112

Martin's Creek II Mitigation Plan
Prepared For
r 1*
Ad I
ygstem
4n(I Pn-i
PROGRAM
EEP Project #: 92633
SCO #: 08-07251-01
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
9/22/10
NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
n
4.i This document was printed using 100% recycled paper.
Cherokee County, North Carolina
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Plan
Cherokee County, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Micky Clemmons Jake McLean, PE
Office Principal & Project Manager Project Engineer
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE ii 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes the restoration of 3,505 if of stream, enhancement of 2,764
If of channel and preservation 21,5301f of headwater tributaries to Martin's Creek in Cherokee County, NC
(ES Figure 1.0). All restoration and enhancement reaches have been identified as jurisdictional waters.
Jurisdictional wetlands on-site totaled 1.61 acres; these will be enhanced during this project. Based on the
identification of relic wetland soils Baker proposes to restore 5.2 acres of wetlands resulting in approximately
6.81 acres of restored and enhanced wetlands under this project. The nearest town, Murphy, is approximately
two and a half miles north of the Martin's Creek II mitigation project site. The site lies in the Hiwassee River
Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 04-05-02 and local watershed
unit 06020002170010.
The Martin's Creek II mitigation project area lies within the focus area of the Peachtree-Martins Creek Local
Watershed Plan (LWP) (http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/Hiwassee_RB.html) and
roughly corresponds to Restoration site # 1 & Preservation site # 1 of the LWP project atlas. Additionally,
the mitigation project site watershed is identified as Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 06020002170010 which
was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in EEP's 2001 and 2008 Hiwassee River Basin
Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plans
(http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_ basin/Hiwassee_RB .html).
The Peachtree-Martins Creek LWP identified numerous point and nonpoint source pollutants present in the
Peachtree-Martins Creek watershed. Water quality stressors that were located in the project watershed and
the project site itself include inadequate riparian buffer cover, channel modification, excess nutrient and
sediment loading, and fecal bacteria contamination. Other water quality issues in the project LWP area
include increased flow velocities associated with stormwater runoff, groundwater contamination, and
sediment inputs from a local quarry (only point source identified).
The goals for the stream restoration project are as follows
• Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Martin's Creek II mitigation project area,
• Restoration or enhancement of wetlands on- site,
• Exclude livestock from accessing the project streams, wetlands, and riparian zones,
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections and overall ecosystem functionality,
• Improve water quality within the Martin's Creek II project area through reduction of bank erosion,
improved nutrient and sediment removal, and stabilization of streambanks,
• The restoration and preservation of headwater tributaries to the Peachtree-Martins Creek Watershed
and the Hiwassee River, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in-stream cover, addition of
woody debris, reduction of water temperature, and restoration of terrestrial habitat.
To accomplish these goals, we recommend the following actions:
• Make important design decisions based on geomorphic analyses of the site, from reference
conditions, supporting information from hydraulic modeling and dimensionless ratios that Baker has
consistently found to produce stabile conditions in order to incorporate important elements of all,
• Use constructability as a guiding consideration in order to produce a realistic design that is possible to
build given field constraints and construction tolerances,
• Minimize disturbance to ecologically functional and physically stable areas; mimic the character of
these areas and borrow materials from them where appropriate to create a more natural design, and
• Structures and overall design will attempt to use native materials and minimize materials brought
onsite in order to produce habitat favoring native flora and fauna, reduce compaction and site
disturbance from material transport, and produce an aesthetically pleasing result.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE iii 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
The project goals will directly address stressors identified in the Peachtree-Martins Creek LWP, namely lack
of riparian vegetation, channel modification, excess sediment inputs, excess nutrient inputs, and bacterial
contamination. Baker's natural stream channel design approach will result in a stable riparian system that will
reduce sediment and nutrient loading to Martin Creek while contributing to water quality conditions that
support terrestrial and aquatic species including priority species identified in the basin.
Table ES.1 Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project Overview
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project--NCEEP Project #92633

Right Prong Martin's Creek (RP) Unnamed Tributaries
-UTI Preservation 541 541 108 5:1 0.162
-UTI Enhancement II 399 399 159 2.5:1 .169
-UT2 Preservation 2,472 2,472 494 5:1 0.076
-UT2-1 Preservation 1,366 1,366 273 5:1 0.037
-UT3 Preservation 1,379 1,379 276 5:1 0.097
-UT3-1 Preservation 1,060 1,060 212 5:1 0.027
-UT4 Preservation 1,832 1,832 366 5:1 0.073
-UT4-1 Preservation 698 698 140 5:1 0.019
-UT5 Preservation 818 818 164 5:1 0.016
-UT6 Preservation 1,069 1,069 214 5:1 0.036
_UT7 Preservation 791 791 158 5:1 0.013
Right Prong Martin's Creek (Reach 1) Preservation 5,208 5,208 1,042 5:1 0.413
Right Prong Martin's Creek (Reach 2) Enhancement II 572 572 229 2.5:1 0.603
Martin's Creek (MC) Unnamed Tributaries
C-UTI (Reach 1) Preservation 2,482 2,482 496 5:1 0.065
C-UTI (Reach 2) Restoration 1,070 1,070 1,070 1:1 0.092
C-UTI (Reach 3) Enhancement I 345 345 230 1.5:1 0.161
C-UTI (Reach 4) Restoration 332 1,149 1,149 1:1 0.176
C-UTI-1 Preservation 689 689 138 5:1 0.018
C-UTI-2 Preservation 923 923 185 5:1 0.019
C-UT1-2-1 Preservation 202 202 40 5:1 0.005
C-UTI-3 (Reach 1) Enhancement I 516 516 344 1.5:1 0.07
MC-UT 1-3 (Reach 2) Restoration 1,068 1,286 1,286 1:1 0.08
C-UT2 Enhancement II 75 75 30 2.5:1 0.385
Martin's Creek Enhancement II 857 857 343 2.5:1 6.81
TOTAL STREAM FOOTAGE BY TYPE 26,764 27,799 9,146
Stream Design Approach
Restoration 2,470 3,505 3,505 1:1
Enhancement I 861 861 574 1.5:1
Stream Length/SMUs Enhancement II 1,903 1,903 761 2.5:1
Preservation 21,530 21,530 4,306 5:1
26,764 27,799 9,146
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE iv 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table ES.1 Mitigation Plan Overview
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project--NCEEP Project #92633
TOTAL WETLAND ACREAGE
Wetland Design Approach (Acres)
Restoration - 5.2 5.2 1:1
Total Wetland Acreage Enhancement 1.61 1.61 .80 2:1
6.81 6.0
Watershed Size at Downstream End of Reach 6.81 Square Miles
This document is consistent with the requirements of the 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). Specifically the document addresses the following
requirements of the federal rule:
(2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of
compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in
which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the
watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest.
(3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. This should
include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of
accomplishing ecologically self-sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement,
and/or preservation at the compensatory mitigation project site. (See § 332.3(d).)
(4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site
ownership, that will be used to ensure the long-term protection of the compensatory mitigation project
site (see § 332.7(a)).
(5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory
mitigation project site and, in the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site. This may
include descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil
conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic
coordinates for those site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed
as compensation. The baseline information should also include a delineation of waters of the United
States on the proposed compensatory mitigation project site. A prospective permittee planning to
secure credits from an approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline
information about the impact site, not the mitigation bank or in-lieu fee project site.
(6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief
explanation of the rationale for this determination. (See § 332.3(f).)
(7) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory
mitigation project, including, but not limited to, the geographic boundaries of the project; construction
methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and
uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species;
the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and
erosion control measures. For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may
also include other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical
channel cross sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings.
(8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued
viability of the resource once initial construction is completed.
(9) Performance standards. Ecologically-based standards that will be used to determine whether the
compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. (See § 332.5.)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE v 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
(10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the
compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive
management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district
engineer must be included. (See § 332.6.)
(11) Long-term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be
managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long-term sustainability of
the resource, including long-term financing mechanisms and the parry responsible for long-term
management. (See § 332.7(d).)
(12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site
conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties
responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will
guide decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address
both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success.
(See § 332.7(c).)
(13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are
sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be
successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (see § 332.3(n)).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE vi 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
l _
a{? aat I ?
0
Ir`
\
•, 1 `l
I 1
. 1k,
1 \ 1 \ 1 G?
1
r`
9 I I .:1 / v x v\ A '?.?
1 1 I I ! / ??o ? / ?
Te_
P-U
\ ! 1 I Ieach "? Reach 2 / ?.__ - '
i
1 Reach 4 ?N 8 6
%
Reach 3 uk
t / MC-UT2
IvIC-UTI-3
119o 4?
- V°o / "If
v v?d / Reach $r, 4?\4{ 4'"lu
% A
I em?? ?
LEGEND
- r--_
Proposed Restoration Type ® jurisdictional Wetlands i I Proposed Easement Boundary N
(Recommendation) ® proposed Wedands Project Parcel Figure ES.1 Proposed Project
_ Restoration
Streams E:] Parcels l° Components
o Enhancement I ® Power Poles 4a
o Enhancement II Powerline
o Martin Creek Mitigation Project
oreservation 0 150 300 600
P
Feet Cherokee County, NC
°e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ............................................................................. 1-1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE ...................................................... ....................... 1-1
1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATIONS ........................ ....................... 1-1
1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE ................................................................................. ....................... 1-2
2.0 W ATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 WATERSHED DELINEATION ...................................................................................................... ....................... 2-1
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION/ WATER QUALITY ............................................................. ....................... 2-2
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................... ....................... 2-2
2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS .............................................................. ....................... 2-5
2.5 WATERSHED PLANNING ............................................................................................................ ....................... 2-6
2.6 ENDANGERED/THREATENED SPECIES ....................................................................................... ....................... 2-6
2.61 Federally Listed Endangered Species .................................................................................. ....................... 2-9
2.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ ..................... 2-13
2.8 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................ ..................... 2-13
2.8.1 Property Ownership, Boundary and Site Access ................................................................. ..................... 2-13
2.8.2 Utilities ................................................................................................................................ ..................... 2-14
2.8.3 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization ...................................................... ..................... 2-14
2.9 POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTAL SITES ................................................................ ..................... 2-14
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS ..................................................................................................... ....................... 3-1
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY ................................................................................................ ....................... 3-1
3.2 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................................... ....................... 3-1
3.3 VALLEY CLASSIFICATION ......................................................................................................... ....................... 3-4
3.4 PROJECT REACH CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................................... ....................... 3-7
3.4.1 Martin's Creek (Mainstem) ................................................................................................. ....................... 3-7
3.4.2 Martin's Creek UTI -1 and UTI -2 (MC- UTI -1 and MC-UTI -2) ........................................ ....................... 3-8
3.4.3 Martin's Creek UTI (MC-UTI) ........................................................................................... ....................... 3-8
3.4.4 Martin's Creek UTI -3 (MC-UTI -3) .................................................................................... ....................... 3-9
3.4.5 Martin's Creek UT2 (MC-UT2) ........................................................................................... ..................... 3-10
3.4.6 Right Prong Martin's Creek (Mainstem) ............................................................................. ..................... 3-10
3.4.7 Right Prong Martin's Creek UTI (RP-UTI) ....................................................................... ..................... 3-10
3.4.8 Other Preservation Reaches in the Right Prong Martin's Creek Drainage: RP-UT2, RP-UT2-1, RP-UT3,
RP-U T3-1, RP-UT4, RP-UT4-1, and RP-UT5 .................................................................................. ..................... 3-11
3.5 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY, EVOLUTION AND STABILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................... ..................... 3-11
3.6 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ........................................................................................................ ..................... 3-14
3.61 Physical Field Measurement ............................................................................................... ..................... 3-14
3.62 Regional Curve Equations ................................................................................................... ..................... 3-15
3.63 Role of Hydraulic Modeling Using HEC-RAS 4.0 in Design Discharge Selection .............. ..................... 3-15
3.7 CONCLUSIONS FOR CHANNEL FORMING DISCHARGE ................................................................ .....................3-17
3.8 VEGETATION COMMUNITY AND DISTURBANCE HISTORY ......................................................... ..................... 3-18
3.8.1 Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest ........................................................................................... ..................... 3-18
3.8.2 Montane Oak-Hickory Forest .............................................................................................. ..................... 3-19
3.8.3 Agricultural Area ................................................................................................................. ..................... 3-19
3.8.4 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................... ..................... 3-19
4.0 REFERENCE INDICATORS ................................................................................................... ....................... 4-1
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ....................................................................... 5-1
5.1 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS .................................................................................................... ....................... 5-1
5.1.1 Wetland Impacts .................................................................................................................. ....................... 5-2
5.1.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings .......................................................................................... ....................... 5-3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE ix 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
5.1.3 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (Low Mountain Alluvial Forest) ................................................................ 5-3
5.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................................. 5-4
5.2.1 Site Hydrologv ............................................................................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.2 Climatic Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 5-7
5.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................................................ 5-8
5.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................................................... 5-9
6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS ............................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................................. 6-1
61.1 Gauge Data Summary ................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................................................ 6-3
7.0 PROJECT SITE MITIGATION PLAN .......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................ ...................... 7-2
7.2 DESIGN CRITERIA SELECTION FOR STREAM RESTORATION ....................................................... ...................... 7-7
7.3 STREAM PROJECT DESIGN & JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................. ...................... 7-7
7.3.1 Sediment Transport Analysis ................................................................................................. ................... 7-12
7.3.2 HEC-RASAnalysis ................................................................................................................. ...................7-15
7.4 SITE CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................. .................... 7-15
7.4.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction ..................... ................... 7-15
7.4.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration .................................................................................. ................... 7-19
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ......................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 STREAM MONITORING ............................................................................................................... ...................... 8-1
8.1.1 Bankfull Events ...................................................................................................................... ..................... 8-1
8.1.2 Cross sections ........................................................................................................................ ..................... 8-1
8.1.3 Longitudinal Profile ............................................................................................................... ..................... 8-1
8.1.4 Bed Material Analyses ........................................................................................................... ..................... 8-2
8.1.5 Photo Reference Sites ............................................................................................................ ..................... 8-2
8.2 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING ............................................................................ ...................... 8-2
8.3 WETLAND MONITORING ............................................................................................................ ...................... 8-2
8.4 VEGETATION MONITORING ........................................................................................................ ...................... 8-2
8.5 SCHEDULE/REPORTING .............................................................................................................. ......................8-4
9.0 SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................... 9-1
10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 10-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE x 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.I Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project Overview
Table 1.0 Project Restoration Components
Table 1.1 Project Attributes Table
Table 2.0 Martin's Creek II Project Drainage Areas by Reach
Table 2.1 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 2.2 Project Soil Type Characteristics
Table 2.3 Martin's Creek Watershed Land Use/Land Cover
Table 2.4 Species Under Federal Protection in Cherokee County
Table 3.0 Representative Geomorphic Data for Martin's Creek and Unnamed Tributaries
Table 3.1 Channel Morphology Features and Stability Indicators for Martin's Creek and Unnamed
Tributaries
Table 3.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Table 3.3 Design Discharge Summary for Martin's Creek and Unnamed Tributaries by Reach
Table 4.0 Ratios from Reference Reaches used in the Design of Martin's Creek and its Tributaries
Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters: Unnamed Tributariyl to Martin's Creek
Table 4.2 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters: Unnamed Tributariyl-3 to Martin's Creek
Table 5.0 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long Term Averages
Table 7.0 Project Design Stream Types
Table 7.1 Geomorphic Characteristics of the Proposed Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project
Table 7.2 Proposed In-stream Structure Types and Locations
Table 7.3 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
Table 7.4 Proposed Seed Mixture Species
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE A 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
List of Figures
Figure ES.1
Figure 1.0
Figure 2.0
Figure 3.0
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 4.1
Proposed Project Components
Project Location Map
Project Watershed Map
Project Reaches and Surveyed Cross section Locations
HEC-RAS Model Views for UT1-3 Upper, Water Surface Elevations for Design
Flow (10 cfs) and the Mountain Regional Curve Flow (Q=14 cfs) (LOB=Left
Top of Bank, ROB=Right Top of Bank)
HEC-RAS Model Views for UT1-3 Upper, Water Surface Elevations for Design
Flow (10 cfs) and the Mountain Regional Curve Flow (Q=14 cfs) (LOB=Left
Top of Bank, ROB=Right Top of Bank)
Figure 3.3 Sample Analysis of UT1-3 Upper Design Cross section for As-built
Condition (2:1 side slope) Versus "Evolved" Condition (Where is has Narrowed
to a 1:1 Side Slope) at Design Flow (10 cfs)
Reference Reach Location
Figure 5.0 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells Compared to Local Rainfall
(November 2008 through November 2009)
Figure 5.1 Graphical Comparison of Observed Rainfall with Long-term Average
Conditions
Figure 6.1 Water Table Depths Recorded in Monitoring Wells Installed within the
Reference Site
List of Appendices
Appendix A NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
Appendix B Regulatory Agency Correspondence
Appendix C EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix D Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data
Appendix E Photo Log of Existing Conditions
Appendix F Wetland Delineation Findings
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE xii 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Project Description and Directions to Project Site
Baker proposes the restoration of 3,505 if of stream, enhancement of 2,7641f of channel and preservation
21,5301f of headwater tributaries to the Martin's Creek drainage in Cherokee County, NC (ES Figure 1).
Delineated wetlands identified totaled 1.61 acres that will be enhanced. Based on the identification of relic
wetland soils Baker proposes to restore 5.2 acres of wetlands resulting in approximately 6.81 acres of restored
and enhanced wetlands under this project.
The Martin's Creek II project site is located in Cherokee County in western North Carolina, just south of the
town of Murphy. From Murphy, continue along U.S. Highway 64/74 across the Hiwassee River. Turn left
onto Hiwassee Street at the first traffic light after crossing the river. Continue for approximately .6 miles and
turn right onto Martin's Creek Road. After turning onto Martin's Creek Road, travel approximately 2.2 miles
and turn right onto Crisp Road. The lower reaches of the project site are accessible by entering the field north
of Crisp Road at this intersection. There is no road access to the higher elevation streams on this project site.
Access can be gained from the Wildcat subdivision if permission is obtained from the developer. To reach
the upper extent of the project area and the Right Prong of Martin's Creek, turn off Martin's Creek Road onto
Wildcat Road. Wildcat Road is located just before Crisp Road and borders the northern boundary of the
project area. Follow Wildcat Road through the subdivision and turn left onto Alto Vista Road. Once on Alto
Vista Road, turn left and continue until you reach a vacant lot where the road ends. From this dead-end the
property can be accessed by walking southeast, down the slope to the property at the bottom of the hill.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The Martin's Creek II project site lies in the Hiwassee River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 04-05-02 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) local watershed unit
06020002170010 (Figure 1). The project will involve the Right Prong of Martin's Creek (RP) and eight
unnamed tributaries (UT), five unnamed tributaries to Martin's Creek (MC) and Martin's Creek itself, which
flows into the Hiwassee River. Tributaries that flow into Right Prong Martin's Creek within the project area
have been identified as RP-UTI, RP-UT2, RP-UT2-1, RP-UT3, RP-UT3-1, RP-UT4, RP-UT4-1 and RP-
UT5. Other tributaries upstream of the Right Prong confluence which flow into Martin's Creek are labeled
as: MC-UTI, MC-UTI-I, MC-UTI-2, MC-UTI-3 and MC-UT2.
Right Prong Martin's Creek, RP-UTI, RP-UT3, MC-UTI, MC-UTI-3, MC-UT2 and the mainstem of
Martin's Creek are shown as solid blue-line streams throughout the site on the USGS topographic quadrangle
map. The remaining tributaries do not appear on the USGS quadrangle map for this site. Martin's Creek
enters and exits the project area via culverts that run under Crisp Road and Wildcat Road, respectively. Land
use upstream and downstream of the project area consists of grassed lands that have been used to pasture
horses and cattle. The Right Prong Martin's Creek drainage, UTI to Martin's Creek and UTI-3 to Martin's
Creek enter the project area through upland forests on-site. Unnamed Tributary 2 to Martin's Creek enters the
project area through a culvert under Martin's Creek Road after meandering through a residential area.
After referencing USGS topographic quadrangle maps to determine stream order, a field evaluation using the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stream assessment protocol was conducted. Based on
field data, RP-UT4-1, RP-UT5, MC-UTI-3, MC-UT2 and Martin's Creek are the only streams that are
perennial throughout the project site. Right Prong Martin's Creek tributary UT2-1 and UT3-1 are the only
streams in the project area that are intermittent. All remaining streams within the project area exhibited some
combination of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial reaches. NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
completed for the project reaches are included in Appendix A. A figure denoting intermittent and perennial
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
breaks on project streams is provided in Section 3 of this plan. The total current length of stream within the
project is 26,816 LF.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Distinct project reaches are summarized in Table 1 below and are depicted in the Project Components figure
in the Executive Summary (ES.1). A table (1.1) summari zing project component attributes is also provided.
Table 1.0 Project Restoration Components
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Project Segment or
o
to on
?
?
Stationing
Comment
Reach ID 2 ono
t on
Right Prong Martin's Creek (RP) Unnamed Tributaries
RP-UT1 541 - P 541 5:1 108 - No channel alteration
Improve riparian buffer
Refer to Plan by removing
RP-UT1 399 LII E 399 2.5:1 159
Sheet Pg. 16 invasive/exotic
vegetation; replanting
with native vegetation.
RP-UT2 2,472 - P 2,472 5:1 494 - No channel alteration
RP-UT2-1 1,366 - P 1,366 5:1 273 - No channel alteration
RP-UT3 1,379 - P 1,379 5:1 276 - No channel alteration
RP-UT3-1 1,060 - P 1,060 5:1 212 - No channel alteration
RP-UT4 1,832 - P 1,832 5:1 366 - No channel alteration
RP-UT4-1 698 - P 698 5:1 140 - No channel alteration
RP-UT5 818 - P 818 5:1 164 - No channel alteration
RP-UT6 1,069 - P 1,069 5:1 214 - No channel alteration
RP-UT7 791 - P 791 5:1 158 - No channel alteration
Right Prong Martin's 5
208 - P 5
208 5:1 1
042 - No channel alteration
Creek (Reach 1) , , ,
Improve riparian buffer
Right Prong Martin's Refer to Plan by removing
Creek Reach 2
(Reach 2) 572 LII E 572 2.5:1 229 Sheet P g.
g' invasive/exotic
vegetation; replanting
with native vegetation.
Martin's Creek (MC) Unnamed Tributaries
MC-UTI (Reach 1) 2,482 - P 2,482 5:1 496 _ No channel alteration
Restore natural
hydrology and
MC-UTI (Reach 2) 1
070 PI R 1
070 1:1 1
070 0+00-10+70 geomorphic form by
, , , relocating portion of
channel to the low point
of the valley
Improve grade control
MC-UTI (Reach 3) 345 LI E 345 1.5:1 230 0+00-3+45 and bank stability where
needed and adjust
channel dimension
Restore wetland
MC-UTI (Reach 4) 332 PI R 1,149 1:1 1,149 5+48-16+97 hydrology and restore
geomorphic form to
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-2 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
channel by relocating
channel within greater
wetland complex and
adjusting confluence of
UTl and UTl-3
MC-UTI-1 689 - P 689 5:1 138 - No channel alteration
MC-UTI-2 923 - P 923 5:1 185 - No channel alteration
MC-UTI-2-1 202 - P 202 2.5:1 40 - No channel alteration
Improve channel profile,
sediment transport
MC-UTI-3 (Reach 1) 516 LI E 516 1.5:1 344 0+00-5+16 function and bank
stability where needed
and adjust channel
dimension
Restore wetland
hydrology and restore
geomorphic form to
MC-UT 1-3 (Reach 2) 1
068 PI R 1
286 1:1 1
286 5+78-18+64 channel by relocating
, , , channel within greater
wetland complex and
adjusting confluence of
tributary with UT I
Improve riparian buffer
Refer to Plan by removing
MC-UT2 75 LII E 75 2.5:1 30
Sheet Pg. 16 invasive/exotic
vegetation, replanting
with native vegetation.
Improve riparian buffer
Refer to Plan by removing
Martin's Creek 857 LII E 857 2.5:1 343 Sheet Pg. 16 invasive/exotic
vegetation; replanting
with native vegetation.
Protection of wetland
Wetland pockets
08
E
08
2:1
04 Refer to Plan pockets within easement,
upstream of barn . Sheet Pg. 17 minor removal of
invasive vegetation
Improve hydrology by
removal of subsurface
drains, surface
roughening and
Wetland pockets in field
1
53
E
1
53
2:1
765 Refer to Plan restoration of confluence
adjacent to MC UT1-3 . . . Sheet Pg. 17 between MC UTI and
MC UT1-3; removal of
invasive plants and
replant with native
vegetation
Expose buried hydric soil
layer; restore hydrology
Area of Buried Hydric Refer to Plan through removal of
Soil 5.2 R 5.2 1:1 5.2 Sheet Pg. 17 subsurface drains
installed, roughen
surface; replant with
native vegetation
Mitigation Unit Summations
Riparian Wetland Nonriparian Total Buffer
Stream (U) (Ac) Wetland (Ac) Wetland (Ac) (Ac) Comment
9,146 6.81 NA 6.81 93.87
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-3 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 1.1 Project Attributes Table
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Project County Cherokee
Physiographic Region Blue Ridge
Ecoregion Broad Basins
Project River Basin Hiwassee
USGS HUC for Project 06020002170010
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 04-05-02
Planning Area Peachtree-Martins Creek LWP
WRC Class Cold
% of Project Easement Fenced
or Demarcated
100% of easement demarcated with NCEEP signs and yellow blazing in trees
Beaver Activity Observed
During Design Phase
No
Restoration Com onent Attribute Table
Right Prong
Martin's Cr.
Martin's Creek
RP RP MC UTl' MC UTI-3 MC UT2 MC
UTI Mainstem (LII Enh) PI Rest (LI Enh) PI Rest Mainstem
Drainage Area (square miles) .17 .60 .02-.18 .07-.08 .39 6.81
Stream Order 1st 3rd 2nd 1st 1st 3rd

Restored Length (feet)
399
572
345 1,070/
1,149
516
1,286
75
857
Perennial or Intermittent I/P I/P P P P P P P
Watershed Type Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution* (Cumulative acreage)
Developed Open Space 3.8
Deciduous Forest 453.6
Evergreen Forest 29.4
Mixed Forest 46.1
Shrub/Scrub 4.0
Grassland/Herbaceous 4.5
Pasture/Hay 24.0
Land Use Note: Cumulative acreage limited to project subwatershed, not entire 11.6 sq.mi. drainage, which is rural and
similar in nature to project area.
Watershed Impervious Cover
(%)
<10%
NCDWQ AU/Index Number 1-49 (Martin's Cree k), 1-49-3 (Right Prong Martin's Creek)
NCDWQ Classification C C C C C
303d Listed No No No No No
Upstream of 303d Listed
Segment
No
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d
Listin /Stressor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Easement Acreage (Cumulative) 93.87
Vegetated Acreage in Easement - - - - -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-4 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Planted Acreage As Part of the
Restoration
17 Acres
Rosgen Classification
(Pre-existing)
B
B
Eb/FbB/G
Cb/G
EbB
OF
B
C
Rosgen Classification of
As-built (Design)
B
B
B/C
B/C
B
C
B
C
Valle Type II II VIII VIII VIII
Valley Slope N/A .015-.05 .007-.04 N/A N/A
Valle Side Slope Range U U U U U
Valley Toe Slope Range U U U U U
Cowardin Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Trout Waters Designation No - - - -
Species of Concern,
Endangered, etc.
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series Cullowhee fine
sandy loam Thurmont-Dillard
Complex/ Arkaqua loam Dillard loam
/Arkqua loam Arkaqua
loam Arkaqua
loam
Depth 20-40 >80/44-72 >80/44-72 44-72 44-72
Clay % 5-18 3-35/10-34 18-35/10-34 10-34 10-34
K .10-.15 .20-.32/.24-.32 .15-.28/.24-.32 .24-.32 .24-.32
T 2 5/4 5/4 4 4
Notes:' Activities on MC-UT1 are subdivided into one Level II Enhancement Reach and two Priority I Restoration Reaches.
Data per reach is denoted by the "F symbol.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-5 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
-TN - LITTLE TE ESSEE
04-04 4
4 S
j?
GRAHAM
J
19
Gti0.
HIWASSEE CHERO EE
04-05-02
141

21/001

- GA -
`J
HIWASSEE
04-05-01
t C Y
Martin Creek Project Site
Map Inset LEGEND
Figure 1. Project Location Map

U
em
? ?ss ` NCDWQ Sub-basin
J Counties

0 USGS Hydrologic Unit
Martin Creek Mitigation Project
Cherokee County, NC
s
L
L
Project Hydrologic Unit
Cherokee County
0 1 2 4 m
Cherokee County, NC MIlBS
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Watershed Delineation
The Martin's Creek II mitigation project is located in Cherokee County in the Hiwassee River Watershed. The
total drainage area at the downstream end of the project area is approximately 6.8 square miles. Figure 2.
provides a topographic view of the watershed drainage area for Martin's Creek by project reach. A total of 93.87
acres will be protected with a conservation easement through this project.
Table 2.0 Drainage Areas By Reach
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633

Right Prong Martin's Creek (RP) Unnamed Tributaries
-UT1 (Reach 1) 541 0.162
RP-UT 1 (Reach 2) 399 .169
-UT2 2,472 0.076
-UT2-1 1,366 0.037
-UT3 1,379 0.097
-UT3-1 1,060 0.027
-UT4 1,832 0.073
-UT4-1 698 0.019
-UT5 818 0.016
-UT6 1,069 0.036
-UT7 791 0.013
Right Prong Martin's Creek (Reach 1) 5,208 0.413
Right Prong Martin's Creek (Reach 2) 572 0.603
Martin's Creek (MC) Unnamed Tributaries
C-UTI (Reach 1) 2,482 0.065
C-UTI (Reach 2) 1,070 0.077
C-UTI (Reach 3) 345 0.092
C-UTI (Reach 4) 332 0.161
C-UTl-1 689 0.018
C-UTl-2 923 0.019
C-UT1-2-1 202 0.005
C-UTl-3 (Reach 1) 516 0.07
MC-UT 1-3 (Reach 2) 1,068 0.08
C-UT2 75 0.385
Martin's Creek 857 6.81
Total Existing Stream Length 26,764 6.81/.60
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality
The NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes, which
define the best uses to be protected for these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply). These
classifications are associated with water quality standards designed to protect these uses. All surface waters in
North Carolina must, at minimum, meet the standards for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters. Other primary
classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking
water supplies (WS). In addition to these primary classifications, supplemental classifications are sometimes
assigned to water bodies to protect special uses or values.
The NCDWQ has classified Martin's Creek as a Class C waterbody (DWQ Index No. 04-05-02) indicating that
the system is considered to support aquatic life and secondary recreational uses. Restoration of the streams at the
Martin's Creek II project site will reduce the amount of sediment, nutrients and bacteria being discharged from
the project area, improving the water quality in the Hiwassee River Basin.
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The Martin's Creek II project site is geographically located in the Broad Basins Ecoregion Level IV Boundary.
The underlying geology of the project site predominantly consists of the Mineral Bluff Formation although the
Murphy Marble, Andrews and Brasstown Formations are also present to a lesser extent. According to the NC
Geological Survey Map for the state, the Mineral Bluff Formation is made up of dark slate, phyllite interlayered
with quartzite and multiple schists including "Quartz-chlorite-sericite schist, interbedded graphitic schist, garnet-
mica schist, staurolite schist, and cross-biotite schist," (Geologic Survey of North Carolina, NC Geological
Survey, 1985 and 1998). The Murphy Marble and Andrews Formations within the vicinity of the project area are
calcareous and dolomitic. The Brasstown Formation is made up of cross-biotite schist and includes micaeous
quartzite.
The US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Data Mart website
(http://soildatafnart.nres.usda.gov/Default.aspx ),was referenced in conjunction with " pdf formatted soils maps
provided by Cherokee County NRCS staff to determine soil types for the project area. Soils found within the
project area are primarily loamy soils and include the Cullowhee fine sandy loam, Thurmont-Dillard and Sylco-
Cataska complexes, as well as the Dillard loam and Ark aqua loam soil series (NRCS, 2008). Soils of the
Thurmont-Dillard and Sylco-Cataska complexes are dominant in areas adjacent to the streams in the forested area
of the project. These soils are located on moderate slopes in the valley of the project, are well drained and lie
above the seasonal high water table. In the lower section of the valley, project streams course through both
Dillard loams, Cullowhee sandy loams and Arkaqua loams. Dillard loams are located in the project area in the
transitional zone between the upland forested areas and the floodplain. This soil series is defined as being
moderately well drained, rarely flooded and typically 24 to 36 inches above the water table. The Arkaqua and
Cullowhee loam soils are located in the lower valley of the Martin's Creek watershed and are primarily within the
floodplain for Right Prong Martin's Creek and Martin's Creek. As evidenced by the presence and location of
wetlands on-site, the Arkaqua loams within the project area as well as the Cullowhee loams are somewhat poorly
drained and are occasionally flooded. Whereas the depth to the water table in the upper extent of the project area
ranges from 36 to 72 inches, the depth to the water table where Arkaqua and Cullowhee loams are present is
approximately 18 to 24 inches; however, water is at the ground surface in some wetland areas. A summary of
information on each soil type is presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
a
?'~?, -J '"Y'^? ? ? ? `-j. ?? ? ?? l J I ?.? Y ? 1?1 r?' f irr, ?IQ' ? ?,?d:• *
pd Dr yl -AJ
? N.
N
1PrL..' f
J3 f( Z?
-?? ?. `?:? ,ry" r •* .-4 r tom' ??'?' tl q'--°?,};?, ,, } ?: ;• ----
4?p?i }r'.+I rim ?7`I?4?ii:{ [.?X7flti ?tji
4
A ???,t.'f ?_ ? ? '`??+ I f3. ?..3• ?? -
5 i i I i ?Y ?? Y4? •54?`.ti SAM r' f? `'1 ?_ ? x ? ?'y l7l i J ? -• y--y ?, ? '? ? Cam- ? ? ?r ? f .P!
e?G.'{?i i Si J,;Y i"" * t sJ?."?J x 4'?. CO
?3Ly? ,?}-? .-•I? ?? /. ;?? 1 ?(}-# ? ?'?y/J,y'#/.r'" ...r"? ,''-? I4.,t ? ' `,.,?I'L2 ?` '? ? e 'x5 ? `' r? Sr r
f+ ! V ?k 5 F ?: 1?r i'/r - t l ? Q 4 ; r y5 wry : ; }L.? f I {yv o
?' C Jul Y -may i1 f? 1 1 w P 'Y` "( 'y
IF '4"4 ti I _~''1lJ e. " " 4. ri m }xti`.y 4 _-s } w; r ?° +r , v
1IF
,k,?y.,
ly
.L SSA ? ? `? f
_
1 I.`,e l "W f" 4'a 4X `4 kya 4 'I u C ! J// I?
° x ?f e ? - ? 1§ ? vn 5} +?•.z
i
`` - L '4 Y rx" j I
S *• ''ti ? ? ? J _? Y ?' mss`. } 6 v? :.+r??r'Y ?P Y
,??"?' _ I? ?' * 3 "•LCj` eg i? ??„? *# ?? 4?Y ?'{?y_y ?? ? S ?° ,+''° '. J-+r` p ?Ip
I i t d Poorhouse d L,
> ', r ! e
LEGEND: Figure 2. Project Watershed Map
or Project Reach Streams 0 Watershed Boundary (Murphy Quad)
EZ Project Wetlands Martin Creek Mitigation Project
Cherokee County, NC
1--?Icosystem
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
Table 2.1 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633

Fine-loamy, Active, Moderately permeable, deep, well
Thurmont - Mesic Oxyaquic Footslopes, drained soils; developed in colluvium
Dillard complex Hapludults/ colluvial fans, and alluvium from a mixture of
(2-8% and Fine-loamy, mixed, benches, stream metamorphic rocks. Dillard soils are
8-15% slopes) semiactive, mesic Aquic terraces formed from Holocene-aged loamy
Hapludults alluvium.
Loamy-skeletal, mixed, Moderately rapid permeability, deep,
active, mesic Typic
Mountain very well drained soils; weathered,
Sylco-Cataska Dystrndepts/ Loamy- summits
side low-grade metasedimentary residuum/
complex skeletal, mixed, ,
Southern
slopes Shallow, moderately rapid
(50-95% slopes) semiactive, mesic,
Appalac
Appalachians
ty, very well drained soils;
permeabili
shallow Typic weathered from low-grade
Dystrndepts metasedimentary residuum.
Coarse-loamy over Floodplains in Rapidly permeable
somewhat poorly
Cullowhee fine sandy or sandy-skeletal, upper reaches of ,
drained soils; developed from loamy
sandy loam mixed, superactive, watersheds in
alluvium over sandy and gravel
(0-3% slopes) mesic Fluvaquentic Southern alluvium
Dystrndepts Appalachians .

Dillard loam Fine-loamy, mixed, Footslopes,
colluvial fans Moderately permeable, deep, well

(1-5 /o slopes) semiactive, mesic Aquic ,
benches
stream drained soils; formed from Holocene-
Hapludults , aged loamy alluvium.
terraces
Fine-loamy
mixed Moderately permeable, somewhat
Arkaqua loam ,
,
active, mesic poorly drained soils; developed from
(0-2% slopes) Fluvaquentic Floodplains loamy alluvial sediments washed
Dystrndepts largely from metamorphic rock
residuum.
Note:
NRCS, USDA. Official Soil Series Descriptions
http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Default.aMx
Table 2.2 Project Soil Type Characteristics
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Series Hydric Rating/Criteria Max % Clay on Erosion Erosion Drainage OM%
Depth Surface Factor Factor Class
(in) K T
2B3 (Poor drainage and a
Thurmont -Dillard water table at a depth of 1-
complex foot or less during growing 30-80/ 3-27/ .24/32 5 Well drained 0.0-
(8-15% slopes) season if permeability is
" 30-60 10-35 8.0/.05-5.0
less than 6
/hr in any layer
within a depth of 20"
Sylco-Cataska complex No -33/ 15-35/ 10-
15 2 Very well 0
5-6
0
(50-95% slopes) 10-20 12-22 .
. drained .
.
2B3 (Poor drainage and a
Cullowhee fine sandy water table at a depth of 1-
loam foot or less during growing 20-40 5-18 10-
15 2 Somewhat 0
5-12
(0-3% slopes) season if permeability is
" .
. poorly drained .
less than 6
/hr in any layer
within a depth of 20"
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-4 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
2B3 (Poor drainage and a
water table at a depth of 1-
Dillard loam (1-5% foot or less during growing 30
-60
5-35
15-
28
5 Moderately 0
0-8
0
slopes) season if permeability is .
. well drained .
.
less than 6"/hr in any layer
within a depth of 20"
2B3 (Poor drainage and a
water table at a depth of 1-
Arkaqua loam (0-2% foot or less during growing 44
-72
10-34
24-
32
4 Somewhat 1
0-5
0
slopes) season if permeability is .
. poorly drained .
.
less than 6"/hr in any layer
within a depth of 20"
Notes: 1. % Clay figured up to depth of - 50".
Source: NRCS Soil Data Mart; URL:
http:Hsoildataiuart.nres.usda. og v/ReportViewer.aspx?File=D:\Domains\SoilDataMart\temp\daa4f32f-e76c-4167-8743-
lf4217c338a6.PDF&Name=Hydric_Soils&Wait=1
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The most recent land use within the project area consists of historic livestock pastures, open land, a residence
and forested areas. However, the Martin's Creek watershed remains largely forested, with pastureland and
hay production occurring in the floodplain of the Martin's Creek valley (Table 2.3). There are a few scattered
residences west of the Martin's Creek II project site and a medium density residential development borders
part of the northern boundary of the Right Prong Martin's Creek drainage area. Cri sp Road and Wildcat Road
parallel the southern and northern property boundaries respectively; this has resulted in two culverted
crossings of Martin's Creek just outside the project area.
The Hiwassee River Watershed in North Carolina does not have any major population centers (less than
37,000 in Cherokee and Clay Counties in 2008). Land use within the watershed is rural in character and is
unlikely to change significantly in the near future. Single-family homes are found at a medium-density and
growth is expected to continue near the vicinity of the project; however, it will most likely maintain its rural
nature. Potential for land use change in the area adjacent to the conservation easement is low.
Martin's Creek and its tributaries have been impaired by historical and current land management practices,
which include timber harvesting, pasture conversion, channelization, and livestock grazing. Stream
channelization and channel dredging are evident through much of the lower project site. Over time, these
practices have contributed excessive sediment and nutrient loading to Martin's Creek and ultimately to the
Hiwassee River.
During development of the land for agricultural use, a significant portion of stream bank vegetation was
removed. Until 2009 and implementation of planning for this project, livestock had open access to portions
of the Martin's Creek drainage on this property. Past dredging activities and down-cutting have disconnected
Martin's Creek from its floodplain resulting in an incised channel; while in other sections of the project area,
stream banks have been trampled down, creating over widened channel conditions that contribute to
additional sediment and nutrient loading. The extent of incision at the project site has been largely minimized
by bedrock.
Management of land in the project area for agricultural purposes has induced changes to Martin's Creek and
its tributaries primarily through alteration of drainage patterns, removal of vegetation in the riparian zone, and
open access of cattle to the branches. Restoration of the site and removal of livestock from the stream
corridors will reduce the sediment and nutrient loading to Martin's Creek and in turn improve water quality in
the Hiwassee River.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-5 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 2.3 Martin's Creek Watershed Land Use/Land Cover
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Land Use Category' Area (acres) Percent Area
Developed Open Space 4 1
Deciduous Forest 454 80
Evergreen Forest 29 5
Mixed Forest 46 8
Shrub/Scrub 4 1
Grassland/Herbaceous 4 1
Pasture/Hay 24 4
Note: 1. Values calculated using USGS land use data from 2001.
2.5 Watershed Planning
The Martins Creek mitigation project (Site) area lies within the focus area of the Peachtree-Martins Creek Local
Watershed Plan (LWP) (http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/Hiwassee RB.html) and
roughly corresponds to Restoration site # 1 & Preservation site # 1 of the LWP project atlas This Site is also
located in a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) as identified in the 2008 Hiwassee River Basin Restoration
Priorities Plan (http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/Hiwassee_RB.html).
Through the completion of the LWP in 2007, the Peachtree-Martins Creek Watershed was identified by the state
as a watershed in the Hiwassee River Basin that presented great opportunity for stream and wetland restoration
activities. The Peachtree-Martins Creek LWP included land use analysis, water quality monitoring and
stakeholder input to identify problems with water quality, habitat and hydrology.
Landcover in the project consists of low to medium-density residential development, forested cover and
agricultural fields that are primarily located in the valleys along Martin Creek and its tributaries. The Peachtree-
Martins Creek LWP identified numerous point and nonpoint source pollutants present in the Peachtree-Martins
Creek watershed. Fields managed for livestock in this watershed often include open access to streams, which has
led to such problems as degraded riparian buffers or a general lack of riparian buffer, stream channel and bank
instability, increased sediment and nutrient loading to streams and degraded habitat conditions. In fact, a lack of
riparian vegetation, channel modification, excess nutrients and sediments, and fecal bacterial contamination were
listed as stressors affecting streams in the LWP for the Peachtree-Martins Creek Watershed (NCEEP, Equinox
2007). Other stressors in the project LWP area include pollutants and increased flow velocities associated with
stormwater runoff, groundwater contamination, and sediment inputs from a local quarry.
According to the 2007 Basinwide Management Report, the Martin Creek watershed is the most developed of
those sampled by the NCDWQ in the greater Hiwassee basin (NCDWQ 2007). Single-family residential
development along Right Prong Martin Creek was noted in the report and serves as an example of higher density
housing development that is occurring in parts of the basin. Other land use impacts consist of agricultural
operations, lower density residential development and commercial growth associated with municipalities such as
the town of Murphy. Water quality and ecological monitoring performed by the NCDWQ on Martin Creek and
its unnamed tributaries have shown that biological communities are in neither an excellent or poor condition, but
somewhere in between (NCDWQ 2007). Aquatic organisms and water quality have been impacted by habitat
degradation and elevated nutrient levels.
Habitat degradation and elevated nutrient levels are evident at the project site, particularly in the lower half of the
project area where past agricultural practices have included channel manipulation, draining of wetlands, clearing
of riparian buffers and open access to streams by livestock. The NCEEP's local watershed plan for the Peachtree-
Martins Creek watershed has identified a number of strategies that could be used to mitigate existing degradation.
The restoration strategy proposed in this mitigation plan will implement many of the strategies recommended,
including: revegetation of riparian areas, stream channel restoration, livestock exclusion, and stabilization of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-6 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
eroding stream banks. This site was highly rated within the LWP as an ideal NCEEP project site because of the
potential to implement most of the recommended strategies within a subwatershed with high needs. As proposed,
the recommendations incorporated in this mitigation plan should enable Baker and the NCEEP to meet the goals
of the plan for this site while also contributing to meeting the TLW goals identified in the 2008 Hiwassee River
Basin Restoration Priorities Plan.
Restoration and enhancement goals addressed through the design approaches proposed are consistent with the
NCEEP's planning efforts to improve water quality not only in the Martin Creek drainage, but also in the
Hiwassee River into which Martin Creek flows. Using natural channel design principles and experience gleaned
from multiple stream and wetland restoration projects, Baker is developing a stream and wetland restoration
approach that will enable the NCEEP to re-establish stable riparian zones and channel morphology for streams
targeted by this effort. Wetland restoration will be achieved by returning site hydrology, vegetation and
noncompacted surface features to what was once a larger wetland complex. Other wetlands present will be
enhanced by improving the vegetative community.
Practices implemented during this project will support the State's efforts to improve habitat quality and diversity,
and should result in a reduction in siltation and nutrient levels contributed to Martin Creek. The project goals for
this restoration project will be accomplished by increasing bank and streambed stability as well as increasing the
buffering and filtering capacity created from restored riparian zones and wetlands. Although aggradation is
present, overall stream conditions present on-site reflect varying degrees of incision and continued degradation
that has been mitigated by the presence of exposed bedrock. If left unchecked, bank erosion will continue
contributing sediment to areas downstream of the project site. Restoration and enhancement measures will help to
stabilize the channel, halt incision and significantly diminish bank erosion. Establishment of a conservation
easement around the project streams and preservation of more stable segments of tributaries in the lower Martin
Creek drainage will further promote improvements in terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality and water quality by
ensuring development and other land disturbing activities maintain a setback away from streams and wetlands.
2.6 Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining as a result of various natural forces including loss of habitat
and competition with humans for resources. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) compiled a list of rare and protected animal and plant species that
includes seven federally listed species known to exist in Cherokee County (USFWS, 2008 and NHP, 2009).
The cornerstone of legal protection for federally listed species (Threatened (T) or Endangered (E) status), is
conferred by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1534). This act makes illegal the
killing, harming, harassing, or removing of any federally listed animal species from the wild; plants are similarly
protected but only on federal lands. Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they fund
or authorize do not jeopardize any federally listed species.
Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Species that the NHP lists under federal protection in Cherokee County as of November 16, 2009 are shown in
Table 2.4. Pedestrian surveys of the project area and adjacent lands did not result in the observation of any
federally protected species listed. An October 31, 2008 search of the NCNHP database revealed several element
occurrences within 2 miles of the project area. Species for which observations have been recorded with
the NCNHP since 1991 include the Southern blotched chub (Erimystax insignis eristigma), sicklefin
redhorse (Moxostoma sp.2), Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme), and the Eastern small-footed
myotis (Myotis leibii). An observation of the seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus), a species of
federal concern, was last observed near the project area prior to 1967.
According to information provided in the database, there are no recorded observations of federally listed species
within two miles of the project area. State listed species observed within two miles of the project area include the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-7 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
sicklefin redhorse, Tennessee clubshell, and the mountain creekshell (Villosa vanuxensis). A brief description of
the characteristics and habitat requirements of the federally protected species is included in the following section,
along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts. Cherokee County does not contain any federally
designated critical habitat.
Table 2.4 Species of Federal and State Status in Cherokee County
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Family Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Habitat
Status Status Present/
Biological
Conclusion
Vertebrate
Accipitridae Hahaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle BGPA T No/No effect
Vespertilionidae Myotis sodalist Indiana Bat E E No/No effect
Emydidae Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T (S/A) T No/No Effect
Invertebrate

Unionidae Villosa trabalis Cumberland Bean
(pearlymussel)
E
SR
No/No Effect

Unionidae Pegf ias bula Little-Wing
Pearlymussel
E
E
No/No Effect
Unionidae Epioblasma florentina
walkeri (=E. walkeri) Tan Riffleshell E EX No/No Effect
Vascular Plant
Small Whorled
Orchidaceae Isotria medeoloides Pogonia T E No/No Effect
Notes:
BGPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As of August 8, 2007, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(Eagle Act) (16 U. S.C. 668 d) is the primary law protecting bald and golden eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of
bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb".
E: An endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is
determined to be in jeopardy.
EX: Extirpated - a species that is no longer believed to exist in the county.
T: Threatened
S/A: The Endangered Species Act authorizes the treatment of a species (subspecies or population segment) as
threatened even though it is not otherwise listed as threatened if. (a) The species so closely resembles in appearance a
threatened species that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed
and unlisted species; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to a threatened species; and (c)
such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Act. The
bog turtle (southern population) has this designation due to similarity of appearance to bog turtles in the threatened
northern population.
SR: Reported from North Carolina, but without persuasive documentation for either accepting or rejecting the report.
The NCWRC was notified of the project via letter on November 24, 2008. A letter was submitted to
the USFWS December 3, 2008. Baker received comments from NCWRC on December 9, 2008, which
indicated that Martin's Creek supports sensitive aquatic life like the sicklefin redhorse, mountain creekshell, and
hiwassee crayfish. According to the NCWRC, these and several other sensitive species are found in the Hiwassee
River further downstream. In addition to recommending minimization of site disturbance and implementation of
effective erosion control measures, the NCWRC also anticipates requesting that stream construction be avoided
from April 1St to June 15t' during the spawning season for any sicklefin redhorse populations that may exist in
Martin's Creek.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-8 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
After discussions were held regarding impact avoidance measures to protect any Indiana bat colonies present on
or near the project site, the USFWS submitted their concurrence for this project June 23, 2009. Among the
avoidance measures agreed upon was the identification and avoidance of habitat favored by the Indiana bat to the
extent possible, the timeframe in which vegetation removal would occur (between October 15 and April 15), and
incorporation of trees favored by the Indiana bat into the planting plan for this site. Correspondence between
Baker and the NCWRC and USFWS is included in Appendix B.
2.6.1 Federally Listed Endangered Species
2.6.1.1 Vertebrates
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
Bald eagles are large raptors, 32 to 43 inches long, with a white head, white tail, yellow bill, yellow
eyes, and yellow feet. The lower section of the leg has no feathers. Wingspread is about seven feet.
The characteristic plumage of adults is dark brown to black with young birds completely dark brown.
Juveniles have a dark bill, pale markings on the belly, tail, and under the wings and do not develop
the white head and tail until five to six years old.
According to the NHP species account, bald eagles in the Southeast frequently build their nests in the
transition zone between forest and marsh or open water. Nests are cone-shaped, six to eight feet from
top to bottom, and six feet or more in diameter. They are typically constructed of sticks lined with a
combination of leaves, grasses, and Spanish moss. Nests are built in dominant live pines or cypress
trees that provide a good view and clear flight path, usually less than 0.5 miles from open water.
Winter roosts are usually in dominant trees, similar to nesting trees, but may be somewhat farther
from water. In North Carolina, nest building takes place in December and January, with egg laying
(clutch of one to three eggs) in February and hatching in March. Bald eagles are opportunistic
feeders consuming a variety of living prey and carrion. Up to 80 percent of their diet is fish, which is
self caught, scavenged, or robbed from ospreys. They may also take various small mammals and
birds, especially those weakened by injury or disease.
(Henson 1990, Potter et al. 1980, USFWS 1992a)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
According to the NCNHP virtual workroom website, the project site is over two miles from a
recorded occurrence of bald eagle habitat. With the exception of Martin's Creek, the project area
consists of headwater streams with very small drainage areas. Furthermore, the Martin's Creek II
project site primarily consists of pasture land. Forested sections of the project area have been
impacted by livestock operations and some timber harvesting activities. Although this project site is
located within the vicinity of the Hiwassee River, which supports the bald eagle, other habitat features
favored by the bald eagle are not currently present at the Martin's Creek II mitigation site nor are any
waters within the project area listed as trout supporting streams.
Improvements made through this project will not adversely impact any bald eagle populations or
habitat. Canopy improvements made to the riparian zone within the restoration and enhancement
reaches of the project area could actually support bald eagles in the long term should any of the
planted trees become dominant canopy trees. Stream preservation, restoration and enhancement
activities will ultimately result in improved channel stability and water quality downstream
through a reduction in sediment loading. Therefore, a determination was made that the proposed
project will have no effect on this species.
Myotis sodalis (Indiana Myotis)
The Indiana bat is 3.5 inches long, with mouse-like ears, plain nose, dull, grayish fur on the back, and
lighter, cinnamon-brown fur on the belly. Its "wingspread" ranges from 9.5 to 10.5 inches. From
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-9 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
early October until late March and April, Indiana bats hibernate in large clusters of hundreds or even
thousands in limestone caves and abandoned mines, usually near water. During summer, females
establish maternity colonies of two dozen to several hundred under the loose bark of dead and dying
trees or shaggy-barked live trees, such as the shagbark hickory. Hollows in live or dead trees are also
used. Most roost trees are usually exposed to the sun and are near water. Males and non-
reproductive females typically roost singly or in small groups. Roost trees can be found within
riparian areas, bottomland hardwoods, and upland hardwoods (Adams 1987, USFWS 1992a).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Riparian corridors within the Martin's Creek II project area may provide suitable summer foraging
habitat
for the Indiana bat; however there are no loose-barked trees within the project area or other
habitat suitable for maternity colonies of the bat. There are also no mines or caves within the
project area for winter hibernation.
Baker received correspondence from the USFWS on January 26, 2009 indicating their concern
that habitat may exist within the project area. The USFWS requested that site clearing activities
be conducted during mid-October to mid-April and other measures be taken to avoid adverse
impacts to potential bat populations or habitat on-site.
After additional site visits and a review of the project construction schedule, it was determined
that this project would have no affect on the Indiana bat or its habitat. In response to the USFWS
concerns, Baker submitted a letter to the USFWS outlining measures designed to minimize and
avoid project impacts on the Indiana bat. These measures include performing tree and vegetation
removal outside of the Indiana bat's maternity/roosting period, walking the site with the construction
manager and marking any trees within the project area that may be favored by the bat. Trees that may
be favored by the bat will be avoided to the extent possible. Baker has also proposed to incorporate
trees favored by the Indiana bat into a planting plan for the site. Based on measures proposed, the
USFWS submitted their concurrence for the project June 23, 2009. Therefore a "no effect"
determination was made.
Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog Turtle)
The Bog Turtle is among the smallest turtles of North America at only 3-4.5 inches in length with an
average weight of 4 ounces. Its shell is light brown to ebony in color and it has a notable bright
orange, yellow or red blotch on each side of its head. The bog turtle's preferred habitat in the
southern Appalachians includes sphagnum bogs, slowly drained swamps, and mucky, slow moving
spring-fed streams in meadows and pastures that are typically less than 4 acres in size (USFWS
1997a).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Martin's Creek II project site does possess some potential habitat for the bog turtle in the
floodplain for Martin's Creek. Although no bogs were present on-site or near the vicinity of the
project area, the pasture that makes up a portion of the lower project area does contain wetlands
with very shallow standing water. These pocket wetlands contain both exotic, invasive plant
vegetation, as well as hydrophytic vegetation such as sedges andiuncus. Cattle had open
access to these wetlands until the winder of 2009. No evidence of bog turtle habitation or
observations of bog turtles were made during site visits in the spring and fall of 2008. A search of the
NCNHP database did not reveal any recorded observations of the bog turtle within two miles of the
project area. Correspondence was submitted to the USFWS December 2, 2008 that indicated the
potential habitat present within the project area. Correspondence received from the USFWS March
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-10 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
10, 2009 and June 23, 2009 did not indicate concern over impacts the project might have on the bog
turtle.
Based on the lack of bog turtle observations made during on-site visits as well as a lack of
recorded species observation in the NCNHP database, it was determined that this project will not
impact the bog turtle or any known populations that may occur within Cherokee County.
Furthermore, nearly seven acres of wetlands will be restored or enhanced through this project. While
Restoration and enhancement activities will not result in the current wetland being converted to a bog,
wetland functions will be restored to the site, which may enhance some habitat conditions favored by
the bog turtle as well as other wildlife and plant communities.
2.6.1.2 Invertebrates
Villosa trabalis (Cumberland Bean)
The Cumberland bean is a medium-sized freshwater mussel or bivalve mollusk with an olive colored
shell displaying faint wavy green lines. This mussel can be found in sand, gravel, and cobble
substrates in moderate to fast-moving waters at depths less than a meter (Gordon and Layzer, 1989).
As is typical with many mussels, the Cumberland bean favors clean shoal areas and silt-free riffles
consisting of relatively firm rubble, gravel, and sand (USFWS, 1984). Its current range includes the
Hiwasee River, Polk County, Tennessee and North Carolina (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983).
Many intermittent and perennial streams within the project area that were found to contain water
during field surveys also contained moderate amounts of silt and had slow to moderate currents.
Some of these tributaries were also found to go subsurface for short distances as well. Historical
agricultural land use practices of the project area and passage to perennial unnamed tributaries
that have been affected by culvert installation and headcutting make it unlikely that any
populations which may have existed prior to the conversion of the surrounding landscape would
have survived.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Martin's Creek is a targeted local watershed within the Hiwassee River Basin and is known for its
excessive sediment and nutrient loading problems, making it unlikely that the Cumberland bean is
located on Martin's Creek which is the largest waterbody within the project site. There are no
recorded observations of the Cumberland bean within two miles of the project site and none were
observed during site surveys.
Stormwater and erosion control best management practices will be applied during construction
activities associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement, minimizing impacts to
any potential habitat or populations of the Cumberland bean on Martin's Creek downstream of the
project area. Furthermore, the project will not affect the ability of the mussel to migrate upstream
or downstream of the project area on Martin's Creek. Due to a lack of suitable mussel habitat, and
the application of adequate erosion control measures during project construction, this project will
not impact habitat for the Cumberland bean.
Pegias fibula (Little-Wing Pearlymussel)
The little-wing pearlymussel is a freshwater bivalve mollusk that reaches an average length of 24-
millimeters at maturity. Immature little-wing pearlymussels possess dark rays at the base of their
shell. By the time the mussel reaches adulthood, its outer shell is usually eroded away. This
species is found in small, cool streams at the head of riffles, although it can inhabit other areas in
and below riffles in substrate consisting of sand or gravel and scattered cobbles. It has also been
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-11 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
observed in silt-free environments underneath large rocks and is known to occupy sand pockets
between rocks, cobbles and boulders (Gordon and Layzer, 1989). This mussel is most often
found submerged on top or partially buried within substrate as previously described in
approximately 6 to 10 inches of water (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983; Stansbery, 1976).
Bogan (2002) cites the mussel as occurring in the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River basins in
North Carolina. It was formerly observed in the Valley River in Cherokee County and, in
addition to Bogan, was cited by LeGrand et al. (2006) as being present in the Little Tennessee
River in North Carolina. Based on state species account information provided by the NCNHP and
the NC Wildlife Resource Commission's (NCWRC), state atlas of freshwater mussels, it appears
this species now only inhabits a section of the Little Tennessee River basin between Swain and
Macon counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on the lack of observations made during on-site visits and information provided by the
NCNHP and NCWRC, the little-wing pearlymussel does not inhabit the project site or waters
within at least two miles of the project. Therefore, this project will not impact habitat or known
populations of the little-wing pearlymussel in western North Carolina.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri (E. walkeri) (Tan Riffleshell)
Like the Cumberland bean, the tan riffleshell is a medium-sized freshwater mussel that has
multiple green rays and a brown to yellow colored shell. Its habitat requirement are also similar
to the Cumberland bean as it is found in headwaters, riffles, and shoals made up of sand and
gravel substrates (Bogan & Parmalee, 1983). While it is possible that populations of this mussel
may still exist in the Hiwassee River, recorded populations of this species are located outside of
the state, primarily within the Clinch River drainage in Tennessee (Jones, 2004). Based on
population declines, it appears this mussel is particularly sensitive to poor water quality and
habitat disturbance including the loss of glochidial hosts.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Martin's Creek II project will not affect any tan riffleshell populations which may exist in the
Hiwassee for the same factors listed in the biological conclusion for the Cumberland bean.
According to the NCNHP database, there have been no recorded observations of the tan
nffleshell within two miles of the project area which covers a segment of the Hiwassee River in
the vicinity of the site. A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Ecological Field
Office website (last updated May 15, 2008) on threatened and endangered species associated with
the North Carolina lists the tan riffleshell as being extirpated.
2.6.1.3 Vascular Plants
Isotria medeoloides (Small-Whorled Pogonia)
The small-whorled pogonia is a small, perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These plants arise
from long slender roots, with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light green
leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish-green to white petals
and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring, from mid-May to mid-June.
Populations of this plant are reported to have extended periods of dormancy and to bloom
sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing
season. When not in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virgintana) also
resemble small-whorled pogonia; however, the hollow stout stem oflsotria separates it from the
genus Medeola, which has a solid, more slender stem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service County
Listing, 2008).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-12 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Small-whorled pogonias may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows in
open, dry, deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soil. It also grows in rich, mesic
woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the small-whorled pogonia as described above does not exist in the restoration
and enhancement reaches of the Martin's Creek II project area. No plants were located during field
assessments performed; a review of the NCNHP database did not reveal any recorded
observations within two miles of the project limits. Therefore, this project will not have an impact
on any small-whorled pogonia populations occurring in Cherokee County.
2.7 Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) on November 21, 2008, requesting a review
and comment for the potential of cultural resources in the vicinity of the Martin's Creek II project.
The SHPO responded on January 8, 2009, and requested that a Phase I Archaeological Survey be completed
based on the high probability that prehistoric or historic archaeological sites may be present due to the
topography and hydrological features of the area. The NCEEP contracted with Robert J. Goldstein &
Associates, Inc. to perform a Phase I archaeological survey which was completed in May, 2009. The
archaeological consulting group did locate one site within the project area; however it was determined that the
site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Other findings in the archaeological
report included a recommendation that no further archaeological investigations be conducted for the purposes
of this project. On June 10, 2009, the SHPO submitted correspondence to Baker agreeing with the findings. As
of June 30, 2009, the Tribal Historic Preservation Office has not commented with concerns. A copy of the SHPO
and THPO correspondence is included in Appendix B.
2.8 Potential Constraints
Baker Engineering assessed the Martin's Creek II project site with regard to potential fatal flaws and site
constraints. No fatal flaws have been identified at this stage of the project. There are constraints to our
restoration approach on Martin's Creek and at specific locations on some of the tributaries. Martin's Creek has
been moved in the past to increase the pasture area. It now flows in a relatively straight path between Crisp Road
and Wildcat Road. Martin's Creek Road parallels the creek on the east side and comes within 15 to 20 feet of the
right bank at the upstream end of the project site. High-tension power lines run overhead for the length of
Martin's Creek on the project property. These constraints limit the practical approach along Martin's Creek
proper. While more extensive restoration could be proposed, and would be beneficial on this reach, it is likely
that maintenance along the power line right-of-way would limit tree growth and thus the ability to develop a
mature, forested riparian zone. There are also farm road crossings of two channels; these crossings will be
removed from the easement because restoration activities would not be consistent with the crossings. Above one
of these crossings, on the left bank is a barn and on the right bank is an area where household garbage appears to
have been dumped in the past. These constraints will limit the ability to get a 30-foot easement and to make any
adjustments to the stream. This short reach of the stream may also need to be excluded to avoid issues that these
constraints create. Six other easement breaks were identified based on the existing road network in the vicinity of
the project and the landowners' future plans for the property. These are the only project constraints or potential
constraints observed to date.
2.8.1 Property Ownership, Boundary and Site Access
Currently, the Martin's Creek II project site is owned by the trustees of George Cohen. The NCEEP has
obtained a conservation easement from the current landowners for the Martin's Creek II project area. The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-13 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
easement is held by the State of North Carolina and has been recorded at the Cherokee County Courthouse.
The easement allows Baker to proceed with the mitigation project and restricts the land use in perpetuity.
The site is connected to NCDOT right of way as well as to unpaved roads that can be accessed for
construction and post-restoration monitoring.
2.8.2 Utilities
The Martin's Creek II project site is crossed by a 40-foot wide power line easement. In addition, several
phone lines run adjacent to the project area next to Martin's Creek Road, Crisp Road and Wildcat Road.
Baker contacted NC One Call to locate any underground utilities at the project site. The site was
inspected by Mr. Mark Davidson of Blue Ridge EMC and his conclusion was that no underground
utilities exist within the project area. The proposed restoration activities will be designed to try to avoid
any permanent impacts to the power line easement area. The proposed restoration activities will be
designed to try to avoid any permanent impacts to the power line easement area.
2.8.3 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization
The Martin's Creek II mitigation project is located in both regulated and non-regulated floodplains. The
upper reaches of the unnamed tributaries are not regulated and do not pose a flooding threat to any
structures or other infrastructure. The lower portion of the Martin's Creek II project site, which consists of
several tributaries to Martin's Creek and the mainstem of Martin's Creek and its valley, has been mapped
within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-identified flood zone (Zone AE). This is a
special flood hazard area with a designated 100-Year Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and non-encroachment
areas. Modifications within the non-encroachment areas require a flood study to determine whether the
proposed modifications will impact the established BFEs or non-encroachment widths. If the difference in
the BFE is between 0 and -0.10' (decrease of 1/1 0th of a foot or less), this is considered "no impact". If a
rise is indicated by the proposed changes, this would necessitate a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and post-project Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). If a decrease of greater than 0.10' is
indicated (not a valid "no impact", but a valid "no rise"), this would require a post-project LOMR as well;
typically, in such a case, the flood study demonstrating no rise in the BFEs would be accepted in lieu of a
CLOMR and the project could proceed upon local or state review of the study.
Baker has confirmed the map designations with the NC floodplain mapping information system on-line
(http://floodmaps.nc.gov/). Based on the current plans, Baker has conducted preliminary modeling and
believes that the project can be permitted with a no-impact certification (i.e. there are no rises, and all
decreases are less than 0.10'). Upon acceptance of the restoration plan and drawings, Baker will finalize
modeling and submit a report summarizing the project and modeling results to the designated floodplain
administrator for Cherokee County. Baker has discussed this project with the county and does not
anticipate any other requirements that will affect the project.
2.9 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. report that identifies and maps both previously documented or potentially
hazardous environmental sites within two miles of the project area was prepared for the site on October 17, 2008.
A copy of the report with an overview map is included in Appendix C. Site searches conducted under the report
included but were not limited to the following queries: Superfund Database (National Priorities List, NPL) (for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities); the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act Information System (CERCLIS) Database (for suspect state hazardous waste,
solid waste or landfill facilities). A search regarding prior incidents of leaking underground storage tanks in the
proposed project area also yielded no results. Based on the EDR report, there are no known or potentially
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area. During field data collection, there was no evidence of
these sites in the proposed project vicinity, and conversations with landowners did not reveal any further
knowledge of hazardous environmental sites in the area. Therefore, the overall environmental risk for this site
was determined to be low.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-14 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS
3.1 Existing Conditions Survey
Baker conducted a detailed channel morphological survey on all of the restoration and enhancement reaches
with a total station. Along with providing detailed topography, this survey included two cross sections on
Martin's Creek, two or more cross sections on each unnamed tributary, and a longitudinal profile for all
reaches. Baker also collected multiple substrate samples to characterize stream sediments. Figure 3.0
illustrates the locations of cross section surveys and each project reach. Surveyed cross sections and profiles
are included in Appendix D. A photo log that depicts the existing conditions at the Martin's Creek II project
site is provided in Appendix E.
The existing conditions of designated project reaches are described below with Table 3.0 summarizing the
representative geomorphic conditions currently present at the Martin's Creek mitigation site. The table also
provides regional curve data for comparison based on the drainage area of each reach (Harman, 2000). The
applicability of the regional curve data has been tempered against the small drainage areas and steep slopes
present within restoration and enhancement areas; these extremes are not well represented in the original
regional empirical data sets. As part of the interpretation of the regional curve data, Baker considered other
empirical data collected in-house, and by the NRCS, as supplemental. A more detailed discussion of the
analysis conducted to assess channel stability and estimate channel forming discharge for project streams is
included in Sections 3.5 through 3.7.
Baker assessed the stream and valley types present and considered their evolutionary stage and likely
endpoint in order to develop a basis for the proposed restoration efforts. The project contains both colluvial
and alluvial valleys with a wide range of slopes present. There are B, E, C, G and F-type streams found
within the project reaches as a steeper valley type is present in the upper reaches, and a broad low-slope
valley is present in the main valley of Martin's Creek. All streams have been altered by straightening,
relocation to enlarge pastures, and livestock impacts.
3.2 Channel Classification
There are multiple Preservation reaches within the project area. Most of the tributaries to the Right Prong of
Martin's Creek and Martin's Creek UT1 Reach 1, Martin's Creek UT1-1, and 1-2 are all Preservation reaches.
These reaches are steeper headwater streams that are entrenched with lower sinuosity's and width/depth
ratios, and moderate to steep gradients. These features classify them as A, B and G-type streams. The only
streams in the Right Prong to Martin's Creek watershed that are not preservation are the downstream most
reach of Right Prong to Martin's Creek and the downstream most reach of one tributary (RP-UTI) that are
proposed to be treated as Enhancement II reaches. These reaches have a lower gradient, moderate sinuosity
and width/depth rations and have a low bank height ratio. These reaches are E or C type channels and are
being impacted by extensive stands of invasive species. The mainstem of Martin's Creek and UT2 are also
proposed to be restored at the Enhancement II level. These channels are C, and G -type channels respectively.
These two channels could have a greater level of work done than what is proposed but because of their
proximity to an existing power-line it is felt that there are notable limitations to the extent of riparian
restoration that can occur given the periodic maintenance required for the utility corridor. All of the
remaining Enhancement II and Preservation reaches exhibit a moderate to high level of stability, which is
justification for the recommended mitigation approach.
The following is a discussion of the channel classification for those reaches with higher levels of intervention
(Enhancement I and Restoration). These reaches are:
• Martin's Creek (MC)-UTI, Reach 2 - Restoration;
• MC-UT I, Reach 3 - Enhancement I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Q..
Q Q
O
gym- ° ?,
.j
T
o ?
p
fl
?o R
a
o . L
??? ? xe y ? ? xia
/f ? Otiap g?. ?_
? W
t ?
i F
1 ? a
??`'c t u
'G v
eg v _ f
LEGEND Figure 3. Project Reaches & Survey
122 Jurisdictional Wetlands E Monitoring Wells Project Parcel Cross Section Locations
- -
Geomorphic Survey _ Powerline 0 Parcels Martin Creek Mitigation Project
NCDWQ Stream Classification Break ® Power Pole ------ Cross Sections Cherokee County, NC
COSVStem i Perennial/Intermittent
Intermittent/Ephemeral
0 200 400 800
v Feet
MC-UT1, Reach 4 - Restoration;
MC-UT1-3, Reach 1 - Enhancement I;
MC-UT1-3, Reach 2 - Restoration.
MC-UT1 Reach 1 begins in a forested upland section of the project area at the confluence of two smaller
tributaries high in the watershed and continues downstream to the edge of a hayfield. Reach 2, MC-UT1
begins at the point where the stream enters a hayfield. Through this reach the stream is impacted by buffer
removal on the left bank, channel realignment to the bottom of the right valley wall, a series of headcuts and
moderate to severe incision. This reach is proposed for Restoration. Based respectively on cross sections X1
and X2, Reach 2 was classified as an Eb and Fb stream type. In the case of X1, while the channel classifies as
an Eb, it is functioning as a G as demonstrated by the high bank height ratio of 1.8. The channel is incised
and it can be assumed that the channel will continue to incise and eventually classify as a G. Based on the
classification, X2 is also very incised, but has started to widen towards an F-type channel. However, this
reflects some deposition at this cross section due to right bank sediment falling into the channel and a channel
blockage just downstream of this section. Differences in local conditions may commonly result in a different
stage of channel evolution. In both cases, the classification indicates that restoration is warranted. Cross
section X3 is further downstream in the same reach and classifies as a B channel. However, it is obvious in
X3 that the right bank is up against the valley wall. This is the case for much of the reach length. A
comparison of contours for those existing segments up against the valley wall, versus the one substantial
existing segment (proposed station 3+50 to 4+00) that has migrated away from the toe of the valley wall,
shows that this right bank is extremely steep and that loosened soil (through stormwater flow or freeze and
thaw) that makes up this slope, will cascade into the channel. At these steep locations, the valley wall starts at
an abrupt slope steeper than 1:1 from the toe of the channel (some of the slopes are as steep as 0.5:1). In non-
eroding areas, the valley wall slope is 1.5:1 or greater. In multiple locations, there is evidence that the stream
has eroded, or is presently eroding, the toe of the slope, resulting in collapse and over steepening of the bank.
The segment from 3+50 to 4+00, that was previously mentioned, may have moved away from the toe of the
valley wall as a result of such a failure. This colluvial input would have forced the channel to move to the
left. This, and other similar evidence of such morphologic change (such as at proposed station 5+00), is an
unnatural response of the stream to channelization. The combination of incision, channel widening, and bank
and slope erosion dictates that the channel be restored by moving away from the toe of slope and more to the
center of the narrow valley.
Below Reach 2, the stream continues through another wooded area where it leaves the project property. It
comes back onto the property, as the lower segment of MC-UT1 (Reaches 3 and 4). On the plans Reach 3
starts at station 0+00 and continues to station 3+46. Reach 3 begins just below a stream crossing that is
located where the stream emerges from the upstream forested section. This reach has an extensive coverage
by multiflora rose that has limited the growth of other vegetation along the channel. Until recently, cattle
have also used this reach for resting in hot weather and as a source of water. This has resulted in some areas
of stream bank instability and erosion. This reach is represented by Cross Sections X4 and X5. The stream
classified as a G-type channel at X4, and an E at X5. This represents the difference in stream quality between
an area where invasive vegetation is extensive (X4) and an area where it has been eliminated and there are
few cattle impacts (X5). Downcutting, local bank erosion and invasive removal are to be addressed with
Enhancement I activities in this reach. The reach ends just upstream of the barn and outbuilding on the left
side of the stream. Due to the close proximity of this barn to the creek and an existing culverted stream
crossing, a short area of channel (station 3+46 to 5+50) was excluded from the project.
Reach 4 starts below the culverted stream crossing that goes to the barn area and is the point on the stream
where it transitions from the steeper channel to a flatter main valley. The valley slope broadens and MC-UT1
exhibits characteristics of a G-type stream; this is seen in X7, located in a perched and channelized portion of
the reach. Based on observations in the adjoining field the existing channel was created by channelization
below the culvert sometime in the past to increase the pasture area and move the channel to the property line.
Levy installation and downcutting resulting from channelization have resulted in an incised channel with poor
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3 9/29/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
floodplain connectivity. Currently MC-UT1 crosses under Wildcat Branch Road before entering Martin's
Creek. Adjacent depressional wetlands along the old channel alignment have been impacted by this channel
being moved and the hydrology being redirected away from the field and wetland areas, as well as from
livestock and exotic invasive vegetation. However, we propose to route the stream back into the relic channel
so that it continues on to the mainstem of Martin's Creek on the project property.
UT 1-3 to Martin's Creek (MC-UT1-3) enters the project area in the southwest quadrant of the lower property
parcel. This channel appears to begin within a hundred feet of where it crosses onto the project property.
After crossing a property line fence it appears to straddle adjacent properties as it flow near the bottom of a
forested hillslope on the right bank and along the fringe of a pasture on the left. Upon entering the project
area at station 0+00, Reach 1 begins where the stream enters a forested area. Livestock have used this
forested area for shade during the summer months. Cattle access has caused downcutting in some sections
and aggradation in other areas. This reach also has one large headcut that has moved through much of the
reach and is continuing to work upstream at the upper end of the reach. The channel classifies as an Eb and
B-type stream from cross sections X8, X9 and X10. There are a number of meanders within the reach that
appear to have become established before he young forest developed. Some of these meanders are cutting
into steep, red clay hill slopes and these meanders will be modified so that they no longer extend as far as the
slopes allowing for the development of a narrow floodplain along the outside of the meander.
MC-UT1-3 Reach 2 begins where the tributary flows through a crossing in the driveway and enters into the
broader valley shared with the mainstem of Martin's Creek. This reach from the driveway crossing to where
it leaves the property line at the downstream end of the reach, has been channelized into a perched channel.
The channel runs down slope along one side of a wetland area, then the alignment turns sharply in a
northeasterly direction and runs down the field, parallel to the mainstem along the foot of a slope. It
eventually crosses the property line and under Wildcat Branch Road through its own culvert, and converges
with MC-UT1 just north of the road. The channelized reach has a levy on the right bank which keeps water
from flowing to the low point in the valley. Unnamed Tributary 1-3 to Martin's Creek is classified as a C-
type channel based on cross sections X11 and an F-type based on X12. The high width/depth ratio of both
cross sections indicate the oversized channel that was dredged and the lack of stream habitat. In fact, flow
through this channel is very slow and is not likely to support biological communities expected for flowing,
cool or cold water streams. The channel has extensive stands of multiflora rose along both banks but few
trees.
3.3 Valley Classification
In addition to determining stream types present at the Martin's Creek Site, valley types were also considered.
All of the upper reaches, draining the slopes in the Martin's Creek mitigation project, are located in Type II
valley settings. Type II valleys typically drain moderately steep colluvial streams and have floor slopes less
than 4% (Rosgen 1996). The B, G, and Fb channel types present in the upper project reaches are commonly
seen in Valley Type II drainages throughout the Blue Ridge Province where channelization, dredging and
other practices associated with agricultural land use activities have directly affected the channel and riparian
zone, resulting in an unstable system. In the lower valley that Martin's Creek passes through, the valley type
is most consistent with a Type VIII, having wide, gentle valley slopes with a well developed floodplain.
Stream types commonly found in stable Type VIII valleys are E, C, and occasionally D, F or G. G-type
streams are also present in the project area, owing to prior anthropogenic impacts to stream stability.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4 9/29/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 3.0 Representative Geomorphic Data for Martin's Creek and Unnamed Tributaries
Stream Channel Classifica tion Level II
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Parameter Value Units
Unnamed Tributary 1 to Martin's Creek (MC-UTI)
MC-UT I Reach 2 MC-UTI Reach 3 MC-UT 1 Reach 4
X1 X2 X3 X4 X6 X7
Reach Length 1,070 345 332 Linear Feet
Feature Type Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle MM=mdMd
Square
Drainage Area 0.09 0.17 0.17
Miles
NC Mountain
Regional Curve 7.8 9.9 9.9 Feet
(Wbkf)
NC Mountain
Regional Curve 0.5 0.6 0.6 Feet
(Dbkf)
NC Mountain
Regional Curve 4.2 6.5 6.5 Feet
(Abkf)
Bankfull Width
6
4 7
5 14
0 5
9 9
8 7
6 Feet
(Wbkf) . . . . . .
Bankfull Mean

Depth (dbke) 0.60 0.52 0.25 0.78 0.63 0.81 Feet
Cross-Sectional

Area (Abke) 3.8 3.9 3.6 4.6 6.2 6.1 Square Feet
Width/Depth
Ratio (W/D 10.7 14.5 55.0 7.6 15.4 9.4
ratio)
Bankfull Max

Depth (dmbkf) 0.97 0.62 0.65 1.09 1.06 1.11 Feet
Floodprone
Area Width 18.6 9 >30.8 9.4 >20.6 13.7 Feet
/
(Wf a)
Entrenchment
2
9 1
2 >2
2 1
6 >2
1 1
8
Ratio (ER) . . . . . .
Bank Height

Ratio (BHR)** 1.8 2.2 1.3 1.8 1.0 4.1
Channel
Materials
(Particle Size
Index - d50)
d16 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 mm
d35 4.4 4.4 1.1 1.1 mm
d50 8.7 8.7 3.5 3.5 mm
d84 28.0 28.0 12.1 12.1 mm
d95 66.8 66.8 15.7 15.7 mm
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Water Surface 0
04-0
05 0
04-0
05 0
03-0
04 0
015 Ft/Ft
Slope (S) .
. .
. .
. .
Channel
1
06-1
18
-1-1
26
Q
2
Sinuosity (K)* .
. . .
Rosgen Stream Eb Fb B G Cb G
Type
* Low sinuosity channels present due to prior channelization.
** High bank height ratios should be noted, values in excess of 1.5 have little or no chance for self-recovery
(Rosgen, D. L., 2001a). Also refer to Table 3.2.
1. Due to aggraded channel conditions, abundance of silt present and channel flow characteristics at the time of
assessment, substrate sample not collected in this reach of MC-UTl-3.
Table 3.0 Representative Geomorphic Data for Martin's Creek and Unnamed Tributaries
Stream Channel Classification Level II (cont.)
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Parameter Value
Unnamed Tributary 1-3 to Martin's Creek (MC-UT1-
3) Units
MC-UT1-3 Reach 1 MC-UT 1-3 Reach 2
X8 X9 X11 X12
Reach Length 516 1,068 Linear Feet
Feature Type Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle
Drainage Area 0.07 0.08 Square Miles
NC Mountain
Regional Curve 7.1 7.5 Feet
(Wbkf)
NC Mountain
Regional Curve 0.5 0.5 Feet
(Dbkf)
NC Mountain
Regional Curve 3.5 3.9 Feet
(Abkf)
Bankfull Width

(Wbkf) 5.0 6.8 11.4 6.9 Feet
Bankfull Mean

Depth (dbkf) 0.58 0.45 0.29 0.43 Feet
Cross-Sectional 2.9 3.0 3.3 2.9 Square Feet
Area (Abkf)
Width/Depth
Ratio 8.6 15.2 39.7 16.0
(W/D ratio)
Bankfull Max

Depth (dmbkf) 1.0 0.87 0.88 0.90 Feet
Floodprone
Area Width 13.5 11.6 26.2 10.3 Feet
/
(Wf a)
Entrenchment

Ratio (ER) 2.7 1.7 2.3 1.5
Bank Height 1.0 1.8 1.0 3.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Ratio (BHR)
Channel
Materials
(Particle Size
Index - d50)
d16 0.26 Silt' mm
d35 1.08 Silt' mm
d50 3.49 Silt' mm
d84 12.07 Silt' mm
d95 15.74 Silt' mm
Water Surface 0
03-0
04 0
007 Ft/Ft
Slope (S) .
. .
Channel <1
2 <1
2
Sinuosity (K) . .
Rosgen Stream Eb B C F
Type
* Low sinuosity channels present due to prior channelization.
** High bank height ratios should be noted, values in excess of 1.5 have little or no chance for self-
recovery (Rosgen, D. L., 2001a). Also refer to Table 3.2.
1. Due to aggraded channel conditions, abundance of silt present and channel flow characteristics
at the time of assessment, substrate sample not collected in this reach of MC-UTI-3.
3.4 Project Reach Characterization
Martin's Creek and tributaries within the project area have been impaired by historical and current land
management practices, which include pasture conversion, channelization, and livestock grazing. Riparian
disturbance, livestock access to streams and channel manipulation are evident throughout much of the project
site. Over time, these practices have contributed excessive siltation and nutrients to Martin's Creek and
ultimately to the Hiwassee River impacting the habitat of sensitive aquatic taxa.
During development of the land for livestock grazing, most of the woody stream bank vegetation was
removed on at least one bank of MC-UTI and MC-UTI-3. Stream channels were relocated and straightened
to maximize the pasture available for grazing. The removal of woody vegetation along Martin's Creek is also
related to the power lines that run overhead, thus limiting the degree to which riparian restoration can be
accomplished along the mainstem. The most common problems present along the tributaries where
enhancement and restoration work is proposed include poor riparian conditions due to invasive vegetation,
lack of woody vegetation, loss of connectivity to the floodplain, poor geomorphic heterogeneity and stream
banks that have been trampled, forming ruts and gullies along the banks.
3.4.1 Martin's Creek (Mainstem)
Martin's Creek appears to have been channelized in the past to maximize available pasture land.
In general, the pattern and bedform diversity of Martin's Creek is lacking and the degree of
floodplain connectivity is impaired by the presence of a manmade levy on the left bank. Due to
the location of the power lines overhead and the corresponding utility corridor easement, our
design approach on the mainstem is limited and will consist of partial levy removal, invasive
plant species removal and replanting of the riparian zone to the extent possible.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-7 9/29/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Activities are intended, among other things, to reduce sediment erosion from bank instability and
to filter surface runoff draining directly into Martin's Creek from adjacent pastureland. Land
cover adjacent to the channel consists of pasture land and the adjacent Martin's Creek Road
corridor. The overall valley slope is 0.004 ft/ft.
3.4.2 Martin's Creek UTl-1 and UTl-2 (MC-UTl-1 and MC-UT1-2)
Martin's Creek (MC) UT1-1 and UT1-2 are first or second order tributaries located in the next
field up the access road above the barn and on the west side of Wildcat Drive as you travel
northwest from the Wildcat Drive Bridge over the mainstem of Martin's Creek.
Just beyond the western edge of the field, at 689 LF in length, MC-UT1-1 is a short tributary that
contributes to MC-UT1. Due to the forested riparian conditions and geomorphic features present,
MC-UT 1-1 is a proposed preservation reach.
Confluencing with MC-UT1 at a point where the access road enters the upper field, MC-UT1-2 is
another small, drainage and is likewise slated for preservation. This 923-foot-long tributary is
primarily an intermittent channel in the project area. The channel parallels the property line on
the north side of the field. While surrounded by grassed areas of the field, the channel does have
a riparian buffer that is forested. This buffer is variable in width, and is more narrow near the
confluence of UT1-2 and MC-UT 1 near the lower end of the field.
3.4.3 Martin's Creek UTl (MC-UTI)
MC-UT1 originates on the high elevation slopes above the upper field. Upstream of this cleared
upper field MC-UT 1 is a first order stream and is referred to as Reach 1. At the point where the
valley broadens slightly and enters the area that has been converted to pasture, it is referred to as
Reach 2. Reach 1 of UT1 is a completely forested headwater tributary that is proposed to be
managed as a preservation reach. The reach break has been designated at the interface of the
forested stream and the reach of stream in the upper field. MC-UT1 Reach 2 has been moved
against the right valley wall and flows along the edge of the pasture at the foot of the right slope.
Below Reach 2, MC-UT1 continues through a wooded area as it parallels the Wildcat Acres
property line and an established right-of-way-access road. Over this segment, it straddles the
property boundaries and is close to the road, and therefore has not been included in the project
until it enters the lower property within a livestock paddock that is attached to the barn. At the
point where it flows back on the project property it first flows through a ford crossing and then
enters Reach 3. This reach includes a relatively short stream segment that has been impacted by
invasive multiflora rose and privet, cattle grazing and past alignment manipulation. This reach
ends at a point where the barn is too close to the stream to allow for an easement or stream work.
Reach 4 begins below a culvert that leads to the barn. The existing channel for this reach was
channelized along the property line and then onto the adjoining Wildcat Acres where it crosses
the developments access road and then connects to Martin's Creek.
The first restoration reach (Reach 2) on MC-UT1 begins at a point where the stream enters the
upper field and where the channel was relocated at some point in the past to the toe of the right
hill slope. In multiple locations, this has resulted in past and ongoing undercutting of the toe of
the valley wall, over-steepening of the lower hillside to slopes steeper than 1:1, and subsequent
erosion and sedimentation into the stream by soil and colluvium from the valley wall. The cross
sections surveyed depict a stream with a high bank height ratio and are trending towards
continued entrenchment and then widening to an F-type channel. Through this reach the channel
has developed a series of headcuts that are destabilizing the channel. This means that the reach is
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-8 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
still in the worsening stages of channel evolution and that it can benefit considerably from
restoration activities. The design approach calls for dimension, pattern and profile adjustments.
Grade control has been designed to create a series of steps and pools that stabilize the existing
unstable profile. This will result in a geomorphology that is typical to the setting of this
moderately steep second order stream. The reach has also been moved away from the valley wall
to eliminate erosion of the soil and colluviums from undercutting of the toe of the valley wall, and
mass wasting from the high slope into the stream. Restoration of the channel to its natural
location in the valley will coincide with the other necessary dimension and grade control
improvements; the result will provide improved floodplain connectivity and conveyance. The
existing banks are primarily vegetated with exotic invasive vegetation including multiflora rose
and privet. This vegetation will be removed and the banks planted with native riparian woody
and herbaceous species.
Reach 3, of MC-UT1 is the only reach on MC-UT1 that is being restored using an Enhancement I
approach. This reach has an extensive, continuous stand of multiflora rose and privet on the left
bank with scattered stands on the right bank. This has prevented deeply rooted vegetation from
growing along this channel resulting in several areas of bank instability. This reach has also been
impacted by cattle access in the past and sediment deposition from cattle degradation to the
adjoining paddock. In some areas the channel is in good shape due to low bank heights and this
allowed a quick recovery after livestock were recently removed. This reach will be restored by
removing the invasive species, sloping and stabilizing eroding stream banks, adding grade control
structures at key locations and replanting the reach with native plant species.
A second restoration reach (Reach 4) will tie MC-UT 1 into another tributary (UT1-3, Reach 2)
running down the main valley of Martin's Creek and then these will enter Martin's Creek within
the project area. The existing channel of MC-UT1 has been channelized from the existing
culverted stream crossing straight to the property line and then onto the Wildcat Acres property.
It presently functions as a ditch that was dug to redirect the stream off the property as directly as
possible and under Wildcat Road. The channel survey showed that the existing G-type channel is
very entrenched and has a bank height ratio of 4. 1, reflecting the prior anthropogenic impacts.
The relict channel is still discernable in the adjoining pasture. A new stable E-type channel will
be constructed with an alignment that utilizes the relict channel and brings the tributary down into
the low part of the main valley, contributes additional hydrology to the wetlands located in the
low part of the valley, and ties it into the other restored tributary and the mainstem..
3.4.4 Martin's Creek UTl-3 (MC-UTl-3)
Martin's Creek UT1-3 is located near Crisp Road and is the southernmost tributary on the project
site flowing down the south side of a ridge that divides the lower parcel and then flows into the
valley in which the mainstem Martin's Creek flows. It is crossed by a gravel driveway that
extends to a residence located within this lower parcel. MC-UT1-3 is divided into two reaches.
Reach 1 will have an Enhancement Level I approach applied from the property line where the
stream enters the property downstream to the driveway. Reach 2 will be restored with a Priority 1
Restoration approach starting at the driveway and extending to a confluence with MC-UT-1.
Land cover in the enhancement reach consists of forested cover on the right bank and pasture or
semi-forested cover along the left bank. The channel dimension near the beginning of the
enhancement reach reflects aggradation brought about by bank instability from livestock-
trampled banks. Further downstream, the channel becomes incised, with bank height ratios of
1.5-1.8 reflecting the unstable nature of the channel in the past before the forest canopy
developed. The incised condition continues to create unstable channel conditions such as bank
erosion and headcutting. Bedform diversity is somewhat poor and consists of long riffles and
irregularly spaced, shallow pools. Exotic invasive vegetation is present in extensive stands on the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-9 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
left bank were forest cover is minimal and in isolated areas on the right bank along the stream
corridor.
Downstream of the gravel drive, MC-UT1-3 flows across a pasture that was in use until the
winter of 2009. Exotic invasive vegetation has developed thick stands along both banks
throughout this entire reach. The existing channel was created by channelization resulting in a
perched channel that is higher than the low point in the valley. The channel is over wide, has a
manmade levy on the right bank from the side casting of dredged material and does not appear to
be adequately transporting sediment through the stream system as evidenced by the accumulated
silt. The channel has also been significantly impacted by the trampling of the streambanks and
channel by livestock. The channel typically exhibits an incised condition, except for areas where
bank degradation and sediment deposition has resulted from livestock access. Full restoration
involving the restoration of pattern, dimension and profile are being proposed due to the severity
of impacts to this tributary and in order to move the channel to the low point of the valley.
In addition to channel morphology and ecological considerations, the design approach for MC-
UT1-3 also takes into consideration the restoration processes needed to restore the connectivity of
MC-UT 1-3 to the existing wetlands and more extensive wetlands that will be restored in this
lower field. Further discussion of the approaches for restoring ecological and hydrologic
functions to streams and wetlands is provided in Sections 5 and 7 of this plan.
3.4.5 Martin's Creek UT2 (MC-UT2)
MC-UT2 is a tributary feeding directly into the mainstem of Martin's Creek. It is a very short
reach, and due to the extent of exposed bedrock present and other site constraints such as a N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) secondary road and overhead power-lines, an
Enhancement II approach is being proposed. Activities will include improvements to channel
dimension through bank sloping and riparian enhancement through the removal of invasive
vegetation and re-establishment of a buffer consisting of woody and herbaceous vegetation native
to the project area.
3.4.6 Right Prong Martin's Creek (Mainstem)
The Right Prong Martin's Creek drainage can be accessed by turning off Martin's Creek Road
into a small gated community on Wildcat Road. Right Prong Martin's Creek and its many
tributaries are located in the forested, upland portion of the project area (large western most
parcel) that has a drainage area of approximately 0.6 square miles. Right Prong Creek undergoes
several changes in slope from source to valley. However, adequate grade control and pool
spacing over most of the 5,208 LF of Reach 1, in addition to an well established forest canopy,
have resulted in a natural channel system that will be preserved as part of this Martin's Creek II
mitigation project.
Reach 2 of RP-UT1 is a 572 LF reach that starts just upstream of the confluence with RP-UT1
and ends at the property boundary. This reach flows alongside an area that has been cleared for a
field in the recent past. This field has been abandoned and is now in the early stages of
succession, returning to a forested condition. However, nonnative, invasive plant species have
taken over the area and now have a thick stand across the entire area that was cleared. The
channel in this area is in good condition with only minor instability in areas where woody
vegetation is minimal. Enhancement of this reach will consist of removing invasive vegetation
and replanting the area with native woody and herbaceous vegetation.
3.4.7 Right Prong Martin's Creek UT1 (RP-UT1)
Right Prong Martin's Creek UT1 is located near the property boundary that abuts the gated
development north of the project site. Like Right Prong Martin's Creek, the upper 541 LF of RP-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-10 9/29/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
UTlwill be preserved while the remaining 399 LF of tributary within the project limits will be
addressed with an Enhancement II approach.
Channel conditions in the enhancement reach are generally good. Like RP-UT1 this reach is
located in the "old field" area and has extensive stands of invasive species. Where these stands
have limited the growth of native species some bank instability has occurred; however, most of
the channel has a narrow strip of native vegetation in the riparian zone and then beyond this
narrow buffer zone there are thick stands of invasive species. There is one meander bend that is
unstable due to the absence of woody vegetation. Exotic invasive species treatment is also
prescribed for the 399 LF of this enhancement reach.
3.4.8 Other Preservation Reaches in the Right Prong Martin's Creek Drainage:
RP-UT2, RP-UT2-1, RP-UT3, RP-UT3-1, RP-UT4, RP-UT4-1, and RP-UT5
These tributaries are located on moderate to very steep slopes and are intermittent or perennial.
All evidence suggests that these tributaries to Right Prong Martin's Creek have been left
relatively undisturbed for several decades or longer. There is evidence of some old roads within
this forested area and some timber harvest may have occurred, but if this was done it appears to
have been limited. The forest canopy is dominated by Oaks and Hickory species and the streams
have either cascading or step-pool geomorphology with adequate grade control consisting of
bedrock, boulder and log or root nickpoints. Preservation is proposed for these streams because
they are in a natural state and invasives are minimal in this portion of the watershed.
3.5 Channel Morphology, Evolution and Stability Assessment
Channel stability is defined here as the stream's ability to transport incoming flows and sediment loads
supplied by the watershed without undergoing significant changes over a geologically short time-scale. A
generalized relationship of stream stability was proposed by Lane (1955); it states that the product of
sediment load and sediment size is in balance with the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream
power. A change in any one of these variables induces physical adjustment of one or more of the other
variables to compensate and maintain the proportionality.
Longitudinally, the water and sediment flows delivered to each subsequent section are the result of the
watershed and upstream or backwater (downstream) conditions. Water and sediment pass through the
channel, which is defined by its shape, material, and vegetative condition. Flow and sediment are either
stored or passed through at each section along the reach. The resulting physical changes are a balancing act
between gravity, friction, and the sediment and water being delivered into the system (Leopold et al., 1964).
Observed stream response to induced instability, as described by Simon's (1989) Channel Evolution Model,
involve extensive modifications to channel form resulting in profile, cross-sectional, and plan form changes
which often take decades or longer to achieve resolution. The Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model
characterizes typical evolution in six steps:
1. Pre-modified
2. Channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
5. Aggradation and widening
6. Quasi-equilibrium.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well-vegetated stream that interacts frequently with
its floodplain is disturbed. Channelization, dredging, changing land use, removal of streamside vegetation,
upstream or downstream channel modifications, and/or change in other hydrologic variables result in
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-11 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
adjustments in channel morphology to compensate for the new condition(s). Disturbance commonly results
in an increase in stream power that can cause degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955).
Incision eventually leads to over-steepening of the banks and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the
banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening
continue moving upstream in the form of a head-cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream
begins to aggrade. A new, low-flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the
evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of undisturbed
channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than its original form, with
a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
Channels within the project area are mostly perennial, have experienced prior channelization or other kinds of
watershed disturbance, and are currently impacted by grazing. Channel stability was assessed with one or
more of the following methods: qualitative and quantitative site observations, site-specific hydraulic modeling
using detailed topographic data collected for the project, and sediment transport modeling. Conclusions
reached from these methods were used to define site stability and determine appropriate restoration
approaches for each sub-reach.
The project area consists of channels that are primarily in a degradational phase of the channel evolutionary
sequence, with some of the reaches experiencing widening or aggradation (typically aggradation is a result of
local widening due to livestock impacts or channelization). As a result, these streams are prime candidates for
restoration and enhancement. Enhancement I and Restoration reaches are discussed, related to the Simon
Channel Evolution Model, below. Stream restoration techniques act to minimize the erosion and geomorphic
disturbance required to achieve a new stable state naturally. Restoration activities proposed at the Martin's
Creek Site will recreate channel types that are appropriate to the valley types and slopes present. In addition
to the installation of grade control structures, restoration efforts will involve the alteration of channel
dimension, pattern and profile. This resets the evolutionary cycle; the structures and measures installed, in
conjunction with the protective buffer, should ensure the continued stability of the streams within the project
area, barring major disturbance in the unprotected areas of the greater watershed.
Martin's Creek has been channelized in the past and its riparian buffer undergoes periodic manipulation as
overhead powerlines run nearly parallel with the stream. This channel is at Step 5 (aggradation and widening
of the Simon Channel Evolution Model. The width needed was most likely achieved through degradational
processes as bedrock makes up a considerable portion of channel substrate in the project reach. Evidence of
inner berms was sporadically located along the right bank of Martin's Creek. Due to constraints posed by the
overhead utilities and the proximity of Martin's Creek Road, no pattern adjustments are proposed.
Reach 2 of MC-UT1 is proposed for Restoration. This reach exhibits characteristics of a stream at steps 3 and
4, with downcutting and widening as the two active evolutionary drivers in the present channel. These are the
likely result of prior channelization, during which the channel was moved against the valley wall and
straightened to maximize pasture land.
Reach 3 of MC-UT1 is proposed for Enhancement L This reach intermittently exhibits characteristics of a
stream at step 3. It has been impacted from land use and land cover impacts. As a result, some of the cross
sections exhibit high bank height ratios, which indicate a downcutting trend. Lateral stabilization and
dimension adjustments are necessary to create permanent stability that will be supported by the reforestation
of the riparian buffer. In the absence of this treatment, it is at a high risk for continued lateral erosion and the
propagation of head cutting. In addition, invasive plant species will continue to inhibit the establishment of
native species which can better stabilize the stream banks.
Reach 4 of MC-UT1 is proposed for Restoration. This reach exhibits characteristics of a stream at step 3. It
was channelized and levied and is experiencing downcutting. The levying of the stream is particularly
detrimental and will serve to accelerate the downcutting process; the bank height ratio is 4.1 so floodplain
connectivity is non-existent. This proposal will reestablish this channel in its original alignment.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-12 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
MC-UT1-3 Reach 1 is proposed for Enhancement I. This reach has been impacted by livestock access and
past land use when the property was cleared. During this time the channel downcut and meandered. As
woody vegetation matured this channel form became more stable. However, the incised condition continues
to cause channel instability. Some of the reach is experiencing downcutting (headcuts) and there are areas
where the bank height ratio exceeds 1.5. Now parts of the channel exhibit characteristics of a stabile B
channel at Simon's Stage 6, but other areas are at Stage 4 with degradation and widening. This is particularly
problematic at the back of meander bends where erosion is occurring into steep clay banks.
MC-UT1-3 Reach 2 is proposed for Restoration. This reach exhibits characteristics of a stream at step 4 to 5.
It was previously channelized and dredged material was cast on the right bank, creating a significant levy.
Much of this channel is aggrading due to the channel being made over wide when it was dredged. The
channel is perched on the hillside and does not have a normal hydrology or the floodplain access that it
should. The entrenchment ratio for this stream should be much higher, but the levy on the right bank and the
hill slope on the left confine the channel. These factors will not allow the stream to be fully functional, and
furthermore impact the hydrology of wetlands in the lowest part of the valley. Restoration will put this
channel in the low part of the valley, which will restore hydrology to adjacent riparian wetlands, and create a
channel that is connected to its floodplain with all the benefits that this provides.
Tables 3. land 3.2 summarize existing channel morphology in the project area for the Enhancement I and
Restoration reaches on tributaries UT1 and UT1-3 to Martin's Creek. Data was taken from surveyed cross
sections distributed across the project area. Table 3.3 summarizes research findings by Rosgen (2001)
concerning bank height ratios as an indicator of channel stability.
Table 3.1 Channel Morphology Features and Stability Indicators for Martin's Creek and Unnamed
Tributaries to Martin's Creek
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Parameter Martin's Creek Tributaries
UT1 Reach 2 UTI Reaches 3-4 UTI-3 Reach 1 UT1-3 Reach 2
(XI-X3) (X4-X7) (X8-X9) (X11-X12)
Stream Type Eb*/FbB G/Cb/G EbB C/F
*functioning like
G
Riparian Vegetation Pasture on LB and Grazed pasture on Pasture on LB and Grazed pasture on
forested, steep both sides of stream. forested area on both sides of
slope on RB of Vegetation on both RB of stream. stream.
stream. banks within 25 feet Vegetation on RB Vegetation on
Vegetation on of channel is within 25 feet of both banks within
both banks within primarily invasive, channel is 25 feet of channel
25 feet of channel nonnative. primarily is primarily
is primarily invasive, invasive,
invasive, nonnative, LB is nonnative or
nonnative. young hardwoods. grasses.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area (SF) 3.8, 3.9, 3.6 4.6, 6.2, 6.1 2.9, 3.0 3.3, 2.9
Width/Depth Ratio 10.7, 14.4, 55.0 7.6, 15.4, 9.4 8.6, 15.2 39.7, 16.0
Channel Pattern
Meander Width Ratio N/A 4.7, N/A (Reach 4) 4.3 N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-13 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Sinuosity 1
1 1.2, N/A 1
3 ?1.0
. (Reach 4) .
Vertical Stability
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 1.8, 2.2, 1.3 1.8, 1.0, 4.1 1.0, 1.0 1.0, 3.0
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 2.9, 1.2, >2.2 1.6, >2.1, 1.8 2.7, 1.7 2.3, 1.5
Evolution Scenario Eb-G-Fb-B,
Cb-G-F-C Eb-G-Fb-B,
C-G-F-C
(I-II-III ... )
B-G-Fb-B
B-G-Fb-B
Existing Evolution Stage Degradation/
Degradation,
Degradation Aggradation and
Aggradation and
Widening Widening Widening
Notes: 1. N/A: Meander Width Ratio not measured because channel has been straightened. 2. Simon
Channel Evolution Model.
Table 3.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Stability Rating Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
Stable (low risk of degradation) 1.0-1.1
Moderately unstable 1.1-1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation) 1.3-1.5
Highly unstable >1.5
Notes: Rosgen, D. L. (2001) A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
3.6 Bankfull Verification
Baker engaged physical, analytical, and empirical methods to verify the bankfull stage and discharge of the
project reaches of Martin's Creek and its tributaries. These methods were each given weight, with physical
field measurements and analytical data having a slightly higher weight due to their site-specific nature.
Subsequent methods were used to interpret and sometimes adjust field observations.
In summary, the following steps were taken:
1. Identified and surveyed representative cross sections with physical bankfull indicators.
2. Compared surveyed cross sections with each other to ensure consistency.
3. Compared values to regional empirical data (regional curves).
4. Used Manning's equation to estimate design discharge through cross sections.
5. Built and ran a HEC-RAS existing conditions model with estimated flows.
6. Finally, considered all results and determined dimensions and flows that correspond to bankfull.
3.6.1 Physical Field Measurement
Physical bankfull indicators surveyed during the existing conditions analysis were typically
depositional bars, defined breaks in slope at a consistent elevation relative to the water surface or
transitions in bank vegetation.
Upon completion of the field survey, data was plotted to check for consistency and correlation with
region-specific empirical equations and regional reference data. This data was analyzed to determine
the most likely bankfull stages on all project reaches. Once bankfull stage was determined using these
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-14 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
methods, a secondary check was performed using HEC-RAS hydraulic models to assess whether a
particular flow rate (regional curve flow was used as a first estimate) would produce the bankfull stage
at successive cross sections. These verification methods are described below.
3.6.2 Regional Curve Equations
Publicly available and in-house bankfull regional curves are available for a range of stream types and
physiographic provinces. The North Carolina Mountain Regional Curve (Harman et al., 2000) was
used for comparison to other more site-specific means of estimating bankfull discharge. The tributaries
on the site are small headwater streams; streams of this size are poorly represented on the regional
curve. It has been found that the Mountain Regional Curve Equations typically returns high values in
terms of discharge and channel dimension for smaller streams, such as those present at this site. Baker
has conducted numerous projects in small drainages in WNC, and has produced mini-curves specific to
these projects. The growing number of data points on our small streams curve provides supporting
evidence for the selection of bankfull indicators that produce smaller dimensions and flow rates than the
published regional data. Additionally, values considered for design were also compared to unpublished
Mountain Regional Curve data being developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (A.
Walker private communication).
3.6.3 Role of Hydraulic Modeling Using HEC-RAS 4.0 in Design Discharge Selection
On each tributary and the mainstem, a number of existing conditions cross sections were surveyed.
These cross sections were input into simple HEC-RAS models to assess the channel filling discharge.
Each stream was analyzed individually using a range of flows determined from USGS data and from
the NC Mountain Regional Curve for discharge. The USGS Region of Influence (ROI) method and
USGS Regional Regression Equations (RRE) were considered. The ROI results are based on a subset
of gages in adjacent watersheds, rather than depicting results based on data for the whole Blue Ridge
region as the RRE method does. The ROI method suggested that the Site has lower flows than the
region does on the whole. This would typically indicate the presence of some difference in rainfall, soil
type, slope or other hydrologic influence that would result in lower flows. The phenomenon is fairly
typical for the Blue Ridge which has widely varying hydrologic characteristics.
USGS ROI and NC Mountain Regional Curve flows were input into the model to assess the resulting
hydraulics for the Bankfull Flow (Qbkf), 2-Year Flow (Q2), Q5, Q10, etc. Since the HEC-RAS models
did not include more than two distinct cross sections, primarily cross sectional channel data (Figure 3.2)
was scrutinized against water surface profiles to assess consistence of the top of bank, benches, slope
breaks, and other depositional features throughout reaches of constant drainage area. Bankfull
indicators were selected based on significant benches, breaks in slope, back of bench in pool sections,
and other recognized physical features.
For these sites, the regional curve flows (Qbkf) produced stages that were generally consistent with
physical indicators of bankfull. The HEC-RAS model, therefore, supports the bankfull features
identified in the field indicating that the design flow should be fairly comparable to the regional curve
flow. This is contrary to the USGS ROI data and also previous data collected on small streams in the
region. Field data is given more weight than empirical data when choosing design ratios and
dimensions, however, empirical data was considered in decision making. A high width to depth ratio
has been chosen in most cases so that the channel may easily narrow based on typical evolution of
newly built restoration channels and the likelihood that dense wetland vegetation is likely to become
well established in most of these channels.
The design cross section was checked to ensure that a desirable stage-discharge relationship was
achieved, but the first cut at producing the design cross section was based on existing conditions data
and reference geomorphic ratios that have produced successful (stable) channels in past projects. To
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-15 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
close the loop, the design cross section was input into HEC-RAS and assessed to see whether the flow
that filled the design channel was comparable to the design flow selected during the hydraulic analysis.
In most cases, the exercise confirmed that a flow close to or equal to the design flow would fill the
channel, or that it would take a slightly higher flow at first (upon completion of construction), but that
with one or two growing seasons, the channel would vegetate and narrow slightly to a point where it
would overtop at a lower flow (see a visualization of this in Figure 3.3).
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 HEC-RAS Model Views for UT1-3 Upper, Water Surface Elevations for Design Flow (10 cfs)
and the Mountain Regional Curve Flow (Q=14 cfs) (LOB=Left Top of Bank, ROB=Right Top of Bank)
UT1-UPR Plan: X8X9 mixed 1/4/2010
G- XaX9 Rim Qusgsrc-4pct 327794
L.9-d
-
N6 QdQ-regcrv
0
UVS Ql#-guess
M Q2
Grand
Balk&l
Grand
-2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-16 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 3.3 Sample Analysis of UT1-3 Upper Design Cross section for As-built Condition (2:1 side slope) Versus
"Evolved" Condition (Where is has Narrowed to a 1:1 Side Slope) at Design Flow (10 cfs)
3.7 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge
Using multiple sources of data increased our confidence in our ultimate conclusion. Baker used detailed cross
sections with field-identified bankfull indicators, validation and interpretation of data with hydraulic
modeling, research of empirical (USGS and Regional Curve) hydrologic and hydraulic data, and prior project
information (i.e. mini-project curves) for small WNC Mountain drainages to conduct the analysis. All
sources of data suggest that the bankfull discharge for the project tributaries should be lower than the
published NC Mountain Regional Curve values.
Soils in this watershed are predominantly deep and well-drained. This is physical hydrologic evidence that
supports a high degree of infiltration, and hence a lower direct runoff to drainage features. Furthermore, the
average annual rainfall in this location is 55-60 inches/year. The region on the whole has a highly variable
average annual rainfall varying from 40 to 80+ inches/yr, so the site is in the middle of the range. The
specific ecoregion is known as the "Broad Basins"; as the name implies, its drainages and watersheds have
less slope and wider valleys than many of the steeper drainages on the Blue Ridge - another contributing
factor to smaller discharges.
Table 3.3 provides a discharge analyses based on the regional curve flows for the drainage area being
considered and the design discharge calculated based on the proposed design cross sections for each reach of
the Martin's Creek mitigation project site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-17 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 3.3 Design Discharge Summary for Martin's Creek and Tributaries by Reach
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633

Upper 0.09 16 16

UT I Lower 0.17 26 25
Upper 0.07 13 14
UTl-3 Lower 0.08 15 12 s
z Not Applicable
Mainstem - 6.81 649 (Enhancement 11)
* Estimate of design Q is based on HEC-RAS flow that fills the channel that develops
over time (side slopes narrow and Manning's "n" roughness increases to 0.045 for main
channel)
2 The USGS extrapolated 1.5-Year flow is 495 cfs (Weaver et al., 2006)
s Bankfall Q is lower in this reach than in the upstream reach because of the affect of
slope in computing Q using Manning's equation. The slope in UT1-3 upper is --0.04, in
the lower reach, it is 0.008
3.8 Vegetation Community and Disturbance History
Habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of pasture, fallow agricultural fields,
pocket wetlands and oak dominated forests as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Compared to more
mountainous ecoregions within the Blue Ridge Belt, the Broad Basins ecoregion has a composite of oaks and
pine dominated forests more similar to the Piedmont region of the state. Oaks and pines common to this
ecoregion include white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Q. falcata), black oak (Q. velutina), scarlet
oak (Q. coccinea), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) and Virginia pine (P. virginiana). This ecoregion also
contains a higher percentage of agricultural land and development than other regions within Blue Ridge
mountain region. Habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of pasture, fallow
agricultural fields, pocket wetlands and oak dominated forests as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
below. Riparian areas ranged from relatively undisturbed to very disturbed. A general description of each
community follows.
3.8.1 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
This ecological community is located on the upland fringes of the grazing areas and low ridges near the
project area. The dominant canopy species of the dry mesic oak forest area includes white oak
(Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), mockernut hickory
(Carya alba (tomentosa)), red hickory (Carya ovahs), and pignut hickory (Caryus glabra). Yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) is also common. Understory species included red maple (Acer
rubrum), flowering dogwood (Cornus forida), sourwood (Oxydendrum arborem), American holly (Ilex
opaca), black tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), and mountain
laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Shrubs include downy arrowwood (Viburnum r'afinesquianum),deerberry
(Vaccinium stamineum), Blue Ridge blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum (vacillans)), and strawberry bush
(Evonymus americana). Muscadine grapevines (Vitis rotundifolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
(Rhus) radicans)often are present. Herbs are fairly sparse, with Hexastylis spp., striped prince's pine
(Chimaphila maculata), nakedflower ticktrefoil (Desmodium nudi lorum), and rattlesnakeweed
common.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-18 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
3.8.2 Montane Oak-Hickory Forest
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest communities present within the project area are also located in
the mid to upland forested slopes along coves and ridgelines. Similar to the dry mesic oak
forests present, this forest type at the project site was dominated by white oak (Quercus alba),
and northern red oak (Q. rubra) as well as chestnut oak (Q. prinus). Other trees that are
commonly found in Montane-Oak-Hickory forests include the mockernut hickory (Carya
alba (tomentosa)) and pignut hickory (C. glabra). Black oak (Quercus velutina), red maple
(Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) are also
common to this forest type and were observed in the project area. The eastern white pine
(Pinus strobes) or other pines may also be present in this forest type which historically was
dominated by the American chestnut (Castanea dentate).
Understory trees noted by Schafale and Weakley to occur in this forest type include sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboretum), flowering dogwood (Cornus forida), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and
serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea). Shrub layers are usually made up of flame azalea (Rhododendron
calendulaceum), bear huckleberry (Gaylussacia ursine), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium),
and witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum) and mountain
laurel (Kalmia latifolia) can also be found. Due to the density of other cover, herbaceous cover tends to
be sparse but diverse, with Indian cucumber (Medeola virginica), false Solomon's seal (Maianthemum
(Smilacina) racemosum), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum), mountain bellwort (Uvularia
puberula (pudica)), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), and American cancer-root (Conopholis Americana)
present. According to Schafale and Weakley's 1990 "Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Third Approximation)," Montane Oak-Hickory Forests differ from Dry
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests by the presence of species typical to the mountainous region of
the state. These species include, but are not limited to the American chestnut (Castanea
dentate), Flame azalea (Rhododendron calendulaceum), Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis
(lutea)), and Buffalo nut (Pyrularia pubera).
3.8.3 Agricultural Area
This community is the most dominant and covers approximately 40 percent of the project
area. Pasture land within and adjacent to the project area was most recently used for cattle and
horse grazing and hay production. Vegetation within open fields and pasture areas is primarily
comprised of fescues (Festuca spp.) and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Woody shrub and vine
species including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), maleberry
(Lyonia ligustrina), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia). Herbaceous species consist of dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), soft rush (Juncus
effusus), and various sedges (Carex spp.).
3.8.4 Invasive Species
The primary invasive species present on the project site is multiflora rose (Rosa multifora), although
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) was also abundant in some areas.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-19 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
4.0 REFERENCE INDICATORS
Design ratios for pattern and profile were based on evaluating dimensionless ratios from a reference reach site
on a restoration project completed by Baker in Surry County and on-site data from stable sections of MC-
UT1-3 and MC-UT1. Design ratios used by Baker that have been successful at many similar sites were also
referenced (Table 4.0).
Upon review of the data, a number of reference sites (including several from the same physiographic region),
were chosen to supplement the mountain regional curve data. This allowed us to review geomorphic data for
a watershed comparable to the project drainage area. In the process of extending the curve beyond the range
of the published data, slightly modified regional curve power functions were developed to account for the
increased range in data. The regional curve results were used as part of the design decision making process.
Values derived from these new power functions are summarized in Section 7 where design criteria are
presented in numeric form.
MC-UT 1-3 and part of MC-UT 1 are being restored using a Priority 1, Restoration approach. This approach
requires establishing a channel with correct dimension, pattern and profile that uses the existing valley floor
as the bankfull elevation for the new channel. In order that we could evaluate the best meandering pattern for
these new channels, we used the existing meandering pattern that is presently found in Reach 1 of UT1-3.
While the number of meanders is limited, we felt that since this is the same stream, these meanders would
provide the best information for dimensionless ratios that could guide the pattern design for the new Priority I
channels. Reference reach information for pattern was collected from these meanders in Reach 1 and applied
to the pattern design for streams in the lower field.
Mickey Reach, the aforementioned Baker stream restoration project in Surry County was used to compare to
design data for the Martin's Creek mitigation project due to its similar watershed size, substrate, sinuosity,
and slope. Mickey Reach is located on an unnamed headwater tributary to the Mitchell River on the eastern
escarpment of the Blue Ridge province and has a drainage area of approximately .45 square miles. While
Mickey Reach is located on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge Mountains, both sites are located within the
foothills region of the same physiographic area (Figure 4.1).
The UT on which Mickey Reach is located is a small B-type step-pool channel with an approximate channel
slope of 3.3% (Harman, et al, 2004). Mickey Reach begins in an upland forested landscape that transitions
into a valley occupied by an open field once used for agricultural purposes. Substrate present in the Mickey
Reach primarily consists of gravels and cobbles; bedrock is also present and contributes grade control much
the way it does at the Martin's Creek Site. Reference reach data reviewed for the Martin's Creek mitigation
project from Mickey Reach consists of geomorphic data obtained from the original reference conditions-
portion of Mickey Reach located in the upland forested as well as the now-stable portion of Mickey Reach
that was restored approximately 8 years ago. The design stream type for Mickey Reach was a B4 channel
with structures installed to restore a step-pool stream system with appropriate bedform diversity. Like the
Martin's Creek Site, the UT to the Mitchell River had become degraded due to impacts from historic timber
harvesting and livestock access to the stream. The project was monitored for six years following construction
and has remained stable, with diverse bedforms and excellent aquatic habitat.
Given the similarities in channel slope and other geomorphic features, and the longevity of site stability
captured through post-construction monitoring, it was determined that the reference reach, design and
monitoring information generated by work performed on Mickey Reach would provide valuable data to
supplement on-site reference reach data collected. Although design data from this project was evaluated for
application at the Martin's Creek Site, B-type channels in the project area will not be completely regraded to
form step-pool channels (a restoration approach).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
-KY-
-VA-
Lansing
WI
-TN-
SON
MITCHELL
BURKE
ROWAN
CHEROKEE
SWAIN
8y..
CLAY
--_ _-c
__
-GA-
LEGEND
Physiographic Province
`?- Mountain
Piedmont
Coastal Plain
Ecosystem
0 Reference Reach Site
casar \\
BelwooU?
Pdkville Fallsto \,
La?vndale ?
N.gstown N
CLEVELAND
1springs
Patterson springs
Earl
-sc-
= Counties
sbnley
Figure 4.1 Reference Reach
Location
Martin Creek Mitigation Project
Cherokee County, NC
10 5 0 10 Miles
Instead an enhancement approach will be used; grade control structures will be utilized to prevent migration
of headcutting while promoting a more diverse bedform and instream habitat and stable sections of the
existing channel will not be disturbed or will have minimal disturbance to adjust dimension and profile.
The specific design parameters are described in detail in Section 7. On-site data, restoration project design
data, and reference reach data were used in this design and these data are described below and summarized in
Table 4.1. Surveyed cross sections from the Site are included in Appendix D. Surveyed profiles of project
reaches are provided in the mitigation planset.
Table 4.0 Ratios from Reference Reaches used in the Design of Martin's Creek and its Tributaries
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Type (Rosgen) B4 C4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 4.0 6.0 3.5 5.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12.0 18.0 10.0 14.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.3
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf N/A N/A 7.0 12.0
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf N/A N/A 2.0 3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf N/A N/A 3.5 8.0
Sinuosity, K 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.6
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.1 1.8 1.5 2.0
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0 .4 0 .2
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.7
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps/Wbkf 1.5 5.0 4.0 7.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-3 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters: Unnamed Tributary 1 to Martin's Creek (MC-UT1)
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
MC UT1
Existing
Conditions MC UT1 Design Mickey Reach
Design
Min Max Min Max Min Max
1. Stream Type Eb/FbB/G/Cb B/C A6a+B4c
2. Drainage Area (square miles) 0.09 0.17 0.09 0.17 .45 .45
3. Bankfull Width (wbkf) (ft) 7.8 9.9 7.7 8.5 11.7 21.7
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) (ft) 0.5 0.6 0.54 0.71 0.6 1
5. Width/Depth Ratio (W/D ratio) 10.7 55.0 12.0 14.3 10.7 17
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) (ft2)3 3.6 6.2 4.1 6.0 13.1 10.2
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) (ft/s) 4.2(min) 4.4(max) 3.9 4.3 --- ---
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) (ft /s) 16 26 16 26 --- ---
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft) 0.62 1.11 0.7 0.9 .9 2.5
10. dmbkf / dbkf ratio 1.2 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.1 3.1
11. Low Bank Height to dmbkf Ratio 1.0 4.1 1.0 1.0 1 1
12. Bank Height Ratio dlow/dmax 1.0 4.1 1.0 1.0 1 1
13. Floodprone Area Width (w a) (ft) 9 >31 16 100 20 410
14. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 1.2 2.9 2 11.8 1.7 32
15. Meander length (Lm) (ft) 0 0 15 30 70 260
16. Meander length to bankfull width (Lm/wbkf) 0 0 1.8 3.8 4.4 17.6
17. Radius of curvature (RJ (ft) 0 0 30 40 28 47
18. Radius of curvature to bankfull width (Rc / wbkf) 0 0 3.8 4.7 2 3
19. Belt width (wbit) (ft) 0 0 40 40 16 55
20. Meander Width Ratio (wbic/Wbkf) 0 0 4.7 4.7 1.1 4.1
21. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley Distance 0 0 1.05 1.4 1.19 1.19
22. Valley Slope - feet per foot 0.015 0.05 0.016 0.06 .0398 .0396
23. Channel Slope (sch? ,I) - feet per foot 0.015 0.05 0.01 0.057 .0333 .0333
24. Pool Slope (s ool) (feet per foot) 0 0 0 0 0 .005
25. Pool Slope to Average Slope (s,,., / schannei) --- --- 0 0 0 .15
26. Maximum Pool Depth (dpool) (ft) --- ---
1.6
2.0
2.2
2.5
27. Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth (dpool/dbkf) --- --- 2.8 2.9 2 4
28. Pool Width (wp,,,) (ft) --- --- 12 13 14.3 14.6
29. Pool Width to Bankfull Width (Wpool / wbkf) --- --- .9 .9
30. Pool Area (Apool) (ft) --- --- 11.5 14.3 14.8 15.9
31. Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apool/Abkf) --- --- 1.9 2.4 1.1 1.2
32. Pool-to-Pool Spacing (L s/Wbkf) 30 85 12 45 48 231
33. Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/wbkf) 3.0 10.9 1.5 5.8 3 7
34. Riffle Slope (s ffle) (feet per foot) 0.025 0.17 0.01 0.16 .2 1.9
35. Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s ifue/ sbkf) 0.45 3.1 1.1 3.5 .2 1.9
36. Particle Size Distribution of Riffle Material - (applies to
those riffles built with onsite material) Fine to Medium
Gravel Fine to Medium
Gravel
d16 - mm 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8
d35 - mm 2.0 4.4 2.0 4.4
d50 - mm 3.6 8.7 3.6 8.7
d84 - mm 15.9 28.0 15.9 28.0
d95 - mm 66.8 102.1 66.8 102.1
Note:
'Existing Qbkf of 16cfs corresponds with the tributary with the smallest flow and drainage area of 0.09, Qbkf of 26 corresponds
with the tributary with the largest flow and drainage area of 0.17 sq. mi.
Existing conditions data reflects reference reach data evaluated on MC-UTl.
3Minimum values for flow and area (which correspond with the same cross-section) yield greater average velocity that maximum
values for flow and area (i.e. Qbkfmin/Abkfmia VW ma and vice-versa).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-4 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 4.2 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters: Unnamed Tributary 1-3 to Martin's Creek (MC-UT1-3)
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
MC UTl-3
Existing Conditions MC UTl-3
Design Mickey Reach
Design
Min Max Min Max Min Max
1. Stream Type EbB/C/F B/C A6a+B4c
2. Drainage Area (square miles) 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 .45 .45
3. Bankfull Width (wbkf) (ft) 5.0 11.4 6 6.5 11.7 21.7
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) (ft) 0.29 0.58 0.48 0.49 0.6 1
5. Width/Depth Ratio (W/D ratio) 8.6 39.7 12.5 12.5 10.7 17
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) (ft) 2.9 3.3 2.85 3.2 13.1 10.2
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) (ft/s) 2 6 3.8 4.9 --- ---
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) (ft /s) 11 14 12 14 --- ---
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft) 0.87 1.0 0.6 0.6 .9 2.5
10. dmbkf / dbkf ratio 1.0 2.7 1.22 1.25 1.1 3.1
11. Low Bank Height to dmbkf Ratio 1.0 2.7 1.0 1.0 1 1
12. Bank Height Ratio dlow/dmax 1.0 2.7 1.0 1.0 1 1
13. Floodprone Area Width (w a) (ft) 10.3 26.2 11 100 20 410
14. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 1.5 2.7 3.8 15.4 1.7 32
15. Meander length (Lm) (ft) 56 81 65 110 70 260
16. Meander length to bankfull width (Lm/wbkf) 4.9 16.2 10.8 16.9 4.4 17.6
17. Radius of curvature (RJ (ft) 14 28 15 40 28 47
18. Radius of curvature to bankfull width (Rc / wbkf) 1.2 5.6 2.5 6.7 2 3
19. Belt width (wbit) (ft) 22 46 26 50 16 55
20. Meander Width Ratio (wblt+ Wbkf) 1.9 9.2 4.3 8.3 1.1 4.1
21. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley Distance 1.0 1.4 1.26 1.42 1.19 1.19
22. Valley Slope - feet per foot 0.007 0.04 0.007 0.069 .0398 .0396
23. Channel Slope (scha ,,) - feet per foot 0.007 0.04 0.005 0.054 .0333 .0333
24. Pool Slope (s,,,,) (feet per foot) N/A N/A 0 0 0 0.005
25. Pool Slope to Average Slope (s,,., / scha ,,) N/A N/A 0 0 0 0.15
26. Maximum Pool Depth (dl) (ft) N/A N/A 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.5
27. Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth (d ooI/dbkf) N/A N/A 2.7 2.7 2 4
28. Pool Width (w ool) (ft) N/A N/A 9 11 14.3 14.6
29. Pool Width to Bankfull Width (w ool / wbkf) N/A N/A 1.4 1.7 0.9 0.9
30. Pool Area (A,001) (ft) 3.0 3.0 8 10.2 14.8 15.9
31. Pool Area to Bankfull Area (A ool/Abkf) 0.9 1.0 2.5 3.2 1.1 1.2
32. Pool-to-Pool Spacing (L s/Wbkf) 20 100 10 60 48 231
33. Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/wbkf) 1.8 20 1.6 9.2 3 7
34. Riffle Slope (s fe) (feet per foot) 0.013 0.10 0.01 0.18 0.2 1.9
35. Riffle Slope to Average Slope (Sniffle/ sbkf) 0.5 3.6 0.7 1.6 0.2 1.9
36. Particle Size Distribution of Riffle Material - (applies to
those riffles built with onsite material) Fine Gravel Fine Gravel
d16-mm 0.3 0.3
d35 - mm 1.1 1.1
d50 - mm 3.5 3.5
d84 - mm 12.1 12.1
d95 - mm 15.7 15.7
Notes: Existing conditions data reflects reference reach data evaluated on MC-UTl-3. No sediment data was collected for the
restoration reach of UT1-3 due to the extremely poor substrate currently present. The restoration reach will be designed to facilitate bedload
transport based on particle sizes observed upstream in the enhancement reach of
UT1-3. See Section 7.3.1 for a discussion on the selection of particle sizes used to supplement channel substrate and construct riffles.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-5 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal
regulations. Wetlands have been identified by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR 328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3
(t)). The areas in the project boundaries that displayed one or more wetland characteristics were reviewed to
determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics included:
Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation.
Hydric soils.
On June 5, 2007, the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued joint guidance for
their field offices for Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations in response to the Supreme Court's
decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (USEPA and
USACE, 2007). Based on this guidance, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• Traditional navigable waters (TNWs)
• Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
• Non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are considered relatively permanent waters (RPWs). Such
tributaries flow year-round or exhibit continuous flow for at least 3 months.
• Wetlands that directly abut RPWs.
The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a standardized analysis to determine
whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent waters (non-RPWs)
• Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs
• Wetlands that are adjacent to but do not directly abut an RPW.
The significant nexus analysis is fact-specific and assesses the flow characteristics of a tributary and the
functions performed by all its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of downstream TNWs. A significant nexus exists when a tributary, in
combination with its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the physical,
chemical, or biological integrity of a TNW.
The USACE and USEPA will apply the significant nexus standard within the limits of jurisdiction specified
by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Under the SWANCC decision, the USACE and USEPA cannot regulate
isolated wetlands and waters that lack links to interstate commerce sufficient to serve as a basis for
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Though isolated wetlands and waters are not regulated by the
USACE, within the state of North Carolina isolated wetlands and waters are considered "waters of the state"
and are regulated by the NCDWQ under the isolated wetlands rules (15A NCAC 2H. 1300).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, NRCS soil survey, and USGS
quadrangle map, a field survey of the project area was conducted May and June 2008, December 2008, and
January 2009 to delineate wetlands and waters of the U. S. The project area was examined utilizing the
jurisdictional definition detailed in the Corps of Engineer's Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary information to further support wetland determinations was found in the
National List ofPlant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
Based on the findings of the wetland delineation, three pockets of emergent wetlands (low mountain alluvial
forest type) totaling 1.53 acres are present in the low elevation fields at the Martin's Creek project site
(Appendix F). In addition, two small wetlands approximately .08 acres in size are present near MC-UT1
upstream of the barn and are supported by toe-slope drainage. Information on buried hydric soils located
during wetland delineation surveys, ground water wells currently being monitored on-site, and topographic
information have provided Baker with enough data to propose approximate boundaries for an additional total
5.2 acres of wetlands to be restored under this project.
The original plant community located in these wetlands was most likely typical of other forested wetlands in
the region; however, past agricultural land use practices have altered the composition of the plant community
currently present. At least three wetlands are supported by toe-slope seepage; the other two wetlands appear
to be hydrologically linked to MC-UT 1-3, which most likely followed a different pattern to Martin Creek in
the past. It could be argued that the wetlands that are fed by toe-slope drainage or wetlands on-site that are
hydrologically linked to a 1St order stream might once have been headwater forest wetlands given the forested
conditions that were most likely present prior to the conversion of the project area for agricultural use. It is
also entirely possible that the wetlands present might have historically been low mountain alluvial forested
wetlands. This wetland type is also a reasonable approximation of the historic wetland type given the
landscape positioning and proximity of the wetland complexes to nearby streams. Given the degree of
disturbance to the vegetation community of the wetlands present, the extensive channel alteration that has
occurred, and limited indicators present to identify the historic wetland type, the decision was made to restore
the project wetlands as low mountain alluvial forest wetlands.
These wetlands have formed as a result of depressional topography, poor drainage, and groundwater
discharge. These existing wetlands will be incorporated into the design as wetland enhancement areas.
Through the proposed stream and wetland restoration practices, these areas will experience a more natural
hydrology and flooding regime once the project is completed. In addition, the exclusion of livestock from the
area will provide long-term protection. Since most of the existing wetlands are dominated by herbaceous
wetland species, some of the area will also be planted with native woody vegetation that is tolerant of flooded
conditions.
5.1.1 Wetland Impacts
All identified areas of existing wetlands and potential wetland restoration are located on the
bottomland parcel (parcel that is located along Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road). Under existing
conditions, the bottomland parcel is partially drained by a ditch that runs southwest to northeast
through the area, and intercepts flow coming into the site from a small stream in the southwestern
corner of the parcel. It is likely that historically the small stream meandered through the bottomland
areas of the site, providing much of the hydrology of the historic wetland system that has now been
lost. There are now terra-cotta drainage tiles installed in the bottomland areas of the field that provide
additional drainage. The eastern edge of the parcel is also drained by Martin's Creek, which is an
incised stream system that exerts a drainage effect on the adjacent fields. The only existing wetlands
on the parcel are toe-slope seepage wetlands that are located in isolated pockets along the western
portion of the parcel and isolated wetland pockets adjacent to MC UT1-3, that total approximately
1.61 acres.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-2 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
The majority of wetland areas once present in the center of the bottomland parcel were drained and
filled in the past to promote agricultural land uses, and stream flows were diverted to a ditch along the
toe of the upland slope. Soil investigations have shown that portions of the former wetland areas are
overlain with 12 - 24 inches of upland soils. The goal of the mitigation plan for the parcel is to
restore the historic stream and associated wetland system as closely as possible to predicted pre-
disturbance conditions. Temporary wetland impacts associated with the restoration activities are
considered minimal and required for overall restoration success. These temporary impacts, which
total approximately .24 acres, will involve surface roughening, removal of exotic, invasive vegetation,
re-establishment of wetland vegetation native to the region and minor adjustments to drainage
patterns as necessary to restore channel pattern to MCUT1 and MCUT1-3 and to improve wetland
hydrology. Stream and wetland restoration measures will not negatively impact the hydrology,
vegetation and soils of the existing wetlands. It should be noted that efforts were taken during the
design process to minimize impacts to existing jurisdictional wetlands. While restoring sinuosity to
MCUT1 and MCUT1-3, pattern adjustments were made that resulted in the channels being located
along the fringe of the existing wetlands. Pattern adjustments to MCUT1 will actually be making use
of a relic channel utilized by this stream before it was relocated some time in the past.
5.1.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings
On-site surveys of the project areas were conducted in May and June 2008, December 2008, and
January 2009 to identify potential U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional wetland
locations and perennial and intermittent streams in the project area. Based on the findings of the
wetland delineation, emergent wetlands (headwater forest type) are present in the bottomland parcel
along Martin's Creek Road (Appendix B). Information on buried hydric soils located during wetland
delineation surveys, ground water wells currently being monitored on-site, and topographic
information have provided Baker with enough data to propose approximate boundaries for wetland
restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities.
Wetland locations were determined by evaluating existing soils, hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation within the project reaches. The original plant community located in these wetlands was
most likely typical of other headwater forest wetlands in the region; however, past agricultural land
use practices have altered the composition of the plant community currently present. Wetland
boundaries were delineated and have been accepted by the USACE in a jurisdictional determination
dated March 12, 2009. In total, there are 7.53 acres of existing wetlands on the project property
(Figure 3), that will be restored or enhanced.
5.1.3 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (Low Mountain Alluvial Forest)
This group encompasses forested, seasonally and semipermanently flooded bottomland sites of the
Piedmont and valleys in the lower elevation Blue Ridge Province. The wetlands on the project site
have been cleared in the past for agricultural purposes. Consequently, vegetation present consists of
shrubs, rushes, grasses and herbaceous cover and differs somewhat from the typical plant composition
present in this type of wetland. According to Schafale and Weakley, shrubs common to this wetland
type include spicebush (Lindera benzoin), redtwig doghobble (Leucothoe r'ecurva), beaked hazelnut
(Corylus cornuta), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). Vines typically present include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron (Rhus) radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), crossvine
(Bignonia(Anisostichus) capreolata), and wild grape (Vitis spp). Herbaceous cover usually consists of
star chickweed (Stellaria pubera), blue-stemmed goldenrod (Solidago caesia), Eastern star (Aster
divaricatus), broad looseflower sedge (Carex laxiflor'a), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus),
rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), small spike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical), eastern
bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix (Hystrix patula)), white avens (Geum canadense), wingstem
(Verbesina alternifolia), and violet (Viola spp). Many places are heavily invaded by Japanese
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-3 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) at the expense of
native herbs.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
5.2.1 Site Hydrology
Local drainage patterns of the bottomland parcel have been altered in the past to increase drainage
and promote agricultural production. During conversion of the area to agriculture, flow from UT1-3
was diverted into a ditch that runs from the southwest corner of the parcel to its confluence with UT1
on the northern end of the parcel. Drainage tiles were installed in lowest portion of the field to
provide further drainage, and upland fill material was placed over the low-lying areas to promote
drier conditions for agriculture. Martin's Creek, which flows along the eastern edge of the parcel,
was channelized and straightened, lowering the base flow elevation of the stream and providing
additional drainage to the agricultural field areas. The existing hydrology of the site is controlled by
the ditch, the channelized stream systems, and the drainage tiles that were placed through the center
of the parcel. There are five existing wetland pockets, totaling 1.61 acres that are supported primarily
by toe-slope seepage or hydrologic connectivity to MC UT1-3.
Six automated groundwater wells were installed in the project area to evaluate current hydrologic
conditions on-site, as shown in Figure 3.0. These wells provide a basis for comparing pre- and post-
restoration hydrology on the site. Water table data were collected from the wells from November
2008 through November 2009, as shown in Figure 5.0. The wells were installed in existing pasture
and field areas targeted for wetland restoration and wetland enhancement. Wells were installed
across a range of elevations and locations to evaluate the range of hydrologic conditions on-site. The
wells were installed to a depth of approximately 41 inches below ground surface, and the automated
loggers (RDS EcotoneTM WM units) were programmed to record water table levels every two hours.
Well locations exhibited similar trends in water table depth throughout the monitoring period that in
part reflect seasonal changes in rainfall and evapotranspiration. Due to wetter than average
conditions during the monitoring period, water table levels were relatively high for most well
locations during the monitoring period. Water table depths were highest during the fall and early
winter of 2009, when rainfall during September, October, and November 2009 was considerably
greater than the long-term average (Figure 5.1). Water table levels remained relatively high for all
locations during this period, due to frequent heavy rainfall. Water table levels were at their deepest
during June and July 2009, when rainfall was slightly below average and evapotranspiration losses
were at their greatest.
Wells 1 and 6 experienced the highest water table levels during the monitoring period. Well 6 is
located within one of the existing wetland areas on the site, and is supported by groundwater seepage
during much of the year. As a result, water table levels during early and late 2009 were at or near the
surface for Well 6. Well 1 is located just outside a jurisdictional wetland boundary, and therefore
reflects the higher water table levels of the adjacent wetland. From early December 2008 through
April2009, water table depths at Well 1 were less than 12 inches below the ground surface, and
generally deeper than water table levels at Well 6. During the summer months, the trend reversed
with deeper water table levels at Well 6 as compared to Well 1. These data indicate that the
groundwater and seepage discharge at the Well 1 location are stronger during the summer months
than the Well 6 location.
Wells 3, 2, 5, and 4 exhibited progressively drier conditions, respectively, and document that the
majority of the site does not currently support wetland hydrology in its drained condition. All wells
are located in areas that were likely impacted by fill material that was placed over the field in the past.
Of the four well locations, Well 3 is located a relatively low elevation near the middle of the field.
Well 3 data show a rapid decrease in water table levels following rainfall events, attributed to the
close proximity of the drain tiles that run through the center of the field. However, due to the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-4 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
relatively low topographic elevation, water table depths did not drop deeper than a depth of 24 inches
during the monitoring period.
Wells 2, 4, and 5 exhibited very similar hydrologic responses throughout the monitoring period. Each
shows a tendency for rapid drop in water table levels following rainfall events, due to onsite drainage.
Well 2 is located close to the drainage tiles that run through the center of the field, and is at a higher
elevation than Well 3. Well 4 is located the closest to Martin's Creek and appears to exhibit some
drainage effect from its proximity to the incised stream channel. Well 5 is located at a relatively high
elevation between Martin's Creek and the channelized UT1-3.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-5 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.0 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells Compared to Local Rainfall (November 2008 through November 2009).
u
4-1
Y

1a
s
0
--1
I F-114
-6
-y'
-10
-l y
-11
-16
-1 £C
=a
-22
-e+
ti6
--s a
-3+
-f+
-3S
n carne a 2:-vcf ,_??+x= 111t??c?
Date
1i)
co
_i
S -?
5
s
G
_G
4 °5
+^
4 'S
1 ,s
I
11
10110'0? IOr. UP; 1t '1 110
Well =1 lvdl == Well =3 Well =4 -[bell =s Well =6 R91 fall
rt+
?I
Water Level and Rainfall at all Wells
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-6 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
7131109 2121709 3111'109 4.14'09 4:251n' 5,1 o1n9 51&09 6(27'09 711309 818'09 3C"9 05 9119109
5.2.2 Climatic Conditions
The average growing season (defined as the period in which air temperatures are maintained
above 28 degrees Fahrenheit at a frequency of 5 years in 10) for the project locale is 190
days, beginning on April 14 and ending October 21 (Cherokee County WETS Table 37039,
Andrews, NC: NCO 184). The Town of Andrews, located approximately 15 miles northeast
of the project site, experiences an average annual rainfall of 66 inches (Andrews, NC:
NCO 184). In much of the southeastern US, average rainfall exceeds average
evapotranspiration losses and these areas experience a moisture excess during most years.
Excess water leaves a site by groundwater flow, runoff, channelized surface flow, or deep
seepage. Annual losses due to deep seepage, or percolation of water to confined aquifer
systems, are usually small and are not considered a significant loss pathway for excess water.
Although groundwater flow can be significant in some systems, most excess water is lost via
surface and shallow subsurface flow.
Monthly precipitation amounts observed at a nearby weather station from December 2008
through November 2009 are compared with Cherokee County WETS table average monthly
rainfall in Table 5.0 and Figure 5.1. Rainfall during the summer months of 2009
approximated normal rainfall conditions; however, rainfall amounts in the fall and early
winter of 2009 greatly exceeded normal rainfall and promoted wet conditions across the site.
Observed rainfall data were provided by the nearest automated weather station, located in the
Town of Murphy (Station 316001).
Table 5.0 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633

11 t
Dec-08
04°` 1 MOO" " ! 3 tl
9.72
Table Average Monthly
6.02 if-
Deviation I II '
+3.7
Jan-09 6.64 7.1 -0.46
Feb-09 2.98 5.97 -2.99
Mar-09 4.91 6.97 -2.06
Apr-09 4.84 5.11 -0.27
May-09 6.79 5.43 +1.36
Jun-09 4.92 5.58 -0.66
Jul-09 4.49 5.05 -0.56
Aug-09 5.53 5.38 +0.15
Sep-09 8.9 4.44 +4.46
Oct-09 7.59 3.63 +3.96
Nov-09 6.41 5.33 +1.08
Sum 73.72 66.01 +7.71
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-7 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.1. Graphical Comparison of Observed Rainfall with Long-term Average Conditions.
12
10
s
c
X61
4
2
5.3
0
.,A ???`Ja? ?at?r PQ?\ ?aa ,JCS
Soil Characterization
,?A ??4- p0, Op0, O6
PJ y?Qae? p? oJe?
------ Long-Term Avg
•..... 30% Low
30% High
t Actual Rain
While a recent Cherokee County Soil Survey is not available, older soil delineation maps on file with
the NRCS indicate that the floodplain areas of the site are mapped primarily as Arkaqua loam, while
the toe slopes are mapped primarily as Dillard loam. Arkaqua loam consists of somewhat poorly
drained soils commonly found on nearly level flood plains along creeks and rivers in the
Appalachian, Blue Ridge, and Great Smokey Mountains. The Arkaqua series is considered to be a
Hydric `B"soil by the NRCS. Dillard loam consists of moderately well drained soils found on
narrow, nearly level to sloping stream terraces and toe slopes. The Dillard series is not considered a
hydric soil by the NRCS. The fact that there are existing jurisdictional wetlands that have been
delineated within the mapped areas of Dillard soils indicates that the soil mapping in these areas is not
accurate.
To further investigate the soil conditions present on the site, Baker contracted with ECS Carolinas
LLP to conduct a detailed soils evaluation of the site. During December 2009, a licensed soil scientist
from ECS evaluated the site to determine the depth of hydric soil conditions and the presence of
buried hydric soil layers in the bottomland parcel. Assessments were carried out using hand-augers
and backhoe pits every 50 feet along transects across the field areas. The assessment report
developed by ECS is provided in Appendix F.
The results of the assessment indicate the presence of hydric indicators at depths typically ranging
from 14 - 22 inches across much of the field areas (floodplain) adjacent to Martin's Creek. In several
locations within the field, a "dark grayish loam A horizon" was discovered at a depth of
approximately 14 - 22 inches. These results, along with observations of terra cotta drain tiles within
the field, provide strong evidence that upland soils were placed over much of the field area in the past
to promote better agricultural production from the field areas. It is possible that the upland soils
placed on the field came from road construction nearby; thus, the field was likely used as a disposal
area for excess spoil material. This practice was not uncommon prior to regulations protecting stream
and wetlands, as it provided landowners and farmers with a way to convert wet fields into dry fields
at little if any cost.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
PAGE 5-8
9/22/2010
5.4 Plant Community Characterization
The proposed restoration area is comprised of pasture fields. Vegetation within these open pasture
fields is primarily comprised of Fescues (Festuca spp.) and other common pasture grasses. Multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora), and invasive exotic species, can also be found in clumps within the pasture
areas. During 2009, cattle had access to the pasture fields and kept edible herbaceous vegetation
grazed to a low height.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-9 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS
6.1 Hydrological Characterization
The reference wetland site for the project is located on-site within the existing wetland pockets that have been
delineated as part of the project (see Jurisdictional Wetlands section). The site is located approximately 200
feet west of the proposed wetland restoration areas in the bottomland parcel.
The reference area is currently used as cattle pasture; therefore, the site is disturbed and consists primarily of
herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The site is proposed as an onsite hydrologic reference, and will not be
used to infer appropriate vegetation communities for restoration areas. The hydrology of the reference site
will be compared with the restoration site during dry years when the hydrology of the restoration site may not
meet defined success criteria, to determine if the dry conditions are climatic in nature.
Hydrology of the reference site is driven by both groundwater discharge and periodic flooding of the tributary
stream channels.
6.1.1 Gauge Data Summary
Two automated recording wells (Wells # 1 and 46) were installed within the existing wetlands onsite
during December 2008. Well # 1 is located in the existing wetland pocket in the southwestern corner
of the bottomland parcel, while Well 46 is located in the larger wetland area on the northern side of
the bottomland parcel. The wells were programmed to record groundwater levels every 2 hours to a
maximum depth of 40 inches. During the monitoring period from December 2008 through November
2009, the two well locations documented consistently higher average water table levels than the
remaining wells that were installed in the proposed restoration areas. During the monitoring period,
Well 46 exhibited wetter conditions during the winter months (dormant season), while Well # 1
exhibited wetter conditions during the driest part of the growing season (April -August). One
possible conclusion from these data is that the wetland area monitored by Well # 1 is driven more
strongly from groundwater discharge and hillslope seepage (which would provide more stable water
table levels throughout the year), whereas Well 46 is driven more by water supplied from the nearby
small tributary, which decreases dramatically during the summer months. This conclusion is
supported by the locations of the wells in relation to site features; Well # 1 is located at the down-
valley edge of a seepage wetland, whereas Well 46 is located near the small tributary the flows south
to north across the bottomland parcel. Average water table levels for Well # 1 ranged from
approximately -8 inches during the spring months to -12 inches during the summer months. Well 46
average water table levels ranged from -3 inches during the spring months to -16 inches during the
summer months.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 6.1 Water Table Depths Recorded in Monitoring Wells Installed within the Reference Site.
I Water Level and Rainfall at Reference Wells
?Yl
I?
L

Date
- %vell =1 - Well =6 -RaiufAl

6

n °

t;

Er

'
-10 a

- -
-16
1 -^

,
1
,
41 ?
II'-
_
__ II
I lye, . I'10i I!3I C? _ )s ";i4)C1 -!401` 4:25.,1 c:IG tr.,: C- ._.r. 13: P:+ bra}^, „?:py crl' .. I..I)"7: IC-al•!? I..^' 7-•

Q:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-2 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
6.2 Soil Characterization
The soils located in the vicinity of the reference wetland are mapped as the Dillard loam and
Arkaqua loam series on past soil map delineation files that are available at the local NRCS
office (no Soil Survey is currently available for Cherokee County). Taxonomic classification
and profile information for these soils is provided in Section 2.3. Arkaqua soils are considered
somewhat poorly drained and hydric by the NRCS, while Dillard soils are moderately well
drained and are not hydric. Two of the delineated existing wetland pockets on the bottomland
parcel are located within the mapped area of Dillard soils. This indicates that the mapping of
Dillard soils in these areas is incorrect.
Soils of the existing wetland areas were examined by ECS Carolinas LLP as part of their
wetland delineation of the site. Soils within the boundaries of the existing wetland pockets
were described as having low-chroma soil matrix values, aquic moisture regimes, and
exhibited redoximorphic features.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-3 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
7.0 PROJECT SITE MITIGATION PLAN
This section relates the goals and objectives of the Martin Creek mitigation project to the goals identified in
the Peachtree-Martins Creek LWP. It also covers the design criteria selected for stream restoration and
enhancement on the Martin Creek project site.
The design proposed for the project will include Restoration and Level I and II Enhancement approaches.
Enhancement II approaches will address exotic invasive species and localized erosion. The justification for
this is to help establish native species that provide terrestrial and aquatic benefits. Minor erosion repair is
warranted from prior crossing and livestock impacts or other localized instability. Restoration and
enhancement of streams and wetlands at the Martin Creek Site are justified for the following reasons:
1. Streams for which restoration or enhancement work is proposed have been channelized, bermed, and
moved against the sides of the valleys or perched up on the hill slope. Most are incised along much of
their length. Pattern, profile and dimension adjustments to the channels will reduce erosion, improve
floodplain connectivity, and improve floodplain hydrology necessary for wetland restoration.
2. Wetlands have been drained, filled and otherwise manipulated to create more land suitable for agricultural
purposes; and
3. There are widespread cattle impacts that have resulted in erosion and sedimentation, silt-clogged
stream channels and the loss of woody vegetation within the riparian zone.
A Priority 1 approach, involving construction of a new channel on the existing floodplain, will be applied to
Reach 2 of MC-UT1. This work will remove the channel from the toe of the valley wall. Level I
Enhancement efforts will be used to create grade control, repair bank erosion and restore proper dimension on
Reach 3. For Reach 4, a Priority 1 approach will be used to reconnect the channel to its relic channel and
where there is no relic channel a new channel will be constructed that uses the valley elevation as the new
floodplain. This project is similar to a Priority 2 project in that the valley floor will be lowered to restore
wetlands, but like Priority 1 in that the new channel will be aligned on this new valley floor. We are calling it
a Priority I restoration because the valley lowering is associated with the wetland restoration and not the
stream restoration. The new stream channel will utilize the new valley as its floodplain. Exotic invasive
removal and re-planting with native vegetation will be conducted on all reaches.
On UT1-3, the upper reach (Reach 1) will be restored with an Enhancement I approach, involving grade
control structures to improve grade, habitat, and sediment transport, as well as with bank repairs and stream
dimension adjustments to achieve stability. Reach 2 will be the same Restoration approach as UT1 Reach 4,
will a new valley being constructed to restore wetlands and the pre-impact soil profile. The proposed
meandering pattern is appropriate for a low slope stream with adjacent wetlands, and will have structure and
habitat elements. Exotic invasive removal and re-planting with native vegetation will be conducted on both
reaches.
The stream types for the restored streams will be Rosgen "B" and "C" channels with design dimensions based
on reference reaches, hydraulic and sediment transport analyses and geomorphic ratios and guidance from
past projects. Tributaries on the hill slopes will have minimal pattern adjustment since they are already
located in the lowest part of the valley and are naturally low sinuosity streams. They will have their
dimension and profile adjusted to address unstable stream banks and significant changes in profile slope that
indicates head cutting.
The restoration and enhancement design for the Martin's Creek Site will allow stream flows at or larger than
bankfull, to spread onto the restored floodplain, dissipating flow energies and reducing the stress on
streambanks. Where abandoned, the old stream channels will be backfilled using fill material generated by
the grading of new channel and floodplain benches. Any excess fill material generated during construction
will be disposed of on-site in designated disposal areas. In-stream structures will be used to control
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
streambed grade, reduce stresses on streambanks, and promote diversity of bedform and habitat. In-stream
structures may consist of constructed riffles, boulder drop structures, and rock or log vanes. Reach-wide
grade control will be provided by the aforementioned in-stream structures, constructed riffles and by bedrock
where present. Structures will be spaced at a maximum distance that results in the downstream header
protecting the upstream footer to create a redundancy that will ensure long-term vertical stability. Where
possible, both wood and rock will be incorporated into the structures to promote a diversity of habitat
features. Streambanks will be stabilized with a combination of bioengineering measures, erosion control
matting, bare-root plantings, and live staking. This section discusses the design criteria selected for stream
restoration on the Martin's Creek Site.
7.1 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
As noted in the Executive Summary, the Martins Creek mitigation project area lies within the focus area of
the Peachtree-Martins Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) and roughly corresponds to Restoration site # 1 &
Preservation site # 1 of the LWP project atlas. Among the goals of the plan is the desire to work with local
landowners, resource agencies and nongovernmental groups to implement wetland and stream restoration
projects that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients by restoring riparian buffers, stabilizing stream banks,
and restoring natural channel geomorphology, particularly in headwater streams. The NCEEP is also placing
an emphasis on projects that contribute to the restoration and protection of habitat for priority fish, mussel,
snail and crayfish species in the basin (NCEEP, 2008).
To support these watershed goals, several project goals have been established for the Martin's Creek
mitigation project:
• Restore geomorphically stable stream channels within the Martin's Creek II mitigation project
area,
• Restoration or enhancement of wetlands on- site,
• Exclude livestock from accessing the project streams, wetlands, and riparian zones,
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections and achieve uplift of ecosystem functions,
• Improve water quality within the Martin's Creek II project area through reduction of bank
erosion, improved nutrient and sediment removal, and stabilization of streambanks,
• The restoration and preservation of headwater tributaries to the Peachtree-Martins Creek
Watershed and the Hiwassee River, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in-stream cover, addition
of woody debris, reduction of water temperature, and restoration of riparian habitat.
In order to accomplish the goals of the project and contribute to the overall success of goals set forth for the
greater Peachtree-Martins Creek local watershed planning area, a number of general project objectives
followed by design objectives were identified for this project and are listed below:
• Utilize natural channel design concepts to restore or enhance channel profile, pattern and
dimension to reduce bank and channel profile degradation and to allow greater floodplain
connectivity to aid in the dissipation of energy during bankfull or greater flows;
• Reduce streambank degradation and sediment and nutrient inputs by limiting livestock access of
project tributaries to crossings agreed upon between the NCEEP and the landowner;
• Further reduce sediment and nutrient inputs and streambank instability by restoring or enhancing
native riparian vegetation along a 30-foot buffer along the project reach.
• Improve bedform function and diversity by installing toe wood structures and grade control
structures that also function to improve riffle and scour pool habitat.
Design objectives:
• Make important design decisions based on geomorphic analyses, reference conditions and
supporting information from hydraulic modeling,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
• Use constructability as a guiding consideration in order to produce a realistic design that is
possible to build given field constraints and construction tolerances. Design ideas are discussed
with knowledgeable construction personnel to determine the constructability, likely footprint, and
severity of impacts to on-site resources,
• Minimize disturbance to ecologically functional and physically stable areas; mimic the character
of these areas and borrow materials from them where appropriate to create a more natural design,
and
• The over-all design approach, including proposed structures, will attempt to use native materials
and minimize materials brought onsite in order to produce habitat favoring native flora and fauna,
reduce compaction and site disturbance from material transport, and produce an aesthetically
pleasing result.
The Martin's Creek II project site is an appropriate candidate for restoration, as significant erosion will occur
before streams in the project area achieve a stable, quasi-equilibrium state. Although aggradation is present,
overall stream conditions present on-site reflect varying degrees of incision and continued degradation. Bank
erosion will continue contributing sediment to areas downstream of the project site and will cause widening of
the stream. If implemented, project restoration and enhancement objectives will help to stabilize the channel,
halt incision and widening, and significantly diminish bank erosion. The Martin's Creek II project will also
support the LWP and river basin restoration plan priorities and goals by reducing sediment and nutrient
loading into tributaries to Martin's Creek through the restoration or enhancement of riparian buffers,
stabilizing streambanks and channel morphology through natural channel design concepts, and managing
livestock access within the project area. This project will further improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat
conditions through the reestablishment of a stable riparian corridor and more stable channel morphology.
The accompanying plans depict the proposed restoration measures. The application of these measures is
described below according to reach.
Martin's Creek (Mainstem)
Due to the location of the overhead power lines and the corresponding utility corridor easement, a
conservative (low level of effort) approach will be taken to address the mainstem of Martin's Creek. This
channel will be restored using an Enhancement II approach, which will consist primarily of the removal of
invasive vegetation and replanting with native, woody vegetation, as well as the removal of parts of the berm,
thereby restoring floodplain connectivity during lower return interval flood events. In addition, invasive
species treatment and reforestation of the riparian zone with low growing woody vegetation will be done to
improve overbank flow filtration, shading and rootmass density along the stream corridor.
MC-UT1-1 and MC-UT1-2
These reaches will be protected through preservation. While no restoration work will be done on these
reaches they will be protected from future development through the establishment of an conservation
easement that will take in the channel and riparian zone.
MC'.-T TT 1
Of the four reaches, three are slated for some level of enhancement or restoration. Only Reach 1 is slated for
Preservation as described above.
Reach 2 will be addressed with a Restoration approach. A Priority 1 approach, involving construction of a
new channel on the existing floodplain, will be applied to remove the channel from the toe of the right valley
wall. The design approach calls for dimension, profile and pattern adjustments with grade control used to
protect the reach from down cutting, thus providing vertical stability. This will also protect the restored site
from headcutting that could move upstream from a transition reach between Reaches 2 and 3 that could not be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-3 9/29/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
• Use constructability as a guiding consideration in order to produce a realistic design that is
possible to build given field constraints and construction tolerances. Design ideas are discussed
with knowledgeable construction personnel to determine the constructability, likely footprint, and
severity of impacts to on-site resources,
• Minimize disturbance to ecologically functional and physically stable areas; mimic the character
of these areas and borrow materials from them where appropriate to create a more natural design,
and
• The over-all design approach, including proposed structures, will attempt to use native materials
and minimize materials brought onsite in order to produce habitat favoring native flora and fauna,
reduce compaction and site disturbance from material transport, and produce an aesthetically
pleasing result.
The Martin's Creek II project site is an appropriate candidate for restoration, as significant erosion will occur
before streams in the project area achieve a stable, quasi-equilibrium state. Although aggradation is present,
overall stream conditions present on-site reflect varying degrees of incision and continued degradation. Bank
erosion will continue contributing sediment to areas downstream of the project site and will cause widening of
the stream. If implemented, project restoration and enhancement objectives will help to stabilize the channel,
halt incision and widening, and significantly diminish bank erosion. The Martin's Creek II project will also
support the LWP and river basin restoration plan priorities and goals by reducing sediment and nutrient
loading into tributaries to Martin's Creek through the restoration or enhancement of riparian buffers,
stabilizing streambanks and channel morphology through natural channel design concepts, and managing
livestock access within the project area. This project will further improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat
conditions through the reestablishment of a stable riparian corridor and more stable channel morphology.
The accompanying plans depict the proposed restoration measures. The application of these measures is
described below according to reach.
Martin's Creek (Mainstem)
Due to the location of the overhead power lines and the corresponding utility corridor easement, a
conservative (low level of effort) approach will be taken to address the mainstem of Martin's Creek. This
channel will be restored using an Enhancement II approach, which will consist primarily of sloping the left
stream bank, removal of invasive vegetation and replanting with native, woody vegetation. This sloping will
include removal of parts of the berm, restoring floodplain connectivity during lower return interval flood
events. In addition, invasive species treatment and reforestation of the riparian zone with low growing woody
vegetation will be done to improve overbank flow filtration, shading and rootmass density along the stream
corridor.
MC-UT1-1 and MC-UT1-2
These reaches will be protected through preservation. While no restoration work will be done on these
reaches they will be protected from future development through the establishment of an conservation
easement that will take in the channel and riparian zone.
MC-UT1
Of the four reaches, three are slated for some level of enhancement or restoration. Only Reach 1 is slated for
Preservation as described above.
Reach 2 will be addressed with a Restoration approach. A Priority 1 approach, involving construction of a
new channel on the existing floodplain, will be applied to remove the channel from the toe of the right valley
wall. The design approach calls for dimension, profile and pattern adjustments with grade control used to
protect the reach from down cutting, thus providing vertical stability. This will also protect the restored site
from headcutting that could move upstream from a transition reach between Reaches 2 and 3 that could not be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-3 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
protected in the mitigation plan because it is either too close to a right-of-way to allow for protection with the
easement or it is on another property.
On Reach 3, Level I Enhancement efforts will be used to create grade control, repair bank erosion and restore
proper dimension. Eroding banks will be stabilized with structures that will reduce near bank stress and
promote grade control. Soil stability will be accomplished by eradicating exotic, invasive vegetation that is
limiting the growth of deep rooted, native plant life. Once exotics are removed the site will be planted with
native herbaceous and woody plant species that will provide extensive rootmass to stabilize the banks and
shade to maintain the cool water habitat.
For Reach 4, a combination of Priority 1 and 2 approaches will be used to relocate this channel in the low
point of the valley. The relic channel for this stream is still present in the field adjoining the existing
channelized channel. This stream will be reconnected to this relic channel just below where it now flows
through a culverted crossing. The old channel will be filled and the existing exotic vegetation eradicated.
Where needed a new floodplain at the historic floodplain elevation will be constructed. Due to cattle access
there are areas where the old floodplain has been damaged and my need to be repaired. This relic channel has
been lost in the existing wetland area at the low point of this drainage slope. From this point a new channel
will be constructed with the bankfull elevation at the valley floor elevation. Using the Priority 1 and 2
descriptions for this part of the channel construction is somewhat confusing in this situation. This is because
the valley floor will be lowered as a part of this project that has the objective of restoring wetland habitat to
this valley. Since the reason for lowering the valley is to establish wetland habitat and functions and not to
establish a new floodplain elevation for the stream we are calling this a Priority 1 Restoration; however, we
recognize that this is a matter of perspective. The lower end of Reach 4 from the end of the relic channel to
its new confluence with Martin's Creek will be restored with a new meandering channel across the lower
valley from which it has been removed. This lowest reach on MC-UT1 will have a new confluence with
UT1-3 and then with Martin's Creek. As this new channel reaches the point where it will confluence with
Martin's Creek a new floodplain will need to be established as the stream drops down to the elevation of the
mainstem. Dimension changes will also be made to improve the overall connectivity between the stream and
the floodplain as the channel meanders through the wetland complex before converging with Martin's Creek.
This will relocate these channels from where they presently cross onto the adjacent property owner to the
north. He has agreed to allow this channel modification.
Where abandoned, old stream channels will be backfilled using fill material generated by the grading of a
new channel and floodplain benches or otherwise graded to make them continuous with other local
surface features. Any excess fill material generated during construction will be stabilized on-site in
locations that are well away from any surface water.
Exotic invasive removal and re-planting with native vegetation will be conducted on Reaches 2-4. This will
re-establish a buffer consisting of woody and herbaceous vegetation native to the ecoregion.
MC'.-I TT1-3
Enhancement Level I activities are proposed on MC-UT1-3 from the property boundary to the driveway
crossing just upstream of the lower field where Martin's Creek is located. The Enhancement I design
approach on this tributary will entail bank grading and stabilization to correct channel dimension and
livestock impacts, and the addition of grade control measures to maintain a more stable channel profile.
Pattern adjustments made on this reach will be minimal due to the presence of many mature trees and the fact
that existing sinuosity is appropriate for most of the reach. Pattern will be adjusted at three locations to
address headcutting and lateral scour that is causing excessive sedimentation of the stream and instability of
the stream bank. Profile adjustments will entail removal of headcuts and installation of grade control
structures or constructed riffles to improve bedform diversity and regulate channel slope. As part of this
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-4 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
effort, exotic invasive vegetation will be removed and native plant communities enhanced through riparian
plantings.
A Priority 1 Restoration approach will be applied downstream of the driveway crossing. As described for
Reach 4 of MC-UT1, Priority 1 is also here qualified by saying that we are constructing the new channel
across a valley floor that will be lowered to enhance wetland functions. Reach2 of MC-UT 1-3 was previously
channelized across the pasture in a perched channel. Restoration efforts will include a sinuous pattern typical
of low slope, wide floodplain settings, with the new channel to be constructed at the appropriate profile and
dimensions as it meanders along its new alignment. Given the gradual slope of the reach, grade control
structures placed in this section of the stream will primarily serve to reduce bank stress, aid in sediment
transport, and to improve bedform diversity and habitat.
As noted earlier, MC-UT 1-3 will be relocated within the greater wetland complex proposed and will have a
new confluence with MC-UT1 and with Martin's Creek. The new channel will have a high degree of
connectivity between the stream and floodplain as the channel meanders through the wetland complex.
Where abandoned, old stream channels will be backfilled using fill material generated by the grading of a
new channel and floodplain benches or otherwise graded to make them continuous with other local
surface features. Any excess fill material generated during construction will be stabilized on-site in
designated disposal areas.
MC-UT2
UT2 is a short reach that flows under Martin's Creek Road and directly into right side of Martin's Creek.
Enhancement Level II will be used to improve this channel. Like the mainstem of Martin's Creek
opportunities for improvement are limited here because of the state road, overhead power-lines and its short
length. Channel dimension will be improved by sloping vertical stream banks to a slope that will allow
planting. Riparian enhancement will include the removal of exotic invasive vegetation and re-establishment
of a buffer consisting of woody and herbaceous vegetation native to the project area.
Right Prong Martin's Creek (Mainstem)
There are two reaches. Reach 1 contains the vast majority of the stream length on the project property, is
forested, and will be placed in preservation. Reach 2 falls along the lower part of the stream after it enters an
old field. In this reach, riparian enhancement activities consist of removing exotic invasive vegetation and re-
establishing a buffer consisting of woody and herbaceous vegetation native to the project area.
RP-UT I
There are two reaches. Reach 1 includes the vast majority of the length, is forested, and will be placed in
preservation. Like the mainstem, Reach 2 of RP-UT1 is the lower part that enters an old field. In this reach,
riparian enhancement activities consist of removing exotic invasive vegetation and re-establishing a buffer
consisting of woody and herbaceous vegetation native to the project area.
Other Preservation Reaches in the Right Prong Martin's Creek Drainage: RP-UT2, RP-UT2-1, RP-UT3-1,
TP-UT4, TP-UT4-1, and RP-UT5
These reaches will be protected through preservation. While no restoration work will be done on these
reaches they will be protected from future development through the establishment of an conservation
easement that will take in the channel and riparian zone. The right to six stream crossings has been retained
by the landowner and the location of these crossings may be determined in the future; however, the area that
may be impacted by these crossings is very minimal compared to the area that will be protected.
Riparian Wetland Restoration
The existing pasture in the lower valley is currently drained by the channelized streams MC-UT1, MC-UT1-
3, mainstem Martin's Creek and by subsurface drain tiles. To restore wetland hydrology to the site, the soil
placed on historic wetland areas will be excavated and removed. This will bring the buried hydric soils to an
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-5 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
elevation that will allow them to support wetland functions. Existing streams will be relocated and raised
onto the restored wetland floodplain to restore floodplain connectivity and flow dynamics between the
restored streams and wetland areas. Excavated material will be placed in stockpile/disposal areas on-site as
shown on the plans. The abandoned sections of channelized stream will be completely filled to eliminate the
drainage effect caused by these features. Likewise, drain tiles within the fields will be excavated and
removed where possible to disrupt drainage from the field.
Grading activities will focus on restoring pre-disturbance valley topography by removing any field crowns,
surface drains, or swales that were imposed during agriculture production. The topography of the restored
site will be patterned after natural floodplain wetland reference sites, and grading activities will not seek to
leave a smooth soil surface. A rough soil surface promotes diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats
common to natural wetland areas. Once design grades have been achieved, the soil surfaces will be tilled to
depth of 6 to 10 inches to promote infiltration and better rooting conditions for planted vegetation.
The restoration design for the wetland is based on a targeted "Low Mountain Alluvial Forest" riparian
wetland type, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of this system will be palustrine,
"seasonally or intermittently flooded", as the restored channel is designed to carry the bankfull flow, and to
flood (flow out of its banks) at discharges greater than bankfull.
The revegetation plan for the overall riparian system will consider the combination of existing onsite native
vegetation and riparian communities identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) that include "Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest", and "Mountain Bottomland Forest". The planting areas will be designated by wetness zones
to represent anticipated site conditions.
Riparian Wetland Enhancement
Multiple pockets of existing jurisdictional wetlands have been delineated within the transitional upland and
field areas of the project site. These wetlands, which cumulatively total 1.61 acres, have formed as a result of
depressional topography, poor drainage, and hillslope seepage. As described in Section 5, jurisdictional
wetlands in the project area that will be temporarily impacted through restoration and enhancement measures
will ultimately be higher quality wetlands. These temporary impacts, which total approximately .24 acres,
will involve surface roughening, removal of exotic, invasive vegetation, re-establishment of wetland
vegetation native to the region and minor adjustments to drainage patterns are necessary to restore channel
pattern to MCUT1 and MCUT1-3 and to improve wetland hydrology. Stream and wetland restoration
measures will not negatively impact the hydrology, vegetation and soils of the existing wetlands. Efforts to
minimize wetland-disturbing activities during the design process have included modifying the alignment of
streams near the wetlands in a way that achieves the project stream mitigation objectives (which entails
channel pattern and dimension adjustments) while avoiding wetland acreage loss. In fact, the proposed
channel alignment of the tributaries to Martin Creek that are located near or adjacent to the existing wetlands
was designed to ensure wetland restoration and enhancement objectives were met as well (i.e. improved
hydrological connectivity, creation of native riparian vegetation communities).
Through the stream and wetland restoration practices described above, these areas will experience a more
natural hydrology and flooding regime once the project is completed. Since existing wetlands are dominated
by herbaceous wetland species, the areas will also be planted with native wetland tree species that are tolerant
of flooded conditions. Exotic, invasive species will be removed using mechanical and herbicidal methods as
appropriate.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-6 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
7.2 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration
A number of analyses and data were incorporated in the development of site-specific natural channel design
approaches. Among these are hydraulic and sediment analyses, existing site conditions data collection,
incorporation of reference reach databases, regime equations, and evaluation of results from past projects.
Design criteria are dependent on the general restoration approach determined to be a best fit for the Martin's
Creek mitigation site (Table 7.0). The approach for restoration was based on an assessment of each reach and
its potential. After selection of the general restoration approach, specific design criteria were developed so
that the plan view layout, cross section dimensions, and profile could be described for each reach. These
criteria are presented below and in the construction plans.
Assigning an appropriate stream type for the corresponding valley that accommodates the existing and future
hydrologic and sediment contributions was considered conceptually prior to selecting reference reach streams.
Design criteria for the proposed stream concept were selected based on the range of the reference data and the
desired performance of the proposed channel.
Following initial application of the design criteria, refinements were made to accommodate the existing valley
morphology, to work around project constraints, to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area, and
to allow for natural channel adjustment following construction. The construction documents have been
tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible, using a level of detail that
corresponds to the tools of construction. The design also reflects a philosophy that the stream will adapt to
the inherent uniformity of the mitigation project and be allowed to adjust over long periods of time under the
processes of flooding, re-colonization of vegetation, and local topographic influences.
Table 7.0 Project Design Stream Types
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Proposed
Stream Reach Stream Rationale
Type
Right I AB Preservation
Prong
Martin's 2 B Level 11 Enhancement
Creek
I A/B Preservation

RP-UT 1
2 B Level 11 Enhancement
Martin's I C Level 11 Enhancement, use existing dimensions, improve floodplain connectivity
Creek
I A/B Preservation
2 B Priority 1 Restoration
MC-UT1 3 B Level I Enhancement
4 C Priority 2 Restoration in low slope valley
1 B Level I Enhancement in higher slope valley
MC-UTI-3 2 C Priority 2 Restoration in low slope valley
Notes: Streams only listed if they have Restoration or Enhancement reaches.
7.3 Stream Project Design & Justification
The primary objective of the restoration design is to construct a stream with a stable dimension, pattern, and
profile that has access to its floodplain at bankfull flows while enhancing riparian and aquatic habitat. The
approach applied by Baker to the Martin's Creek Site consisted of creating stable B and C-type channels. The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-7 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
proposed design parameters for each of the reaches are detailed in Table 7.1. The design rationale and design
parameters for all of the design reaches are presented below.
Dimension
Throughout the entire proposed design, the channel dimensions were adjusted to reduce velocities and near-
bank shear stress. The selected design parameters eliminate incision and restore access to the floodplain,
increasing the entrenchment ratio. The sloping reaches, design dimensions are for 13-type channels that are
found in Type II colluvial valleys. These have a lower entrenchment ratio than alluvial streams which means
that benching will be slightly sloping and of only moderate width.
For the channels being routed through the lowest part of the main valley, C-type channels were designed and
are expected to narrow to an E-type morphology over time as vegetation dominates the channel banks. E-type
channels are difficult to construct due to high instability due to the lack of established rootmass immediately
after construction. These channels will have high width/depth ratios, wide floodplains and very high
entrenchment ratios. They have been kept wider rather than deeper to help maintain hydrology in the adjacent
restored wetlands.
In all cases, a bank height ratio (BHR) of 1.0 was chosen to develop a channel with access to its floodplain for
relief during events having flows in excess of bankfull. Typical cross sections are shown on the plan sheets.
Pattern
The existing pattern of these project streams is representative of impacts one would expect from stream
channelization, relocation and livestock impacts. In general, Reach 2 on MC-UT1 has been designed to
dissipate energy vertically in steeper sections, and through meandering along Reach 4 of MC-UT1 that will
flow adjacent to a restored wetland in the lower field. The restoration reach on MC-UT1-3 was also designed
to dissipate energy through a meandering channel. A meandering morphology is most appropriate for streams
that have slopes less than 2% as is the case withMC-UT1-3 and MC-UT1 as it enters the lower field. Reach 2
on MC-UT1, will be restored with a new pattern; however, the sinuosity will be low (1.06) due the slope of
this reach (.05). The pattern change associated with this restoration reach will bring the channel away from
the valley wall to allow for overbank flow on both sides of the stream and to avoid sedimentation off of the
right hill slope into the stream. The sinuosity of MC-UT1, Reach 4 and MC-UT1-3, Reach 2 will increase
from 1.0 to 1.4 and 1.0 to 1.42, respectively with the development of the meandering channels. High
sinuosity is appropriate where these streams enter the wide, flat valley of the mainstem of Martin's Creek and
flow through the restored wetlands. The radius of curvature for meanders ranged from 20 to 40 and meander
length ranged from 80 to 110. These ranges were used to provide a diversity of form in order to avoid a
"cookie cutter" appearance.
The proposed enhancement approach for the tributaries is to correct or stabilize existing problem areas
relative to dimension, and profile and to maintain the 13-type channels with improvements that will provide
long-term stability. With the exception of Reach 1 on MC-UT 1-3, there will not be a significant modification
of pattern on the enhancement reaches (Right Prong Martin's Creek, RP-UT1, Martin's Creek, MC-UT1 and
MC-UT2). Slight pattern adjustments will be made at three locations on MC-UT1-3; at two sites where
meanders are cutting into high clay banks and at another site to avoid a significant headcut. The minor
changes to channel alignment on this enhancement reach does not warrant greater mitigation credit than what
is given for Enhancement I due to their being short in length and localized in scope.
ProfileBedform
The profiles for the tributaries with higher slopes slated for restoration and enhancement (MC-UT1 Reaches 2
and 3, and MC-UT1-3 Reachl) have poor habitat and a lack of grade control. A step-pool morphology has
been designed to establish a profile and bedform that is typical to 13-type channels and to ensure that the bed
has colluvial elements that help induce pool formation, create habitat niches, and hold the vertical stability of
the profile.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-8 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
The existing profiles of MC-UT1 Reach 4 and MC-UT1-3 Reach 2 have little diversity of bedform with long
riffles and relatively short pools, a characteristic common to channelized streams. The proposed meandering
channels will have a regular riffle - pool sequence. These slopes should provide for a diversity of bedform
and maintain quality habitat as sediment is moved through the reach. Where structure is used, its purpose is
to help hold the channel grade while riffles are developing, reduce bank stress while vegetation matures, and
improve habitat.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-9 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 7.1 Geomorphic Characteristics of the Proposed MC-UT1
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633 Reach 2
Sta. 0+00 to 10+70 Reach 3-4
Sta. 0+00 to 3+45, 5+48
to 16+97
Min Max Min
(STA 0+00-
6+00) Max
(STA 6+00-
11+00,11+00-
16+97)
1. Stream Type B/Cb B-C
2. Drainage Area - mil 0.09 0.17 0. 17, 0.25
3. Bankfull Width (wbkf) - ft 7.7 8.5 8.5, 11
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) - ft 0.54 0.71 0.71, 0.81
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 14.3 12.0 12.0, 13.5
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - ft2 4.1 6.0 6.0, 9.0
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) - ft/sec 3.9 4.3 4.3, 4.0
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) - WIsec 16 26 26,36
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) - ft 0.7 0.9 0.9, 1.0
10. dmbkf / dbkf Ratio 1.3 1.3 1.3, 1.2
11. Low Bank Height to dmbkf ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0
12. Floodprone Area Width (wfpa) - feet 16 40 17 >100
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 2 5.2 2 >11.8
14. Meander Length (L.) - ft* N/A 90 90
15. Meander Length to Bankf ill Width (Lm/wbkf)* N/A 10.5 10.5
16. Radius of Curvature (RJ - ft* N/A N/A 15-30 20-30
17. Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width (R. / wbkf)* N/A N/A 1.8-3.8 2.3-3.8
18. Belt Width (wbt) - ft* N/A N/A 40 40
19. Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) N/A N/A 4.7 4.7
20. Sinuosity (K) (Stream Length / Valley Length) 1.06 1.18 1.4
21. Valley Slope 0.050 0.060 0.038,
0.016
22. Average Channel Slope (Sbkf)
0.047
0.057 0.027,
0.011
23. Pool Slope (s ooi) 0 0 0 0
24. Pool Slope to Average Slope (SPooi / Sbkf) 0 0 0 0
25. Maximum Pool Depth (dl) - ft 1.6 1.6 2.0
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth (dpooI/dbkf) 2.9 2.9 2.8
27. Pool Width (w ooi) - ft 12 12 13
28. Pool Width to Bankfull Width (Wp..l / wbkf) 1.6 1.4 1.5
29. Pool Area (Apool) - ft2 11.5 11.5 14.3
30. Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apooi/Abkf) 2.8- 1.9 2.4
31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing (-) - ft 12 45 14 33
32. Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/wbkf) 1.5 5.8 1.6 3.9
33. Riffle Slope (siffle)
0.05
0.16
0.06-0.14 0.03-0.076,
0.012-0.02
34. Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s,ife/ sbkf)
1.1
3.5
1.1-2.5 1.1-2.5,
1.1-2.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-10 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 7.1 (cont.) Geomorphic Characteristics of the
P
d M
i
'
k II Mi
i
i
P
C MC-UT1-3
ropose
art
n
ree
gat
on
roject
s
t
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633

Sta.
Reach 1
0+00 to

5+16

Sta. 5
Reach 2
+78 to 18+64
Min Max Min
(5+78-
11+00) Max
(5+78-11+00,
11+00-18+64)
1. Stream Type B C
2. Drainage Area - mil 0.07 0.08
3. Bankfull Width (wbkf) - ft 6 6.5
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) - ft 0.48 0.49
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 12.5 12.5
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - ftz 2.85 3.18
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) - ft/sec 4.9 3.8
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) - WIsec 14 12
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) - ft 0.6 0.6
10 . Cbkf / dbkf Ratio 1.25 1.22
11 . Low Bank Height to dmbkf ratio 1.0 1.0
12 . Floodprone Area Width (wfpa) - feet 11 18 11-18 >100
13 . Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 3.8 6.3 3.8-6.3 >15.4
14 . Meander Length (L.) - ft* 65-90 80-110
15 . Meander Length to Bankfull Width (Lm/wbO* 10.8-15 12.3-16.9
16 . Radius of Curvature (RJ - ft* 15 40 20 40
17 . Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width (R. / wbkf)* 2.5 6.7 3.1 6.15
18 . Belt Width (wbt) - ft* 26 50 35 50
19 . Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/AVbkf) 4.3 8.3 5.4 7.7
20 . Sinuosity (K) (Stream Length / Valley Length) 1.26 1.42
21 . Valley Slope 0.069 0.067 0.035,
0.007
22 . Average Channel Slope (Sbkf)
0.054
0.047 0.025,
0.005
23 . Pool Slope (s ooi) 0 0 0 0
24 . Pool Slope to Average Slope (SPooi / Sbkf) 0 0
25 . Maximum Pool Depth (dl) - ft 1.6 1.6 1.6
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth

(d ooi/dbkf)
2.7
2.7
2.7
27 . Pool Width (w ooi) - ft 9 9 11
28 . Pool Width to Bankfull Width (Wp..l / wbkf) 1.5 1.4 1.7
29 . Pool Area (Apool) - ft2 8 8- 10.2
30 . Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apooi/Abkf) 2.8 2.5-3.2
31 . Pool-to-Pool Spacing (-) - ft 10 20 40 60
32 . Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/wbkf) 1.6 3.2 6.1 9.2
33 . Riffle Slope (siffle) 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.01
34 . Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s,ife/ sbkf) 0.7 1.6 1.4 2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-11 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
7.3.1 Sediment Transport Analysis
The factors that influence sediment transport are critical to the initiation and course of stream evolution.
In the dynamic equilibrium that is achieved for stable channels, sediment transport is such that the
inflowing and outgoing sediment loads are balanced. As discussed in the channel stability assessment,
Lane (1955) describes a generalized relationship of stream stability wherein the product of sediment
load and sediment size is proportional to the product of stream slope and discharge. Whereas sediment
size, stream slope, and stream discharge are readily measured or calculated, sediment load is much
more difficult to accurately quantify because of the numerous and complex processes controlling
sediment delivery and movement within the stream system.
Sediment transport is typically assessed by computing channel competency, capacity, or both. In this
case, we have addressed sediment capacity by conducting shear stress analyses and looking at empirical
data related to particle size mobility. Sediment transport competency is a measure of force per unit area
(lbm/ ft2) that refers to the stream's ability to move a given grain size. Quantitative assessments include
shear stress, tractive force, and critical dimensionless shear stress. Since these assessments help
determine a size class that is mobile under certain flow conditions, they are most important in gravel
bed studies in which the bed material ranges in size from sand to cobble (of which only a fraction are
mobile during bankfull conditions). Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a
mass of sediment past a cross section per unit of time, expressed in lbs/second or tons/year. In
headwater streams and watersheds with good vegetative cover, sediment supply is likely to be a limiting
factor in sediment transport capacity. In order to compensate for this condition, larger colluvial
particles may protect smaller particles from movement. This armoring effect limits the potential down-
cutting of the stream. An intensive assessment of transport capacity is not appropriate in this setting
and would not provide any additional design guidance beyond what other methods are able to provide.
The Martin's site has both steep tributary segments (>2%) and gentler slopes (0-2%). In the steeper
reaches, the newly constructed channel will be constructed using colluvial-size particles in order to
recreate the natural armoring present in a developed channel. At a minimum, these larger-size particles
will be used to build grade control structures into the bed that will reduce the chance of vertical erosion
of the bed. In the mainstem and tributaries in the flatter valley, riffles will be constructed out of
existing bed material, with intermittent grade control (structures or constructed riffles) to hold the
grade. The riffle material will incorporate material with low mobility mixed with other more mobile
particles. In particular, the head and tail of constructed riffles will have larger size rock mixed in to
form keys that will limit downcutting and act like these features do in a natural system.
7.3.1.1 Methodology
To conduct the sediment competency analyses, pavement, subpavement, and bulk sediment
samples were collected and weighed to generate cumulative frequency plots. Tributaries to
Martin's Creek were found to have median particle sizes in the range of small to medium gravel.
The largest particle sizes in these tributaries range from very coarse gravel to small cobble. This
sampling is a snapshot of the sediment characteristics in the existing channel, affected by both
systematic and local instability, as well as other impacts such as channelization. As such,
interpretation of the data should consist of gross observations. Ultimately, the existing conditions
sediment data will be one of the pieces of information that will help guide design decisions.
Now that we have sediment characteristics and can assess the relative mobility of particles from a
deductive approach, we will assess particle mobility based on an analytical approach. The final
channel cross section geometry was used to calculate the shear stress acting on the design channel
using the equation
'c=yRS,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-12 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Where i=average shear stress (lbm/ft2), y=unit weight water (lbm/ft3), R=hydraulic radius (ft),
and S=bed slope, or commonly friction (EGL) slope (ft/ft).
As described earlier, small HEC-RAS models were created for each reach to assess the cross
sections collected. The existing conditions shear stresses were observed to compare to those of
the design sections. In general, the design uses higher width-to-depth ratios as a conservative
approach to natural channel design. This has multiple effects, one of which is the reduction of
shear stress in the design channel due to the increased surface area and decreased depth.
For each stream reach, a worksheet that compares multiple methods (all based on empirical data)
was used to assess the critical particle size that is of sufficient size (mass) to resist movement
when subjected to the critical (e.g. bankfull) shear stress. The methods include a dimensionless
method based on Shields Diagram (Julien, 1995), a critical shear stress graph from Lane (1953),
an Isbesh Curve method that selects requisite stone size based on velocity, a permissible tractive
force graph from Raudkivi (1967), and a critical shear stress curve from Figure 2.6 of EPA
WARSSS v1.0 (Reference). The result is a bracketing of the particle size required to resist
motion at bankfull.
Sediment capacity is analyzed in the following way for this project. The goal of a capacity
analysis is to have sediment transport equilibrium; evidence to the contrary would suggest
possible aggradation or degradation of the bed or banks. In this case, the tributaries higher in the
watershed have more capacity due to their higher slopes. However, in a system with stable banks
and good grade control, the export of material from the upper reaches is expected to be minimal.
Material that is exported, or transported through the reach will be handled by building the
proposed alluvial reaches with gently sloping side slopes. Large material will deposit in riffles as
part of the natural armoring process, smaller materials will deposit on the banks due to the lower
shear stress zones in these regions. Subsequent vegetation of the banks will help keep the banks
stable and will improve the transport efficiency of the channel to maintain a balance in the
system.
7.3.1.2 Sediment Transport Analysis Discussion
The sediment samples were used to determine the range of competent particle sizes and assess the
depth and slope required to move the largest particle size. The D50 of the subpavement samples
for the smaller tributaries varied from 3.5 - 8 mm, and the D100 from 50 to 130 mm. Both step-
pool and meandering geomorphic approaches are being pursued at the site; the applicable
approach is determined based on the slope of each particular reach. Higher slope tributaries are
built as step-pool channels with grade control features that prevent down-cutting and dissipate
energy. While these steeper channels are designed to act predominantly as threshold (non-mobile
bed) channels, any bed movement is most likely in the period after construction when particles do
not have the degree of armoring and particle inter-locking characteristic of a natural channel.
Grade control features are a measure of precaution to protect the investment against such bed
movement, enhance habitat diversity through pool formation, and allow for grade drop over
protected structures that are designed to be able to withstand vertical flow forces induced by
critical flow and hydraulic jumps. Large events will still move particles in a threshold channel -
it is the largest colluvial particles that create vertical grade control which protects the channel
from incision. The lower slope tributaries are designed to meander through the floodplain shared
with the mainstem of Martin's Creek, transporting alluvial sediments and dissipating energy
through meandering. The meandering channels still have some grade control to help ensure the
stability of the newly cut channel, Competency analyses in the step-pool systems look at two
elements: the riffle or cascade material, and the step-structure material (i.e. large cobble or
boulders). In the meandering system, the riffle material is the primary focus of the competency
analyses.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-13 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
The design area for tributary MC-UT1 Reach 2 is 4.2 square feet. Based on the shear stress of the
design channel, the existing conditions D84 particle in the existing channel is capable of being
mobilized, but the D95 is not. At the full channel flow, the average shear stress is 1.3 lb/square
foot. Shear stresses of this magnitude move particles through both suspended load and bedload
transport and, based on the multiple empirical methods sets described in the Methods, may move
particles that range in size from 70 mm to 300 mm in size. This is consistent with typical natural
channel design goals in that it is likely to move particles in the D50 to D84 range, but much less
likely to move particles in the D 100 size range. Whereas most methods predict the critical
particle size to be 100 mm or less for this shear stress, Wildland Hydrology data depicted in the
EPA WARSSS literature predicts a much higher value (327 mm). This is based on empirical data
from Colorado only with an R2 of 0.838, whereas other methods are based on field data from
various geographic settings and laboratory data, and typically have higher R2 values (e.g.;
Leopold, Wolman and Miller (1964) data has W=0.9336). While the surface layer of riffle
material should be consistent with the non-Colorado data, it is appropriate to consider sizing
structures and riffle keys (requisite non-mobile features) with this upper bound from the Colorado
Curve in mind. Practically speaking, this would result in a specification of some class B, 1,
and/or 2 material to be included in the riffle keys (structures commonly consist of boulder
material larger than class 2). This specification is based on practical experience that riffle keys
are critical to prevent grade control failure (riffle keys are an engineered fail-safe). This fail-safe
is necessary because constructed riffle material used in restoration projects is often poorly sorted
as a practical matter, and provides less particle-to-particle shear resistance than in-situ riffle
material. Natural riffles also have the benefit of an armor layer built by the stream through the
winnowing process. This basis for the consideration of the Colorado data as an upper bound for
conservative engineering of critical structural features applies to all of the project reaches.
The design area for tributary MC-UT1 Reaches 3 and 4 is 6.0 square feet. Based on the shear
stress of the design channel, the existing conditions D50 particle in the existing channel is capable
of being mobilized, but the D84 and D95 are not. At the full channel flow, the average shear
stress is 0.8 lb/square foot. This value is lower than the upper reach because of the change in
valley slope. Still, both transport mechanisms are still feasible and based on the multiple
empirical methods sets described in the Methods, the mobile particle range is may move particles
that range in size from 50 mm to 200 mm in size. Again, this falls in line with typical natural
channel design goals in that it is likely to move particles in the D50 to D84 range, but much less
likely to move particles in the D100 size range. For this reach, the EPA WARS SS literature
predicts 204 mm. It would be appropriate to size structures and riffle keys (requisite non-mobile
features) with this upper bound in mind.
For MC-UT1-3 Reach 1, the design channel dimension is 3.0 square feet. The sample collected
above the driveway yielded a D50 of 3.5 mm and a D100 of 15.7 mm. With an estimated shear
stress of 1.2 lb/square foot based on the design dimensions and slope of 4%, the existing
conditions D 100 is estimated to be competent under flows much less than bankfull. The
empirical critical particle dimension curves indicate that the particle size required for non-
mobility is in the range of 70 mm to 300 mm. Since this reach will be built as a step-pool
channel, the steps will be built out of material in the upper end of this range (1' intermediate axis)
and constructed riffles/cascades will have a significant percentage of material greater than 70
mm. Where existing channel material is used to backfill the new channel bottom, new material
will be mixed into the upper layer to prevent the washout of features that must have a stable
grade.
MC-UT1-3 Reach 2 has a design channel dimension of 3.3 square feet. The sample collected
above the driveway was used as a representative sample for the analysis in this reach as well.
The computed average shear stress is only 0.2 lb/square foot based on a significant decrease in
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-14 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
the slope (it is only 0.8% in this reach). In this reach, the D84 from the existing conditions
sample is competent but the D95 is not. The empirical critical particle dimension curves indicate
that the particle size required for non-mobility is in the range of 15 mm to 50 mm. Since this
reach will be built as a meandering alluvial channel, the existing material is deemed appropriate
to use for constructing riffles. Some of the riffles, and all of the riffle keys will be built out of
imported material. To reduce the risk of headcutting, this material will consist of particle sizes
ranging from 15 to 50 mm.
7.3.2 HEC-RAS Analysis
7.3.2.1 Preliminary Modeling and Hydrologic Trespass
The project has both regulated and non-regulated floodplains. The upper reaches of the unnamed
tributaries are not regulated and do not pose a flooding threat to any structures or other
infrastructure. The lower reaches of the tributaries share a floodplain with Martin's Creek, which
is in a special flood hazard zone and must comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) requirements. Grading and other floodplain development activities in the Martin's
Creek floodplain will be required to attain a no-impact certification.
The lower portion of the Martin's Creek site, which consists of Martin's Creek and its valley, has
been mapped within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-identified flood zone
(Zone AE). This is a special flood hazard area with a designated 100-Year Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) and non-encroachment areas. Modifications within the non-encroachment areas require a
flood study to determine whether the proposed modifications will impact the established BFEs or
non-encroachment widths. If the difference in the BFE is between 0 and -0.10 (decrease of 1/10 1h
or less), this is considered "no impact". If a rise is indicated by the proposed changes, this would
necessitate a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) and post-project Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR). If a decrease of greater than 0.10' is indicated (not a valid "no impact", but a
valid "no rise"), this would require a post-project LOMR as well; typically, in such a case, the
flood study demonstrating no rise in the BFEs would be accepted in lieu of a CLOMR and the
project could proceed upon local or state review of the study.
Based on the current plans, Baker has conducted preliminary modeling and believes that the
project can be permitted with a no-impact certification (i.e. there are no rises, and all decreases
are less than 0.10'). Upon acceptance of the restoration plan and drawings, Baker will finalize
modeling and submit a report summarizing the project and modeling results to the designated
floodplain administrator for Cherokee County. Baker has discussed this project with the county
and does not anticipate any other requirements that will affect the project.
7.4 Site Construction
7.4.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction
7.4.1.1 Narrative
A construction sequence is provided below and can be found within the accompanying mitigation
plan set for the Martin's Creek II project.
1. Equipment and materials shall be mobilized to the site.
2. Utility locations shown on these plans are approximate. The contractor shall have all
underground utilities within the project limits located and marked prior to beginning
construction. The contractor will be responsible for the repair of any utilities damaged during
construction.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-15 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
3. A gravel "construction entrance" that consists of class A stone, at least 50 feet in length, shall
be incorporated into every access point that connects to a public road.
4. Temporary and permanent stream crossings and temporary check dams shall be installed as
shown in the plan set. Temporary check dams shall be removed when grading work upstream
has been completed.
Construction shall proceed upstream to downstream on each stream. Tributaries will be
restored prior to the confluence with the mainstem being constructed. Grading of bankfull
benches within a work area shall be done before new channels are graded.
6. Temporary coffer dams shall be installed upstream of each work area and flow in the work
reach shall be diverted by pumping and piping around the work area. The length of each
diversion shall be approximately 300 to 600 linear feet. Pumping will be done when work is
required in a channel where the stream is flowing. Much of the mainstem work will be done
offline. Existing channel material should be stockpiled and incorporated in constructed
offline reaches.
7. Clearing and grubbing required within the grading limits shall be performed so as to limit
sediment migration off-site. Logs and root wads from trees larger than 10 inches in diameter
shall be stockpiled for use as in-stream structures. Salvageable native vegetation (black
willow, tag alder, silky dogwood, etc.) shall be harvested for transplanting or for cutting and
live-staking materials. Brush material for toe wood structures should be stockpiled and kept
wet. Special attention should be given to the removal of nonnative, exotic species when
clearing and grubbing takes place.
8. Wetland grading should be accomplished before stream restoration work is accomplished in
the low valley. Graded areas should be tilled to roughen the wetland area and create
heterogeneous topography. The site should then be seeded and mulched to stabilize the site.
9. The new channel sections shall be stabilized with in-stream structures, erosion control
matting, seed, and transplants before turning water into these sections. Compacted soil
channel plugs shall be installed in areas where the new channel diverges from the original
channel, and the original, abandoned channel sections will be backfilled.
10. Dewatering of off-line sections shall be diverted through a sediment filter before being
discharged into the downstream reach.
11. Earthwork shall be staged such that no more channel will be disturbed than can be stabilized
by the end of the work day or before flow is diverted into a new channel segment.
12. Disturbed areas within the first 25 feet of buffer adjacent to the channel will be seeded,
mulched or otherwise stabilized with temporary ground cover until a more permanent ground
cover is established across the buffer area disturbed during construction. If temporary ground
cover is not applied at the end of the workday, straw wattles will be staked down at the top of
the bank where erosion control matting ends to prevent sediment loading from upland
portions of the buffer that have not stabilized.
13. Excess soil materials shall be stockpiled in designated staging and stockpile areas, with silt
fence installed on the downslope side(s) of the base of the stockpiles and maintained when
sediment has accumulated above one third of the height of the silt fence and/or the silt fence
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-16 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
has failed. Excess soil shall be hauled outside the conservation easement before de-
mobilization.
14. The flow diversions and temporary stream crossings shall be removed when no longer needed
and the banks in these areas stabilized with seeding and matting.
15. Bank and floodplain vegetation, including brush materials and live stakes, shall be installed
during the dormant season, November to May.
16. Staging and stockpile areas, and silt fences shall be removed and the ground shall be repaired
to its original conditions once planting is complete and once they are no longer needed.
Construction entrances may also be removed or left in place if the landowner wishes to retain
them.
7.4.1.2 In-stream Structures and Other Construction Elements
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Martin's Creek site. Structures such as
constructed riffles, log vanes, boulder steps, and rootwads will be used to stabilize the newly-
restored streams. This project will primarily utilize those structures which provide grade control
and enhance pool habitat. Wood and boulder structures will be used on this site because they
represent natural materials observed in the existing system. Some wood will be generated
through the construction of this project; woody material that is not generated through the project
will be brought to the site. Table 7.2 summarizes the use of in-stream structures at the site.
Table 7.2 Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Martin's Creek 11 Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Structure Type Location
Constructed Riffle Through straight, steeper sections to provide grade control.
Cover Log Located along outside bends or against one bank in straight reaches to increase pool
diversity and provide cover for fish.
Log/Rock Sequence In meander bends to turn water to protect outside banks and promote scour to
maintain pools.
Toe Wood Toe of a streambank to create overhead bank cover and improve aquatic habitat.
Rock Cross Vane Downstream of floodplain constrictions to direct high velocity flow
emerging from the constriction to the center of the channel to prevent bank
erosion and provide grade control. Near the downstream end of the project to
provide grade control to prevent possible downcutting downstream of the project
from mi ratin into the project stream and causing bed erosion.
Boulder Step Structure In steep channels to control grade and maintain step-pool system.
Vegetated Geolift To create new banks in areas where cutting a new channel is not an option. Outside
of meander bends under particularly high stress or in areas where slight lateral
migration is unacceptable.
Rootwads Outside bank of meander bends to reduce bank shear stress and improve aquatic
habitat.
Constructed Riffle
A constructed riffle consists of the placement of coarse bed material in the stream at specific riffle
locations along the profile. A buried log or rocks at the upstream and downstream end of riffles
may be used to control the slope through the riffle in steeper sections. The purpose of this
structure is to provide grade control and establish riffle habitat. Constructed riffles will be placed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-17 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
throughout all reaches. In the higher slope reaches, the constructed riffles and cross vanes will be
intermixed to provide diversity of structure and in-stream habitat.
Cover Log
Cover logs are used typically driven into streambanks or secured using rebar and, as noted above,
can be used in straight stream reaches as well as the outer bends of streams. The primary purpose
of these structures is to improve bed form diversity by creating small pools in addition to those
created by boulder steps and vanes. In addition to improving pool habitat, cover logs are also
placed to create cover for trout and other fish.
Log/Rock Sequence
A log/rock sequence is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can
span one-half to two-thirds the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located either upstream or
downstream along a meander bend and function to initiate or complete the redirecting of flow
energies resulting in reduced near bank shear stress and alignment maintenance. Vanes are
located just downstream of the point where the stream flow intercepts the bank at acute angles.
These vanes may also be used outside of meanders on moderate to steep channel gradients for
grade control, a primary concern in this restoration project. Logs and or boulders may be used to
construct vanes.
Log Sequence
In a log sequence, logs are usually placed in a series and at opposing angles and slopes. These
structures are used in riffles to create small meanders within the riffle, diversifying habitat.
Toe Wood
Toe wood will be placed at the toe of streambanks to provide bank stabilization and improve fish
habitat. Toe wood is a term for a crib-like structure consisting of wooden planks and wooden
spacers nailed together that is staked to the channel bed using re-bar. In addition to providing
resting areas for fish, these structures are the also a part of the bank stabilization process. The top
of the crib-structure is backfilled using stone and ultimately, a soil base for which to replant
riparian vegetation.
Rock Cross Vane
Cross vanes are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel, and
protect the stream bank. A cross vane consists of two rock vanes joined by a center structure
installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This centering structure sets the invert elevation
of the stream bed.
Boulder Step Structure
Boulder step structures consist of boulders placed in the channel in a U-shape constructed
similarly to a cross-vane. These structures provide grade control in steep channels, direct high
velocity flows to the center of the channel, and promote diverse habitat through the creation of
plunge pools immediately downstream of the structure.
Vegetated Geolift
A geolift consists of a layer of biodegradable matting back filled with soil (creating a lift) that is
stacked upon a stone toe base. A row of native, riparian, woody vegetation is laid on top of this
first soil lift and a second lift is constructed on top of the woody material. This alternating of lift
and woody material continues up to the desired elevation. The mesh that makes up the matting
acts much like a traditional gabion, but is designed to break down over time and is more
economical. Unlike gabions that are filled over with topsoil to create a bank, the geolift actually
holds the soil in place between layers of matting that are set perpendicular to the bank slope
making it more effective in supporting the slope while vegetation is established. Geolifts also
work to retain moisture for live stakes or other vegetation and provide a substrate for the
establishment of a root system.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-18 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Rootwad
Rootwads are large intact root masses placed at the toe of the stream bank in high stress areas to
absorb energy, increase flow roughness and provide a physical barrier to the erosion of vulnerable
stream banks. In the process, they can help induce scour-pool formation and serve as habitat for
organisms favoring wood or cover. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural
support to the stream bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also increase
substrate surface area for aquatic insects and other benthic organisms. Root wads include the root
mass or root ball of a tree plus a portion of the trunk which is driven or buried into the bank.
7.4.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Native riparian vegetation will be established in the restored stream buffer. Any areas of invasive
vegetation will be removed so as not to threaten the newly-established native plants within the
conservation easement. Known invasive species to be treated include multiflora rose, Chinese privet
and Japanese honeysuckle.
7.4.2.1 Soil Preparation and Amendments
Soil amendments will be prepared according to the dominant soil types present within the
floodplains for UT1 and its unnamed tributaries and subsequent analysis of the soils by the
NRCS. Application of soil amendments will occur as temporary site stabilization measures are
implemented during construction and during installation of permanent bank and riparian
vegetation. The use of soil amendments will be minimized to the extent possible to prevent the
accelerated growth of weed species as the native riparian seed mix becomes established.
7.4.2.2 Stream Buffer Vegetation
Bare-root and containerized trees, live stakes, shrubs and permanent seeding will be planted
within designated areas of the conservation easement. A preferred 30-foot buffer measured from
the top of banks (sometimes slightly less and quite often, substantially more) will be established
along the restored stream reaches. In the preservation reach, the combined buffer width for left
and right banks will be approximately 100 feet. Bare-root and containerized vegetation (trees and
shrubs) will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8-foot by 8-foot grid. The
proposed species to be planted are listed in Table 7.3. Planting of bare-root or containerized
trees, live stakes and shrubs will be conducted during the first dormant season following
construction. If construction activities are completed in summer/fall of a given year, all
vegetation will be installed prior to the start of the growing season of the following calendar year.
Species selection for re-vegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP)
Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). Tree species selected for stream restoration areas will
generally be weakly tolerant to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive
and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time.
Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which
the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted. Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will
be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Live stakes will be installed two to three feet apart using triangular spacing or at a density of 160
to 360 stakes per 1,000 square feet along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and
bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 7.4 lists
the species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided for
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-19 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
floodplain wetland and floodplain non-wetland areas. Mixtures will also include temporary
seeding (rye grain during cold season or browntop millet during warm season). The permanent
seed mixture specified for floodplain areas will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the banks
of the restored stream channel and is intended to provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground
cover and biological habitat value. The species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to
proliferate along restored stream channels, providing long-term stability.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed stream banks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If
temporary seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at
a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will
consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate of 45 pounds per acre.
Table 7.3 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species (may also include species to be seeded or installed as
container plantings)
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project -NCEEP Project #92633

Common Name
Scientific Name % Planted by
Species
Wetness Tolerance
Planting Location
Riparian Buffer Plantings: Wetland and Floodplain
680 Tree Stems/Acre & 680 Shrub Stems/Acre
Trees Overstory
Shingle Oak Quercus imbricaria 12 FAC- Wetland & Floodplain
River Birch Betula ni ra 14 FACW Wetland & Flood lain
Persimmon Dios ros vir iniana 12 FAC Wetland & Flood lain
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 10 FACW- Wetland & Floodplain
Black Willow Salix nigra 12 OBL Wetland & Floodplain
Trees Understory
Ironwood Carpinus carohniana 14 FAC Wetland & Floodplain

Highland Doghobble Leucothoe fontanesiana
(axilarris var. editorum)
14
N/A
Wetland & Floodplain
Tag Alder Alnus serrulata 12 FACW+ or OBL Wetland & Floodplain
Shrubs
Rivercane
(giant cane)
Arundinaria gigantea
30
FACW
Wetland & Floodplain
S icebush Lindera benzoin 25 FACW Wetland & Flood lain
Winterbe flex verticillata 20 FACW Wetland & Flood lain
Virginia Sweetspire ftea virginica 25 FACW+ Wetland & Floodplain
Riparian Livestake Plantings
Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius 15 FAC- Wetland & Floodplain
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 20 FACW- Wetland & Floodplain
Buttonbush Ce halanthus occidentalis 15 OBL Wetland & Flood lain
Silky Willow Salix sericea 25 OBL Wetland & Flood lain
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 25 FACW+ Wetland & Floo pain
Note: Species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species substitution
is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the procurement
of plant stock.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-20 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 7.3 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species (may also include species to be seeded or installed as
container plantings)
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project -NCEEP Project #92633

Common Name
Scientific Name % Planted by
Species
Wetness Tolerance
Planting Location
Riparian Buffer Plantings: Upland
680 Tree Stems/Acre & 680 Shrub Stems/Acre
Trees Overstory
White Oak Quercus alba 10 FACU Upland
Black (Sweet) Birch Betula lenta 10 FACU Upland
Northern Red Oak uercus rubra 10 FACU Upland
Mockernut Hickory Carya alba (tomentosa) 12 N/A Upland
Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata 12 FACU Upland
Post Oak Quercus stellata 6 N/A Upland
Trees Understory

Flame Azalea Rhododendron
calendulaceum
6
N/A
Upland
Witch Hazel Hamamelis vir iniana 7 FACU Upland
Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum 5 FACU Upland
Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 10 FACU Upland
Redbud Cercis canadensis 12 FACU Upland
Shrubs
Deerberry 1Vaccinium stamineum 35 FACU Upland
Eastern Sweetshrub,
Sweetshrub Calycanthus floridus,
Calycanthus spp.
40
FACU
Upland
Sweetpepperbush Clethra spp. 25 N/A Upland
Alternate Species
Blight-resistant
American Chestnut
Castanea dentata
N/A
N/A
Upland
American Hazelnut Cor lus americana N/A FACU Upland
Blue Ridge
Blueberry
1Vaccinium allidum
N/A
N/A
Upland
Note: Species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species substitution
is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the
procurement of plant stock.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-21 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Table 7.4 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Martin's Creek 11 Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92633
Common Name Scientific Name % Planted by
Species Density (lbs/ac) Wetness
Tolerance
Creeping Bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera 10% 1.5 FACW
Big Bluestein Andropogon gerardii 2% 0.3 N/A
Devil's Beggartick Bidens frondosa (or
aristosa) 3% 0.45 FACW
Northern Long Sedge Carex folliculata 2% 0.3 N/A
Nodding Sedge Carex gynandra 5% 0.75 N/A
Upright Sedge Carex stricta 2% 0.3 OBL
Lance-leaved Tick Seed Coreopsis lanceolata 3% 0.45 N/A
Virginia Wildrye Elymus virginicus 15% 2.25 FAC
Soft Rush Juncus effusus 2% 0.3 FACW+
Tioga Deer Tongue Panicum clandestinum 10% 1.5 FACW
Switch Grass Panicum virgatum 15% 2.25 FAC+
Pennsylvania
Smartweed Polygonum pensylvanicum 5% 0.75 FACW
Broadleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia var.
pubescens 1% 0.15 OBL
Little Bluestein Schizachyrium scoparium 5% 0.75 FACU
Roundleaf Goldenrod Solidago patula 3% 0.45 OBL
Indian Grass Sorghastrum nutans 10% 1.5 FACU
Eastern Gamma Grass Tripsacum dactyloides 5% 0.75 FAC+
Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium fistulosum 2% 0.3 N/A
Total 100 15
Note: Species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting.
7.4.2.3 On-site Invasive Species Management
The site has some infestation of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa
multijora), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). These areas will be treated and
monitored so that the invasive species do not threaten the newly-planted riparian vegetation.
Fields within the easement boundaries are predominantly planted in fescue. Fescue will be
treated by physical and chemical means in order to reduce competition for native grasses.
The most appropriate means of treating invasive grasses growing in the creek and on the margins
of the channel will be assessed and implemented prior to vegetation removal. In many cases,
building a new offline channel will reduce or eliminate this issue and the long-term development
of a forested creek will shade out this and other invasive grasses.
These areas will initially be treated during construction. Subsequent evaluations of invasives on-
site will be performed by the contract monitoring firm who will coordinate additional treatments
with the NCEEP as necessary so that the invasive species do not threaten the newly-planted
riparian vegetation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-22 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Baker has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for a series of mitigation
plans for NCEEP full-delivery projects. The stream restoration success criteria for the project site will follow
accepted and approved success criteria presented in recent mitigation plans developed for these full delivery
projects. These plans were based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE
and NCDWQ. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
8.1 Stream Monitoring
Channel stability and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site. Post-restoration monitoring
will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the
restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross sections), pattern
(longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation. Although monitoring
services are not included in the current scope of work provided by Baker, the methods and success criteria
below are what is commonly required by the regulatory entities that will issue permits for the Martin's Creek
project.
8.1.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of crest
gauges and photographs. Crest gauges will be installed along the streambanks. The crest gauges will
record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gauge will be checked each time there is a site
visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the
occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period.
Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in
separate years.
8.1.2 Cross sections
Permanent cross sections will generally be spaced at intervals of approximately 20 combined
bankfullwidths or at an average distance interval not exceeding 500 feet. Because riffle cross sections
are critical in determining bankfull design parameters, the number of riffle cross sections established
will generally outnumber pool cross sections. Each cross section will be marked on both banks with
permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross
sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross
section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner
berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified
using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-
cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections will be classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
8.1.3 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed immediately after construction and annually thereafter for the
duration of the five-year monitoring period. The as-built survey will be used as the baseline for year
one monitoring. Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each channel unit (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform units are remaining stable; i.e., they are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles
should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with
those observed for channels of the design stream type.
8.1.4 Bed Material Analyses
Pebble counts will be conducted for at least six permanent cross sections (100-counts per cross section)
across the Martin's Creek II project site. Pebble counts will be conducted immediately after
construction and annually thereafter at the time the cross section and longitudinal surveys are performed
during the five year monitoring period. These samples will reveal any changes in sediment gradation
that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment
gradation will be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes.
8.1.5 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued annually for at least five years following construction.
Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be
established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each
monitoring period.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of
the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken of grade control structures along the restored stream, and
will be limited to boulder and log steps. Photographers will make every effort to consistently maintain
the same area in each photo over time.
Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral photos should
not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time
should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.
8.2 Storm Water Management Monitoring
No storm water BMPs are proposed at the Martin's Creek II mitigation project site.
8.3 Wetland Monitoring
The wetland restoration areas will be monitored annually for five years following construction or until success
criteria are met, whichever comes last.
Five shallow groundwater/surface water gauges will be installed in the restored wetland areas. Two gauges
will be placed in the existing wetland pockets at the northwestern and southwestern ends of the project, and
will be used as reference gauges to monitor water elevations in these existing wetland areas for comparison to
restored conditions. All the gauges will measure surface water and groundwater over a 20-inch or 40-inch
vertical column on a daily basis. Data from each of the gauges will be downloaded on a bi-monthly basis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-2 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Hydrologic success will be based on conditions of the on-site reference wetlands. Success will be determined
by the following Criterion:
Years One Through Three- Monitoring during 2009 indicates that the reference wetland areas (based on
analysis of hydrographs from Well 46) were saturated or inundated continuously for approximately 30 days of
the early growing season, and approximately 85 days of the late growing season. This correlates to a
hydroperiod range of approximately 15% to 44%. It should be noted that the fall of 2009 was unseasonably
wet; therefore, the 44% hydroperiod likely represents the high side of the expected hydroperiod range. Based
on information from other Piedmont and Mountain wetland sites, a typical average hydroperiod for these type
wetlands is expected to be approximately 25%, which is well within the range documented by the reference
wetlands on-site. Hydrologic success criteria at the restored site will be met if the site demonstrates
groundwater table levels within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 13% of the growing season
(this criterion reflects a deviation of 50% from the duration of saturation expected for these type wetland
systems (-25%). Success for monitoring years one through three will be determined based on this 50%
tolerance of deviation from the duration of wetland hydrology at the reference sites.
Years Four and Five- Success for monitoring years four and five will be determined based on a 20%
tolerance of deviation from the duration of wetland hydrology at the reference sites. Therefore, it is expected
that years four and five the site will achieve a minimum of 20% saturation.
Based on reference conditions and the criterion stated above, it is expected that reference soil saturation for
years one through five will continue to exceed the regulatory 12.5% minimum requirement of the growing
season for Cherokee County (see Section 5.2.2). In order to attain conditions suitable for the formation of
wetland vegetation and hydric soils, the site should be saturated within 12 inches of the surface or inundated
for consecutive period equal to 24 days. However, to meet hydrologic success criteria and mimic the
reference wetland hydrology, the site should demonstrate wetland hydrology for a minimum of 25 days in
years one through three. In years four and five, this will increase to a minimum of 38 days. Overbank flooding
from the adjacent channel will also be noted during monitoring.
Reference areas will be monitored for the minimum of five years.
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if
the criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants shall be installed across the mitigation site. The
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)-EEP methodology for determining the number of vegetation plots
required per mitigation site shall be used to figure the number of quadrants needed for the Martin's Creek II
mitigation project. The CVS-EEP vegetation monitoring protocol will also be used in monitoring the post-
construction survival of riparian vegetation planted. The size of individual quadrants will vary from 100
square meters for tree species to 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation monitoring will occur
in spring, after leaf-out has occurred. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include diameter,
height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be
determined. Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring
years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated. For each
subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated between July
and November.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-3 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and past project experience.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320, 3-year old, planted
trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria will be
the survival of 260, 5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period. While
measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on
restoration projects, species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For this
reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community indices
to assess overall vegetative success.
8.5 Schedule/Reporting
Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined herein will be submitted to NCEEP by
December 31 of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. Project success criteria must be met by
the fifth monitoring year, or monitoring will continue until all success criteria are met.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-4 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
9.0 SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The Martin's Creek II mitigation project area will be protected by a permanent conservation easement that
will be held by the state. The NCEEP will select a professional environmental engineering firm to monitor
the project site for a minimum of five years following construction. Post-construction monitoring activities
will be conducted to evaluate site performance, to identify maintenance and/or repair concerns, and to
maintain the integrity of the project boundaries. If during the post-construction monitoring period it is
determined project compliance is jeopardized, then the firm contracted to perform project monitoring review
the monitoring results and if necessary, shall take action to resolve the project concerns and bring the project
back into compliance. If maintenance or site repairs become necessary, the NCEEP will evaluate the level of
response required, secure a contractor to make the repairs and monitor the work performed by the
construction contractor.
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy, non-cohesive soils are more prone to short-term bank erosion than cohesive soils
or soils with high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined channels.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native buffer can
be established.
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in monitoring
reports. The conditions listed above and any other factors that may have necessitated maintenance should be
discussed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
10.0 REFERENCES
Adams, W.F. 1987. Indiana bat. In: Clark, M.K. (ed.). Endangered, Threatened and Rare Fauna of North Carolina, Part
L A Re-evaluation of the Mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural Science, Raleigh.
Biedenham, David S., Ronald R. Copeland, Colin R. Thorne, Philip J. Soar, Richard D. Hey, and Chester C. Watson.
2000. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. Effective
Discharge Calculation: A Practical Guide. ERDCICHL TR-00-15. Washington, DC.
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal and
Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679-693.
Bruner, Gary W. 2002. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual. 2005. United States Army
Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center. Davis, CA.
Churchill, E. P., Jr., and S. I. Lewis. 1924. Food and feeding in freshwater mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries
39:439-471.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontim (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part 1: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and Arcidens.
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 326:1-101.
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of
North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. Washington, DC.
Earley, L. S. 1991. Going, going...? Wildlife in North Carolina 55(3):14-19.
Ehmfield, J. G., 1995. Microsite Differences in Surface Substrate Characteristics in Chamaecyparis Swamps of the New
Jersey Pinelands. Wetlands 15(2):183-189.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration: Principles,
processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Hadley, J.B. and Nelson, A.E., 1971, Geologic map of the Knoxville quadrangle, North Carolina, Tennessee, and South
Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-654, scale 1:250000.
Hardin, J.W. 1977. Vascular plants. In: Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). Endangered and
Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA
Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-
July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D. Clinton, and J.
Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In Proc. AWRA Conf.
Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, Alaska, ed. D.L. Kane, pp.185-190. Middleburg, Va.:
American Water Resources Association.
Henson, T.H. 1990. Bald eagle. In: Lee, D.S. and J.F. Parnell (eds.). Endangered, Threatened and Rare Fauna of North
Carolina, Part III. A Re-evaluation of the Birds. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey.
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-1 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Julien, P. Y. 1995. Erosion and sedimentation. Cambridge University Press, 280p.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Paper No.
2776: 1234-1279.
Leopold, Luna B. M. Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San
Francisco, CA. (151).
Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and C.J. Mosely (eds.). 1990. Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species
of North America. Beacham Publishing, Washington, D.C.
Lutz, H. J., 1940. Disturbance of Forest Soil Resulting from the Uprooting of Trees. Yale University School of Forestry
Bulletin No. 45.
McGrath, C. Personal Communication. 1996.
Murdock, N. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ashville Field Office. Personal communication.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Weather Service Hydrometeorological Design
Studies Center, Precipitation Frequency Data Server. 2007. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/orb/nc pfds.html).
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.2009. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.ncfloodmgps.com.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Basinwide Planning Program. Hiwassee River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan (March 2007). North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.usibasinwide/Hiwassee2007.htm
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design. 2007.
Peachtree-Martins Creek Local Watershed Plan (Phase3), Hiwassee River Basin, Cherokee and Clay Counties,
North Carolina. October 2007 Watershed Management Plan. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by basin/Hiwassee RB.html.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2008. Hiwassee River Basin Restoration Priorities (2008). [Online
YAW]. Available URL: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/Hiwassee_RB.htmlNorth
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and Federally
Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 2006, 2008. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: // 149.168.1.196/nhp/.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and Federally
Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 2006, 2008. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://149.168.1.196/nhp .
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.T. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Raudkivi, A.J. 1967. Loose Boundary Hydraulics. Oxford, England: Pergramon Press. 331pp.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-2 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wang, S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields,
Jr., eds. 12-22.
1998. The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft). ASCE Conference on River
Restoration. Denver CO. March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.
2001a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment
Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
2001b. The cross-vane, w-weir andi-hook vane structures... their description, design and application for stream
stabilization and river restoration. ASCE conference. Reno, NV. August, 2001.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR.
Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
14(1):11-26.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 20:113-
116.
Terwilliger, K., J.R. Tate, and S.L. Woodward (eds.). 1995. A Guide to Endangered and Threatened Species in
Virginia. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Va.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division. Official Soil
Series Descriptions, [Online WWW]. Available URL: (http://ortho.fhv.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdnafne.cgi).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation (MRCS). Soil Data Mart [Online WWW].
Available URL: http://soildatafnart.nres.usda.gov/Default.aspx.
Official Soil Series Descriptions. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
Web Soil Survey.aspx.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered Species in
North Carolina. Cherokee County. 2006-2008. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.fxvs.gov/nc-
es/es/couplyfr.htrnl.
1992a. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). Prepared by
Ecological Services, Division of Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
1997a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Bog Turtle determined to be a Threatened Species.
Federal Register 62(213):59605-59623.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment Supply
(WARSSS). Dr. David L. Rosgen and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. [Online
YAW]. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/warsss/about.htm.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover Data. 2002. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://seafnless.usgs.gov/.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-3 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
Wolman, M.G. Geogr'afiska Annaler. Series A, Physical Geography, Vol. 49, No. 2/4, Landscape and Processes: Essays
in Geomorphology (1967), pp. 385-395
Yang, C.T. 1973. "Incipient Motion and Sediment Transport," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No HY10, October, 1973, pp 1679-1704.
"Unit Stream Power Equations for Gravel," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 110, No. 12, December, 1984, pp 1783-1797.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-4 9/22/2010
MARTIN'S CREEK 11 MITIGATION PLAN
APPENDIX A. NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: 1l Gi Project: MAR'Tltl Latitude:
.d n
Evaluator: GAM Site: i"jrdi 01;,jC,tA ev Longitude:
Total Points: $0, D
Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30 VV((Arti-vi fly. Other
County:
efir olet r- e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= J Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
1. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3:
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 C1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 CD 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = q - 5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
_
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2 x'73
16. Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 01 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) resent? No = 0 Yes in
C. Bioloev (Subtotal = 16
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 .
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 (l 4 .a,
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1
27. Filamentous algae; eri hyton 0 Q 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
?UCA.;At Sfreunn n4 i d A45t4 ??r4vtq k pfD PeA4?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1 LL W-T, 3
7)ate: I l l l
Project: Mara; n Latitude:
uvatuator: tm-ce Of1M . )Ile: 1<161f-f rKor,)6. i ongituue•
Total Points: 3 b
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
C E(2o KCB '
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
le. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes =p
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R. Hvdrnlnuv (Subtotal = - 1
14: Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaf litter 1 5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris I
0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloev (Subtotal= 17 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.

"CrA(- 4
Jai'
v1on4
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
")ate: )I II VQ ?
1 Ti..,aluntar_ iMAA/ lr,?AA
Project: MA(' 0 Latitude:
Site: (CI G 0T ? 20 ?) C. Longitude:
Total Points: Mft7jj0CAL Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: e.g. Quad Name:
j f? 19 or perennial i ? 30
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
A. Geomor holo Subtotal =
3
I a
Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
.
2. Sinuosi 0 2
2 3
3
In-ehel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3 0
,
Soil texture or stream substrate sortin
4 0 l 3
.
Active/relic flood lain
5 2 3
.
al bars or benches
6. Deposition
2
3
Braided channel 2 3
Recent alluvial de osits
8 V 2 3
.
9a. Natural levees 2 3
10. Headcuts 2
11. Grade controls 5 1

12. Natural valley or drain ewa 0 0.
5
1
13. Second or greater order channel on Ddgin USGS or NRCS No Yes = 3
MA71 or other documented evidence.
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
7 ? 13_ ri clrolo auvwaa¦ - -
.14: Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or 0 e 2 3
. Water in channel - or owin season
0
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 5
Sediment on plants or debris
17 0.5 I 1.5
.
I8. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0) 1 0.5 1 1.5
t 9_ Rvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 7 Yes= 1.5

t-. "Jology kauuautm --
3
b
1
0
Fibrous roots in channel
20
.
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 i 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0
0 l
0
5 2
1 3
1.5
24. Fish .
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
0
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance)
26 EP 1 1.5
.
Filamentous al ae; peri h on
27 I 2 3
.
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun s. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland lams in streambed FAC FA CW=0.75 OBL =1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
'Items 20 and 21 focus on the resenee of upland Cants. Item 29 focuses on the resence of u atic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
-)ate: 1I li4 /Os
cu- V u w i T.nnuitude:
Evaluator: Mw c I C-hm .?........... .. ---o
Total Points:rj ??lt-i ?? GY t Other
Stream is at least inlermillent County: e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial i
3 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 2 3
Continuous bed and bank
1' 1
.
2. Sinuosity 1
1 2
2 3
3
In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3
.
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1 2 3
.
5. Active/relic flood lain ® 1 2 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
3
Recent alluvial deposits
8 ? 1 2
.
98. Natural levees ® 1 2 3
3
10. Headcuts 0 1
q 2
1 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 0
5 1 . 1.5
12. Natural valley or drain ewa .
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or MRCS No =VJ Yes = 3
man or other documented evidence.
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
0
13_ Hydrology ouqtuaa¦ -
,.14. Groundwater flow/dischar e
2

. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
5
1 :
. Water in channel - or owin season 1 L
5
1
1
16. Leaf litter . 5
0 1.5
17. Sediment on lants or debris . 5
1
18, Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines 0.5 1 .
t 9_ Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes =1.5
12
U. tsiology taunmwi -- - r
b
3
2
1
Fibrous roots in channel
20
.
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1
0
5 2
1 3
1.5
24. Fish .
0
5 1 1.5
Amphibians
25 .
.
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; pert hyton 1 2
- 3
Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
28 0.5 t-
71 1.5
.
Wetland plants in streambed
29 FAC=0.5 FACW?0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =
.
b items 20 and 21 focus on the resenee of u land lants. Item 29 focuses on the resence of uatic or and lanes.
Project: MA 110 Latitude:
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
")ate:
Project: M
Q.d-. nn ? j -r 1
Latitude:
7.nnvitnde-
Evatuator: yvim CNN V -- '°' - "1
y old H
`' -Tr; b
5
Total Points: 35;, ome Other
Stream is at least intermittent County:

GN a?20?
•
e.g. Quad Name.
i >_ 19 or perennial t ? 30 .
Absent Weak Moderate -Strong
A. Geomor bolo Subtotal =
1
2
V. Continuous bed and bank 0 3
2. Sinuosi 0
0 1
1 2
In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3
.
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1 2
.
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1
2 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1
1
2 3 ?
8. Recent alluvial deposits
2 3
9a. Natural levees 1
1 2 3
ts
d
H
10
cu
ea
. 0 0.5 1
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drain ewa
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS No = 0 Yes
.4-- *.A P%I;fjPnpp
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (uubtotai = <<?? i
,14 Groundwater flow/discharge
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since ram, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
16. Leaf litter
17 Sediment on plants or debris
18 Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines)
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) preset'
0 1 2
0 1 2 d
1.5 1 0.5
® 0.5 1 1.5
0 1 1.5
No = Yes =1.5
V-bu(- 'j
DPp?c?.tC''7?
C. Biology (bubtotai =
3
2
0
A Fibrous roots in channel 1 0
21b. Rooted ]ants in channel 2 1
5
fish
Cra
22 0 0.5 .
y
. 2 3
23. Bivalves 0
0 1 1.5
24. Fish
0 0.5 1
25. Amphibians t 0
u
d 0 0.5 1
ance
n
26. Macrobenthos note diversity d ab 3
27. Filamentous algae; eri hyton 1 2
5 1 1.5
0
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun s.
Wetland plants in streambed
29 FAC .
.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
.
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland ]ants. Item 29 focuses on the resence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of fo/r?m? for fadditional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
gate: /'231 10
Latitude:

L' Vi1luAtv? . c. f1 r.n, ?'; 1_. ••?•.• ? •••,••b•?•••••,•
Total Points: 'i(o,
Stream is at least intermittent
19 or perennial i >_ 30 Other
County:
U14 ;1n e.g. Quad Nante:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = ??1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
l a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3)
2. Sinuosity 0 r' } 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2) 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 L? 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1) 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 (1> 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 (lj 2 3
9'. Natural levees (0> I 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 CJ5 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 A.5?
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5\
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS

map or other documented evidence.
No 0
= -
Yes
=3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
11 Avilminav Nnhtotal = q 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge _ 0 1 2 (3>
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3)
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1) 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 X0.5) 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 '15)
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0) Yes = 1.5
C'_ Riolouv (Subtotal= 8/ ('_
)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2? 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 1 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0: 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.51 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance _ 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriphyton 0 1 2) 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0) 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
Project: ""CYl ?'
tgw

North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Late: 1/4/01 Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: MW, I ?h{yVy Site: KP - V-T L Longitude:
Total Points: 26:
Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30
County: Other
C! I? o I< e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 17.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches M 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 G) 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes `
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolonv (Subtotal = 4
14. Groundwater flow/discharge _ 0 1 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = %15
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves (0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC= . FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the resence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
Pfa T r Mt
RP- ?AT -
z-North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1

')ate: 1`gioq Project: VVIA '?d Latitude:
Evaluator: wl w1 c. ?( ?{ Site: Longitude:
Total Points: ??

Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial i ? 30
Other
County:
Grwtz" lit e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence d 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain d 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No =J Yes 0
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HvdroloL-v (Subtotal"
7 ?(
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 01 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris (? 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 1; 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 l 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves R 1 2 3
24. Fish (0' 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other 0
b items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
'I +v >e 99CA-K
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: z- Iz?/,o
Project: MAlI-('d fit Latitude:
L' VU1UUtUI. ( lj 'i,n 111, 01M. V V ?,t LUHgALUUU.
Total Points: 'J'„ 7

Stream is at least intermittent
19 or perennial if ?30
Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= 10,", Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 "2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 ?_) 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 (y 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches <0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel A 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 (1 2 3
9a. Natural levees (b? 1 2 3
10. Headcuts (?J 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1%.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existine USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
No
Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnlnuv (Subtotal= q
1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 03
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaf litter 1.5 J 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0". 5) 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biologv (Subtotal = 31_15
>{e r
206. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1l 0
216. Rooted plants in channel 3 ?2) 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ?b) 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriphyton (Q 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0) 0.5 1 1.5
29 6. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW V0 7? OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
lP- UT;- 1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: I qt pq Project: MP1Qa1 Latitude:
Evaluator: MMe? G?`M Site: Kf-wi2 ? Longitude:
Total Points: -7.5
Stream is at least intermittent
i > 19 or perennial i >_ 30 Other
County:
C NCl?fl K. e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting (Q7 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USES or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = Z.y
f 14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
.5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal=
206. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
216. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians ( 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =iV
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
T to MA-K
vv kw 14 cC-ywr? IV14,yyiil PB C'J.-
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: lig 0
Project

Latitude:

r valua Wj. J\A?r1L 1 t/i r\ v.?... ?r_ 1A , , .......b...... ?.
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if?: 19 or perennial i >_ 30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor bolo Subtotal = /? l Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosi 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 Z
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 (3)
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 C 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Av?lrnlnnv lCnhtntnl = :?• j 1
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48,hrs since rain, or
- Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5
- 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 657 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes = 1.5
f Rinlnav (Cnhtntnl = ? 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance OD 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
(use back o
M
for additional n tes)
r, V Vw?? - /rt!f ?, VX111
lw FH 6 V
Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date:
4
Project
nom- .n t _ 4._a...
j A Latitude:
r,vaiuaw, : ?" l VWL-/ (,tt M
Total Points: ?, :
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30 Other
County: i e.g. Quad Name:
? '-_
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= , Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ( 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 ; C 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel S 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --!Iy or growing season 0
OD- 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 0 Yes = 1.5
9- Rinln(rv LG1htntnl = 3S,
1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 (TP 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri hyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. LOP 0.5 1 1.5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed FAC-0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other -
b items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back
Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: I` III I{lX Project:)prj-?w Latitude:
rwa?uawr: rvl1VjU (, M 1 1-2 ?....b........
Total Points: 14
Stream is at leas intermittent

>_ 19 or perennial i ? 30
if?! 3'? T.r 4 Gvr+??r w? her
County: Ots
e.g. Quad Name:
Gl Y?
A. Geomor holo Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 ® 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 .5 1 5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes = 1.5
C Rinlnav NuhtntA = 0 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
2lb . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves .1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians ] 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversi and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. to) 0.5 1 1.5
29b Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date:
212Z? 1o
Project: ?'?? i<!', Latitude:
?? n ,vim I
Jr,vaiuatua - (fW`, K1 ?iw. v a...,b...,....
Total Points: 1
Stream is at least intermittent
if> 19 or perennial if?30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= 1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 (1) 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 ll 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain (0? 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ?0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0' 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ( 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0) 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 10J 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 ?1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No =l0 Yes = 3
'Mau-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R T4vdrn1nav (Suhtntal = 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 - 3
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or

. Water in channel - dKy or growing season
0
1
2
3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 ' 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5 '
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C Rinlnav (Suhtntal = if
p 0 .1 , /
;f e,q
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 (2) 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 01 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians _ (9-) 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriphyton 0 1 2' 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other rt_W
n Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
KY-ut6-1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: I /gloO
Project: 444,Y std Latitude:
, Evaluator: AAAdr //4/4l
Site: rZ P- 07 3 -1 Longitude:
Total Points: 1 ,5
s Other
t intermittent
Stream is at lea County: e.g. Quad Name:
if > 19 or perennial i >_ 30 c (Lo

l =
t
S
S
b Absent Weak Moderate Strong
,
to
a
u
A. Geomorphology
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
Sinuosi
2 1 2 3
.
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 4?5 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting C9 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches C(la 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts !0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 (V 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS No Yes = 3
man or other documented evidence.
aMail-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual

n. n urviv vuv.v.w.
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
1
2
3
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or I 2 3
Water in channel -- or growing season
1
0
5
?
16. Leaf litter 1.5 .
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19 Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No =CIP - -Yes= 1.5
n
1... Dw?vy? ?ouv..,.s.. .
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1
22. Crayfish
23. Bivalves P 0.5
1 1
2 1.5
3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversi and abundance 10 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri hyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed 0.5 1 1.5
FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =ilA
b items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
V 4
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: it 1 R 1,01
Project: X42-,Ir,.1 Latitude:
Evaluator: MW t l e O M Sate: 1(,r- U-(q Longitude;
Total Points: ,j
Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial if?: 30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
f
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Z I • S Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 ® 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 0
5.. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2
8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3?
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No =6? Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14.Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48, hrs since rain, or
Water in 6hannel--!ly or growing season 0 /,',
C? 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or pile (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No ! 0 Yes = 1.5
r Ia.I....., 0z..hr.,ra1 = Fl.s l
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri hyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC ACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland lants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Kp-?A iq
I)ate• 1 ? 1? f og Project: M,4((--110 Latitude:
Evaluator: p4C MW site: KP_u'T Longltuae:
Total Points: II-q, 1?
Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor polo Subtotal = Z Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 I 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 (? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 (?
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Braided channel 0
0 1
1 2
2 3
'Y
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 13
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on gxistin USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No = 0? Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R W...l..n1? , 7Cnh#n*01 = 9 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge _ ?0 1 ) 3
5. Water it channel and > 48 ar's since Pain; _r
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0` y
?
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris (- 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?_ No = Yes = 1.5
!' R:nl.,..., !Gish*n*?1 = GJ , ? 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 15 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3?
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 071 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. CP 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch: Mi'5
?h f)"C'v. p$
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: )11(01

Evaluator: AMMI:1410. Site: RP_?A-r Longrtuuv.
Total Points: 71
Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
totoV-
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= tfi Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3.
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees t0? 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 s ; 1.5
U. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 .5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No
I =0) Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
n
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
.5. Water in channel and > 4& hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 61 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 40) Yes = 1.5

20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 6) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri hyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the resence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland lants.
Project: M kg°li0 Latitude:
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: I I l q
Project: MAyf Latitude:
Evaluator: ?,A?,1, Gig/v alte: KJ/-LAI q-- i,ongiluae:
Total Points: ° pp±±
Stream is at l: ntermittent
i >-19 or perennial i >- 30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
Wr fl'aT1 e
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I?• Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortie 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel (0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits (? 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 0 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual

4. Groundwater flow/discharge
1 0 1 2 C30
-
5. Water in channel and > 4& hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 00 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 0 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes - 1.
r Rinlncr lCnhfnfal = l:! 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 D 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/f nigus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC-0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b items 20 and 21 focus on the presence ofupland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
0%
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
?ticMe?al +Ipsfi?ie??*- o? P b?14 ro?i??-
9- P - U-t tt- I
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
-)ate: 11 kq' o%

Evaluator: Mrv1 t f L h M cite: i,ongituae:
MRi? S ti-W?
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if?: 19 or perennial if?: 30 Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
1wroy r"V,
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = ?r Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
n 17_..1_...1...... /Q t.a,.& 1" n \
14 Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5

20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 6 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed 0.5 1 1.5
FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =C)
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence ofupland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes Sketch:
fLnIOJa (no.lly,'?vallcy a10n? Cfevl')rWhi?c_ t__VA1U
Project: MA(°Clfi) Latitude:
l??ll? Mj- La?Iel C?,G,l?l on?la(1c?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: b1 / it
Project: W AfTIO Latitude:
1 L`.s lnn*nr• •A .•i li?l u..
Site: RP - 0 T 5 Longitude:
Total Points: 7fl Other
Stream is at lead irdermilleni county: e.g. Qua d Name:
if ? 19 or erennial if ? 30 cHt6a 6

= ? Absent Weak Moderate ng
-
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal t !
Continuous bed and bank
1 a 0 1
.
2. Sinuosi 0 2
t
t 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 I l
2

texture or stream substrate sorting
Soil
4
0 1
.
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1
1 2
2 3
10. Headcuts 0
5
0 0 1.5
11. Grade controls . 1
12. Natural valley or drain ewa 0 0.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS No Yes = 3
--n nr nther documented evidence.
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
r /
B. H drolo 5u01tURU = ?'
0
1 3
-14. Groundwater flow/dischar e
5. Water in channel and > 48, hrs since rain, or 0 1 (9 3
Water in channel - dry or owin season
0
5
0
16. Leaf litter 1.5 0
5 .
1 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris . 1 1
5
18. organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 .
19 Hwiric soils (redoximornhic features) present? No Yes = 1.5
C. 1310logy knuutoral -- ?D
b
3 m
1
0
Fibrous roots in channel
20
.
Rooted plants in channel
21b 2 1 0
.
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5 .
23. Bivalves 1
0
5
1 3
1.5
24. Fish .
0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 5
0 0 1 1.5
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance
26 .
.
Filamentous algae; peri h on
27 1 2 3
.
Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun s.
28 0.5 1 1.5
.
Wetland lams in streambed
29 FAC FACW?0.75 01311=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
.
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the resence of uatic or wetland lams.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
P-E R/+-e,F•K
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
-late: I1 At 1 n 1 Project:N1.4tTjd Latitude:
Evaluator: YvWt &R-K1
Site: \)-( 5 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least intermittent County:
CllX1'0 e.g. Quad Name:
j f>_ 19 or perennial i ? 30

5
l= r
;;
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
,,
A. Geomorphology (Subtota 2 -
3
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 3
V 1 2
2. Sinuosi 0 2 3
In-ehannel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3
.
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 1 2 3
.
5. Active/relic flood lain 1 2 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1
9'. Natural levees 1
1
Headcuts
10 0
. 0 0.5 N
11. Grade controls 0 0
5
12. Natural vale or drain ewa .

13. Second or greater order channel on eAmj USGS or NRCS
No =3
-- or nther documented evidence. Z%
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
2
B. Hydrology sumotal =
0 IV
2 -
3
.14. Groundwater flow/discharge
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or 0 2 3
Water in channel - or growing season
1
0
5
cf?
16. Leaf litter 1.5 0
5 .
1 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris . 1 5
1
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 .
I 9 Hvdric soils (redoximorphie features) present? No 71 Yes = 1.5
U. Biology (;5umotal = f- I
b
3
2 -
1
. Fibrous roots in channel
20 0
21 . Rooted lams in channel 3 1 1
5
22. Crayfish 0.5 1
2 .
3
23. Bivalves 1
0
5 1 1.5
24. Fish .
0
5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1 .
5
0 1 1.5
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance)
26 9 .
.
Filamentous algae; peri h ton
27 1? 1 2 3
.
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fim s. 0 0.5 1 1.5
Wetland plants in streambed
29 FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL =1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =
.
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the resence of aqu atic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: ,, ) 23 /1'
Project:
r.vaiuatui. L-'ri V,? t\ ! vXm. 1„ ;? awu?uuuc.
Total Points: -? 1, `1
Stream is at least intermittent

if> 19 or perennial i >30 r(;,
County: Other
uad Name:
e.
crtf.yr?!i??_ g. Q
A. Geomor holo Subtotal = 1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 (,
2. Sinuosity 0 1 <==-t2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 r 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 (2) 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 L"D 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 (1? 2 3
7. Braided channel (0) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 V 2 3
9'. Natural levees CO) 1 2 3
10. Headcuts U 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 X1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existinu USGS or NRCS

ma or other documented evidence. No =&)
Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvdralnvv Nuhtotal = ! , ?; 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 <_:p
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- Lby or growing season 0 1 2 L3?
16. Leaf litter 1.5 (1) 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 (A 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 43)
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No T 0 Yes = 1.5
C_ Rinlnuv (Subtotal = `/ 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel <-9 1 0
22. Crayfish (0) 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 6 1 2 3
24. Fish (0? 0.5 1 1.5
25, Amphibians 0 0.5 (1) 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 (1) 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri hyton O 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. (07) 1 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other ='0
b items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
W wlri
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: f11y1l0
Project: WA K " ???? Latitude:
Lvaiuatuw . n N, i_ r vk i ..?.,?.?u....
Total Points:?.
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial i->30 Other
County: c 1 0) f t { e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 18 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 C3`?
2. Sinuosity 0 1 -=, 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 J1 (2) 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 -2) 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 (2.) 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel fl? 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 (1) 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 (2r 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 (?) 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 (LS
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 (1.5?
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS

map or other documented evidence.
No-0,
Yes =3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Avdrnlnvv (Snhtotal = 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3)
5. Water in channel and ? 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season _ 0 1 2 31
16. Leaf litter 1.5 T 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 116.5) 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 (13)
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Q? Yes = 1.5
C Rinlnav Nnhtotal = 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 /1) '0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3? 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish !0. 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians (0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 D 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriphyton (Oj 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. (01 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other - d)
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
$/? :?(,? c ?_p.,-. " : tic' $
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
1/9,/0
Evaluator: Mpq
Total Points: 64
Stream Lv at least intermillent .
Project: All Ag f j1?1 Latitude:
Site: me-, V1 I Longitude:
Other
County: C 11l e.g. Quad Name:
q-> 19 or renniac i ? au
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal--
2
Continuous bed and bank 0
1 a 1
.
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3
In-ehannel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0
3 1
.
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0
4 1 2
.
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2
2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 3
9a. Natural levees 1
1 2
2

0
ts
d
H
10
cu
ea
.
0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Grade controls 0
5 1
.
0
i
n ewa
12. Natural valley or dra
13. Second or greater order channel on odst; USGS or MRCS No =6 Yes = 3
ma or other documented evidence.
"Man-made dltcries are not rawU; boo ui5vuab,viw ......a.....__
-if
B. Hydrology aumotat = k a o f
0
1
2
3
,14. Groundwater flow/discharge
5. Water in channel and > 48, hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0
f litter
L L5 1
ea
16. 0
5 1 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris . 1
5
organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines
18 0 0.5 .
.
10 Hvdricr soils (redoximomhic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
o
C. Biology (NUD101al ° i ? 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
21b. Rooted lams in channel
Cra
fish
22

0
2
2
l(:
1
1
1
0
0
1.5
y
.
23. Bivalves T
0
5 2
1 3
1.5
Fish
24 .
. 5
0 0 1.5
25. Amphibians .
0 D 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance . 3
27. Filamentous algae; peri h ton 2 1
5
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fim s.
29b
Wetland plants in streambed .
OS 1
FAC . FACW=0.75 0BL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
.
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of a uatic or wetland Iants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: Project: M A p_-(I Latitude:
Evaluator: VAAC I G44M. Site: UtG -Wl 1 Longitude:
Total Points:

Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial if?: 30
Other
County:
ttAwuo C (7 E e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
l a. Continuous bed and bank 0 L 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 ;2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3.
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 .3
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloev (Subtotal = ?' 5 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 I 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
.
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri hyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC= . FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: ' /A / ()%
Project: A4AK710 Latitude:

L`vuluutul-: vv',"GIl /V .maw. /V, l' V1 M1 1 ?..,..b_.._.. _..
Total Points: (o, 9
Stream is at least intermittent

>_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30
if "i° fit ICS l??9Mlrf (1e ?ELE? rr?)
County: Other
Ot Quad Name:

C 900 4
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3?
'Mari-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
A u...1..?1.,.r., lQ.'h*afa1 = 2 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5.
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes = 1.5
I- R:..1.,..., l6.hfnta1 = 'i .S 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 © 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 03 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 .5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 0. 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri hyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
? A bt,lf f N_ 4(K ? ?/? k a ? 4Vi h COM II l , 1111? let! la -l
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
date: C }? Project: Iv AR jo Latitude:
Evaluator: MM C, / Site: rAC-U (?-1 Longituae:
Total Points: 30
Stream is at least intermittent
if > 19 or perennial i ? 30 Other
CQu?n o: ?CF
c.. i e.g Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortie 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0.5
4

1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No 4 Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R U-Jl "lnav lCnhtntal c 6 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2;
.5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season p 1 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes = 1.5
C Rinlnav (Cnhtntal = 6, 5 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves Q 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) i0? 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri hyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
E
J 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed .5 ACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
FAC
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
0'4?fftd CI) I- ?UICA V. 01, SK 'Av,7,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date:
Project: M`idi) Latitude:

Total Points:q
Stream is at least intermittent
i > 19 or perennial i >_ 30 F'l f" r,.O here
County: e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortie 0 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches L® 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 01-5, 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No =@ Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual

14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 3
5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) p 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes = 1.5
r n;..l.,... t.Q„htntn 1 = 12i. 6 1
206. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed FAC .5 ACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
(Ovn?/ 6b-vt ef= /Aklfl tC4',,- 6 1 5)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: (?? qq Project: M A(Z7 t t Latitude:
r Y
Evaluator: npM(_/(,tM Site: KA&W"?-? Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent

if >_ 19 or perennial if?! 30 (LcR Vtl-- 1 DPI FtL D MAP)
County: Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor bolo Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosi 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
40 Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No 4 Yes = 3
Wan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal :z=
Z )
4. undWafer flow/discharge
1 0 © 2 3
-
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 ". 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 0 . Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 3 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; peri hyton 1 2 3
28. I.ron oxidizing'bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =
b`ltems 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of a uatic or wetland plants.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
-)ate: I J?Jlq Project:Mfl_ `jo Latitude:
Evaluator: M Site: MC. U-( -,I- Longltuae:
Total Points: Tq

Stream is at least intermittent
? 19 or perennial i >_ 30
i ,6ixAFre - neL.,P mAf
Other
County:
C, 4tto Y, ?? e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal= f7 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
l a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 . 2 3
2. Sinuosity (U&viviPI aI Greta- Id, ad aetV4 S?}rwv? 0 1 2'
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 CP
6. Depositional bars or benches 1' 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1. 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 l I
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rate//d; [see discussions in manual
R i7...lrnln?..r- (Cnh4n4n1 c L 7 .l -
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
.5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1
_ 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =(1.5
('_ Rinlnav Nithtntal = 4 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 .1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h on 1, 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other =
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the resence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: 1 / ? I Dq Project: MFl j (H Latitude:
Evaluator: NA Site: MSC-V(ILongitude:
Total Points: 10
Stream is at least intermittent
i >_ 19 or perennial i > 30 "419nFF?? F1Fj-DMAC Other
County: e.g. Quad Name:
4orrr'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= S•? Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 © 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 (D 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel (G 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 Q 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R uvarnln?rv rCnh4n4o1. 7 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
.5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 ?j 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) Present? No = 0 . Yes = 1.5
C'_ RinlnQV Nuhtntal = I.1 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri hyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC40 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
F?o aSC. DAVi'14 (?IW°
WA ( -u-T I-3
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
')ate: ?? I c Project: `` ll Latitude:

.., Longitude:
Evaluator: MM c-? Site: C uTl -7
Total Points: l7_6
Stream is at least intermittent

i >_ 19 or perennial i >_ 30 CAF Gf?RI? oN FI ELI
County: Ot er
Ot Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Ia. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 t>
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel & 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 ® 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 0 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. No <<?0 Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Avrirnlnov Nvihfnfal - _11 % 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
5. Water in channel and > 48. hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season U 1 2 '

°.r
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 C.p:S 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No - Yes= 1.5
C. Biolopv (Subtotal= 1? 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1
23. Bivalves 0 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 Q 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC= 5 FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
?? ??
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1

date: 7 / 77 1 0 ? Project: ,M A(?,1 ) ) Latitude:
Lon itude:
Site: g
Evaluator: ; AA
Total Points:' j Other
County:C??V4?G,??- e.g. Quad Name:
Stream is at least inlerrnrllenl .
if ? 19 or perennial i ? 30

A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= Absen
Abs
0 1
2
]a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosi 0 1 4_mi
3. In-channel, structure: riffle- Ise ence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sornn 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2
7. Braided channel 0 1 2
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2
98. Natural levees 0 1
10. Headcuts --- - 0 1
11. Grade controls 0 0 5 1
12. Natural valley or drain ewa _
13. Second or greater order channel on eNL _ USES or MRCS No 0 Yes= 3
ma or other documented evidence.
aMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 0 1 2
14. Groundwater flow/disch e 2
5. Water in channel and > 4& hrs since rain, or 0 1
Water in channel -- or owizt season 1.5
_ 0.5
16. Leaf litter 0.$
0 1
17. Sediment on lasts or debris 0 a.5 1
18. Or ame debris lines or files (wrack lines No = 0 Yes =
19. H dric soils redoximorphic features resent? -
C. Biology (Subtotal = 3 1
Fibrous roots in channel - 3 ® 1
ooted ]ants in channel 0 05 - 1
rfish
r22.
a 2
i
valves 0.5
ish 0 0.5
25. Am hibians 0 0,5 1
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance - 1 2

h on
27. Filamentous algae; eri
4? 0 5
1
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fim s. FAC FACW=0.75 OBL-].5 SAV= 2.0
29 . Wetland ]ants in streambed
L! Items 20 and 21 focus on t?resence of upland plants
- --
Item 29 focuses on the presence of a
quatic or wetland 1

Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:

Weak Moderate Strong
t
6)
0
1.5
0
1.5
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
3
1.5
Irv6CA
APPENDIX B. Regulatory Agency Correspondence
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
K=Mi-e-neral Project Information
Project Name: Martin Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Count Name: Cherokee Count
EEP Number: S-D0901 0S
Project Sponsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. "Baker"
Project Contact Name: Mick Clemmons
Project Contact Address: 797 Ha )Mood Rd., Suite 201 Asheville, NC 28806
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Manager: Paul Wiesner
® -
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., proposes to conduct stream restoration, enhancement and
preservation activities on Martin Creek and its tributaries, 2.5 miles south of Murphy in
Cherokee County. Martin Creek is a Class C water within cataloging unit 06020002 and DENR
sub-basin 04-05-02 of the Hiwassee River Basin. Project goals include the restoration or
enhancement of approximately 5,540 linear feet of stream. An additional 7,725 linear feet of
high quality streams that converge with Martin Creek will also be preserved during the course
of this project. The Martin Creek project site is also the location of several small wetlands that
have been previously disturbed. This project will also include the restoration and enhancement
of between 1.5 to 4 acres of wetlands. This work will be done for the purpose of obtaining
stream miti ation credit in the Hiwassee River Basin.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
? Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
-.-,,I 0??
Date r Division Administrator
FHWA

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 ? Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? 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 ? Yes
Program? ? No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act C ERCLA
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? ? Yes
® No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been ? Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? ® No
? N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential ? Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ® No
? N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ? Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ? No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ? Yes
waste sites within the project area? ? 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 ? Yes
Historic Places in the project area? ® 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 Uni form 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: ? Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and ? No
* what the fair market value is believed to be? ® N/A
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 ® Yes
C herokee Indians? ? 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 ? Yes
Pl aces? ® 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 ? Yes
of antiquity? ? 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 (ESL
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat ® Yes
listed for the county? ? 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 ? Yes
H abitat? ? No
® N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify" ? Yes
D esignated Critical Habitat? ? 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
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" ? Yes
by the EBCI? ® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ? Yes
project? ? No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred ? Yes
sites? ? 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 local ® Yes
important farmland? ? 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 ® Yes
w ater body? ? No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? ® Yes
? No
? N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, ? Yes
outdoor recreation? ® 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 ? Yes
project on EFH? ? 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 Treat 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 ? Yes
fe deral agency? ? No
® N/A
Categorical Exclusion - Summary
Project Background
The Martin Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project involves the restoration or
enhancement of approximately 5,540 linear feet in Cherokee County. In addition to restoration
and enhancement activities, approximately 7,725 linear feet of stream will be preserved. The
Martin Creek project site also hosts several small wetlands previously disturbed by agricultural
land use. In addition to stream restoration and enhancement activities proposed, between 1.5
to 4 acres of wetlands will be restored, enhanced or preserved under this project. This work is
being done for the purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit for the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP). Land cover on the property is predominantly forested with
the exception of pasture land and residential development in the lower elevations of the project
area. Three unnamed tributaries (UTs) are located in pastureland while the remaining unnamed
tributaries in the project area are located in the forested upland portion of the project area near
the source of Martin Creek and the Right Prong of Martin Creek.
This project will involve riparian corridor preservation and enhancement in the upper extent of
the project area with measurable improvements to channel pattern and profile on the tributaries
located in and adjacent to pastureland. Due to the extent of exposed bedrock present and other
site constraints such as a secondary road and overhead powerline, enhancement work
performed on the mainstem of Martin Creek will consist of improvements to channel dimension
and riparian enhancement through the removal of exotic, invasives and re-establishment of a
buffer consisting of woody material and other vegetation native to the ecoregion.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies to use an
interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision-making for actions that will have an impact
on the environment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) have determined that NCEEP projects will not involve significant
impacts and therefore a Categorical Exclusion (CE) is the appropriate type of environmental
document for this project. FHWA has also determined that stream restoration projects are
considered land disturbing activities, so Parts 2 and 3 of the NCEEP checklist and the following
environmental laws are applicable to this project (supporting information is located in the
Appendix):
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) prepared a Radius Map Report with GeoCheck on
October 17, 2008. Based on the EDR report, there are no known or potential hazardous waste
sites within or adjacent to the project area. The Executive Summary of the EDR report is
included in the Appendix.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
Baker requested review and comment from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to architectural or archaeological
resources from the restoration project on November 20, 2008. Baker also requested review and
comment from the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
on November 20, 2008. The SHPO responded on January 8, 2009, and requested that a Phase
I Archaeological Survey be completed based on the high probability that prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites may be present due to the topography and hydrological features of the
area. The NCEEP contracted with Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc. to perform a Phase I
archaeological survey which was completed in May, 2009. The archaeological consulting group
did locate one site within the project area; however it was determined that the site is not eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Other findings in the archaeological report
included a recommendation that no further archaeological investigations be conducted for the
purposes of this project. On June 10, 2009, the SHPO submitted correspondence to Baker
agreeing with the findings.
As of June 30, 2009, the Tribal Historic Preservation Office has not commented with concerns
All correspondence on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act
Since this project is not a "full delivery" project compliance with the Uniform Act is not required
at this stage by NCEEP. Compliance with the Uniform Act will be the responsibility of the State
Property Office during the easement acquisition process.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
Baker requested review and comment from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' Tribal
Historic Preservation Office (THPO) on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
any architectural or archaeological resources from the restoration project on November 20,
2008. At this time, the THPO has not commented on the project. Baker will continue working
with the THPO to ensure they do not have any concerns regarding the project. All
correspondence on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Baker reviewed both the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists of rare and protected animal and plant species and found that seven
federally listed species are known to occur in Cherokee County: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus ), Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Indiana Bat (Myotis soda/is), Cumberland
Bean (Villosa trabalis), Little-wing Pearlymussel (Pegias fibula), Tan Riffleshell (Epioblasma
florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)), and the Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).
It was determined that suitable habitat was not present for any of the seven species listed for
Cherokee County. Although some habitat features for the bog turtle were present in the
wetlands at the Martin Creek site, overall habitat conditions were not favorable and no bog
turtles were observed with the project area during preliminary site surveys in the spring and fall
of 2008. Initially, the USFWS indicated a concern over the potential impacts to any Indiana bat
populations that may be present in or around the project site. To alleviate concerns, Baker and
the USFWS have reached an agreement on certain avoidance and mitigation measures
summarized below to ensure the project will not adversely impact this federally listed species.
Therefore, a "no effect" determination was made for all seven species listed.
Access to restoration and enhancement reach sites will be achieved by utilizing previously
established access routes on-site. Preservation of existing trees and vegetation enhancement
within the stream riparian corridor will serve to protect and promote habitat for these species.
More detail on each species and their habitat is listed in the following paragraphs.
Bald Eagle, (Federally Protected): Bald eagles have been sighted in Cherokee County
where large open waters such as the Hiwassee Lake are present. According to the NC
Natural Heritage Program website, bald eagle habitat in the southeast typically consists of
"dominant live pines or cypress trees that provide a clear flight path and are located within
0.5 miles of open water. Winter roosting usually occurs farther inland, within dominant tree
types that are also used for nesting in warmer seasons. Based on information posted on
the NC Natural Heritage Program website, there are no occurrences of the bald eagle that
have been recorded within 2 miles of the project area. With the exception of Martin Creek,
the project area consists of headwater streams with small drainage areas. The streams
within the project area are not identified as trout supporting streams and are unlikely to hold
prey-sized fish to support bald eagle populations.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Improvements made through this project will not adversely impact any bald eagle
populations or habitat. Canopy improvements made to the riparian zone within the
restoration and enhancement reaches of the project area could actually support bald eagles
in the long term should any of the planted trees become dominant canopy trees. Stream
preservation, restoration and enhancement activities will ultimately result in improved
channel stability and water quality downstream through a reduction in sediment loading.
Therefore, a determination was made that the proposed project will have no effect on this
species.
Bog Turtle, (Threatened): The NCNHP lists the preferred habitat for bog turtles as
"shallow, spring-fed fens, sphagnaceous bogs, marshy meadows and pasture, with thick,
grassy cover and crossed by slow, muddy bottomed streams, and swamps with aquatic
and semiaquatic plants." The lower section of the Martin Creek project site is
predominantly pastureland with pocket wetlands. These wetlands were found to have
shallow, standing water during field surveys conducted in the spring and fall of 2008.
These pocket wetlands contain both exotic, invasive plant vegetation, but also possess
some hydrophytic vegetation such as sedges. Cattle had open access to these
wetlands until the end of 2008. No evidence of bog turtle habitation or observations of
bog turtles were made during the aforementioned field surveys during which site
assessments were conducted. A search of the NCNHP database did not reveal any
recorded observations of the bog turtle within two miles of the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Correspondence was submitted to the USFWS December 2, 2008 that indicated the
potential habitat present within the project area. Correspondence received from the
USFWS March 10, 2009 and June 23, 2009 did not indicate concern over impacts the
project might have on the bog turtle. Based on the lack of bog turtle observations made
during on-site visits as well as a lack of recorded species observation in the NCNHP
database, it was determined that this project will not impact the bog turtle or any known
populations that may occur within Cherokee County. Furthermore, between 1.5 and 4
acres of wetlands will be restored through this project. While restoration activities will
not result in the current wetland being converted to a bog, wetland functions will be
restored to the site, which may enhance some habitat conditions favored by the bog
turtle as well as other wildlife and plant communities.
Indiana Bat, (Endangered): The NCNHP lists the preferred summer habitat as "females and
young (maternity colonies) roost under loose bark and in tree hollows of shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata) and oak near small-to medium-sized streams." Riparian corridors within the
Martin Creek project may provide suitable summer foraging habitat for the Indiana bat;
however there are no loose-barked trees within the project area or other habitat suitable for
maternity colonies of the bat. There are also no mines or caves within the project area for
winter hibernation. Clearing within the enhancement reaches of the project area will be
limited to the removal of exotic, invasive vegetation such as multiflora rose and privet.
Incidental removal of smaller, understory trees while removing exotic vegetation will be
minimized to the extent possible.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
As noted previously, the USFWS indicated concern over the potential impact the project
might have on habitat or populations of the Indiana bat. In response, Baker submitted a
letter to the USFWS outlining measures designed to minimize and avoid project impacts on
the Indiana bat. These measures include performing tree and vegetation removal outside of
the Indiana bat's maternity/roosting period, walking the site with the construction manager
and marking any trees within the project area that may be favored by the bat. Trees that
may be favored by the bat will be avoided to the extent possible. Baker has also proposed
to incorporate trees favored by the Indiana bat into a planting plan for the site. Based on
measures proposed, the USFWS submitted their concurrence for the project June 23, 2009.
Therefore a "no effect" determination was made.
Cumberland Bean (Mussel), (Endangered): The Cumberland bean is a medium-sized
freshwater mussel or bivalve mollusk with an olive-colored shell displaying faint wavy green
lines. This mussel can be found in sand, gravel, and cobble substrates in moderate to fast-
moving waters at depths less than a meter. As is typical with many mussels, the
Cumberland bean favors clean shoal areas and silt-free riffles consisting of relatively firm
rubble, gravel, and sand. Its current range exists in the Hiwassee River in Polk County,
Tennessee and North Carolina.
Many intermittent and perennial streams within the project area that were found to contain
water during field surveys also contained moderate amounts of silt and had slow to
moderate currents. Some of these tributaries were also found to go subsurface for short
distances as well. Historical agricultural land use practices of the project area and passage
to perennial unnamed tributaries that have been affected by culvert installation and
headcutting make it unlikely that any populations which may have existed prior to the
conversion of the surrounding landscape would have survived.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Martin Creek is a targeted watershed within the Hiwassee River Basin and is known for its
excessive sediment and nutrient loading problems, making it unlikely that the Cumberland
bean is located on Martin Creek which is the largest waterbody within the project site. There
are no recorded observations of the Cumberland bean within two miles of the project site
and none were observed during site surveys.
Stormwater and erosion control best management practices will be applied during
construction activities associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement,
minimizing impacts to any potential habitat or populations of the Cumberland bean on Martin
Creek downstream of the project area. Furthermore, the project will not affect the ability of
the mussel to migrate upstream or downstream of the project area on Martin Creek. Due to
a lack of suitable mussel habitat, and the application of adequate erosion control measures
during project construction, this project will not impact habitat for the Cumberland bean.
Little-Wing Pearlymussel, (Endangered): The little-wing pearlymussel is a freshwater
bivalve mollusk that reaches an average length of 24-millimeters at maturity. Immature little-
wing pearlymussels possess dark rays at the base of their shell. By the time the mussel
reaches adulthood, its outer shell is usually eroded away. This species is found in small,
cool streams at the head of riffles, although it has been found to inhabit other areas in and
below riffles in substrate consisting of sand or gravel and scattered cobbles. It has also
been observed in silt-free environments underneath large rocks and is known to occupy
sand pockets between rocks, cobbles and boulders. This mussel is most often found
submerged on top or partially buried within substrate as previously described in
approximately 6 to 10 inches of water.
The mussel has been cited as occurring in the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River
basins in North Carolina. Specifically, it was formerly observed in the Valley River in
Cherokee County and the Little Tennessee River in North Carolina. Based on state
species account information provided by the NHP and the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission's state atlas of freshwater mussels, it appears this species now only
inhabits a section of the Little Tennessee River basin between Swain and Macon
counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on the lack of observations made during on-site visits and information provided by
the NCNHP and NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the little-wing pearlymussel does not
inhabit the project site or waters within at least two miles of the project. Therefore, this
project will not impact habitat or known populations of the little-wing pearlymussel in western
North Carolina.
Tan Riffleshell, (Endangered): Like the Cumberland bean, the tan riffleshell is a medium-
sized freshwater mussel that has multiple green rays and a brown to yellow colored shell.
Its habitat requirement are also similar to the cumberland bean as it is found in headwaters,
riffles, and shoals made up of sand and gravel substrates. While it is possible that
populations of this mussel may still exist in the Hiwassee River, recorded populations of this
species are located outside of the state, primarily within the Clinch River drainage in
Tennessee. Based on population declines, it appears this mussel is particularly sensitive to
poor water quality and habitat disturbance including the loss of glochidial hosts.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Martin Creek project will not affect any tan riffleshell populations which may exist in the
Hiwassee for the same factors listed in the biological conclusion for the Cumberland bean.
According to the NCNHP database, there have been no recorded observations of the tan
riffleshell within two miles of the project area which covers a segment of the Hiwassee River
in the vicinity of the site. A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Ecological
Field Office website (last updated May 15, 2008) on threatened and endangered species
associated with the North Carolina lists the tan riffleshell as being extirpated from the state.
Small-Whorled Pogonia (Threatened): The small-whorled pogonia is a small, perennial
member of the Orchidaceae. These plants arise from long slender roots, with hollow stems
terminating in a whorl of five or six light green leaves. The single flower is approximately
one inch long, with yellowish-green to white petals and three longer green sepals. This
orchid blooms in late spring, from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this plant are
reported to have extended periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small
spring ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not
in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana) also resemble small-
whorled pogonia; however, the hollow stout stem of Isotria separates it from the genus
Medeola, which has a solid, more slender stem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service County
Listing, 2008).
Small-whorled pogonias may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows
in open, dry, deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soil. It also grows in
rich, mesic woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat as described above does not exist for the small-whorled pogonia in the
restoration and enhancement reaches of the Martin Creek project area. No plants were
located during field assessments performed; a review of the NCNHP database did not
reveal any recorded observations within two miles of the project limits. Therefore this
project will not have an impact on any small-whorled pogonia populations occurring in
Cherokee County.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) was notified of the project via
letter on November 24, 2008. A letter was submitted to the USFWS December 3, 2008. Baker
received comments from NCWRC on December 9, 2008, which indicated that Martin Creek
supports sensitive aquatic life like the sicklefin redhorse, mountain creekshell, and hiwassee
crayfish. According to the NCWRC, these and several other sensitive species are found in the
Hiwassee River further downstream. In addition to recommending minimization of site
disturbance and implementation of effective erosion control measures, the NCWRC also
anticipates requesting that stream construction be avoided from April 1St to June 15th during the
spawning season for any sicklefin redhorse populations that may exist in Martin Creek. After
discussions were held regarding impact avoidance measures to protect any Indiana bat colonies
present on or near the project site, the USFWS submitted their concurrence for this project June
23, 2009. Correspondence on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
On December 15, 2008, Baker submitted the AD-1006 form for the Martin Creek project site to
the Regional Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office in Waynesville, NC. The
NRCS responded on January 7, 2009, with the determination that implementation of this
restoration project would result in the conversion of 9.1 acres of prime farmland or farmland of
state or local importance. The completed AD-1006 form and other correspondence on this
issue is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the NCWRC on November 24, 2008, requesting their comment
and review on the Martin Creek restoration and enhancement project. The NCWRC responded
on December 9, 2008, and expressed no concerns regarding anticipated impacts to federally
listed species for the county. However, as stated above, the letter did indicate that less
impacted segments of Martin Creek have been found to support sensitive aquatic life such as
the sicklefin redhorse, mountain creekshell, and hiwassee crayfish.
According to the NCWRC, these and several other sensitive species are found in the Hiwassee
River further downstream. Correspondence pertaining to project permitting and design plans
will be submitted to the NCWRC at a later time. Correspondence on this issue is included in the
Appendix.
Baker submitted a letter to the USFWS on December 3, 2008 requesting their comment and
review of the Martin Creek restoration project site. On June 23, 2009, Baker received
correspondence from the USFWS indicating their conditional concurrence with the project. All
correspondence on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the USFWS on December 3, 2008 requesting their comment and
review on the Martin Creek Restoration and Enhancement Project in relation to migratory birds.
On June 23, 2009, Baker received the USFWS' concurrence for the project. All correspondence
on this issue is included in the Appendix.
,..
poo
?P!?OCi/=;ii FS
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The forin is intended to summarize the Foodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The foi7n should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project: Martin Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration
Name of stream or feature: Martin Creek and tributaries to Martin Creek
County: Cherokee
Name of river basin: Hiawassee
Is project urban or rural? Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county: Town of Murphy / Cherokee County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site: 4591
Consultant name: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. ("Baker")
Phone number: 828-350-1408 ext. 2007 (Jake McLean, PE, CFM)
Address: 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
EEP_FEMA Floodplain_Checklist_Martin Page 1 of 7
Table ES.1 Mitigation Plan Overview
Martin's Creek Mitigation Project--NCEEP Project #92633

Right Prong Martin's Creek (RP) Unnamed Tributaries
RP-UT I Preservation 541 541 108 5:1 0.162
RP-UT1 Enhancement II 399 399 159 2.5:1 .169
RP-UT2 Preservation 2,472 2,472 494 5:1 0.076
RP-UT2-1 Preservation 1,366 1,366 273 5:1 0.037
-UT3 Preservation 1,379 1,379 276 5:1 0.097
RP-UT3-1 Preservation 1,060 1,060 212 5:1 0.027
RP-UT4 Preservation 1,832 1,832 366 5:1 0.073
-UT4-1 Preservation 698 698 140 5:1 0.019
RP-UT5 Preservation 818 818 164 5:1 0.016
RP-UT6 Preservation 1,069 1,069 214 5:1 0.036
-UT7 Preservation 791 791 158 5:1 0.013
Right Prong Martin's Creek (Reach 1) Preservation 5,208 5,208 1,042 5:1 0.413
Right Prong Martin's Creek (Reach 2) Enhancement 11 572 572 229 2.5:1 0.603
Martin's Creek (MC) Unnamed Tributaries
MC-UTI (Reach 1) Preservation 2,482 2,482 496 5:1 0.065
MC-UTI (Reach 2) Restoration 1,070 1,070 1,070 1:1 0.092
MC-UTI (Reach 3) Enhancement I 345 345 230 1.5:1 0.161
MC-UT 1 (Reach 4) Restoration 332 1,149 1,149 1:1 0.176
MC-UT1-1 Preservation 689 689 138 5:1 0.018
C-UT1-2 Preservation 923 923 185 5:1 0.019
C-UT1-2-1 Preservation 202 202 40 5:1 0.005
MC-UT1-3 (Reach 1) Enhancement I 516 516 344 1.5:1 0.07
MC-UT 1-3 (Reach 2) Restoration 1,068 1,286 1,286 1:1 0.08
MC-UT2 Enhancement 11 75 75 30 2.5:1 0.385
Martin's Creek Enhancement 11 857 857 343 2.5:1 6.81
TOTAL STREAM FOOTAGE BY TYPE 26,764 27,799 9,146
Stream Design Approach
Restoration 2,470 3,505 31505 1:1
Enhancement I 861 861 574 1.5:1
Stream Length/SMUs
Enhancement 11
1,903
1,903
761
2.5:1
Preservation 215530 21,530 4,306 5:1
26,764 27,799 9,146
TOTAL WETLAND ACREAGE
Wetland Design Approach (Acres)
Restoration - 5.2 5.2 1:1
Total Wetland Acreage Enhancement 1.53 1.53 .77 2:1
EEP_FEMA Floodplain Checklist-Martin Page 3 of 7
Improve channel
profile, sediment
MC-UT1-3 (Reach 1) 516 LI E 516 1.5:1 344 0+00-5+16 transport function and
bank stability where
needed and adjust
channel dimension
Restore wetland
hydrology and restore
geomorphic form to
MC-UT1-3 (Reach 2) 1
068 PI R 1
286 1:1 286
1 5+78-18+64 channel by relocating
, , , channel within greater
wetland complex and
adjusting confluence of
tributary with UT1
Improve riparian buffer
Refer to Plan by removing
MC-UT2 75 LII E 75 2.5:1 30
Sheet Pg. 16 invasive/exotic
vegetation; replanting
with native vegetation.
Improve riparian buffer
Refer to Plan by removing
Martin's Creek 857 LII E 857 2.5:1 343 Sheet Pg. 16 invasive/exotic
vegetation; replanting
with native vegetation.

Mitigation Unit Summations
Riparian Wetland Nonriparian Total Buffer
Stream (LF) (Ac) Wetland (Ac) Wetland (Ac) (Ac) Continent
9,146 6.73 NA 6.73 93.87
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r%" Yes` No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
W Redelineation
[` Detailed Study
Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
F Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
AE Zone
t ' Floodway
r Non-Encroachment
EEP_FEMA Floodplain_Checklist_Mwin Page 5 of 7
59 Hiwassee Street
Murphy, NC 28906
[phone]
Cominents:
Baker: A no rise certificate and supporting documentation has been prepared. The main
efforts are'the restoration of two tributaries that share a floodplain with Martin Creek and
grading to excavate buried wetland soil horizons as part of wetland restoration activities.
There will be minor work on the mainstem to breach the existing levy in a couple of
locations in order to restore hydrologic connectivity of the bankfull flow to the larger
floodplain. In addition, the project entails work on tributaries higher in the watershed
where no regulatory floodplain exists. Please refer to the No Impact Certification Report
for more details.
Per Silas Allen: Although these UT"s lie outside any SFHA, we respectfully request
that a twenty-five to thirty foot undisturbed buffer be left intact when possible. This
area has been and still is part of a previously protected and classed NCDWQ
watershed for the Town of Murphy.
Name: Ja&A eG?G?l Signature:
Title: , C/--?
c
Date: ?/ .11? /0
EEP_FEMA Floodplain_Checklist_Martin Page 7 of 7
M V -
c ?
lU 1 i J}? W..
c,s` Z ? J
-ji
Lu
v
j V
i Q
.?11
X
JJ
y
Q)
r
Y
?S
n
7 .?
yC-4-
UJ
Q1
4 ?.
C
( V
.1
?
Cnn\L
c_
s s'

}
cc
w
w

?LL 0
M
_
O
O CD
oT

O 0
T
O
O ? 1A

? T
In
V
W
J
?
U o

N
jo
LO
NC State Historic Preservation Office
Attn: Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
November 20, 2008
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Stream Mitigation Project
on Martin Creek and Tributaries, Cherokee County, NC.
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on
any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources
associated with a potential stream restoration project area identified on the maps attached (a
vicinity map, a USGS site map, and a restoration plan figure with areas of potential ground
disturbance are enclosed).
The Martin Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve restoration,
enhancement or preservation of a section of Martin Creek, the Right Prong of Martin Creek and
sections of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) that have been identified as being significantly
degraded. Project goals include the restoration or enhancement of 5,540 linear feet of stream for
the purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit in the Hiwassee River Basin. Stream mitigation
credits are also being extended to an additional 7,725 linear feet of stream being preserved.
Preliminary visual assessments and data provided by the NCEEP indicate the presence of
approximately 2.0 acres of mapped wetlands that will be protected under the proposed project.
Buried hydric soils have also been located on-site in the vicinity of the existing wetlands and
were likely filled to increase agricultural production. To determine the extent of wetland
restoration work required, further analysis of the site is proposed. The location where wetland
restoration may occur is provided in Restoration Plan Figure 1.3.
No architectural structures or archaeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site. The project area consists of moderate to steeply forested slopes
and valleys with elevations ranging from 2,245' above sea level (ASL), in upland project reaches
to approximately 1,600' ASL in the floodplain along Martin Creek. The majority of the project
site on the floodplain and sections of the upland project area has historically been disturbed by
agricultural land uses. As the enclosed aerial photograph shows, the majority of the area within
the construction limits of the site consists of upland forest with the lower project area consisting
of floodplain, pastureland and straightened stream channels.
Mapped soils within the upland portion of the project area include the Thurmont-Dillard complex
(8 to 15% slopes) and Junaluska-Tsali complexes (ranging from 15% to 50% slopes). Soils
mapped within the pasture and floodplain portion of the project area consist of the Ark aqua loam
and the Dillard loam series. Soils of the Thurmont-Dillard complex are dominant in areas
adjacent to the streams in the forested area of the project. These soils are located on moderate
slopes in the valley of the project, are well drained and lie above the seasonal high water table. In
the lower section of the valley, project streams course through both Dillard loams and Ark aqua
loams. Dillard loams are located in the project area in the transitional zone between the upland
forested areas and the floodplain. This soil series is defined as being moderately well drained,
rarely flooded and typically 24 to 36 inches above the water table. The Ark aqua loam soils are
located in the lower valley of the Martin Creek watershed and are primarily within the floodplain
for Martin Creek. As evidenced by the presence and location of wetlands on-site, the Ark aqua
loams within the project area are somewhat poorly drained and are occasionally flooded.
Whereas the depth to the water table in the upper extent of the project area ranges from 36 to 72
inches, the depth to the water table where Ark aqua loams are present is approximately 18 to 24
inches; however, water is at the ground surface in some wetland areas. Soils data presented in
this letter were assembled from information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service office in Cherokee County and from the USDA-NRCS Soil Data Mart website
(http://soildatafnart.nres.usda.gov/Default.aspx ).
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
any historic properties or other objects of cultural significance. 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,
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone: [phone] xt. 2010, Email: cmcintyreAmbakercorp.com
Cc:
Mr. Paul Wiesner Mr. Tyler Howe
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) EBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office
2090 U. S. Highway 70 P.O. Box 455
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Cherokee, NC 28719
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Attn: Mr. Tyler Howe
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
November 20, 2008
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Stream Mitigation Project
on Martin Creek and Tributaries, Cherokee County, NC.
Dear Mr. Howe,
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on
any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources
associated with a potential stream restoration project area identified on the maps attached (a
vicinity map, a USGS site map, and a restoration plan figure with areas of potential ground
disturbance are enclosed).
The Martin Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve restoration,
enhancement or preservation of a section of Martin Creek, the Right Prong of Martin Creek and
sections of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) that have been identified as being significantly
degraded. Project goals include the restoration or enhancement of 5,540 linear feet of stream for
the purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit in the Hiwassee River Basin. Stream mitigation
credits are also being extended to an additional 7,725 linear feet of stream being preserved.
Preliminary visual assessments and data provided by the NCEEP indicate the presence of
approximately 2.0 acres of mapped wetlands that will be protected under the proposed project.
Buried hydric soils have also been located on-site in the vicinity of the existing wetlands and
were likely filled to increase agricultural production. To determine the extent of wetland
restoration work required, further analysis of the site is proposed. The location where wetland
restoration may occur is provided in Restoration Plan Figure 1.3.
No architectural structures or archaeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site. The project area consists of moderate to steeply forested slopes
and valleys with elevations ranging from 2,245' above sea level (ASL), in upland project reaches
to approximately 1,600' ASL in the floodplain along Martin Creek. The majority of the project
site on the floodplain and sections of the upland project area has historically been disturbed by
agricultural land uses. As the enclosed aerial photograph shows, the majority of the area within
the construction limits of the site consists of upland forest with the lower project area consisting
of floodplain, pastureland and straightened stream channels.
Mapped soils within the upland portion of the project area include the Thurmont-Dillard complex
(8 to 15% slopes) and Junaluska-Tsali complexes (ranging from 15% to 50% slopes). Soils
mapped within the pasture and floodplain portion of the project area consist of the Ark aqua loam
and the Dillard loam series. Soils of the Thurmont-Dillard complex are dominant in areas
adjacent to the streams in the forested area of the project. These soils are located on moderate
slopes in the valley of the project, are well drained and lie above the seasonal high water table. In
the lower section of the valley, project streams course through both Dillard loams and Ark aqua
loams. Dillard loams are located in the project area in the transitional zone between the upland
forested areas and the floodplain. This soil series is defined as being moderately well drained,
rarely flooded and typically 24 to 36 inches above the water table. The Ark aqua loam soils are
located in the lower valley of the Martin Creek watershed and are primarily within the floodplain
for Martin Creek. As evidenced by the presence and location of wetlands on-site, the Ark aqua
loams within the project area are somewhat poorly drained and are occasionally flooded.
Whereas the depth to the water table in the upper extent of the project area ranges from 36 to 72
inches, the depth to the water table where Ark aqua loams are present is approximately 18 to 24
inches; however, water is at the ground surface in some wetland areas. Soils data presented in
this letter were assembled from information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service office in Cherokee County and from the USDA-NRCS Soil Data Mart website
(http://soildatafnart.nres.usda.gov/Default.aspx ).
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
any historic properties or other objects of cultural significance. 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,
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone: [phone], Email: cmcintAmbakercorp.com
Cc:
Mr. Paul Wiesner Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) State Historic Preservation Office
2090 U. S. Highway 70 4617 Mail Service Center
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
01/09/2009 15:29 NC STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 918283501409 NO.857 P02

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Ilistoric Preservation. Office
Poor 13. sandbeclt, AdministrOtnr
%Gchad F. Risley, Governor
f. %b"11 C. Brans, $,CCrernLy
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 8, 2009
Caa.-enen Horne-Mchityre
Michael. Baker Enowering, In.c.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Office of.trchie(•li and I liamy
Division )f f fistorical RcaflUrco
011•id Brook,1)ircetnr
Re: Martin. Creel{ artd ,rribut:a.ries Streao-i Miti.¢ a ion, Cherokee Cou.aty, TiM 08-2843
Dear Ms, Flor:ne-McIntyre:
Thank you for your letter comerni.ng the. above project, We apologize for the delay in our response.
"I11ete are no lcn.own .tecordcd ,r.tc..hac:ologiod Sates within the projecC boLmdaries. However, the project atea has
never heed systernatically sti-tveyed to del.erliulle the location o.1: si.gcuficance of archaeological resources. Based
on the topognaphic and liyda:ologi.cal sitlmdon, there is a high pi,obability for tlae presence of prehistoric or
hisrodc archaeological sites.
We reconunen.d. that a cor.,nprelicttsive survey be conducted by ,in, ei pe.,:ietlced archaeologist to identify and
eva..l.uate tlae significance of ar;cla.aeolo ,ticnl r cl,aains tb,.it may be darrmaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
The archaeological sur.-trcy should be undertaken only at daost po.ttions of the project area where ground
disimrbance i5 proposed. Potential affects on u.n.lcaown..tesources tr1.ust be assessed prio.t to the 4).Wapon of
Construction acrivides.
Two copies of the resu.ll?ra.g a.l:eh.aeo.lag.ic (1 survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be fonvardmi to us Cal: review an.d. COIT.L sera as Sooaa as they a,:ee a?railable and well 6 :tdvante oL any
constracdon acdvines.
A list of archaeological consultants who laave conducted, o1: expressed all interest in contract work ui North
Carolina is av.ai able at ±> cY.;1SCh.clcr sttte.nc,usjcnnsults.bti-7. The archaeologists listed, or any ocher
experienced, ar:chacologist:, may be contacted. to conduct the .reconi,inended su.tircy.
The above comment nave inad.e laua:suant to Section 106 of the National Historic preselvatio.n Act and the
Advisory Council. on Flistoric Praservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
1.oradurr, 109 East jngcR itrcel, li+lcil;h Vf: 2?Ci(a'I taAnilin .A+J+lrc?++: 1617 Elul Kur+ is Cuptur, at:+lcigh W ?.7699-4['17 lblcP.bana/l :+x (919 X117-6570/0!)7-6599
01/09/2009 15:29 NC STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION -> 918283501409
NO.857 P03
Thank you for your coopcrado a arld conaid.ea:ati.o:n.. if you 11"we quo-,,Cl,ons collcellll119 the aboY'Q comrneni,
please contnce Renee Gledhill-Earley, eaavii;oaa.memal tevimv cooxdin.o.tor, at 919/807-6579. In all faure
communication conecrning this pa:ajecf, please cite the above cferenced t ackiilg number.
Sincerely,
ileeer Sandbeck
aLw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
- State Historic Preservation Office -
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Office of Archives and History
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
June 11, 2009
._ Dawn-Reid
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Re: Martin Creek and Tributaries Stream Mitigation, Cherokee County, ER 08-2843
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for your letter of May 15, 2009, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Michael O'Neal for
the above project.
During the course of the survey, one site was located within the project area. For purposes of compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following property is not
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion D:
31CE767
This site does not retain sufficient subsurface integrity or artifact density to yield information important to
history or prehistory.
Mr. O'Neal has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
zp?_? 'A?a r
Peter Sandbeck
cc: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
ker
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Ms. Marella Buncick
Asheville Field Office
Asheville, NC 28801
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
828-350-1408
FAX [phone]
December 2, 2008
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Stream Mitigation Project
on Martins Creek and Tributaries, Cherokee County, NC.
Dear Ms. Buncick,
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on
the presence of federally listed species, their habitat, and any other issues that might emerge with
respect to a potential stream restoration project area identified on the maps attached (a vicinity
map, a USGS site map, and a restoration plan figure with areas of potential ground disturbance
are enclosed).
The Martins Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve restoration,
enhancement or preservation of a section of Martins Creek, the Right Prong of Martins Creek and
sections of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) that have been identified as being significantly
degraded. In addition, approximately 5 acres of wetlands will be restored and preserved under
this project. Project goals include the restoration or enhancement of 5,540 linear feet of stream
for the purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit in the Hiwassee River Basin. Stream
mitigation credits are also being extended to an additional 7,725 linear feet of stream being
preserved.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Cherokee County from your web site
(http://www.fws.gov/ne-es/es/countyfr.htnil). The threatened, endangered or otherwise federally
protected species for this county are: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Bog Turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii), Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), Cumberland bean (pearlymussel) (Villosa
trabalis),Tan riffleshell (Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)),and the Small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). Although there are no critical habitat areas listed for Cherokee
County, favorable conditions for the bog turtle may be present on site. The potential bog turtle
habitat consists of nearly two acres of wetlands present within the project area that are located in
frequently used pastureland. Further site analysis will be required to confirm the wetland status
of the three remaining acres assumed to be a filled wetland area.
We are requesting that you please provide any known information for each species in the county.
The USFWS will be contacted immediately if the agency determines that suitable habitat for a
federally listed species exists within the project area or if the agency has records indicating the
presence of a federally listed species on-site.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a stream and wetland
restoration project on the subject property.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that our species list is correct, that you
do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any information
relevant to this project at the current time.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with this project. I can be reached at 828.350.1408 ext. 2010 or by email
at [e-mail]. We thank you in advance for your timely response and
cooperation.
Sincerely, ,n
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
Cc:
Mr. Paul Wiesner
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Review of stream mitigation projects in Cherokee County
From: Carmen McIntyre
To: [e-mail]
Date: 1/5/2009 11:52 AM
subject: Review of stream mitigation projects in Cherokee County
Hi Marella,
Do you happen to know the status of the usFws review for two stream restoration
projects Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. has in Cherokee County? These projects
have been proposed for completion on behalf of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
for stream and wetland impacts in the Hiwassee River Basin. I submitted a request
for comment to the usFWS about 30 days ago for the Martin Creek Project and the
unnamed Tributary (UT) to Martin Creek Project (also known as the Contreras site).
Please note that the letter originally submitted for the Contreras site refers to
Contreras Creek. "Contreras Creek" is actually an unnamed tributary to Martin
creek, whereas the project area as a whole is referred to as the Contreras site.
Therefore the project consists of three unnamed tributaries including the
aforementioned UT to Martin Creek.
As we finalize the environmental review documents, I wanted ensure any concerns held
by the usFws about the two projects had been met. If you know when we can expect to
receive comment or if there are any project concerns, please contact me at your
earliest convenience at 828.350.1408 x. 2010 or by email.
Thanks in advance for your assistance!
Best,
Carmen
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
P: 828.350.1408 x. 2010
F: 828.350.1409
Page 1
Re mitigation sites, Cherokee Co
From: Carmen McIntyre
To: [e-mail]
Date: 3/10/2009 2:05 PM
subject: Re: mitigation sites, Cherokee Co
Hi Marella,
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. we've visited the project site a
few more times since you and I spoke, and we're still doubtful as to the presence of
habitat within the construction corridor for the Contreras and Martin creek
projects. However, if we did miss a snag or hollow tree (which would be the closest
thing to habitat you'll find where we are), I think we should still be able to meet
your concerns. I spoke with our Project Manager, Micky Clemmons, regarding the
construction schedule and others ways in which we could avoid adversely impacting
any potential habitat or populations of the Indiana bat. Construction and tree
removal work is scheduled for November and will continue into the beginning of 2010.
Here are a few other thoughts we had as well: If we did locate any trees within the
project area that may be favored by the Indiana bat we can mark them and instruct
construction crews to avoid them to the extent possible. we are also willing to
incorporate tree types favored by the Indiana bat into the planting list developed
for the project site.
would following the recommended time frame for construction activities (mid Oct-mid
April) and implementation of the other measures noted sufficiently address your
concerns? If so, I'll submit a letter to the USFwS proposing these measures for your
concurrence. If you still have any concerns, please feel free to contact me by
phone [phone] ext.2010) or email.
Thanks,
Carmen
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
P: 828.350.1408 x. 2010
F: 828.350.1409
>>> < [e-mail] > 1/26/2009 3:10 PM >>>
Carmen,
Based on our conversation today regarding the Contreras and Martin creek
proposed mitigation sites in Cherokee Co., NC, I believe that you need to
further address potential impacts to Indiana bat. For the areas where
trees will be removed, we want to be sure that all suitable Indiana bat
maternity/roosting trees are considered in the impacts analysis of the
project. we consider all snags and hollow cavity trees; any trees with
more than 25 percent exfoliating bark; and all shellbark, shagbark, and
bitternut hickory trees (regardless of size or condition) as suitable
roosting/maternity habitat for the Indiana bat. Further, Indiana bats are
known to roost in trees as small as 3 inches in diameter at breast height.
we believe that the activities of this project could result in direct,
indirect, and/or cumulative impacts; and could result in the "take" of
Indiana bats that may be roosting in trees located within and along the
edges of the construction area. To avoid impacts to Indiana bats, any
tree removal and construction activities should occur between October 15
and April 15 (outside the maternity/roosting period). If this
recommendation is followed, we do not believe the project will impact the
Indiana bat. (Alternatively, mist-netting surveys could also be conducted
Page 1
Re mitigation sites, Cherokee Co
to determine the presence/absence of the species.) we would appreciate
the opportunity to review any measures or guidelines that will be
implemented to further avoid direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to
the Indiana bat and its habitat. until an assessment of the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts of this project to Indiana bats has been
completed, we cannot conclude that the requirements of section 7 of the
Act have been fulfilled.
if you have further questions, please call or e-mail.
marella
marella buncick
USFWS
160 zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
People don't resist change, they resist being changed.
Page 2
?aker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
Attn. Ms. Marella Buncick
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: NCEEP Stream mitigation projects in Cherokee County
Dear Ms. Buncick,
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
828-350-1408
FAX [phone]
April 28, 2009
Thank you for your response to our request for comment regarding the following two
stream mitigation projects currently proposed in Cherokee County by the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Project:
1) Martin Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Project; and
2) Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Martin Creek (Contreras Site) and associated UTs.
This letter is intended to satisfy agency concerns regarding the potential projects impacts
to the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). An additional account of existing features as well as
mitigation and avoidance measures is provided below for the project sites.
Stream restoration and enhancement work proposed at both sites is primarily located in
pasture land. Woody vegetation in pastures on-site primarily consists of poplar, holly,
alders, locust and red maple. These buffer areas are also made up of multiflora rose and
privet as well as various grasses, weeds and rushes such as juncus. Restoration and
enhancement reaches with denser stands of woody vegetation were found to lack habitat
favored by the Indiana bat. Enhancement reaches in the Martin Creek project area that
border forested upland areas will require minimal tree clearing. Enhancement activities
proposed in these areas will primarily involve relocating the existing channel away from
the edge of the valley wall back to the low point of the valley most recently managed as
pastureland. Other enhancement work will consist of the removal of exotic, invasive
vegetation and establishment of vegetation native to this region. The remaining
restoration and enhancement work to be conducted is located in pastureland where the
stream corridor does not present suitable maternity/roosting habitat for the Indiana bat.
Based on a review of the schedule for each project, vegetation removal is slated to occur
during November 2009 and will continue into the beginning of 2010. Prior to vegetation
removal work, the restoration and enhancement reaches will be walked with personnel
involved in construction oversight for the project. Any trees located within the project
area that may be favored by the Indiana bat will be marked and avoided to the extent
possible. Vegetation removal activities will be completed by April 15'1', thereby avoiding
impacts to roosting/maternity colonies of the Indiana bat.
Baker also proposes to incorporate tree types favored by the Indiana bat into the planting
list developed for the project site. In addition to habitat considerations, selection of tree
types will be based upon their occurrence and range within this region of the Hiwassee
River Basin.
We hope these efforts will satisfy your concerns regarding the protection of potential bat
colonies and/or bat habitat present within Cherokee County. If you have any more
questions or would like to discuss these projects in further detail, please contact me at
your earliest convenience at 828.3 5 0.1408 ext. 2010 or by email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Environmental Scientist
X6/23/2009) Carmen McIntyre; Re NCEEP Stream Restoration Sites on Martin Creek and UTs Cherokee Co. Page 1
From: <[e-mail]>
To: "Carmen McIntyre" <[e-mail]>
Date: 6123/2009 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: NCEEP Stream Restoration Sites on Martin Creek and UTs-Cherokee Cc
Carmen,
As we discussed previously, if you are conducting tree removal during the
time Indiana bats are hibernating and also given the nature and location
of the project, this should satisfy our concerns for Indiana bat for this
stream restoration project.
marella
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
People don't resist change, they resist being changed
"Carmen McIntyre" <[e-mail]>
06/15/2009 08:47 AM
To
"Marella Buncick" <[e-mail]>
cc
Subject
NCEEP Stream Restoration Sites on Martin Creek and UTs-Cherokee Co.
Hi Marella,
Just wanted to touch base with you to see if you guys had any further
comment regarding the two stream restoration sites Baker will be working
on with the NCEEP in Cherokee County. There were some earlier concerns
regarding potential impacts to the Indiana bat; we attempted to alleviate
these concerns as noted in a response letter submitted at the end of
April. In short, vegetation removal work will take place within the time
period (mid-Oct to mid-April) recommended by the USFWS. If you wouldn't
mind emailing me or sending us a response back, that'd be great. I should
be around for most of the week if we need to discuss the projects any
further. Thanks for your assistance!
Carmen
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
P: 828.350.1408 x. 2010
F: 828.350.1409
[attachment "USFWS_Letter Response.pdf' deleted by Marella
Buncick/R4/FWS/DOIj
ker
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Balsam Depot
Attn: Mr. David McHenry
20830 Great Smoky Mountain Expressway
Waynesville, NC 28786
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
828-350-1408
FAX [phone]
November 24, 2008
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Stream Mitigation Project
on Martins Creek and Tributaries, Cherokee County, NC.
Dear Mr. McHenry,
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on
any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of
a potential stream and wetland restoration project in the Martins Creek watershed, a drainage of
the Hiwassee River. The potential stream restoration project area is identified on the attached
maps which consist of a vicinity map, a U.S. Geological Survey site map and a restoration plan
figure with areas of potential ground disturbance identified.
The Martin Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve restoration,
enhancement or preservation of a section of Martin Creek, the Right Prong of Martin Creek and
sections of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) that have been identified as being significantly
degraded. Project goals include the restoration or enhancement of 5,540 linear feet of stream for
the purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit in the Hiwassee River Basin. Stream mitigation
credits are also being extended to an additional 7,725 linear feet of stream being preserved.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
Baker Engineering with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
epxofftj hwe-01-114-ryrct
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone: [phone], Email: cmcintyregmbakereorp.com
Cc:
Mr. Paul Wiesner
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 10
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
December 9, 2008
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
SUBJECT EEP Stream Mitigation Projects in Cherokee County, Martins Creek
Dear Ms. Horne-McIntyre:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) received your letters
dated November 24, 2008 regarding the Ecosystem Enhancement Program projects in the Martins Creek
watershed in Cherokee County. Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Cherokee County is a "trout county" per an agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) and the Commission. As such, Commission biologists review all Nationwide Permit
applications there and make recommendations to minimize the adverse resource effects of some activities,
including restoration work. Once a permit application is prepared for this project, a copy must be sent to
me in order to solicit Commission concurrence and recommendations for consideration by the ACOE.
Martins Creek supports sensitive aquatic life like the sicklefin redhorse, mountain creekshell (Villosa
vanuxemensis (NCT)), and Cambarus hiwasseensis (NC watch list, Federal candidate). These and several
other sensitive species are found in the Hiwassee River further downstream. The projects may improve
habitat for aquatic life over time, but they also may initially degrade habitat depending upon the amount
of construction disturbance and sedimentation they cause. As part of the 404 permits, the Commission
will likely request that in stream construction be avoided from April I to June 15 when sicklefin redhorse
should be spawning in Martins Creek.
The Commission recommends that effective sediment and erosion controls be used and channel
disturbance be avoided as much as possible during construction. Also, existing mature vegetation should
be preserved as much as possible because it promotes the stability of channel work and provides seed
sources for natural regeneration, organic material to the streams, and riparian habitat complexity until
planted vegetation matures. The use of balled or container grown trees is recommended in the outside of
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
EEP, Martins Creek Page 2 December 9, 2008
Cherokee
channel bends to expedite long-term bank stability. Also, any stream channel modifications should create
dimensions, patterns, and profiles that mimic stable, reference conditions. Overly and unnaturally
sinuous stream channels should be avoided.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at [phone] ext. 24.
Sincerely,
e
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Mr. M. Kent Clary
USDA-NRCS Area Resource Soil Scientist
589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786
828-350-1408
FAX [phone]
December 15, 2008
Subject: Prime and Important Farmland Soils RE: NCEEP On-Call Project, on Martin Creek and
Tributaries, Cherokee County, NC
Dear Mr. Clary,
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) requests your review and
assistance in completing a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form for the subject site.
Enclosed please find a copy of the AD-1006 form, and site and location mapping for the project.
The Martin Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts in the Hiwassee River Basin. The project will involve
restoration, enhancement or preservation of a section of Martins Creek, the Right Prong of
Martins Creek, and sections of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) that have been identified as being
significantly degraded. Project goals include the restoration or enhancement of 5,540 linear feet
of stream. Stream mitigation credits are also being extended to an additional 7,725 linear feet of
stream being preserved.
Preliminary visual assessments and data provided by the NCEEP indicate the presence of
approximately 2.0 acres of mapped wetlands that will be protected under the proposed project.
Buried hydric soils have also been located on-site in the vicinity of the existing wetlands and
were likely filled to increase agricultural production. To determine the extent of wetland
restoration work required, further analysis of the site is proposed. The location where wetland
restoration may occur is provided in Restoration Plan Figure 1.3.
Mapped soils within the upland portion of the project area include the Thurmont-Dillard complex
(8 to 15% slopes) and Junaluska-Tsali complexes (ranging from 15% to 50% slopes). Soils
mapped within the pasture and floodplain portion of the project area consist of the Ark aqua loam
and the Dillard loam series. Soils of the Thurmont-Dillard complex are dominant in areas
adjacent to the streams in the forested area of the project. These soils are located on moderate
slopes in the valley of the project, are well drained and lie above the seasonal high water table. In
the lower section of the valley, project streams course through both Dillard loams and Ark aqua
loams. Dillard loams are located in the project area in the transitional zone between the upland
forested areas and the floodplain. This soil series is defined as being moderately well drained,
rarely flooded and typically 24 to 36 inches above the water table. The Ark aqua loam soils are
located in the lower valley of the Martin Creek watershed and are primarily within the floodplain
for Martin Creek. As evidenced by the presence and location of wetlands on-site, the Ark aqua
loams within the project area are somewhat poorly drained and are occasionally flooded.
Whereas the depth to the water table in the upper extent of the project area ranges from 36 to 72
inches, the depth to the water table where Ark aqua loams are present is approximately 18 to 24
inches; however, water is at the ground surface in some wetland areas. Soils data presented in
this letter were assembled from information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service office in Cherokee County and from the USDA-NRCS Soil Data Mart website
(http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/Default.aspx ).
The total project area within the proposed conservation easement boundary is approximately
24.89 acres. Sections of the land within the easement are mapped as the Ark aqua loam series.
Based on our review, this soil is considered to be Prime Farmland soil. No additional prime and
important farmland designations were listed on the Soil Data Mart for Cherokee County, NC.
The total acreage of Prime and Important Farmland that would be directly converted under this
project is approximately 2.94 acres.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you know of
any other existing resources that we need to know about. We know that you have greater
familiarity with farmland issues in this area than we do, and we will be happy to make any
changes to the form that you deem appropriate. Please return the form to us with your
determinations and we will complete the remainder of the form if needed. In addition, please let
us know the level of involvement you may require (if needed), as it is anticipated this project will
be implemented in the Summer of 2009. If we have not received a response from you within 30
days, we will assume that you have no comment regarding the project. This letter is intended to
satisfy any requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at cmcintyregmbakercorp.com or by
phone at 828.350.1408 ext. 2010. Our fax number is 828.350.1409.
Thank-you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
6tf?'Oe4i 419aa- ?V16J4,Tyee
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Environmental Scientist
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Cc:
Mr. Guy Pearce
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Mr. Glenn Carson, District Conservationist
USDA-NRCS
225 Valley River Ave., Suite J.
Murphy, NC 28789
From: Carmen McIntyre
To: [e-mail]
Date: 1/6/2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Cherokee Co. Stream Restoration Projects
Sorry Kent-our server held the email due to its size. Here's the table I
told you about earlier. I'll send the pdfs in another email in case you
need those as well.
Carmen
Hi Kent,
Thanks for getting back to me regarding the Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating form for the Martin Creek and Contreras Site stream restoration
projects. I've included a table below which provides the total acreage
of soils within the project disturbance limits per soil type. Hopefully
this will help. I'm also sending a pdf version of the project reach
figures which were originally submitted in hard copy form in case you
need those as well. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Martin Creek Site
Soil Type Site Area Acreage
131D Martin 153648.7800 3.5273
134E Martin 34489.0385 0.7918
233B Martin 64003.4482 1.4693
310D Martin 16727.5613 0.3840
310E Martin 26719.8168 0.6134
382E Martin 2039.5538 0.0468
45A Martin 39153.1718 0.8988
85A Martin 124696.2277 2.8626 *PRIME FARMLAND SOIL*
Total Acreage: 10.59
Contreras Site
Type Site Area Acreage
131B Contreras 54032.6223
131D Contreras 72045.0093
310D Contreras 154.1172
310E Contreras 57021.9360
382D Contreras 5220.6719
382E Contreras 10092.0264
382F Contreras 335.2609
72A Contreras 16152.2809
85A Contreras 424894.780
Total Acreage: 14.69
Best,
Carmen
1.2404
1.6539
0.0035
1.3090
0.1199
0.2317
0.0077
0.3708
59.7542 *PRIME FARMLAND SOIL*
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
P: 828.350.1408 x. 2010
F: 828.350.1409
From: Carmen McIntyre
To: Kent - Waynesville NC Clary
Date: 1/7/2009 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: AD-1006 Form for Stream Projects in Cherokee Co.
Thanks Kent. Have a good afternoon!
Carmen
>>> "Clary, Kent - Waynesville, NC" < [e-mail] > 1/7/2009
1:01 PM >>>
Carmen,
Attached are the AD-1006's for the Martin Creek and Contreras
Restoration and Enhancement sites in Cherokee County. Parts II, IV, and
V have been completed as required of NRCS.
Based on the information you provided, it appears that 9.1 acres of
important farmlands (5.2 acres of prime and 3.9 acres of state-wide
important) will be impacted at the Martin Creek site, and 13.1 acres of
important farmlands (11.4 of prime and 1.7 of state-wide important) will
be impacted at the Contreras site.
If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please
feel free to contact me.
Kent Clary
Area Resource Soil Scientist
USDA-NRCS
589 Raccoon Road Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786
828.456.6341 ext. 105
-----Original Message-----
From: Carmen McIntyre [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:00 PM
To: Clary, Kent - Waynesville, NC
Cc: Carson, Glenn - Murphy, NC
Subject: AD-1006 Form for Stream Projects in Cherokee Co.
Hi Kent,
Here's the information on the projects I mentioned earlier. I'm also
attaching the soils maps we used for the project area. Soil maps I-19
and I-21 were used for the Martin Creek project. Soil maps J-23 and J-25
were used for the Contreras site. If you have any questions about the
project, I can be reached at 828.350.1408, etc. 2010 or by email at
[e-mail] .
Thanks in advance for your assistance!
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
P: 828.350.1408 x. 2010
F: 828.350.1409
?aker
Mr. M. Kent Clary
USDA-NRCS Area Resource Soil Scientist
589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
828-350-1408
FAX [phone]
April 2, 2009
Subject: Prime and Important Farmland Soils RE: NCEEP On-Call Project, on Martin Creek and
Unnamed Tributaries, Cherokee County, NC
Dear Mr. Clary,
Thank-you for your assistance in completing a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form for the
subject sites. As noted in earlier correspondence, the Martin Creek and Contreras Site stream
mitigation projects have been proposed as mitigation projects for unavoidable stream channel
impacts in the Hiwassee River Basin. Enclosed you will find a final copy of the form based on
our evaluation of the sites in accordance with Part VI, "Site Assessment Criteria." If you have
any questions regarding the cumulative scoring value for each site, please feel free to contact me
at cmcintyre ,mbakerco .com or by phone at 828.350.1408 ext. 2010.
Kind Regards, dcjwlfn?
zfI""Ej A_ Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Environmental Scientist
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Cc:
Mr. Glenn Carson, District Conservationist
USDA-NRCS
225 Valley River Ave., Suite J.
Murphy, NC 28789
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 12/15/08
Name Of Project Martin Creek Restoration and Enhancement Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream and Riparian Enhancement County And State Cherokee, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). © ? Acres Irrigated
- Average Farm Size
85 Acres
Major Crop(s)
Corn, Hay Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 103,357 % 35 Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 84,075 %28
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Cherokee Cales Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
1/7/09
PART III (To be com
leted b
Federal A
enc
) Alternative Site Rating
p
y
g
y Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 10.6
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 5.2
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 3.9
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.0
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 5.5
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) 63 0 0 0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 9
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 10
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services 10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 9
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 3
10. On-Farm Investments 2
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 93 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 63 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment) 160 93 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 156 0 0 0

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

Yes D No
Reason For Selection:
On-call contract with NC-Ecosystem Enhancement Program to improve watershed health and obtain mitigation credits
within the Hiwassee River Basin.
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff
- TN - LITTLE TE ESSEE
04-04 4
T
HIWASSEE CHERO EE
04-05-02

1
us
64
HIWASSEE
04-05-01
?. C Y
i
Martin Creek Project Site
GRAHAM
J 1_0

Map Inset LEGEND
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map

J ,
!f ` NCDWQ Sub-basin
F-i Counties

0 USGS Hydrologic Unit
Martin Creek Restoration Project
Cherokee County, NC

Project Hydrologic Unit
0 Cherokee County

Cherokee County, NC 0 1 2 4 m
Mlles
F
Iz.
0
1

J [?, V I 4 J'f?
a? ; ! ?? 7 •O` I ='"'' a9 `pry ,{.?fy+ r?, •? \1E I I ?.,- G ,' 1 1r
_ Id f^'4
'INN
f
•
00
r
LEGEND: Figure 1.2 USGS Topographic Map
Project Reach 0 Watershed Boundary
Martin Creek Restoration Project
Proposed Easement Boundary Cherokee County, NC
1?,4 OYUStelll Streams
0 200400 800
v Feet ?/
A
ro ,?
l4
l
i
i
.441
f y.
r ?
Nes?
Sa
rFl
d
b
LEGEND Figure 1.3 Proposed Restoration
Proposed Restoration Type Enhancement-I ® Jurisdictional Wetlands Plan
(Recommendation) Enhancement-II Proposed Disturbance Limits Martins Creek Restoration Project
Restoration-P1 Preservation Pro osed Soil Removal Area Cherokee County, NC
Ecosystem P
Restoration-P2 0 Parcels
0 200 400 800
Feet
APPENDIX C. EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Martin Creek Restoration Project
100 Pinebrook Road
Murphy, NC 28906
Inquiry Number: 02342808.1r
October 17, 2008
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Cre Milford, CT 06461
.com
2.0050
E D R Environmental Data Resources Inc wwwToll.ed Free:rnet800
.com
FORM-NULL-TIB
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 6
Orphan Summary 7
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting Source Map A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched A-11
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2008 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC02342808.1 r Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).
The results of this search follow:
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS FEDERAL RECORDS STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS TRIBAL EDR PROPRIET
RECORDS AIRY RECORDS
MARTIN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
100 PINEBROOK ROAD m
MURPHY, NC 28906 J J U m Z
Elevation: 1757 ft. -i z Q >
EDR Inquiry Number: 02342808.1 r J 0 w 0 0 of CO
of
a z Z w (7 o w j w
TARGET PROPERTY a
Z ?
w
m Q
0
? LL
p
(?
(7 C7
W
c
0
0
Z
w
co U
}
co
Z _
w U
w -
p U (D
U) a
U
a Z z U w U c a a Lu o C) 0 co 0 of m Z W _
w o_ 0 p
? D > a

SEARCH RESULTS Direction o ? w _
J Z CV
Q ? -i W 0
" (D ?
co d - 0 m w p p w w of 0
J Z
U
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z 0
Disance
t N o d
::j
U
U
co
?
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
z
co m o p
of
U U _
? U
Q w
U
U
Cl) Z

- m U m J J U

of

of

of
w

?

-

w

c? L

S
Distanceft. a o d W w 0 0 0 U U U U m 0 m rn 0 0 0 U U p J U j j cp m U a p p p p p 0
Site Z a p Z U U J U Cr Cr Cr Cr T- > > w = p Z D p L J U Z O p l = (? U w L (? (n Z (? O = J J Z Q ? > p m Z Z Z Z Z Z w
Surrounding sites were not identified.
TC02342808.1r Executive Summary 1
OVERVIEW MAP - 02342808.1 r
Target Property a 1/4 1n 1 Mlles
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property F-? ] Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than AV Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
the target property
0
National Wetland Inventory
1
7 Manufactured Gas Plants
0
State Wetlands
l
ir National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
SITE NAME: Martin Creek Restoration Project CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: 100 Pinebrook Road CONTACT: Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Murphy NC 28906 INQUIRY #: 02342808.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.0563/84.0353 DATE: October 17, 2008 12:18 pm
00pyrlaht ® 2008 EDR, Inc. ® 2008 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2007.
DETAIL MAP - 02342808.1 r

qua
QD
D/
S
panel
* Target Property
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1 Manufactured Gas Plants
r Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1116 1/8 1/4 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
SITE NAME: Martin Creek Restoration Project CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: 100 Pinebrook Road CONTACT: Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Murphy NC 28906 INQUIRY #: 02342808.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.0563/84.0353 DATE: October 17, 2008 12:18 pm
00pyrlaht ® 2008 EDR, Inc. ® 2008 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2007.
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NPL LIENS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LIENS 2 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA-TSDF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRA-LQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA-SQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA-NonGen 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
DOT OPS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US CDL TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
LUCIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HIST FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RADINFO TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
IMD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
SWF/LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TC02342808.1 r Page 4
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
OLI
HIST LF
LUST
LUST TRUST
UST
AST
INST CONTROL
VCP
DRYCLEANERS
BROWNFIELDS
NPDES
TRIBAL RECORDS
Search
Target Distance
Property (Miles)
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.250
0.250
0.500
0.500
0.250
0.500
TP
INDIAN RESERV
INDIAN ODI
INDIAN LUST
INDIAN UST
INDIAN VCP
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants
Total
< 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 NR NR NR 0
0 0 NR NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 NR NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
NR NR NR NR NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC02342808.1 r Page 5
Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
NO SITES FOUND
TC02342808.1 r Page 6
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 02342808.1 r
County Boundary o 1/4 1/2 i Miles
Major Roads
/// Contour Lines ? Groundwater Flow Direction Wildlife Areas
OO Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater c Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location Natural Areas
® Water Wells c v Groundwater Flow Varies at Location o Rare & Endangered Species
© Public Water Supply Wells
Cluster of Multiple Icons
SITE NAME: Martin Creek Restoration Project CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: 100 Pinebrook Road CONTACT: Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Murphy NC 28906 INQUIRY #: 02342808.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.0563/84.0353 DATE: October 17, 2008 12:18 pm
00pyrlaht a 2008 EDR, Inc. ® 2008 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2007.
EDR LoanCheck' Basic: Environmental Risk Review October 17, 2008
Property Name 440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06460
MARTIN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT Phone:[phone] EDR®
100 PINEBROOK ROAD Fax:[phone]
MURPHY, NC 28906 Web:www.edrnet.com
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL
To help evaluate environmental risk, the EDR LoanCheck'Basic provides an Environmental Risk Level,
based on a search of current government records requested to be searched by
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc..
ELEVATED RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is elevated.
I-XILOW RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is minimal.
User Instructions
For more information regarding this Environmental Risk Level, please refer to page 2 and other supporting reports.
User Comments
Reports and Databases
The following reports an/or databases were requested by customer and were included in the Environmental
Risk Level where available:
• EDR Radius Map Report
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
Drooerty. Additionally. the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as Ieaal advice.
Copyright 2008 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
02342808.1r Page 1
EDR LoanCheck® Basic: Environmental Risk Review
FINDINGS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL
The environmental LOW RISK is based upon the findings listed below. Refer to the supporting report(s) for
additional detail.
TARGET PROPERTY
Current Govt. Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
EDR Proprietary Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Current Govt. Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
EDR Proprietary Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
02342808.1r Page 2
APPENDIX D. Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data
Table D1. Eroding bank proportions BEH I/NBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Project Site Streams: Martin's Creek II M itigation Proj ect

ime Point

egment/

Reach Linear

Footage or

AcreageZ v

v

, ; ao

L

>

=
°-°

o

g
0
L
0
0
5
3

o

3

o
3
O

L
>

ri
a`,

O
c
? Y
o
F3 Q
V) a) X
w
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ton/y Ft3/y
RP-UT1 Reach 1 480 23 2 20 2 199 21 299 31 419 44 2.0 0.1
RP-Reach 2 540 95 9 44 4 167 15 229 21 545 50 5.9 0.2
MC-UT1 Reach 2 1,372 24 2 77 3 120 5 186 7 639 24 435 16 1,153 43 18.9 0.6
MC-UT1 Reach 3 420 30 4 34 4 108 13 224 27 80 10 364 43 6.5 0.3
P
C
t
ti MC-UT1 Reach 4 340 21 3 11 2 261 38 98 14 289 43 4.9 0.3
re-
ons
ruc
on MC-UT1-3 Reach 1 780 71 5 74 5 82 5 62 4 199 13 161 10 911 58 13.2 0.4
MC-UT1-3 Reach 2 1,099 1,256 57 942 43 1.8 0.0
MC-UT2 75 100 67 50 33 4.2 1.2
MC Mainstem 815 148 9 126 8 349 21 342 21 558 34 107 7 72.3 1.8
Total 129.7 4.9
Notes: (1) Other includes areas of deposition, bedrock, boulders,rootmass, or wetlands. Total linear footage is approximate and was totaled using a
hip chain as the streams were assessed. (2) Linear footage is the "centerline" length of reach measured. Linear footage calculated for each BEHI category
provided is the cumulative total of BEHI scores for left and right banks.
1635
MC-UT1, Reaches 3 & 4
1630
®TWG
-?- LTB
RTB
WS F
1625 Reach 3
Excluded area
7^ « by barn
1620
C 1.. _
0 ?-? Reach 4-existing
cv

1615
W
k
1610
1605
1600

1595

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Station (ft)
1770
MC-UT1, Reach 2

1760 a

-e-TWG
-v- RTB
LTB
1750 -o@-WSF
1740

p 1730

c?

d
W 1720

1710

1700

1690

1680 - -
- - -
-
90 290 490 690 890 1090 1290
Station (ft)
1645
MC-UT1-3, Reach 1
1640 -? TWG
-r- LTB
RTB
--.+- WSF
1635
1630

C
1625
cv

W
1620
1615
1610 77
1605

90 190 290 390 490 590 690 790 890
Station (ft)
1614

MC-UT1-3, Reach 2
1612 ?
-4--TWG
1610 -LTB
RTB
1608
1606
)ev

1604
C
O
cv
1602

W
1600

1598

1596

1594

1592

0 200 400 600 800 1000
Station (ft)
Cross-section Data: X1 (UT1 Reach 2, STA 1+44)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle Eb* 3.8 6.4 0.60 0.97 10.68 1.8 2.9 1754.70 1755.51
X1 - UT1 Reach 2, Riffle
Looking Downstream
1756
----------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
1755.5
C 1755
------------------------------
1754.5
W
1754 Bankfull
---- Floodprone
1753.5
100 105 110 115 120
Station (ft)
* E-type channel functioning like "G" due to high bank height ratio
Cross-section Data: X2 (UT1 Reach 2, STA 2+03)
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Fb* 3.9 7.5 0.52 0.62 14.45 2.2 1.2 1752.3 1753.02
X2 - UT1 Reach 2, Riffle
1753.5
LOOKIng uvwnsiream
1753
r_
0
1752.5
as
W
---- Bankfull
---- Floodprone
1752
1751.5 p T Y T
100 105 110 115 120
Station (ft)
* Function and shape of channel similar to "G", is probably in widening stage (G-->F)
125 130
Cross-section Data: X3 (UT1 Reach 2, STA 5+70)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle B 3.6 14.0 0.25 0.65 55.0 1.3 >2.2 1730.96 1731.16
X3 - UT1 Reach 2, Riffle
1732.5 Looking Downstream
---- Bankfull ---- Floodprone
1732
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
''' 1731.5
O
1731 ------------------------------------
W 1730.5
1730 - -
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
Station (ft)
Cross-section Data: X4 (UT1 Reach 3, STA 0+87)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle G 4.6 5.9 0.78 1.09 7.6 1.8 1.6' 1624.20 1625.10
X4 - UT-1 Reach 3, Riffle
1626 Looking Downstream
-
1625.5
.? 1625
1624.5
0
a 1624
as
W 1623.5
1623 --- Bankfull
---- Floodprone
1622.5
100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114
Station (ft)
Entrenchment ratio can vary by +/- 0.2, assume that 1.6 is extreme end of range for G-type
channel classification; in this steeper setting, the sinuosity is on the low end of the range
Cross-section Data: X5 (UT1 Reach 3, STA 2+01)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 6.0 7.2 0.83 1.21 8.6 1.2 >2.6 1621.18 1621.45
X5 - UT-1 Reach 3, Riffle
1623 Looking Downstream
1622.5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1622
c 1621.5
- -------------------------------
1621
as
w 1620.5
-- -- Bankfull --- Floodprone
1620
1619.5
100 105 110 115 120
Station (ft)
Cross-section Data: X6 (UT1 Reach 3, STA 3+10)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle Cb 6.2 9.8 0.63 1.06 15.4 1.0 >2.1 1617.90 1617.90
X6 - UT-1 Reach 3, Riffle
1621 Looking Downstream
1620.5
1620
1619.5
0 1619 -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1618.5
as
w 1618 ------------------------------
1617.5
1617 -- -- Bankfull --- Floodprone
1616.5
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft)
Cross-section Data: X7 (UT1 Reach 4, STA 7+75)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle G* 6.1 7.6 0.81 1.11 9.4 4.1 1.8 1600.90 1604.35
X7 - UT1 Reach 4, Riffle
1605 Looking Downstream
1604
1603
0
Iwo 11602 --------------------------
a?
w 1601 --------------
1600
---- Bankfull ---- Floodprone
1599
100 110 120 130 140 150
Station (ft)
*Doesn't fit well into classification scheme, but functions as moderately entrenched G channel
Cross-section Data: X8 (UT1-3 Reach 1, STA 1+46)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle Eb 2.9 5.0 0.58 1.02 8.6 1.0 2.7 1624.20 1624.18
X8 - UT1-3 Reach 1, Riffle
Looking Downstream
1627.5
1627
1626.5
1626
0 1625.5
-------------------------------------------
•- 1625

1624.5
W
--------------
1624
1623.5
1623 --- Bankfull --- Floodprone
1622
5
.
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft)
Cross-section Data: X9 (UT1-3 Reach 1, STA 1+74)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle B 3.0 6.8 0.45 0.87 15.2 1.8 1.7 1622.92 1623.639
X9 - UT1-3 Reach 1, Riffle
1625.5 Looking Downstream
1625
1624.5
1624
1623.5
°-' 1623 ---------------------
1622.5
1622 ---- Bankfull ---- Floodprone
1621.5
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft)
Cross-section Data: X10 (UT1-3 Reach 1, STA2+67)
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool N/A 3.0 4.1 0.74 1.01 5.5 1.5 1.8 1619.30 1619.81
X10 - UT1-3 Reach 1, Pool
Looking Downstream
1623
1622.5
1622
1621.5
0 1621
Iwo 1620.5
1620
w
1619.5
1619
1618.5
1618
--- &--Bank ull -- -- Floodprone
100 105 110
115
Station (ft)
120 125 130
Cross-section Data: X11 (UT1-3 Reach 2, STA 15+09)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C* 3.3 11.4 0.29 0.88 39.7 1.0 2.3 1601.22 1601.47
X11 - UT1-3 Reach 2, Riffle
1604.5 Looking Downstream
1604
1603.5
1603
.° 1602.5
> 1602 --------------------------------------------
?
w 1601.5
-- -------------
1601
1600.5 -- -- Bankfull --- Floodprone
1600 - - -
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
* Appears to be evolving from C-->E. Subsequent bankfull flows are likely to deposit material on bench
and result in narrowing of the bankfull channel towards an E.
Cross-section Data: X12 (UT1-3 Reach 2, STA 16+09)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle F* 2.9 6.9 0.43 0.90 16.0 3.0 1.5 1600.4 1602.21
X12 - UT1-3 Reach 2, Riffle
Looking Downstream
1603.5
1603
1602.5
1602
c 1601.5
> 1601
0
w 1600.5 --------
1600
1599.5 -- -- Bankfull --- Floodprone
1599 - - - -
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Station (ft)
* Moderately entrenched F channel.
Cross-section Data: X13 (Martin Creek)
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 67.6 36.2 1.87 3.76 19.4 1.1 >1.9 1597.7 1598.26
X13 - Martin Creek, Riffle
Looking Downstream
1602

1601 ------------------------------ ---- -------------------------------------------------
1600
1599

c 1598
> 1597
as
w 1596
1595
1594
1593
Station (ft)
* Note manmade levy on left bank
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Cross-section Data: X14 (Martin Creek)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool N/A 68.6 36.9 1.86 3.8 19.8 1.9 1.4 1596.66 1595.56
X14 - Martin Creek, Riffle
1602 Looking Downstream
1601
-----------------------------------------------------
1600
1599
c 1598
1597
1596
w 1595
1594
1593 -- -- Bankfull --- Floodprone
1592
100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
* Note manmade levy on left bank
APPENDIX E. Photo Log of Existing Conditions
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project Site
Photo Log
Notes: Photos on Pages 1-4 depict Right Prong Martin Creek and tributaries in the upper extent of the
project area. The region had been experiencing drought conditions at the time of surveys.

-jo a'
mel features on mainstem of Right Prong above confluence
UT4.
h
Good channel dimension in perennial, upper reach of Right Prong
Martin Creek.

Bank dimension in strong intermittent reach of Right Prong Martin
Bank dimension in intermittent reach of Right Prong Martin Creek.
Creek.

?/
!L
t
?
?
y
?
?
A
? > ? '
? \•. ? '
J? fF'. rr' ?,' F.[?'1 I -
?? Vii' Y 4.-
{? ?`
s > t _ 'i , 12'x° ?}i,

? t ?? /tea,! h. !_? ? 1-wr ?_ I !5 ?k^ih• ?Y,y ??.?.4' - ? +t? ."'s ? = 't °- l" 4..'.

2` '. 4.wi
„Ym'
` / ^`
. ,'Jr 71? 4- 3 w
Mf r °s'
ti -
'^ _ ?4
3 `•
.?'9?
'- -
q
Y,
_
.r -f
??y l ?a? $„r i;? ? -?( -t 4 lE?`l- ?`1 P? rr? ?
_
.
e
, ?
?
si?;h?°?#
i?_ . `?'f/4 ?. Y f •`•• r ? ,,Y~- ? ,._, -

,
AOW
?
?
T. 4 ?`?M??+ ,
X k* ??
: ?l
4
L -3, ? ? f.1{i`• 1
?:
?
r
.
?.
?
,.
.
?, 'iAf`-k';^,, ? ?? ,? *?a'? ?'ra,?s? `? `?,r.-
?
? '?.
'_
.a-
? - fix, - +?•? "`r SCI Iw-'? ?
' ?- ;
71P
1 .

- 7 .T.
Channel dimension of tributary in headwaters of MC-UT I. Cascading channel profile present in parts of Right Prong drainage.
n + ?
4
.
ki
S
?
?{
tagy:
a. E 1 R ?»
4
-
/,
1 r
y4 ..2-
4
?•_ " ; V"F4x4A?.a?!p??,'Y p { t air.
a ^.,? ?'S57dF' tY ?'1T F'?

t\
?
?

y may. p1
30 ?
}M"•

f-
t is. ?J r•a'FFF.FFF"`? ? 9y °? =`? 1-\ '+?. * it .? ??
?1 Y
r '•" :o-? FtiR. '-.? ? ? .r ,r
i 0 y.i - '? 1 1
?
???
?.
Pl'iN. k-°t..
Cu m w fi .." . } 7 p '?..
,K rf1*7c, ?., r„
i?+,?,rrr l ! f 1•?_ ".. ,mil" 4SY' "i^'},'y? -
?£?t
l
.
t:
??? r"
Cascading channel profile section present on Right Prong Martin Channel dimension as valley slope becomes less steep in RP
Creek. drainage.
Martin's Creek II Mitigation Project Site
Photo Log
Notes: Photos on Pages 5-8 depict Martin Creek and tributaries in the lower half of the project area.
K
F 1 ( S
Y

f 1 ?f

F

Pattern adjustment is proposed along this reach of UTl to Martin Cr. MC-UTl in preservation reach.
sS4 P-? 'r
Al, p ?. } 3

1 d
zl ;t
S'_1
Sipe ? Ts

? ?? _ ?? J/`? ? k

1
E
'
-?
?+ • P
3°b
?l
? Y¢
R ?
??.
1' ? fir. 4 '
i ?.: 1, ti 4 7?V Prn _
3
G+ 1

ip-
?
'.
.,° 1F/*
! ti*?r - ?
!R
O? ?`b
b°,
F ?
'?i aS+Q
F ?-?' ;"'. ? L
J• ? ?
`
? i
b
?
?
?
+
f
_ F,
f
!
g
?'
'
'
I ??
f
?
.
? ? *-'dam "
?
? _
•
IFL' ? +"{ ?
. F a,
? '- -'"
`i .eft ,1, ?t

Invasive plant removal and bank repair are proposed along this reach
Streambank conditions along MC-UT1 near barn.
of MC-UTl upstream of the barn.

'1
Ji
*

qy Ids"
m
"
: Mxu`
4 ° 1' ?1
/ ' ?M1
6 y
?
~ ?.aF 4 p +v_'? ?' a
}?
?
( f`
Y1
s
?
egg;' q
?? +
s 4 }
t
'
+
*r bt
VOW
?
4'dr r
d "
d
:7 ?

,{y?.r tt
, "A4
+
i
?
1W
. ?
s
Y 1
?
-? , y. ?
C .tea ? `
c? a ...t
'y ?> y' r ' yew 1 tA
r4
' .
dr,V
j -
y ( .F
I, ?y • ?
GrI A r'v_ `
,
`
.
?i.v.
J 1 f1. F
q
ON"
.,
?,y?` 9' ``y^.. "?`?
w 1r L
?;:
•
?
,?
,ld
`
s s' +4
_
. ?ift.?iJ? `S`
.
i`>?t
Instream view of riparian conditions along MC-UT1. Native MC-UT1 makes a 90° turn into this box culvert near the barn.
vegetation will be replanted that promotes better bank stabilization

J, Z r.

t iC'?d? q?4Y Fyl ?, ,.f'/d .r$?"e 1

v
' ?Xr 9?lZ???-• Yf^,-?` `?? NJ. -.`a 'I' "qµ f ? !.? f ?

«i
- 41.. ?t ..sas ` < :1..,.g ????1 .
mi
'-
?
d 5 `-z?ay r ?q rc- 'A 2 .f I?
l'
?

Upper extent of UT1-3. Cattle have trampled banks in this reach. Bank erosion along sharp bend in MC-UT 1-3.

y 11, v.
y0
$••rh? ry
i? fciA Mu f ?I ?X41

1
?
? ?
I
?
•
t N?F?
r
? C
?? ?
`?s 4
' +r' ' ' ?r_ b ~`N?.al
? W¢°"°"?'.MWii rl!%f _? - - ,??

s ?
' Y 3'
i Jpw ]r4
y I
w rL
! 0.

Confluence of UT1-4 and Martin Creek Overhead utility lines pose constraints to stream restoration approach
and potentially crediting.
.fGF

'°? Wt'Yy?yk

T w 4??A trr'w? *iir?'rep+??4+3xa}?fV'r rx r
-?

???
r::
F
s

w[?, w
"A V,

_ rawest ;
00-
?

f
p
K
n •? n L q

Enhancement efforts on Martins Creek will include removal of exotic, invasive vegetation and bank stabilization.
W-
C_
APPENDIX F. Wetland Delineation Findings
TM
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
C. OLLU A-- Gentechnical Construction Materials Environmental Facilities
December 29, 2008
Mickey Clemmons
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Reference: Report of Hydric Soil Delineation
Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project 31-1219
Dear Mr. Clemmons:
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) is pleased to provide you with our Report of Hydric Soil Delineation for the
site located at the intersection of Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road in Murphy, North Carolina. Our
services were provided in general accordance with ECS Proposal No. 31-315-P.
BACKGROUND
The site is located at the intersection of Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road in Murphy, North Carolina.
The site is being evaluated for a potential wetland restoration project for the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
ECS has conducted an investigation of the soils to determine the depth of hydric soil conditions and the
depth of buried hydric soils within the area along the creek and adjacent to the drainage ditch. The
assessment was conducted in accordance with current soil science practices and technology and field
guides from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. To establish soil conditions, ECS dug
holes using a hand auger approximately every 50 feet along transects across the field and excavated ten
test pits to a depth of approximately 2 feet with a back hoe to confirm the hand auger holes. The locations
of the hand augers holes and test pits and a diagram of the findings are depicted on an aerial photo
provided by Baker Engineering NY, Inc (attached). A photo log of the excavation pits is also attached.
REPORT OF FINDINGS
PINK/BLACK A The surface layer has a texture of loam, 6 to 10 inches deep. The structure appears to
be granular. The consistence is friable. The subsurface layer from 10 to 48 inches has textures of clay
loam and clay. The consistence is firm, sticky, and plastic to very plastic. The subsurface layer from 40
inches to 48 inches has low chroma mottles of less than 2. The depth to the seasonal high water table is
greater than 40 inches. Sample sites and pits are flagged with pink/black survey tape.
ORANGE O The surface layer has a texture of loam, 7 to 10 inches deep. The structure appears to be
granular. The consistence is friable. The subsurface layer from 10 to 39 inches has textures of clay loam
and clay. The consistence is firm, sticky, and plastic to very plastic. The subsurface layer from 27 inches
to 39 inches has low chroma mottles of less than 2. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater
than 27 inches. Sample sites and pits are flagged with orange wooden stakes.
200 Ridgefield Court, Suite 222, Asheville, NC 28806 ro (828)-665-2307 0 Fax [phone] ? www.ecslimited.com
A,1- i I I'. N C e Chas kale. N L' o f;-n+b++ru, N C 6 G...•rn i 11,, SC a Ra Lri a h. SC r S..masl+aar, tiC e A'llr+rm?wn, ^:C
Hydric Soil Delineation
Lower Martin's Creek 11 Site
Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project 31-1219
RED R The surface layer has a texture of loam, 5 to 9 inches deep. The structure appears to be granular.
The consistence is friable. The subsurface layer from 9 to 39 inches has textures of clay loam and clay.
The consistence is firm, sticky, and plastic to very plastic. The subsurface layer from 15 inches to 22
inches has low chroma mottles of less than 2. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 15
inches. Sample sites and pits are flagged with red wooden stakes.
RED B The surface layer has a texture of loam, 14 to 18 inches deep. The structure appears to be
granular. The consistence is friable. The subsurface layer from 14 to 22 inches has textures of dark
grayish loam. The subsurface layer from 22 to 39 inches has textures of clay loam and clay. The
consistence is firm, sticky, and plastic to very plastic. The subsurface layer from 22 inches to 39 inches
has low chroma mottles of less than 2. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 14
inches. Sample sites and pits are flagged with red wooden stakes.
RED/BLACK P Excavation of the pit exposed a terra cotta pipe used for drainage. Water was freely
moving through the pipe. The pit is flagged with a red/black survey tape.
CONCLUSIONS
PINK/BLACK A Mottles with chroma of less than 2 were observed at depths greater than 40 inches
ORANGE O Mottles with chroma of less than 2 were observed at depths of 27 to 34 inches.
RED R Mottles with chroma of less than 2 were observed at depths of 15 to 22 inches.
RED B A dark grayish loam A horizon was observed from 14 to 22 inches. The texture of the overlying
material was found to be loam and sandy loam. The dark grayish color (chroma of less than 2) in the A
horizon indicates that this soil formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, and/or ponding long
enough to develop anaerobic conditions.
RED/BLACK P A terra cotta pipe installed for subsurface drainage was observed with water flowing
freely.
CLOSING
ECS is pleased to offer you our professional services and we look forward to assisting in any of your site
analysis needs in the future. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact Lauren
Sicarelli at 828-665-2307 or Joe Hinton at [phone].
Respectfully,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
J ph A. Hinton, LSS Denise M. Poulos, LSS
Senior Soil Scientist Principal Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Plan
Figure 2 - Exploration Location Diagram
Photo Log of Test Pits
2
I:? y Y . R
ZR L
ail I.
Lager Martins r, 11 Site
V
IR B 113 B
t?
' A? t `
iAp
T,"
AL ?ft.
LEGEND
A : DRAINAGE MOTTLES >40 INCHES
t
A
R
R P R
RR R R r
R R y- a
RR,. RR
R R -
R
R B
R
PbtqptWjwafland
S Yr
-' R
y,
+r R R R R
IES
R : DRAINAGE MOTTLES - 14 TO 22 INCHES
B : BURIED DARK GRAYISH A HORIZON
P : TERRA COTTA PIPE PIT
A : LOCATION OF PIT
R : LOCATION OF PIT--B: LOCATION OF PIT
_._
FIGURE I
SOURCE:
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
SCALE 1 INCH = -200 FEET

SITE PLAN
LOWER MARTIN'S CREEK II SITE
MARTIN'S CREEK ROAD & CRISP ROAD
MURPHY, NORTH CAROLINA
ECS PROJECT 31-1219

f

p

HA-49
66 HA-48
l HA-47
HA-46 0
HA-45
4! HA-44 HA-43
HA-38 HA-37 HA-36
HA-35
T6 Q)
HA -50

a
rc'
r;
HA-20 ?m $
A THA-21
O HA-22
e HA-23 v .
HA-24
s
MA-14 24 z
HA-15
$ HA-16
I S& HAS-17 HA 18
- TP-17 P HA-19
HA-8
F9 A-11
HA-12
Q9 HA-13
HA-1 - A
HA-2
T? HA-3
HA-4
HA-5
?T?H0
6
HA-39 ? _ .
HA-440 HA-41 HA-42
LEGEND
HA-1 Hand Auger Location a
TP-1 Test Pit Location
SOURCE: FIGURE 2
EXPLORATION LOCATION DIAGRAM
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. LOWER MARTIN'S CREEK II SITE
MARTIN'S CREEK ROAD & CRISP ROAD
SCALE 1 INCH = 100 FEET ?+? ply ?? ?+ MURPHY, NORTH CAROLINA
CAF•ULI1 VI'1?7 ECS PROJECT 31-1219
HA-34
Q5 HA-33 HA-32
HA-31 HA-30

-25 HA-26
P HA-27 A
T
26 H
-28 HA-29
TP8 4a
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219

f
'°•?? ,a? ?.-a .-??' ?»' ?; . ? ? ? i " ray°-
Ns W,
r ?
r is ? wA•? ?'.sW7 ? ,i ?' .?.? '?,4°'+'?,
Photo 1: Test Pit TP-1

f.
4p
14, 0.
Photo 2: Test Pit TP-1
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 1
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219
q??, mss.! •! : _? `? M ) e .,b'1/??A ! K YA
?145 a?`„kltT? ? ?9? ? \ y? A..r j ?..,.j l?.?'r?. ?'P. '?, .,5"'
A,

?e?,
Io
,

Photo 3: Test Pit TP-6

c .4 =

_r 4

P r

R9r'

41
ECS .a 1
Carolinas, LLP
F
M'4N ' it r.? ?'?Y
Photo 4: Test Pit TP-6

z.
Page 2
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219

i ..

? A
y

1

7 -`

•a. te
`
e ? Ti

Photo 5: Test Pit TP-16
u
?I
Photo 6: Test Pit TP-16
w-

i

ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 3
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219
MEMO"
i ;-.( 1.1 Y
L:
a ;? d`7g r s yar 'Aff r s
41
.L? _ >r . .: c .. :. ' .. r•, :..._ PSI `t
a.

4
Photo 8: Test Pit TP-17
,
ylr N ?
A
I
t ?
e M?
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 4
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219
3 " v
lY r' f.I .. .S.Y
? n
V _ .1a..:t S t
177
TT''?? A
Photo 9: Test Pit TP-24
r . r-
1A XWO
A.4
r A
Ilk
Photo 10: Test Pit TP-24
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 5
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219
71
*r ?$ a j 7 r yr 7
Photo 11: Test Pit TP-26

W N? I
?j
.w.1'. ?• iJw?' - • ?.,? - r" Gib R•.
i

4

ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 6
Photo 12: Test Pit TP-26
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219

E
,t
F `
taw
R AI
v2` 7 i

T
N

%4.
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 7
Photo 13: Test Pit TP-36
Photo 14: Test Pit TP-36
Hydric Soil Assessment - Lower Martin's Creek Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road, Murphy, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31-1219
_ r
_r
24 N
ice. C ?{`q1, _ ,K r
{ ,r w1 .I 0.. :t 7
r?A
:.rJ.v-,
t.rk! ? r ?3 a
-?•, .r 1? ? :?? ,t _ {fir- T-?
Photo 15: Test Pit TP-20
Photo 16: Test Pit TP-20

t

ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 8
TM

WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW
LOWER MARTIN'S CREEK II SITE
MARTIN'S CREEK ROAD AND CRISP ROAD
MUPRHY, CHEROKEE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Th1
@.sl'.alT
® acs CaRaL1NAs, LLr
C. s LL,jm -_ Geotechnical Construction N9aterials Environmental Facilities
Ms. Loretta. Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
RE: Wetland Jurisdictional Review
Lower Martin's Creel II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Carolinas, LLP Project No. 31:1219
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
January 22, 2009
Please review the attached material included for a wetland jurisdictional determination for the above-
mentioned property. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Martin's Creek
Road and Crisp Road in Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina, and is further identified as a portion
of Cherokee County Tax Parcel No. 459100146624000. At the time of the wetland delineation the subject
site, was in use as a cattle pasture. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA),
Enviromapper website, the site is located in the Hiawassee River Basin (HUC Code 06020002).
On December 4, 2008, ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) delineated three wetland areas located on the site,
labeled as Wetland A, Wetland B, and Wetland C. The three wetland areas are situated from south to
north along an agricultural ditch in the central portion of the site. Vegetation in the wetland areas
consisted of Juncus effusus, Ponterderia cordata, Polygonum spp., Phragmites austrahs and Carex spp.
Soils for the site were not available on the USDA Web Soil Survey, however, soils in the wetland
exhibited hydric conditions and were consistently a 10YR 6/1 on the Munsell Soil Color Chart. The ditch
exhibited characteristics of an ordinary high water mark and flowed directly into Martin's Creek, a
perennial stream.
The delineation was performed based upon the hydrology of the wetland, hydric characteristics of the soil
and hydrophytic vegetation, as described in the 1987, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation
Manual. ECS also performed Routine Wetland Delineation Data Form test plots (copies enclosed) to
verify the difference between the wetland and upland areas located at the site.
As requested by the client, Mr. Micky Clemmons of Michael Baker Engineering, Inc, ECS is enclosing
the following materials to assist with your jurisdictional review of the wetland boundary:
• Copies of the Routine Wetland Delineation Data Forms;
• Jurisdictional Determination Form;
• Property owner's signed letter of authorization for allowed site visits;
• Driving directions and map to the site;
• Map showing the location of the site (Figure 1), a USGS Quad map with site boundaries depicted
and the coordinates for the center of the site shown in deci-degrees (Figure 2), the US Fish and
Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map (Figure 3), and field sketch of the wetland
delineation (Figure 4);
• Photo Log.
200 Ridgefield Court, Suite 222, Asheville, NC 28806 a (828)-665-2307 • Fax {828}-665-8128 0 www.ecslimited.com
:1:hF-"dlt N, [lwe I,i [v NC +(:r?vr Ir r.•. M'+i.a . ill'. "t +R 3 aA, N(-; .hire .r,
Wetland Jurisdictional Review -Lower Martin 's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Carolinas, LLP Project No. 31:1219
January 22, 2009
Applicant/Address:
Mr. Micky Clemmons
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
ECS' objective is to have a final determination by your office as to the delineated, jurisdictional
boundaries of the wetlands. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this project. If you have any
questions or need additional information please contact Lauren Sicarelli at [phone].
ECS Carolinas, LLP
6x? JSicarelli
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures: Appendices
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: crr Date:
Applicant/Owner. - ° , County:
Investigator: State:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes. No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 'No Community ID:
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Flo; Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. _ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:(in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):`?,??f .. Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
J

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

r ?? y

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? :Yes. No
Hydric Soils Present? 'fifes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Gl U? .
Remarks: ?C? C 4 ? (/\ p t fy c
f C4-f (2 , SSA 11 a s d / -4-LL,. ??J11 dl ???c ?'??7w??,,
7?l
M 1 at d (t a ltd pD ?i-i en S v -f-
Jt-ez i 4-e-J Ci/ ?-/ (e s
Hpprovea oy nUUaNUr 3roZ
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: '
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: - State:
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: ?l
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No.° Transact ID: . Iron
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 'No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. _ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
11
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water:
_(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:' (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes "Nor
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes Not
Approved by HQUSACE 3192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: .. ?; Date: 1 " . <
Applicant/Owner: Fr? e, County: 0
Investigator: State:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No. Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ' o Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. _ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other -"'Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): sl+ (d J` ???r ; Drainage Class:

Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations
Confirm Ma
e? Yes No
ed T
pp
yp
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol ' Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ;-Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? des No
Hydric Soils Present? kYeS No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date:
Applicant/Owner: i County:
Investigator: State:
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o, Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes NO Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. s sw.;..
r 9.
10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. _ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-)._- .
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: _ Date:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: County:
State:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes "No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. - 9.
2 _ 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. _ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
7 of
' Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ' j 3fd/ Y € Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes (No,
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

A
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approves ny NUUwAUL siaZ
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION L• BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. -84.025° N, Long. 35.054° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Markin Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Hiawassee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC):
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U. S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U. S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 850 linear feet: 3-4 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: -2-3 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section IILD.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section HLDA.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IH.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HLDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section IILB.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IH.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 20 acres
Drainage area: 10 Pick List
Average annual rainfall: 57 inches
Average annual snowfall: 5 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight)
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Project waters are 2-5 river miles from TNW
Project waters RPW.
are 1 (or less) river miles from
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles f
Pro miles from RPW.
Identify flow route to TNWs: wetlands flow into agricultural ditch (which was created in wetlands) and then flows into
Martin's Creek Martin's Creek flows directly into the Hiawasse River.
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1 st.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apps
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Stream was likely moved or ditch was created to drain
wetlands.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3-4 feet
Average depth: 2-3 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: poor condition, has been ditched.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: no run/riffle/pool complexes.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): -l %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent but not seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11-20
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: No. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
® water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum,
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film, water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: ditch was over-grown with briars and flow was low, but wate was present.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: three wetland pockets were delineated along ditch.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:2-3 acres
Wetland type. Explain: palustrine .
Wetland quality. Explain:fairly good qualtiy with well established wetland species.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Di
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings: wetland hydrology appeared to come from base of hill side, rather than from
ditch. Ditch hydrology was from wetlands.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 2-5 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 10 - 20-year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality, general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: wetland plants well established, little impact/ erosion from cattle.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 3
Approximately ( 2-3 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland A Y 1.5-2.0
Wetland B Y 0.75
Wetland C Y 0.25
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
Primary beneficial function is nutrient removal as the wetlands are located in a cattle pasture .
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IILD:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain fmdings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD: wetland areas and ditch flow into Lower Martin's Creek which flows directly into the
Hiawassee River approximately 4 river miles away. The wetlands provide nutrient removal from the cattle pasture they are a part
of.
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Z Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: first order ditch with hydric soils and substrate differs from surrounding uplands.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 850 linear feet 3-4width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 2-3 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
? Wetlands
acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Murphy, NC 7.5 min.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Murphy, NC.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Obtained from Google Earth, dated July 2006.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Photo log from December 5, 2008 during delineation.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
Identify type(s) of waters:
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
January 2, 2009
Ms. Loretta Beckwith, Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Reference: Agent Authorization and Site Access Authorization
Jurisdictional Wetland Determination
Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Lower Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
EEP Contract #13090105, Baker Project #114414, ECS Project # 31-1219
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
As the property owner, I am hereby authorizing you and/or other employees of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Asheville Regulatory Field Office, to enter and inspect the above-
referenced project site. I understand that this site inspection will result in determination of the
jurisdictional status of the property's wetlands/surface waters under the USAGE Section 404/401
Regulatory Program.
Additionally, as the property owner, I hereby authorize Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. to act as
my authorized agent regarding wetlands and streams on my property and for their subconsultant,
ECS Carolinas, LLP, to make a formal request for a wetland determination on my property.
Please contact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
(Owner Signature) (Print fl, Name) (Date)
R
.10 Q
lfl ( 11-V 12 1-1
(Phone No.)
(Address)
Site Location

aMft
1
Wetland A

Crisp Road
Lend
® Wetland Area
?Ditch
Data Point
Approximate Stream Locations Figure No.
ti Google Earth 4
W ,
Wetland Assessment
?a?uw ram ?; Lower Martin's Creek II Site ECS Project #
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road 31:1219
Not to Scale Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
Wetland Delineation-Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31:1219
t w ?? r r ? t h'?
Ilk
ti ?E+ f ?y!
fIfrc .E rt
Mod.
, a m r`P
.., ?d an
Photo 1: A view of Wetland A, looking east.
5
71.
1}.may+•r?
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 1
Photo 2: A view of Wetland A, looking south.
Wetland Delineation-Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31:1219
ycl" T i.;y?. Ay ?7; fl
_ le ; 111
'ow
Y
1 \ '111 :?? ? ? ? ? 4?
? A• q v? ? If
t
I z 7 ? ? 'I 5 a? ? 1? c ?r
y+l
L -
?< <' ,a?• ? ? f$_t. +e'• 3?• ??` "?ti?,?" tote ?' ,?
Photo 3: A view of Wetland A, looking southwest.
.1 ? y 1 _ ? ? lam{
ti - wOFc
•` n .rte !T??,y
'Y
yyfr. "
117
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 2
Photo 4: A view of Wetland A, looking west.
Wetland Delineation-Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31:1219
lk?
`?W?li .\4T ..? . er S 14!. !
,ro, <1 1 h7 r 5'I?1?Y
v. '
All
lit
e r° .A" +.?fL A F Y ? . ?,.i i4 'Y?? w.c _11.w. h-lE'i ?. e.
Photo 6: A view of Wetland B, looking northeast.
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 3
Photo 5: A view of a Wetland B, looking north.
Wetland Delineation-Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31:1219

' M, 'tea ?}`G •
r
i
a
9 i
-41
b }j ? y b
j•
01
4 p y
r:f •+-lay 1. yc ? ': r ^-.? .
, Al
^ y r
` < yp ( y fi ,
ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 4
Photo 5: A view of a Wetland B, looking west.

Photo 6: A view of Wetland B, looking south.
Wetland Delineation-Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31:1219
Photo 5: A view of the boundary of Wetland C, looking west.
X 4
7# a ±^.
'f 5 f ?'1"!LY !F ?l M 'I
y.y?;Vex.
?•C:? 1 ! fly ?
E

ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 5

Photo 6: A view from within Wetland C, looking south.
Wetland Delineation-Lower Martin's Creek II Site
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road
Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31:1219
! 9fJ? ' ?c µ, 1T ,$y ?1 Y1' I Y? R'e

roy vat `S ?* I
r

?Qyy' Am '•"? r'? r?' gyp' d ? ?i ? 1
Photo 5: A view of Wetland C, looking southwest

- r'?C,Y?,-• r. , lei
' V L H
ai-
Photo 6: A view of a Wetland C, looking northwest.

m

ECS Carolinas, LLP Page 6
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2009-00209
County: Cherokee
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Ms. Barbara Lutz
Address: 100 Pine Brook Road
East Hampton, CT 06424
Agent: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Micky Clemmons
Address: 797 Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Property description:
Size (acres) 29.3-acre review area
Nearest Waterway Martin's Creek
USGS HUC 06020002
Nearest Town Murphy
River Basin Hiwassee
Coordinates 35.054 west / -84.025 north
Location description: The property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Martin's
Creek Road and Crisp Road in Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the United States (U.S.) on the above described
property. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the
Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps.
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative
Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the U.S. within the above described property subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change
in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five
years from the date of this notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC ? 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. Due to the size of your
property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final,
any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the
Corps We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps Once verified this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas
subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which provided there is no change in the law or our published
regulations may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
Action Id. 2009-00209
The waters of the U.S. have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by
the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject
to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in
the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the U.S. without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding
828-271-7980, ext. 226.
this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Lori BeckwV
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and they abut a stream
channel (an unnamed tributary to Martin's Creek) on the property that exhibits indicators of an ordinary high water
mark. The stream channels on the property are an unnamed tributary to Martin's Creek and Martin's Creek.
Martin's Creek eventually flows into the Hiwassee River which flows into the Tennessee River; the Tennessee
River is a Section 10 water.
D. Remarks: Waters of the U.S. on-site are 3 wetlands and 2 streams.
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as
indicated in B. above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that
approved jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you
will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to
appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Lori Beckwith, Regulatory Specialist
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the
criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of
the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by
May 11, 2009.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: Lori Beckwith
Issue Date: March 12, 2009
Expiration Date: March 11, 2014
2
Action Id. 2009-00209
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnish: ECS Carolinas LLP, Attention: Ms. Lauren Sicarelli, 200 Ridgefield Court, Suite 222, Asheville,
NC, 28806

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Ms. Barbara Lutz File Number: 2009-00209 Date: March 12, 2009
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/ew/ceewo/reg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Perrrrit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain tern-is and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section lI of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION H - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Lori Beckwith, Regulatory Specialist Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review
USACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office Officer
151 Patton Ave CESAD-ET-CO-R
RM 208 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, NC 28806 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
828-271-7980 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Lori Beckwith, Regulatory Specialist,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801.
Approximate Stream Locations Figure No.
Google Earth 4
IV E (t( Wetland Assessment
rfia ? Uba ?? S Lower Martin's Creek II Site ECS Project #
Martin's Creek Road and Crisp Road 31:1219
Not to Scale Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina