20120102 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20120809

1a-b1D�)—
MITIGATION PLAN
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, North Carolina
EEP ID #95020
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared for
rIV
11
ra*Ca
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
July, 2012 R[N@Lg0w1ND0
AUG - 9 2012
oe R - WATER QUALITY

MITIGATION PLAN
J
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, North Carolina
EEP ID #95020
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared for
Y
al meat
r9orIA&M
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by
WILD LAND S
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone — 919- 851 -9986
John Hutton
jhutton @wildlandseng com
July 2012
r�
1 ,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (WEI) is completing a full delivery project for the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to restore and enhance a total of 7,477 existing linear
feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Person County, NC The streams proposed for
restoration include Byrds Creek (a third order stream) and South Branch, Southeast Branch, and
West Branch which are all tnbutanes to Byrds Creek This site is located in the Neuse River
Bann within HUC 03020201 (Meuse 01) Buffer restoration will also take place but is not
intended for mitigation credit at this time
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the South Flat River Watershed which is
located within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed The Site's watershed is within
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201010020 which was identified as a Neuse 01 Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) in NCEEP's 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan
Priority projects for the watershed include agricultural best management practices (BMPs) that
offset nutrient inputs to streams, stream restoration in altered reaches where erosion is a major
source of sediment inputs, and the protection of rare species and communities
The proposed project will help meet the goals for the watershed outlined in the RBRP and
provide numerous ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin While many of these benefits
are limited to the Byrds Creek project area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment
loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther - reaching effects In addition,
specific Neuse 01 goals include supporting the Falls Lake Watershed Management Plan The
design will not result in adverse impacts to wetlands
(� This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following
�� • Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332 8
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14)
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated
July 28, 2010
These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan Page ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
►
10
Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
1
20
Project Site Location and Selection
22
2 1 Directions to Project Site
22
2 2 Site Selection and Project Components
22
30
Site Protection Instrument
33
40
Baseline Information — Project Site and Watershed Summary
33
41 Watershed Historical Land Use and Development Trends
44
42 Watershed Assessment
44
43 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
44
44 Valley Classification
56
45 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality
66
50
Baseline Information — Reach Summary
7-7
5 1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition
7-7
52 Stream Geomorphology
89
53 Channel Evolution
134-3
54 Channel Stability Assessment
144-4
5 5 Bankfull Verification
154-5
56 Design Discharge
164-6
60
Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations
174
61 401/404
174
62 Endangered and Threatened Species
184,8
`
63 Cultural Resources
194-9
64 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
194-9
65 Essential Fisheries Habitat
1949
66 Utilities and Site Access
194-9
70
Reference Sites
2020
7 1 Reference Streams
2020
80
Determination of Credits
2525
90
Project Site Mitigation Plan
2626
9 1 Designed Channel Classification
2626
92 Target Buffer Communities
2828
93 Stream Project and Design Justification
2929
94 Sediment Transport Analysis
3039
95 Project Implementation Summary
3434
100
Maintenance Plan
3636
11 0
Performance Standards
3732
11 1 Streams
373
11 2 Vegetation
3835
120
Monitoring Plan
3939
12 1 Additional Monitoring Details
4040
130
Long -Term Management Plan
4040
140
Adaptive Management Plan
4040
150
Financial Assurances
414
160
References
4144-
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan Page ii

TABLES
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Table 1 Site Protection Instrument
33
Historic Aerial Photographs
Table 2 Project and Watershed Information
33
Appendix 4
Table 3 Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
5-6
Resource Agency Correspondence
Table 4 Reach Summary Information
77
Appendix 7
Table 5a Existing Stream Conditions
1144
Table 5b Existing Stream Conditions
124-2
Plan Page in
Table 7 Design Discharge Analysis Summary
174-7
Table 8 Regulatory Considerations
174-7
Table 9 Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Person County, NC
184.8
Table I Oa Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
2323
Table lob Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
2424
Table 11 Determination of Credits Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
2525
Table 12a Design Morphologic Parameters — Restoration Reaches
272-7
Table 12b Design Morphologic Parameters — Enhancement I Reaches
2828
Table 13 Bankf ill Shear Stress Calculations
3134
Table 14 Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type
3134
Table 15 Grain Size Calculations for Bankfull Shear Stress
333-3
Table 16 Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) Results
3434
Table 18 Maintenance Plan
363-6
Table 19 Monitoring Requirements
3939
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Watershed Map
Figure 3 Site Map
Figure 4 Soils Map
Figure 5 Hydrologic Features Map
Figure 6 NC Piedmont Regional Curves with Project Data Overlay
Figure 7 Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 8 Stream Design
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2
Historic Aerial Photographs
Appendix 3
Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination and NCWAM Data Forms
Appendix 4
Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 5
Resource Agency Correspondence
Appendix 6
Existing Morphologic Survey Data
Appendix 7
Floodplain Check List
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation
Plan Page in

1.0 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified HUC 03020201010020, the South
Flat River Watershed, as a Targeted Local Watershed
(http //www nceep net /services/restplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %20Neuse %2020111207 %2000RRECTED
Rdf) The watershed is 38% agriculture and 57% forest or wetland areas 23% of the streams within the
watershed are without riparian buffers There are 53 documented Natural Heritage Element Occurrences
and 13 permitted animal operations in the watershed The Flat River Aquatic Habitat is a Significant
Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) and is located in close proximity downstream of the Byrds Creek
Mitigation Site (Site) There are also records for several state endangered, threatened, and significantly
rare species in the South Flat River One of the species is also a federal species of concern (See Figure 1
and Appendix 5)
The 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP identified nutrient inputs from agriculture and stream bank erosion in
altered reaches as mayor stressors within this TLW The Site was identified as a stream restoration and
cattle exclusion opportunity to improve water quality and buffers within the TLW Restoration goals for
the Neuse 01 catalog unit are defined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP and include the following
• Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers,
• Support the Falls Lake Watershed Management Plan, Continue to implement planning initiatives
including the NCEEP Phase IV LWP for the Upper Neuse (incorporates updated plans for Ellerbe
Creek, Lake Rogers/Ledge Creek, Lick Creek, Little Lick Creek, and Upper Swift Creek) and the
Upper Neuse River Basin Association's Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan, and
• Protect, augment and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation lands
Priorities of the South Flat River TLW outlined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP are
Protects that offset nutrient inputs to the streams and agricultural best management practices
(BMPs),
• Stream restoration in altered reaches where erosion is a mayor source of sediment inputs to the
stream, and
• Protection of rare species and communities
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Project will contribute to meeting restoration goals as described above for
the Neuse 01 Catalog Unit and the South Flat River TLW by
• Restoring a degraded stream impacted by cattle to create and improve aquatic habitat, reduce
sediment inputs from streambank erosion, and improve water quality and
• Restoring a riparian buffer along stream corridors for additional terrestrial and aquatic habitat,
nutrient input reduction, and water quality benefits
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives
On -site nutrient inputs will be decreased by removing cattle from streams and filtering on -site
runoff through buffer zones Off -site nutrient input will be absorbed on -site by filtering flood
flows through restored floodplain areas, where flood flow will spread through native vegetation
Vegetation is expected to uptake excess nutrients
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page I

" • Stream bank erosion which contributes sediment load to the creek will be greatly reduced, if not
eliminated, in the project area Eroding stream banks will be stabilized using bioengineering,
natural channel design techniques, and grading to reduce bank angles and bank height Storm
flow containing grit and fine sediment will be filtered through restored floodplain areas, where
flow will spread through native vegetation Spreading flood flows will also reduce velocity and
allow sediment to settle out Sediment transport capacity of restored reaches will be improved so
that capacity balances more closely to load
• Restored riffle /pool sequences will promote aeration of water and create deep water zones,
helping to lower water temperature Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create
long -term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating Lower water temperatures
will help maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations
• In- stream structures will be constructed to improve habitat diversity and trap detritus Wood
habitat structures will be included in the stream as part of the restoration design Such structures
may include log drops and rock structures that incorporate woody debris
• Adjacent buffer and nparian habitats will be restored with native vegetation as part of the project
Native vegetation will provide cover and food for terrestrial creatures Native plant species will
be planted and invasive species will be treated Eroding and unstable areas will also be stabilized
with vegetation as part of this project
• The restored land will be protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement
2.0 Project Site Location and Selection
2.1 Directions to Project Site
The Site is located in southwestern Person County, southwest of Roxboro (Figure 1) From Roxboro take
Route 157 south 9 8 miles Turn right on Charlie Monk Road Travel 10 miles and turn left on Wolfe
Road Travel 0 4 miles to the end of Wolfe Road The project site is located south and east of the end of
Wolfe Road and is bound by Route 157 to the west and Walnut Grove Church Road to the east
2 2 Site Se lection and Project Components
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Site has been selected to provide stream mitigation units (SMUs) in the
Neuse Basin The site was selected based on the current degraded condition of the onsite streams and the
potential for functional restoration as described in Section 10 Credit determinations are presented in
Section 8 0
The streams proposed for restoration and enhancement include Byrds Creek (BC) and three unnamed
tributaries to BC South Branch (SB), Southeast Branch (SE), and West Branch (WB) (Figure 3) Byrds
Creek flows northward along the eastern edge of the project site until turning and flowing southeastward
at a point approximately one third of its length through the site It continues in this direction until the
confluence with South Branch and Southeast Branch Byrds Creek turns again after this confluence and
flows generally northward to the downstream end of the project South Branch flows due north and enters
Byrds Creek very near to where Southeast branch enters from the east West Branch flows eastward and
enters Byrds Creek at the downstream end of the project During the pre - restoration assessment, Byrds
Creek was divided into 4 reaches based on differences in existing conditions BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4
South Branch and West Branch are presented as single reaches SB 1 and WB 1, respectively Southeast
Branch is broken into an upper and lower reach SEl and SE2, respectively The project streams
ultimately flow into South Flat River which is part of the Neuse River Basin Photographs of the project
site are included in Appendix 1
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 2

3.0 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1 A land protection instrument will be recorded following
finalization of the mitigation plan but pnor to project permit issuance
Table 1. Site Protection Instrument
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State
4.0 Baseline Information — Project Site and Watershed Summary
Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information
Table 2. Protect and Watershed Information
Project County
Person County
Site
Deed Book
Project Area (acres)
Landowner
PIN
County
Protection
and Page
Acreage
Physiographic Region
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
protected
Ecoregion
Piedmont
Instrument
Number
River Basin
The Homeplace
TBD
Person
TBD
TBD
20 0
Charles E Hall
TBD
Person
TBD
TBD
3 4
Noell W and Floyd D
CGIA Land Use
Classification
2 01 01 - Row Crops, 2 01 03 - Hay and Pasture Land, 2 99 05 - Farm
Ponds, 7 — Unused
Reaches
Byrds
(BC1 -BC2)
Bradsher
TBD
Person
TBD
TBD
2 5
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State
4.0 Baseline Information — Project Site and Watershed Summary
Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information
Table 2. Protect and Watershed Information
Project County
Person County
Project Area (acres)
259
Project Coordinates
36° 14 744' N, 790 2 636' W
Physiographic Region
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Ecoregion
Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse River
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit)
03020201, 03020201010020
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03 -04 -01
CGIA Land Use
Classification
2 01 01 - Row Crops, 2 01 03 - Hay and Pasture Land, 2 99 05 - Farm
Ponds, 7 — Unused
Reaches
Byrds
(BC1 -BC2)
Byrds
(BC3 -BC4)
South
Branch
SB1
Southeast
Branch
SE1 -SE2
West
Branch
WB1
Drainage Area (acres)
2635-2637
2703-2957
164
56-62
255
Watershed Land Use
Developed
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Forested /Scrubland
54%
52%
63%
18%
26%
Agriculture /Managed Herb
46%
48%
37%
82%
74%
Open Water
<1%
<1%
<11%
<11%
<11%
Watershed Impervious
Cover
1%
<1%
<1%
1%
25%
qk�
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 3

41 Watershed Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Much of the Byrds Creek watershed and the project site was cleared for agricultural use at some point
prior to or during the early 1900's as is typical to the region, although no information exists to verify
when the clearing was completed Draining of wetland and channelization or relocation of streams were
common practices during such land conversion activities Historic USDA aenal photographs from 1955
and 1975 (Appendix 2) were compared to a series of aerial photographs from 1993 to 2010 available in
Google Earth
The 1955 aerial photograph shows that, while most fields had been established on the higher, flatter
sections of the site, the stream valley floors and mayor portions of the valley side slopes remained in a
forested condition By 1975, it appears that the stream valleys have been timbered with the possible
exception of the upper end of Southeast Branch (reach SEI) It appears that the natural vegetation in the
stream valleys was allowed to naturally regenerate and was mostly scrub and young trees
There is remarkably little change in the location and extents of forested and agricultural areas between
1975 and 1993 A slight increase in forested areas has occurred from 1993 to the present, likely due to
fallow fields being converted to cultivated tree plots for eventual timbering it was also noted that the
majority of farm ponds in the Byrds Creek watershed appear to have been constructed after 1975 Only a
few of the farm ponds that are currently present within the watershed are visible on the 1955 and 1975
aerials
The watershed area for the project streams (Figure 2) was delineated using a combination of USGS 7 5-
minute topographic quadrangles, site specific topographic survey, and available GIS data
4.2 Watershed Assessment
On March 27, 2012, WEI conducted a watershed reconnaissance to verify current land uses observed
Jfrom the aerial photography and to identify potential stressors Windshield and on -foot reconnaissance of
the Byrds Creek watershed confirmed that there has been little or no change in the overall location and
extents of forested and agricultural land use since at least as far back as 1955 The forested land use
observed consisted primarily of semi - mature hardwood canopies It does appear that there were select and
sporadic timbering activities over the years given that most of the canopy trees appeared to be between 25
and 100 years old based on height and spread The agricultural land use observed is a mix of row crops,
hay, and pasture Few livestock grazing operations were observed in the watershed The condition of
Byrds Creek in the forested sections above and below the project area was similar to that of the project
reaches with the exception of the prevalent livestock impacts and associated streambank trampling
present on the project site
The watershed assessment supports the conclusion that the overall watershed hydrology and sediment
regime have remained essentially the same for the last half of a century and no recent watershed stressors
are affecting the stability of the project reaches On -going agricultural practices within areas of highly
erodible soils within the watershed may be contributing a portion of the sand deposition observed in
sections of Byrd's Creek However, specific local stressors including lack of riparian buffers and
livestock access are mostly responsible for the current degraded conditions of the onsite streams
4 3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations
ranging from 300 to 1,500 feet above sea level The Carolina Slate belt consists of heated and deformed
volcanic and sedimentary rocks (NCGS, 2009) Approximately 550 to 650 million years ago, this region
was the site of a series of oceanic volcanic islands The belt is known for its numerous abandoned gold
mines and prospects The eastern portion of the project site is located within the Felsic Metavolcanic
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 4

Rock (CZfv) region of the Carolina Slate Belt This rock type is comprised of metamorphosed dacitic to
rhyolitic flows and tuffs that are a medium to dark grayish green in color In addition, this rock is
typically interbedded with mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta - argillite, and metamudstone
The southern and northwestern portions of the project site are located in the Metamorphosed Granite
Rock (CZg) region This region is classified as intrusive, metamorphosed granite rock Furthermore, this
rock type is described as being a well foliated, megacrystic that locally contains hornblende
The floodplam areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Person County Soil Survey (NRCS,
2011) Sods in the project area floodplam are primarily mapped as Chewacla and Georgeville loam
These sods are described below in Table 3 A sods map is provided in Figure 4
Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
EEP Mitigation Plan TemDlate
Soil Name
Location
Description
Chewacla soils are found in valleys and
Chewacla, 0 -2%
Byrds Creek and Southeast Branch
floodplains They are nearly level and
slopes
floodplains, downstream reaches of
somewhat poorly drained Shrink -swell
West Branch and South Branch
potential is low These soils are frequently
flooded
The Georgeville series consists of very
deep, well drained, moderately permeable
Small section of Byrds Creek valley,
sods that formed in material mostly
Georgeville loam, 1-
located near upstream project
p p
weathered from fine - grained metavolcanic
6%
boundary
rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt These
soils are found on upland ridges, knolls,
and side slopes Sod erodibility factor of
0 37, moderately high range
The Georgeville series consists of very
deep, well drained, moderately permeable
Byrds Creek valley walls, upstream
sods that formed in material mostly
Georgeville loam, 6-
reaches of West Branch and South
weathered from fine - grained metavolcanic
10% slopes
Branch
rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt These
sods are found on upland ridges, knolls,
and side slopes Sod erodibdity factor of
0 37, moderately high range
Source Person County Soil Survey, USDA -NRCS, http / /efotg nres usda gov
44 Valley Classification
The majority of the Byrds Creek project area is bound by valleys with relatively narrow floodplams and
valley side slopes ranging from 8% — 33% and valley slopes ranging from 0 1% — 2 0% It should be
noted that the surrounding fluvial and morphological landforms do not fit neatly into any of the Rosgen
(1996) valley type classification descriptions which are mostly based on landforms of the Western and
Central United States However, the Byrds Creek valleys most closely resemble Valley Type IV, which
are steeper, moderately confined valleys with narrow valley bottoms containing the stream and an
associated floodplam While Valley Type IV is described in publication as bedrock controlled gorges and
canyons, personal communication with the author had indicated that bedrock controlled confined valleys
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 5

in the Mid - Atlantic and Southeast piedmont are accurately described as Valley Type IV (Rosgen, 2006
and 2007)
4 5 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality
On February 7, 2011 and January 13, 2012, WEI investigated and assessed on -site . junsdictional
Waters of the United States using the U S Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Routine On -Site
Determination Method This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement Potential ,jurisdictional
wetland areas as well as typical upland areas were classified using the USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Form Determination methods also included stream classification utilizing the NC
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet On- site ,junsdictional wetland areas were also assessed using the North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Method ( NCWAM) All USACE and NCWAM wetland forms are included in
Appendix 3
The results of the on -site field investigation indicate that there are four ,jurisdictional stream channels
within the project area including Byrds Creek and three unnamed tributaries herein referred to as South
Branch, Southeast Branch, and West Branch
There are three (3) jurisdictional wetland areas located within the project easement Wetlands AA, BB,
and CC Wetland AA is located along the nght bank side of West Branch, immediately upstream of the
confluence with Byrds Creek, and is approximately 0 06 acre in size (Figure 3) This rivenne forested
.jurisdictional wetland exhibited low chroma soils (1 OYR 5/2), many distinct iron concentrations (7 5YR
5/6), oxidized root channels, water marks, drainage patterns, and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the
soil profile Dominant vegetation includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), ironwood (Carpmus
(� carolmiana), creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum), and soft stem rush (Juncus effuses) Wetland AA
is located within Chewacla soils (ChA), this soil type is a deep, somewhat poorly- drained soil with
moderate permeability (Figure 4) A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland AA
(DPI) is included in Appendix 3
Wetland BB is located within the left bank floodplain of South Branch, approximately 130 feet upstream
of the confluence with Byrds Creek, and is approximately 0 13 acre in size (Figure 3) This rivenne
emergent, jurisdictional wetland receives water from South Branch during high flow events and exhibited
low chroma soils (10YR 6/1), many distinct iron concentrations (7 5YR 5/6), inundation from 1 to 3
inches, oxidized root channels, water marks, drainage patterns, water - stained leaves, and saturation in the
upper 12 inches of the soil profile Dominant vegetation includes green ash (Frazinus pennsylvanica),
creeping grass, strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), and soft stem rush Wetland BB is also
located within Chewacla soils (Figure 4) A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland
BB (DP5) is included in Appendix 3
Wetland CC is located in the southeast portion of the project, within the right bank floodplain of Byrds
Creek and is approximately 0 03 acre in size (Figure 3) This rivenne emergent. jurisdictional wetland is a
linear ditched feature and exhibited low chroma soils (IOYR 5/1), distinct iron concentrations (7 5YR
5/4), oxidized root channels, water marks, drainage patterns, and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the
soil profile Dominant vegetation includes soft stem rush, strawcolored flatsedge, and common
switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Wetland CC is also located within Chewacla soils (Figure 4) A
Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland CC is included in Appendix 3 (DP7)
Wetland Determination Data Forms representative of on -site non _jurisdictional upland areas have also
been enclosed (DP2 — DP4, and DP6)
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 6

Byrds Creek and its unnamed tributaries are located within the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
subbasm 03 -04 -01 None of the project streams are classified by NCDWQ and therefore are required to
meet standards for Class C waters Byrds Creek is in the South Flat River watershed South Flat River is
classified as WS -III, NSW by NCDWQ South Flat River has a use support rating of "not rated" at this
time All NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms are included in Appendix 4
5.0 Baseline Information — Reach Summary
On -site existing conditions assessments were conducted by WEI in August and September 2011 The
locations of the project reaches and surveyed cross sections are shown in Figure 5 Existing geomorphic
survey data is included in Appendix 6 Table 4 presents the reach summary information
Table 4. Reach Summary Information
Bvrds Creek Mitiaation Site
5.1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition
Byrds Creek exhibits approximately the same overall alignment and pattern in the 1955 aenal photo as it
does today including the exaggerated meander bend at the bottom of reach BC 1 and the same sharp
southeastward and northward turns as it follows the valley It is unclear as to whether the stream, or
portions of the stream, were relocated or channelized prior to 1955 However, given that it sits in a
relatively narrow, confined, bedrock controlled valley, it is possible that the alignment has remained
generally the same since before the land was originally cleared The streams flow through pastures used
primarily for grazing livestock with the exception of West Branch which flows through a semi - mature
forested area The streams themselves are used as water sources for the animals As a result, the stream
banks are heavily trampled
BC 1 has the most intact riparian buffer with an expansive forest on the left bank and a riparian buffer of
variable width (0 to 100 feet) on the right BC2 has an expansive forest of the left bank and sparse trees
and patches of dense scrub vegetation along the top of bank on the right The riparian zones of BC3 and
BC4 are vegetated by a few sparse trees along the top of bank South Branch also has some streamside
trees and a relatively young and narrow riparian buffer along the last 300 feet of stream length before the
4
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 7
BC1
BC2
BC3
BU
SB1
SE1
SE2
WB1
Restored Length
637
1,630
1,402
787
971
792
713
589
LF
Valley Type
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Valley Slope (feet/
00022
00017
00018
00021
00097
00173
00195
00118
foot
Drainage Area
2,635
2,637
2,703
2,957
164
56
62
255
acres
NCDWQ stream ID
51 75
5175
51 75
5175
2575
4625
4625
4675
score
Perennial or
P
P
P
P
I
P
P
P
Intermittent
NCDWQ
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
Classification
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
Existing Rosgen
E5
C5 /E5
C4 /E4
E4
E5
G5 /F5
G6
Be4/E4
Classification
Simon Evolutionary
IVN
IV
IVN
IV
III
IVN
III /IV
IVN
Stage
FEMA classification
I None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
5.1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition
Byrds Creek exhibits approximately the same overall alignment and pattern in the 1955 aenal photo as it
does today including the exaggerated meander bend at the bottom of reach BC 1 and the same sharp
southeastward and northward turns as it follows the valley It is unclear as to whether the stream, or
portions of the stream, were relocated or channelized prior to 1955 However, given that it sits in a
relatively narrow, confined, bedrock controlled valley, it is possible that the alignment has remained
generally the same since before the land was originally cleared The streams flow through pastures used
primarily for grazing livestock with the exception of West Branch which flows through a semi - mature
forested area The streams themselves are used as water sources for the animals As a result, the stream
banks are heavily trampled
BC 1 has the most intact riparian buffer with an expansive forest on the left bank and a riparian buffer of
variable width (0 to 100 feet) on the right BC2 has an expansive forest of the left bank and sparse trees
and patches of dense scrub vegetation along the top of bank on the right The riparian zones of BC3 and
BC4 are vegetated by a few sparse trees along the top of bank South Branch also has some streamside
trees and a relatively young and narrow riparian buffer along the last 300 feet of stream length before the
4
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 7

confluence with Byrds Creek The riparian zone along SE] is heavily grazed and relatively devoid of
herbaceous groundcover and understory but does contain a semi- mature stand of trees SE2 has sparse
trees along the top of both banks
There is a breached earthen and stone dam on BC2 upstream of the confluence with South Branch The
1955 and 1975 photos do not have sufficient resolution to determine if this dam (currently breached) was
present or absent when the photos were taken There is also a farm pond is located at the upstream end of
Southeast Branch, but it is not within the project area
Due to heavy agricultural activities and vegetation management for many decades, pasture grasses
dominate the acreage included in the project easements along with some woody vegetative cover as
described above Sparse tree species throughout the easement include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
red maple (Ater rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
5 2 Stream Geomorphology
The streams run through relatively narrow, bedrock controlled valleys and exhibit low sinuosity and, with
the exception of West Branch, are all clearly degraded by livestock access The streams generally lack
well defined bed features such as riffle /pool sequences and have low width to depth ratios ( <10) It does
not appear that the streams have been relocated significantly from the center of their valleys
The stream banks are unstable and many of the banks have been heavily impacted by cattle access,
therefore bankfull indicators where limited and difficult to identify An estimate of bankfull stage was
made for each reach based on potential field indicators including top of bank, bench features below top of
bank, and in some cases where no other features were apparent, secondary features such as scour lines
The bankfull stage estimates were venfied using the drainage area to discharge relationships from the
analysis described in section 5 5 below WEI conducted morphologic surveys including cross sections and
��— longitudinal profiles and classified the streams based on the Rosgen (1994) classification system to the
degree possible using these best estimates of bankfull stage Existing geomorphic conditions for each
reach included in the project are summarized below in Tables 5a and 5b The reaches and surveyed cross
sections are mapped on Figure 5 With the exception of SE2, all project streams were relatively straight
and did not have a defined, meandering pattern with riffles in the straight sections and pools in the bends
Therefore pattern measurements were not collected
BC1 is the upstream reach of Byrds Creek and flows northward from the southwest corner of the
Homeplace Property It has a drainage area of 4 12 square miles With the exception of one exaggerated
meander bend approximately 400 feet below the upstream end of the protect and a sharp turn to the nght
as it follows its valley one -third of the way through its length on the project properties, it is relatively
straight Byrds Creek through this reach is confined within a somewhat narrow valley with moderately
steep side slopes For this reach, WEI completed a geomorphic survey of 400 feet of longitudinal profile
and cross sections of two riffles and one pool The top of bank was identified as the most likely bankfull
stage The entrenchment ratio for this reach ranges from 6 6 to 6 7 The width to depth ratio ranges from
8 9 to 9 5 The sinuosity is 1 3, due pnmarily to the lateral shifts across the valley and the exaggerated
meander bend The average reach slope is 0 0017 ft/ft The reachwide pebble count d50 is 0 46 mm —
medium sand Therefore, BC l classifies most closely to an E5 stream type
BC2 flows westward at the beginning of the reach but turns north and follows the valley toe for several
hundred feet BC2 turns southeast towards the downstream end of the reach As it flows southeastward in
this lower section it is situated in the center of a moderately confined valley floor It then turns sharply to
the right following the valley and flows eastward to its end at the partially breached mill dam The
drainage area is essentially the same as BCl (4 12 square miles) With the exception of one sharp turn to
the left towards the toe of the valley it is very straight WEI completed morphologic survey of 405 feet of
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 8

longitudinal profile and 2 riffle and I pool cross sections The top of bank was determined to be the most
likely bankfull stage The entrenchment ratio ranges from 5 5 to 12 1, increasing in a downstream
direction The width to depth ratio ranges from 5 6 to 11 7 Overall the reach is fairly straight but the
sinuosity is 1 18 due primarily to the valley turn The average reach slope is 0 0014 ft/ft The reachwide
pebble count d50 is 0 41 mm — medium sand Therefore, BC2 classifies as a C51E5 stream type depending
on width to depth ratio
BC3 starts at the breached mill dam and flows westward to the confluence with South Branch and
Southeast Branch and then south to north through a relatively narrow and confined valley It has a
drainage area of 4 22 square miles With the exception of one sharp turn to the left near the confluences of
South Branch and Southeast Branch is the stream is very straight WEI completed a morphologic survey
of 386 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections of two riffles and one pool The top of bank was
determined to be the most likely bankf ill stage The entrenchment ratio ranges from 3 2 to 5 5, increasing
in a downstream direction The width to depth ratio ranges from 9 3 to 19 3 The sinuosity is 1 01 The
average channel slope is 0 0018 ft/ft The reachwide pebble count d50 is 22 6 mm — coarse gravel
Therefore with the exception of low sinuosity, BC3 classifies most closely to a C4 or E4 stream type
depending on width to depth ratio for a particular section
BC4 starts below the confluence with South Branch and Southeast Branch and runs northward to the
fence line on the northern boundary of the Homeplace property through a relatively narrow and confined
valley It has a drainage area of 4 62 square miles It exhibits some lateral pattern that appears to be
associated with bedrock controls but is relatively straight WEI completed morphologic survey of 367 feet
of longitudinal profile and cross sections of two nflfles and one pool The top of bank was the primary
bankfull feature identified The channel appears to become slightly incised and persistent scour lines were
used as a secondary indicator in these locations The entrenchment ratio ranges from 6 5 to 6 8 The width
to depth ratio ranges from 6 4 to 6 9 The sinuosity is 1 11 The average slope of the reach is 0 0019 ft/ft
The reachwide pebble count d50 is 4 0 mm — fine gravel The bed material in this reach also includes a
significant portion of sand BC4 is most similar an E4 stream type
Sand deposition was observed in sections of Byrds Creek during the geomorphic assessment conducted in
August and September of 2011 The most likely contributing factors to the sand deposition are the flat
channel gradient and an on -going sequence of beaver dams on the creek While a portion of the sand
load may be delivered from the watershed, it is believed that a majority of the sand deposits observed
were from local streambank erosion on Byrds Creek and the tributaries
South Branch consists of a single reach, SB1, and flows northward through a moderately confined valley
reaching its confluence with Byrds Creek midway along reach BC3 It has a drainage area of 0 25 square
miles It appears to be adjusting laterally but at this time is still very straight WEI completed a
morphologic survey of 264 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections of four riffles and one pool Top
of bank was determined to be the most likely bankfull stage for the profile and most of the cross sections
Persistent scour lines were the best indicator available for bankf ill stage in the two downstream cross
sections because, in these locations, the stream was more incised The entrenchment ratio averages 12 4 to
13 1 The width to depth ratio ranges from 6 2 to 7 8 The sinuosity is 1 03 The average channel slope is
0 0094 ft/ft The reachwide pebble count d50 is 1 0 mm — coarse sand Therefore, SB1 classifies most
closely an E5 stream type
SE1, the upstream reach of Southeast Branch, flows westward through a narrow, steep sided, and
confined valley on the Hall property It has a drainage area of 0 09 square miles It meanders slightly, in
some cases associated with bedrock controls, and contains one exaggerated meander bend WEI
completed morphologic survey of 249 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections for two riffles and
one pool The channel has been severely over widened and the banks have been trampled by livestock,
therefore, reliable bankfull indicators could not be identified The only available indicators were scour
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 9

lines which were used to estimate bankfull stage The entrenchment ratio is 1 2 The width to depth ratio
is 9 6 Only one cross section was surveyed because only one location with channel conditions suitable
for discharge analysis was identified However, it should be noted that the width to depth ratio typical for
the overall reach is greater than 9 6 and in areas appears to be greater than 12 The sinuosity is 1 31 The
average reach slope is 0 0132 ft/ft The reachwide pebble count d50 is 0 09 mm — very fine sand Therefore
SEl classifies as a G5/F5 stream type depending on the variability observed, but not measured, in width
to depth ratio
SE2 flows westward through a confined valley that is slightly less narrow than that of SE1 The reach
begins at the boundary between the Hall property and the Homeplace property and continues to the
confluence with Byrds Creek It has a drainage area of 0 10 square miles SE2 meanders laterally more
than SE I, and exhibits some pattern associated with riffle /pool sequences WEI completed a morphologic
survey of 321 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections of two riffles and two pools The channel is
narrow and incised and persistent scour lines were the only feature that could be used to estimate bankfull
stage The entrenchment ratio ranges from 1 6 to 6 2 The width to depth ratio ranges from 5 8 to 7 3 The
sinuosity is 1 17 The average reach slope is 0 0167 The reachwide pebble count d50 is 0 04 mm —
silt/clay Therefore SE2 classifies as an E6 /G6 stream type depending on entrenchment ratio
West Branch flows northward then eastward on the Bradsher property through a wooded valley It has a
drainage area of 0 40 square miles It is relatively straight and centered in the valley for most of its length
until it shifts left and runs along the valley toe for the last several hundred feet WEI completed
geomorphic survey of 302 feet of longitudinal profile and 2 riffle and 1 pool cross sections The channel
is entrenched and incised and reliable bankfull features were not apparent Persistent scour lines and one
stable depositional bench feature were used to estimate bankfull stage The entrenchment ratio ranges
from 1 7 to 2 4 The width to depth ratio ranges from 6 1 to 9 4 The sinuosity is 1 07 The average
channel slope for the reach is 0 0111 ft/ft The reachwide pebble count d50 is 8 66 mm — medium gravel
This reach does not fit well into any of the Rosgen classifications but has characteristics similar to B4
streams in some locations and E4 streams in other locations
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 10

7
Table Sa. Existina Stream Conditions - Bvrds Creek Mitigation Prmect
Notes 1 Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no
water surface shots at time of survey
2 Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey
qb
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page I I
Notation
Units
BC1
BC2
BC3
BC4
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
stream type
E5
C5 /E5
C4 /E4
E4
drainage area
DA
sq ml
412
412
422
462
bankfull cross-
Ably
SF
558
626
584
645
625
667
609
651
sectional area
average bankfull
vbla
Fps
32
36
27
30
25
25
34
35
velocity
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
23
236
190
261
274
359
197
249
max bankfull
d,r u
feet
33
36
38
44
26
34
37
39
depth
mean bankfull
dbkf
feet
24
27
22
34
19
23
31
31
depth
bankfull width/
Wbkf /dbkf
89
95
56
117
93
193
64
69
depth ratio
low bank height
feet
33
36
38
44
34
34
37
39
bank height ratio
BHR
10
10
10
1 10
10
1 13
10
10
floodprone area
Wfpa
feet
156
157
145
231
116
124
134
138
width
entrenchment
ER
66
67
55
121
32
55
65
68
ratio
valley slope
Svalley
ft/ft
00022
00017
00018
00021
channel sloe
S&annei
ft/ft
00017
00014
00018
00019
riffle sloe
Snifle
ft/ft
00023
00074
00074
00075
00043
00133
00061
00162
riffle slope ratio
Srrne/Schannei
14
44
53
54
23
74
32
85
pool sloe
Spool F ft/ft
00001
00033
00029
00034
00005
00020
00003
00048
pool slope ratio
S I /Schannel
01
19
21
24
03
1 1
02
25
pool- to-pool
La-a
feet
28
101
54
103
70
124
63
120
spacing
pool spacing
LPP/Wbkf
12
44
21
54
19
45
25
61
ratio
Sinuosity
K
1 30
1 18
1 01
1 11
belt width
Wblc feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
meander width
WblltWbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ratio
linear meander
Lm
feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
len th
linear meander
LmlWbW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
length ratio
radius of
R�
feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
curvature
radius of
Rd Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
curvature ratio
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d5o Description
Medium Sand
Medium Sand
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
d16
mm
025
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
d35
mm
035
019
041
033
d5o
mm
046
041
2260
400
d84
mm
1100
11598
14340
1 8201
d95
mm
1 16814
23207
204800
12309
dloo
mm
1 >2048
>2048
>2048
>2048
Notes 1 Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no
water surface shots at time of survey
2 Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey
qb
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page I I

Table 5b. Existina Stream Conditions
Notes
Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no water
surface shots at time of survey
Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 12
Notate
on
Units
SB1
SE1
SE2
WB
Min I Max
MI n Max
Min Max
Min I Max
stream type
E5
G5 /F5
E6 /G6
B4/E4
drainage area
DA
s mi
025
009
010
040
bankfull cross-
sectional area
Abkf I
SF
80
87
62
89
94
137
150
average bankfull
velocity
vbkf
Fps
37
37
28
29
34
38
42
width at bankfull
wbW
Feet
74
79
77
72
74
91
113
maximum depth at
bankfull
dmax
Feet
23
24
10
16
19
16
21
mean depth at
bankfull
dbkf
Feet
10
12
08
13
14
12
1 3
bankfull width to
depth ratio
wbkf /dbkf
62
78
96
58
73
61
94
low bank height
Feet
23
24
38
27
30
36
41
bank height ratio
BHR
1 10
10
37
1 5
21
19
19
flood
width area
width
w
�y�
Feet
96
98
95
80
98
193
233
entrenchment ratio
ER
124
131
1 2
16 T77
2
1 7
24
valley slope
Svalley
ft/ft
—
00097
00173
00195
00118
channel sloe
S&.„nal
ft/ft
00094
00132
00167
00111
riffle sloe
Sr,rria
ft/ft
00176
00349
00247
00490
00047
00147
00090
00134
We slope ratio
Sntaa/Schannel
19
37
19
37
03
09
08
12
pool sloe
S I I ft/ft
0 0001
0 0058
00001
00053
00022
00147
00085
00159
pool slope ratio
S I /Schannel
001
06
001
04
01
09
08
14
pool -to -pool
spacing
Lp-p
Feet
30
62
35
90
17
122
52
72
pool spacing ratio
bkf
38
84
45
1 11 7
23
1 17
46
79
Sinuosity
K
103
1 31
1 17
1
07
belt width
wblt Feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
33
NA
NA
meander width ratio
WblttWbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
46
NA
NA
linear meander
len th
Lm
Feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
88
104
NA
NA
linear meander
len th ratio
Lm/wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
122
144
NA
NA
radius of curvature
Rc I Feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
1 17
NA
NA
radius of curvature
ratio
Rc/ wbkl
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 2
24
NA
NA
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d5o Descn tion
Coarse Sand
Very Fine Sand
Silt/Clay
Medium Gravel
d16
Mm
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
d35
Mm
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
002
0 044
d5o
Mm
100
009
004
866
da4
Mm
4500
2623
005
2623
d95
Mm
10733
5061
1 3320
1 5061
dloo
I Mm
180
180
7960
180
Notes
Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no water
surface shots at time of survey
Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 12

5.3 Channel Evolution
Channelization usually includes straightening and deepening of streams and is one of the major causes of
channel down - cutting or incision (Simon, 1989, Simon and Rinaldi, 2006) Based on Simon's model
termed the Channel Evolution Model (CEM) for Incised Rivers (1989), alluvial streams follow a
sequential series of evolutionary stages as they respond and ultimately recover from impacts due to
channelization or majors changes to hydrologic and sediment regime Pre - disturbance is considered Stage
I - Equilibnum Stage I1 - Channelization occurs when the stream is either directly channelized by man
through ditching or channelization occurs as an indirect result of hydrologic or sediment regime changes
in the watershed These actions take the stream out of equilibnum and alluvial channels will incise and
degrade in response to the excess stream energy associated with Stage II This incision process is Stage III
- Degradation As the bottom of the channel continues to erode and stream banks are undercut, the banks
will begin to fail and the channel widens as it degrades This is Stage W — Degradation and Widening
Eventually, the stream slope will decrease enough that the stream stops incising but continues to widen
through alternate bank erosion and aggradation (Stage V- Aggradation and Widening) At Stage V, new
bankf ill features begin to establish at a lower position relative to the old valley floor, and the stream
continues to widen its new floodplain through alternate bank erosion until it eventually returns to a state
of quasi - equlibrium (Stage VI) Lateral adjustment processes (migration) are often associated with Stages
N and V
Byrds Creek sits on a confined bedrock controlled valley and does not appear to have significantly
downcut as the top of bank is approximately the bankfull stage along most of the project reaches While
there are locally over - widened areas, overall width to depth ratios are low and there are few areas where
both stream banks are eroding Bank failure and widening seem to be more associated with livestock
access, but because of the livestock trampling of the banks it is impossible to know the extent of fluvial
bank erosion The Byrds Creek pattern and alignment have also not changed substantially in over half a
( century Any further downcutting that would have occurred seems to have been arrested by the bedrock
control There is bank erosion and trampling and a large amount of sand in the bed of the stream
Aggradation following bank erosion appears to have begun, possibly due to the over widening of the
stream channel that has resulted in the reduction of stream power Byrds Creek was likely similar to an
E/C stream type prior to disturbance In general, Byrds Creek is in stages IV and V The majority of the
sand deposition observed in Byrds Creek is likely associated with the bank failure mechanisms associated
with stages IV and V and cattle trampling
South Branch appears to be in the early phases of Stage III as the lower end appears incised while the
upper portion is not (bankfull identified as the top of bank) There is some early evidence of lateral
migration and Stage iV processes especially on the lower end South Branch has likely historically been
and remains an E channel If incision continues upstream, it will eventually evolve to a channel most
similar to an E/C or Bc channel type but at a lower elevation relative to the valley floor
SE appears to be in late Stage IV of the CEM The stream is overwidened due to heavy livestock access
and lateral cutting of the stream The livestock access is also likely hampering the recovery processes
typical of Stage V SE] was likely an E/C channel prior to disturbance, is currently most similar to a G or
F channel, and is evolving towards an E/C or Bc channel type but at a lower elevation relative to the
valley floor
SE2 has downcut to bedrock (Stage III) Existing trees and scrub vegetation along the streambanks seems
to be retarding Stage IV (channel widening) processes although some limited bank erosion on one side or
the other is evident There is limited evidence of lateral migration In the pre - disturbance condition it is
likely that the channel was most similar to an E/C stream type It is currently best described as a G stream
type and would likely remain that type for some time without intervention due to lack of bank erosional
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 13

processes and woody vegetation along the top of banks It may eventually evolve to an E/C or Bc channel
type but at a lower elevation relative to the valley floor
West Branch has downcut to bedrock (Stage I1I) and appears to have progressed to late Stage W / early
Stage V as evidenced by the early formation of depositional features in some locations within the channel
It also appears to be laterally adjusting slightly West Branch was probably historically similar to an E/C
and is currently best described as a G or B but is evolving towards an E/C or Bc channel type but at a
lower elevation relative to the valley floor
5 4 Channel Stability Assessment
WEI utilized a modified version of the Rapid Assessment of Channel Stability as described in Hydrologic
Engineering Circular (HEC) -20 (Lagasse, 2001) The method is semi - quantitative and incorporates
thirteen stability indicators that are evaluated in the field in a 2007 publication, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) updated the method for HEC -20 by modifying the metrics included in the
assessment and incorporating a stream type determination The result is an assessment method that can be
rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different physiographic settings with a range of bed and
bank materials
The Channel Stability Assessment protocol was designed to evaluate 13 parameters watershed land use,
status of flow, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed substrate matenal, bar
development, presence of obstructions and debris dams, bank soil texture and coherence, average bank
angle, bank vegetation, bank cutting, mass wastingibank failure, and upstream distance to bridge Once all
parameters are scored, the stability of the stream is then classified as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor As
the protocol was designed to assess stream channel stability near bridges, two minor modifications were
made to the methodology to make it more applicable to project specific conditions The first modification
involved adjusting the sconng so that naturally meandering streams score lower (better condition) than
straight and/or engineered channels Because straight, engineered channels are hydraulically efficient and
necessary for bridge protection, they score low (excellent to good rating) with the original methodology
Secondly, the last assessment parameter — upstream distance to bridge — was removed from the protocol
because it relates directly to the potential effects of instability on a bridge and should not influence
stability ratings for the streams assessed for this project The final scores and corresponding ratings were
based on the twelve remaining parameters The rating adjectives were assigned to the streams based on
the FHWA guidelines for pool -riffle stream types
The HEC -20 manual also descnbes both lateral and vertical components of overall channel stability
which can be separated with this assessment methodology Some of the 13 parameters described above
relate specifically to either vertical or horizontal stability When all parameter scores for the vertical
category or all parameter scores for the horizontal category are summed and normalized by the total
possible scores for their respective categories, a vertical or honzontal fraction is produced These
fractions may then be compared to one another determine if the channel is more vertically or horizontally
unstable
The assessment results for the streams on the Byrds Creek site indicate that all of the streams are rated in
the second to the lowest category — fair For every stream assessed, the lateral fraction was greater than
the vertical fraction This indicates that lateral instability is a greater problem for these streams than
vertical instability Total scores, stability ratings, and vertical and horizontal fractions are provided in
Table 6
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 14

Table 6. Existing Conditions Channel Stability Assessment Results
Byrds Creek Mitigation Project
Parameter
BC1— BC3
BC4
SBi
SE1— SE2
WB1
1 Watershed characteristics
5
5
5
5
3
2 Flow habit
4
3
4
4
4
3 Channel pattern
8
8
7
5
7
4 Entrenchment
7
7
4
5
9
5 Bed material
8
7
8
8
5
6 Bar development
8
5
3
7
7
7 Obstructions
7
7
5
5
6
8 Bank soil texture and coherence
8
8
10
10
9
9 Average bank slope angle
11
11
11
10
11
10 Bank protection
9
9
8
8
7
11 Bank cutting
8
9
8
7
11
12 Mass wasting or bank failure
4
7
5
5
10
Score
87
86
78
79
89
Ranking
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Lateral Score
40
44
42
40
48
Vertical Score
23
19
15
20
21
Lateral Fraction
067
073
070
067
080
Vertical Fraction
064
053
042
056
058
5 5 Bankfull Venfication
On many of the project reaches streambanks have been trampled by cattle and therefore bankfull
indicators were difficult to identify However, during the existing conditions assessment, WEI staff
identified the best available bankfull indicators and surveyed cross sections at those locations Potential
bankfull indicators included top of bank, slope breaks, and, where better indicators were not present,
persistent scour lines The Manning's equation was applied to the surveyed cross - sections to calculate an
estimated bankfull discharge The computed bankfull discharges and bankfull cross - sectional areas of
each reach were plotted on the North Carolina rural Piedmont regional curves in order to verify that the
bankfull stage estimates were reasonably similar to values predicted by the regional curves
A nearby USGS gauging station (station 02008650112 — Flat River Tributary Near Willardville, NC) was
used to develop a calibrated estimate of bankfull discharge for use in verifying the existing conditions
discharges calculated at the project site The bankfull discharge of the Flat River gauge site was
determined to be 72 cfs with a recurrence interval of 1 31 years Bankfull data for the gauge site, the
surveyed project reaches, and the project reference reaches (see Section 7) are plotted with the North
Carolina rural Piedmont regional curves and are shown overlaid with the rural curves for discharge in
Figure 6a
qb�
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 15

Analysis of the bankfull discharges for the project reaches, reference reaches, and gauge survey reveals
_ that the data consistently plot within the 95% confidence intervals of the regional curve in all cases where
the points are within the range of drainage areas (independent variable) covered by the regional curves
This information indicates that the bankfull indicators identified during the existing conditions assessment
provide reasonable estimates of bankfull discharge and associated hydraulic geometry for the existing
conditions
5.6 Design Discharge
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates of the project reaches The resulting
values were compared and concurrence between the estimates and best professional judgment were used
to determine the specific design discharge for each project reach
The methods to estimate discharge included
• The published North Carolina rural piedmont regional curve (Harman, et al , 1999) and the
calibrated discharge for the Flat River gauge,
• Regional flood frequency analysis developed for this project, and
• Drainage area — discharge relationships from select reference reaches
A common practice for stream restoration projects in the North Carolina Piedmont is to use the 1999
regional curves to estimate discharge and/or cross - sectional area The regional curve for discharge was
used to estimate bankfull discharge with the drainage area for each project reach as the input
To develop the regional flood frequency relationships, four USGS stream gauge sites were identified
within reasonable proximity of the project site Data from these gauges were used to develop two regional
flood frequency curves as described by Dalyrmple (1960) The gauges used were
• 208650112 Flat River Tributary Near Willardville, NC — Drainage Area 1 14 square miles
• 2065100 Snake Creek Near Brookneal, VA — Drainage Area 1 65 square miles
• 2075350 Powells Creek Near Turbeville, VA —Drainage Area 0 29 square miles
• 2086000 Dial Creek Near Bahama, NC — Drainage Area 4 73 square miles
Flood frequency curves were developed for the 125 year and 1 50 year recurrence interval discharges
These relationships can be used to estimate discharge of those recurrence intervals for ungauged streams
in the same hydrologic region and were solved for discharge with the drainage area for each project reach
as the input
The drainage area and discharge values for four reference reaches selected for use in the project (see
Section 7) were compiled for comparison to the discharge estimates described above These drainage area
and discharge values were used to create a project- specific drainage area — discharge regression curve
Table 7 summarizes the results of each of the discharge analyses described in this section and the selected
design discharge based on those analyses The project- specific curve predicts bankfull discharges for the
project reaches between the 1 25- and 1 5 -year flood frequency curve values The project specific curve
values are somewhat lower than the existing Piedmont regional curve (but all within the 95 percent
confidence interval) Values similar to those predicted by the methods summarized in Table 7 were
selected as design discharges
WD
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 16

Table 7. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
6.0 Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations
Table 8 presents the project information and baseline wetland information
Table S. Regulatory Considerations
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
Applicable?
Project-
North
Flood
Flood
Yes
NW27 Permit
pending
Waters of the US — Section
401
Specific
Carolina
Frequency
Frequency
Yes
Yes
Drainage
Drainage
Piedmont
Curve 125
Curve 1 50
Design Q
Reach
Area (AC)
Area-
Rural
Year
Year
(CFS)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Discharge
Regional
Recurrence
Recurrence
Curve (CFS)
Curve (CFS)
Interval
Interval
CFS
CFS
BC1 and
412
239
248
133
215
200
BC2
BC3
422
243
252
134
218
210
BC4
462
259
269
141
230
220
S61
025
32
33
27
44
30
SE1
009
15
16
15
25
20
SE2
010
16
17
16
26
20
WB1
040
44
46
35
57
45
6.0 Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations
Table 8 presents the project information and baseline wetland information
Table S. Regulatory Considerations
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
61 401/404
As discussed in Section 4 5, the results of the onsite field investigation indicate that four channels
including Byrds Creek, South Branch, Southeast Branch, and West Branch are jurisdictional within the
project limits (Figures 3 and 5) Additionally there are three Jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetland AA,
BB, and CC) located within the proposed project area Each of the described tributaries and wetland
features will be protected under the conservation easement to be placed on the properties The
Jurisdictional Determination, including all necessary and required forms (see Appendix 3), was
submitted to the Wilmington office of the United States Army Corps of Engineers on January 24h, 2012
but has not been approved as of the date of this report Correspondence with the assigned project manager
tt
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 17
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the US — Section
404
Yes
Yes
NW27 Permit
pending
Waters of the US — Section
401
Yes
Yes
401
Certification pending
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
N/A
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Letter from SHPO
Coastal Zone Management
Act/Coastal Area Management
Act
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
61 401/404
As discussed in Section 4 5, the results of the onsite field investigation indicate that four channels
including Byrds Creek, South Branch, Southeast Branch, and West Branch are jurisdictional within the
project limits (Figures 3 and 5) Additionally there are three Jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetland AA,
BB, and CC) located within the proposed project area Each of the described tributaries and wetland
features will be protected under the conservation easement to be placed on the properties The
Jurisdictional Determination, including all necessary and required forms (see Appendix 3), was
submitted to the Wilmington office of the United States Army Corps of Engineers on January 24h, 2012
but has not been approved as of the date of this report Correspondence with the assigned project manager
tt
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 17

indicates that an additional site visit will not be required to review the delineation but that the approval
may take some time given a recent increase in permit applications which take priority over JD approvals
6 2 Endangered and Threatened Species
6.21 Site Evaluation Methodology
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U S C 1531 et seq ), defines protection for
species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E) An "Endangered
Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become
an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range" (16 U S C 1532)
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases
were searched for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species for Person
County, NC One federally listed species, the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmrdonta heterodon) is
currently listed in Person County (Table 9) The record status of the dwarf wedgemussel is listed as
obscure
Table 9. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Person County, NC
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
62.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions
Dwarf Wedgemussel
The dwarf wedgemussel is a relatively small freshwater mussel with a yellowish brown shell
approximately 1 inch in length This species typically inhabits creeks and rivers with slow to
moderate current and sand, gravel or muddy substrate Typical threats to this species include
common pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater discharges as well as sedimentation
and runoff from agricultural and forestry operations This species is known to occur in stream
reaches along the Atlantic Coast, including North Carolina
6.23 Biological Conclusion
Based on a pedestrian survey of the site that was performed on February 4, 2011, no individual
species, critical habitat, or suitable habitat was found to exist on the site It was determined that the
biological conclusion is "no effect "
Review and comment from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was requested on
June 30, 2011 in respect to the Byrds Creek Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or
0
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 18
Federal
I
Biological
Species
Status
Habitat
Conclusion
Invertebrate
Dwarf
wedgemussel
E
Slow to moderate stream
No effect
(Alasmrdonta
currents, sand, gravel,
heterodon
muddy bottom
E = Endangered, T= Threatened, BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
62.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions
Dwarf Wedgemussel
The dwarf wedgemussel is a relatively small freshwater mussel with a yellowish brown shell
approximately 1 inch in length This species typically inhabits creeks and rivers with slow to
moderate current and sand, gravel or muddy substrate Typical threats to this species include
common pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater discharges as well as sedimentation
and runoff from agricultural and forestry operations This species is known to occur in stream
reaches along the Atlantic Coast, including North Carolina
6.23 Biological Conclusion
Based on a pedestrian survey of the site that was performed on February 4, 2011, no individual
species, critical habitat, or suitable habitat was found to exist on the site It was determined that the
biological conclusion is "no effect "
Review and comment from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was requested on
June 30, 2011 in respect to the Byrds Creek Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or
0
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 18

endangered species Since no response was received from the USFWS within a 30 -day time frame, it
is assumed that the site determination is correct and that no additional, relevant information is
available for this site
6 3 Cultural Resources
631 Site Evaluation Methodology
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, amended (16 U S C 470), defines the
policy of historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and objects
significant in American history, architecture, and culture Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that
federal agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on any property, which is included in,
or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places A letter was sent to the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 8, 2011, requesting review and comment
on any cultural resources potentially affected by the Byrds Creek Mitigation Project
632 SHPO/THPO Concurrence
A request for review and comment from the SHPO with respect to any archeological and architectural
resources related to the Byrds Creek Mitigation Site was made on July 8, 2011 SHPO responded on
July 21, 2011 and determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic
structures They also requested that a permanent state site number be obtained for the mill dam that is
located in the undisturbed area This number (31 PR129) was issued on August 18, 2011
6 4 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The project stream channels do not have an associated regulated floodplain and are not located along a
studied section of stream All reaches flow into a mapped section of Byrds Creek, approximately 5,000
feet downstream of the property limits The site is located on Panels 9980 and 9981 of the Person County
FIRM panels However, a DFIRM is not available for panel 9980 as there are no mapped streams or
special flood hazard areas within the panel boundary No detailed flood studies will be required as a part
of this project, however, hydrologic methods and hydraulic modeling will be performed to verify the
design approach and analyze the potential for hydrologic trespass
6 5 Essential Fisheries Habitat
6.51 Habitat Description
The USFWS does not list any Critical Habitat areas for Person County Agency correspondence
received for the project contains no mention of essential fisheries or requests for additional
information related to essential fisheries
652 Biological Conclusion
Given that there are no listed Critical Habitat areas, the project will have no effect on essential
fisheries habitat
6 6 Utilities and Site Access
There are no known utilities or other easements located on the properties There are three unimproved
ford crossings on the Homeplace Property with one crossing located on Byrds Creek, South Branch, and
Southeast Branch each There are two concrete ford crossings on Southeast Branch on the Hall property
All fords will be removed during restoration construction The proposed design includes two culvert
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 19

crossings on South Branch and one culvert crossing on Byrds Creek The culvert crossings are excluded
from the proposed project easements and no mitigation credit is included for the crossing areas
The site will be accessed from the end of Wolfe Road through an existing gate on the Homeplace property
and through Lamberth Hall Road on the Hall property Open fields will allow easy movement of
construction equipment within the properties The construction plans will include a defined access route
to West Branch from the Homeplace Property onto the Bradsher property that will minimize tree impacts
within the existing forest
7.0 Reference Sites
71 Reference Streams
Four reference reaches were identified near the project area and used to support the design of the project
reaches (Figure 7) Reference reaches can be used as a basis for design or, more appropriately, as one
source of information on which to base a stream restoration design Most, if not all, reference reaches
identified in the North Carolina Piedmont are in heavily wooded areas and the mature vegetation
contributes greatly to their stability Design parameters for this project were also developed based on the
design discharge along with dimensionless ratio values associated with successful restoration designs of
streams in the North Carolina Piedmont Reference reach data for similar streams were obtained from
existing data sets and used to verify design parameters The reference streams considered when
developing design parameters for this project include UT to Rocky Branch, Spencer Creek, UT to Cane
Creek, and UT to Richland Creek These reference streams were chosen because of similarities to the
project streams including drainage area, valley slope and morphology, and bed material The reference
reaches are within the Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont with the exception of Cane Creek
711 Reference Streams Channel Morphology and Classification
The UT to Rocky Branch reference site is located in Central Montgomery County within the
Uwhame National Forest The stream was used as a reference stream in the Big Cedar Creek
Restoration Plan by Baker Engineering NY, Inc (2007) The drainage area is 1 10 square miles and
the land use within the drainage area is a semi - mature forest The UT to Rocky Creek Reference site
was classified as an E4b stream type with a low sinuosity (1 1) The channel has a width to depth ratio
of 9 1 and an entrenchment ratio of 6 The reach has a valley slope of 2 6% while the channel slope is
2 4% The bed material d5o for the reach is 22 6 mm Due to the low sinuosity, no pattern data were
collected
Because of the differences in stream and valley slope and the coarseness of the bed material, it was
decided that the primary purpose of the UT to Rocky Creek reference reach for the Byrds Creek
project is as a reference point in the project- specific drainage area - discharge curve described in
section 5 6 above WEI visited the UT to Rocky Creek site in March, 2012 to visually confirm land
use and lateral and vertical stream stability
The Spencer Creek reference site consists of upstream and downstream reaches with separate datasets
and is located in Central Montgomery County within the Uwharrie National Forest The dataset was
used as a reference stream in the Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan by Baker Engineering NY, Inc
(2007) and is included in the NC Department of Transportation Reference Reach Database
The Spencer Creek Upstream site has a drainage area of 0 50 square miles and the land use within the
drainage area is a semi- mature forest The reach was classified as an E4 stream type with a low
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 20

sinuosity (1 1) The channel has a width to depth ratio of 7 3 and an entrenchment ratio of 26 3 The
reach has a valley slope of 14% while the channel slope is 1 3% The bed material d50 for the reach is
8 6 mm Pattern data are included in the dataset
The Spencer Creek Downstream site has a drainage area of 0 96 square miles and the land use within
the drainage area is a semi- mature forest The reach was classified as an E4 stream type with a
sinuosity of 1 3 The channel has a width to depth ranging from 5 8 to 7 1 and an entrenchment ratio
ranging from 5 5 to 10 2 The reach has a valley slope of 0 4% while the channel slope is 0 3% The
bed material d50 for the reach is 8 8 mm Pattern data are included in the dataset
WEI visited the Spencer Creek site in March, 2012 and visually confirmed that the land use is
unchanged and that the stream is laterally and vertically stable Spencer Creek exhibits a stable,
measurable, meandering pattern Given the similarities in drainage area, stream type, stream and
valley slope, and bed material size, Spencer Creek Upstream is most directly applicable as a reference
reach for South Branch and Southeast Branch Spencer Creek Downstream is similar to Byrds Creek
but has a smaller drainage area Both data sets are reference points on the project - specific curve
described in section 5 6 above The pattern data is applicable to all C/E stream types and were used in
the design of C/E reaches for this project
The UT to Cane Creek reference is located in Northeastern Rutherford County The dataset was used
as a reference stream for the Cane Creek Restoration prepared by Restoration Systems and Axiom
Environmental in 2007 The drainage area is 0 29 square miles and the land use within the drainage
area is a semi- mature forest The UT to Cane Creek reference site was classified as a C4/E4 stream
type with a sinuosity of 14 The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 8 9 — 12 2 and an
entrenchment ratio greater than 2 5 The reach has a valley slope of 2 6% while the channel slope is
1 5% The bed material d50 for the reach is 27 8 mm
Given that the UT to Cane Creek is located west of Charlotte and not within the Carolina Slate Belt, it
was decided that it is not a suitable reference reach for the Byrds Creek site in terms of dimension and
profile However, the pattern data is applicable to C/E stream types and was used as a secondary
dataset to the Spencer Creek pattern data It also provides a reference point in the project- specific
regional curve described in section 5 6 above
The UT to Richland Creek reference site is located in north - central Moore County The stream was
originally used as a reference site for the Collins Creek Restoration plan by KCI Technologies (2007)
The site was visited by WEI in December, 2012 The exact location and extents of the original survey
could not be determined During the site visit it was determined that two reaches upstream of the
original survey were appropriate reference reaches for the Byrds Creek project The UT to Richland
Creek Upstream and UT to Richland Creek Downstream reaches were surveyed by WEI in January,
2012
The UT to Richland Creek Upstream site has a drainage area of 0 28 square miles and the land use
within the drainage area is approximately 10 year old timber regrowth The reach was classified as a
C4/E4 stream type with a low sinuosity (-10) The Upstream reach consists of a long armored
riffle /run sequence and is incised with a bank height ratio of 14 — 2 1 While the incision and lack of
riffle -pool sequences may make the reach unsuitable as a dimension and profile reference reach, the
reach was very suitable for discharge calculations and was used in the analysis presented in section 5
Three riffle cross sections, a reachwide pebble count, and approximately 120 linear feet of
longitudinal profile data were collected The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 10 0 —
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 21

-� 12 8 and an entrenchment ratio of 2 5 - 4 0 The reach has a channel slope is 13% - 1 8% Valley
slope was not measured The bed material d5o for the reach is 46 0 mm Pattern data was not collected
due to the lack of sinuosity
The UT to Richland Creek Downstream site has a drainage area of 0 97 square miles and the land use
within the drainage area is 10 year old timber regrowth The reach was classified as a C4/E4 stream
type with a low sinuosity ( -1 1) Three riffle and two pool cross sections were surveyed along with
approximately 700 linear feet of profile Riffle and reachwide pebble counts were collected The
channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 10 1 - 13 9 and an entrenchment ratio greater than
2 5 The reach has a valley slope of 1 6% and a channel slope is 1 4% The d5o for the reach is 46 0
mm Pattern data was not collected due to low sinuosity
The UT to Richland Creek Upstream site was used solely as a reference point on the project- specific
curve described in section 5 6 above The UT to Richland Creek Downstream site was determined to
be an applicable reference reach for South Branch and Southeast Branch specifically for dimension
and profile design
712 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions
Designed stream vegetation communities will be similar to that of the downstream reach of Byrds
Creek This portion of Byrds Creek is surrounded by mature hardwood forests composed of typical
Piedmont bottomland riparian forest tree species Dominant canopy species in this area include nver
birch (Betula nlgra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), red
maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvamca), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) with
American beech (Fagus grand foha) at higher elevations Common understory vegetation includes
red maple, American holly (Ilex opaca), red elm (Nmus rubra), ironwood (Carpinus carolmiana),
and paw paw (Asimina triloba)
The mature trees within the riparian buffers provide significant bank reinforcement to keep the
streams from eroding horizontally and maintain channel width to depth ratios The forested floodplain
areas of this portion of the site are classified as a Piedmont bottomland forest (Schafale & Weakley,
1990) This forest community type generally occurs on floodplain ridges and terraces on various
alluvial soil types including Chewacla
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 22

Table 10a. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Bvrds Creek Mitiaatton Site
4
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 23
UT to Cane
Creek
Spencer Creek
Upstream
Spencer Creek
Downstream
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
Max
Min
Max
Mm
max
stream type
C4 /E4
E4
E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
029
05
096
bankfull discharge
Qbkf
Cfs
40
—
97
bankfull cross - sectional area
Abkf
SF
89
122
106
178
197
average bankfull velocity
vbId
Fps
38
—
49
54
width at bankfull
wbkf
Feet
11 5
123
87
107
112
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
Feet
12
16
19
21
26
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
Feet
08
1
12
16
18
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbkf/dbW
123
144
73
58
71
depth ratio
dmax /dbw
1 7
16
1 3
14
bank height ratio
BHR
-
-
10
10
floodprone area width
wfpa
Feet
31
229
60
114+
entrenchment ratio
ER
>2 5
263
55
1 102
valley slope
Svalley
ft/ft
00262
00139
00039
channel slope
S&annel
ftt t
00150
00132
00030
sinuosity
K
14
1 1
13
nffle slope
Snfee
ft/ft
00188
00704
001
0 067
0 013
riffle slope ratio
Snfne/Scha
nnel
13
47
08
51
43
pool slope
Sp"I
ft/ft
00005
00108
00001
00007
00009
pool slope ratio
Sp,,l /Scha
nnel
0
072
001
02
03
pool- to-pool spacing
L"
Feet
27
73
130
465
710
pool spacing ratio
Lp p/wbw
23
61
15
53
63 1 66
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpi
Feet
26
25
00
pool depth ratio
dpi /dbkf
1 7
21
00
00
pool width at bankfull
wpool
Feet
85
84
175
pool width ratio
wpool/Wbld
07
10
16
16
pool cross - sectional area at
bankfull
Apm,
SF
119
128
245
pool area ratio
Ap.JAbkf
10
13
12
1 2
14
belt width
wb„
Feet
102
240
520
380
410
meander width ratio
wblt/wbkf
83
89
28
60
36
37
linear wavelength length
A
Feet
45
81
540
1960
460
480
linear wavelength ratio
A /wbkf
39
66
62
225
43
43
radius of curvature
Rc
Feet
23
38
54
221
110
150
radius of curvature ratio
Rd wbkf
2
31
06
25
1 0
13
4
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 23

Table 10b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 24
UT to Richland
Creek
Upstream
UT to Richland
Creek
Downstream
UT to Rocky
Branch
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
F Max
Mm
max
mm
max
stream type
C4 /E4
C4 /E4
E4b
drainage area
DA
sq mi
028
097
1 1
bankfull discharge
Qbkf
Cfs
291
320
689
786
85
bankfull cross - sectional
area
Abkf
SF
78
85
165
175
163
average bankfull velocity
vbW
Fps
35
41
42
45
55
width at bankfull
wbkr
Feet
88
104
133
152
122
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
Feet
1 1
13
18
21
18
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
Feet
08
09
1 1
13
13
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbW /dbkf
100
128
101
139
91
depth ratio
dmax /dbkf
14
14
16
17
13
bank height ratio
BHR
14
21
10
10
floodprone area width
wfpa
Feet
276
314
>50
72
entrenchment ratio
ER
25
40
>2 5
6
valley slope
Svalley
ft/ft
-
00160
00261
channel slope
Schannel
ft/ft
00131
F00178
00140
00235
sinuosity
K
10
1 1
11
nffle slope
Snfne
ft/ft
00210
00450
00183
00355
0 0606
0 0892
riffle slope ratio
Snfne/Schannel
1 1 18 1
343
13
25
26
38
pool slope
Spopl
ft/ft
NA
00003
00038
0
00037
pool slope ratio
Sp,,l /Schannei
NA
00214
02714
0
016
pool - to-pool spacing
Lp-p
Feet
NA
33
93
26
1 81
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p/Wbkf
NA
25
61
22
1 67
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpi
Feet
NA
18
1 8
22
pool depth ratio
dpw✓dbw
NA
14
16
1 6
pool width at bankfull
wpppl
Feet
NA
147
160
109
pool width ratio
wpppMbld
NA
1 0
1 2
0 9
pool cross - sectional area at
bankfull
���
SF
NA
147
158
193
pool area ratio
Apoo✓Abkf
NA
0 9
0 9
1 2
belt width
wblt
Feet
NA
NA
NA
meander width ratio
Wblt/wbkf
NA
NA
NA
Linear Wavelength
A
Feet
NA
NA
NA
linear wavelength ratio
A /wbW
NA
NA
NA
radius of curvature
Rc
Feet
NA
NA
NA
radius of curvature ratio
RJ wbkf
NA
NA
NA
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 24

8.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table I 1 are projections based upon site design Upon completion of site
construction the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
condition
Table ii. Determination of Credits Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site, Person County, DENR Contract #95020
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - npanan
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
3345
2247
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stationing /
Location
Existing
Footage /
Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII, etc)
Restoration
or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
as
Ratio
BC1
10 +73 —17 +10
637
NA
E2
637
2 5 1
BC2
17 +10 —33+40
1630
NA
E1
1630
1 5 1
BC3
33 +40 —34+56
35 +16 —48+02
1368
PI
R
1402
11
BC4
48 +02 —55+89
787
NA
E2
787
2 5 1
SB1
20 +76 —27+09
27 +69 —31+07
976
PI
R
971
11
SE1
30 +00 —37+92
916
P1
R
792
1 1
SE2a
39 +15 —44+48
524
NA
E1
533
1 5 1
SE2b
44 +48 —46+28
50
P1
R
180
1 1
WB1
40 +18 —46+07
589
NA
E2
589
2 5 1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear
feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non- Ripanan
Wetland
(acres)
Buffer (square
feet)
Upland
(acres)
Rivenne
Non -Riv
Restoration
3345
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Enhancement
4176
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Enhancement 1
2163
Enhancement II
2013
Creation
NA
NA
NA
Preservation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
High Quality
Preservation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
W
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 25

9.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan
9.1 Designed Channel Classification
The design streams will be restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing watershed conditions
and trajectory The project includes stream restoration and enhancement as shown in Figure 8 The
specific proposed stream types are described below
The stream restoration portion of this project includes three reaches
BC3 Byrds Creek from the downstream end of breached mill dam rubble to a large, instream
bedrock outcropping at approximately 500 feet upstream from the HomeplaceBradsher property
boundary There is an easement break on reach BC3 downstream of the breached dam,
SB 1 South Branch for its entire length within the Homeplace property not including two
easement breaks,
SEl Southeast Branch on the Hall parcel from the property line with the Homeplace property
to about 650 feet upstream of the parcel line, and
SE2b A short 180 foot length of restoration at the bottom of Southeast Branch from reach SE2a
to the restored reach BC3
The project also includes stream enhancement on seven reaches classified as either enhancement 1 (EI) or
enhancement II (EII)
BC1, EII Byrds Creek from where it enters the Homeplace Property to the downstream end of
C� the exaggerated mender bend,
BC2 EI Byrds Creek from the downstream end of BC 1 to the downstream end of the breached
mill dam rubble,
BC4, EII Byrds Creek from a large instream bedrock outcropping approximately 500 feet
upstream from the property line between the Homeplace and Bradsher parcels (the downstream
end of BC3) to the downstream project limit
SE2a, EI From downstream of the proposed easement break directly downstream of the
Hall/Homeplace property boundary to the start of the short restoration segment, SE2b, and
WB 1, EII West Branch from 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Byrds Creek to the
confluence with Byrds Creek
The Byrds Creek stream restoration reach was designed to be similar to a C type stream according to the
Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1996) Type C streams are slightly entrenched, meandering
streams with access to the floodplain (entrenchment ratios >2 2) and channel slopes of 2% or less They
occur within a wide range of valley types and are appropriate for the project landscape The restoration
reaches for South Branch and Southeast Branch were designed to be similar to E type streams Type E
streams are slightly entrenched, meandering streams with low width to depth ratios The enhancement I
reaches will be C/E stream types
The morphologic design parameters as shown in table 12 for the restoration and enhancement I reaches
fall within the ranges specified for C and E streams (Rosgen, 1996) However, the specific values for the
design parameters were selected based on designer experience and judgment and were verified with
morphologic data form reference reach data sets
W
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 26

Table 12a. Design Morphologic Parameters — Restoration Reaches
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 27
Notation
Units
BC3
SBi
SE1
SE2b
MI
Max
Mm
Max
Mm
Max
Mm
Max
Stream Type
C4
E4
E4
C4
Drainage Area
DA
sq mi
422
025
009
010
Design Discharge
Q
cfs
210
30
20
20
Bankfull Cross -
Sectional Area
Am
SF
453
96
57
65
Average Bankfull
Velocity
vbkf
fps
46
31
35
31
Width at Bankfull
wbW
feet
250
100
80
90
Maximum Depth at
Bankfull
dmax
feet
28
13
10
10
Mean Depth at
Bankfull
dbla
feet
1 81
096
071
072
Bankfull Width to
Depth Ratio
wbkr /dbkr
138
104
112
125
Low Bank Height
feet
38
13
10
10
Bank Height Ratio
BHR
1
1
1
1
Floodprone Area
Width
wfpa
feet
95
350
70
375
30
100
140
310
Entrenchment Ratio
ER
38
14
70
375
38
125
156
344
Valley Slope
Svalley
feet/ foot
00046
00075
00182
00122
Channel Slope
Sd,e,MI
feet/ foot
00039
00068
00161
00101
Riffle Slope
Srfle
feet/ foot
00076
00134
00052
00199
00220
00410
00202
Riffle Slope Ratio
Srrfne/Schannel
19 1
34
069
265
240
319
20
Pool Slope
SPWI
feet/ foot
00006
0 0001
0 0009
0 0029
0 0043
00014
Pool Slope Ratio
SPooI /Schan,,ei
015
001
013
018
026
014
Pool -to -Pool
Spacing
LP-p
feet
60
141
34
85
21
53
43
49
Pool Spacing Ratio
LP p/wbkf
24
56
34
85
26
66
48 1
54
Sinuosity
K
111
110
113
121
Belt Width
wbit
feet
52
116
25
48
160
390
27
Meander Width
Ratio
wbIt/wbW
21
46
25
48
20
49
3
Linear Wavelength
A
feet
177
263
76
120
47
93
82
Linear wavelength
ratio
I\ /war
71
105
76
120
59
116
91
Radius of Curvature
Rc
feet
50
80
20
35
18
26
22
30
Radius of Curvature
Ratio
Rd wbm
20
32
20
35
23
33
24
33
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 27

Table 12b. Design Morphologic Parameters — Enhancement I Reaches
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
The width to depth ratios range from 10 to 25 The design channel slopes of the restoration and
enhancement I reaches ranged from 0 0014 to 0 0161 Each of the design reaches will be reconnected
with the existing floodplain (Priority 1) The restored channels will have entrenchment ratios of greater
than 2 The sinuosity for the restoration reaches will be near 1 1 The sinuosity measurements for the
enhancement I reaches will match the existing sinuosity
9 2 Target Buffer Communities
The target communities for the restored riparian buffer zones will be based on the following
• Reference conditions from forested areas around the project site,
• Existing mature trees throughout the project area,
• Vegetation listed for these community types in Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Shafale and Weakley,1990),
• Native trees with proven success in early successional restoration sites, and
• Consultation with native tree suppliers
The primary reference site is the semi - mature Piedmont bottomland forest along Byrds Creek downstream
of the Homeplace property (see section 7 1 2 for documented species)
0111
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 28
Notation
Units
BC2
SE2a
Min
Max
Min
Max
Stream Type
C4
C4
Drainage Area
DA
sq mi
412
009
Design Discharge
Q
cfs
—200
—30
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
AbM
SF
598
615
102
105
Average Bankfull Velocity
vbM
fps
31
34
30
33
Width at Bankfull
wbM
feet
332
383
117
150
Maximum Depth at Bankfull
dmax
feet
28
32
09
10
Mean Depth at Bankfull
dbM
feet
16
19
07
09
Bankfull Width to Depth Ratio
wbwldbM
180
245
135
213
Low Bank Height
Feet
28
32
09
10
Bank Height Ratio
BHR
10
10
1 0
10
Floodprone Area Width
w{pa
feet
156
1 160
1147
1201
Entrenchment Ratio
ER
41
1 48
77
103
Channel Slope
Schamm
feet/ foot
00014
00126
Riffle Slope
Same
feet/ foot
0 0029
r 0 0052
00122
00367
Riffle Slope Ratio
Snfn/Schan.1
19
1 37
10
29
Pool Slope
Sp "i
feet/ foot
00001
00001
00006
Pool Slope Ratio
Spool /SchannaI
007
001
005
Pool- to-Pool Spacing
Lp-p
feet
102
211
1 27
1 55
Pool Spacing Ratio
L"MbM
27
1 64
1 18
1 41
The width to depth ratios range from 10 to 25 The design channel slopes of the restoration and
enhancement I reaches ranged from 0 0014 to 0 0161 Each of the design reaches will be reconnected
with the existing floodplain (Priority 1) The restored channels will have entrenchment ratios of greater
than 2 The sinuosity for the restoration reaches will be near 1 1 The sinuosity measurements for the
enhancement I reaches will match the existing sinuosity
9 2 Target Buffer Communities
The target communities for the restored riparian buffer zones will be based on the following
• Reference conditions from forested areas around the project site,
• Existing mature trees throughout the project area,
• Vegetation listed for these community types in Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Shafale and Weakley,1990),
• Native trees with proven success in early successional restoration sites, and
• Consultation with native tree suppliers
The primary reference site is the semi - mature Piedmont bottomland forest along Byrds Creek downstream
of the Homeplace property (see section 7 1 2 for documented species)
0111
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 28

9 3 Stream Project and Design Justification
Based on assessments of the watershed and existing channels, the project design has been developed to
address stream degradation caused by incision, bank instability caused by erosion and livestock access,
associated sand deposition, lack of vegetation in riparian zones, and lack of riparian and aquatic habitat
The existing conditions assessment of the project reaches of Byrds Creek and the tributaries included in
the project area indicated that livestock operations have resulted in bank trampling, bank erosion The
tributaries are incising or are incised and in the case of SE1, overwidened The result is degraded aquatic
and benthic habitat and net sediment export from streambanks to downstream receiving waters With the
exception of West Branch, the riparian buffers on all of the project streams have either been maintained in
pasture, lack an understory and herbaceous layer, or are otherwise severely degraded
The restoration and enhancement I reaches (BC2, BC3, SBI, SE1, SE2a, and SE2b) are all currently
unstable BC2 and BC3 are severely impacted by livestock access, associated sand deposition, and the
breached mill dam and are exhibiting indicators of Stage IV of the Simon channel evolution model The
widening of BC3 has resulted in a decrease in the stream capacity as evidence in sand deposition
throughout the reach All of the project tributaries (SBI, SE1, and SE2) appear to be between Stage III
and Stage W Because of the slow rate of these geomorphic processes and continual livestock access
there is little evidence of the depositional recovery processes associated with Stage V According to the
Rosgen channel type succession model, given the size of the streams and regional physiography, these
tributary streams were likely C or E streams prior to disturbance, and are progressing to more entrenched
and incised G type streams They are likely to eventually become the wider, incised F type streams
If livestock access was removed and buffers were not managed, eventually Bryds Creek and its tributaries
would recover to stable C or E streams However, the tributaries would stabilize at a lower position
relative to the valley floor and be cut off from the original floodplam However, with continued livestock
access, management of buffers, and no bank / bed stabilization treatments, the streams will not stabilize
and will continue to export tons of sediment per year to downstream waters
The portions of the project that are planned for enhancement II activities are not in as poor condition as
the restoration reaches and are not as unstable However, aquatic, benthic, and riparian habitats are
degraded in all of these reaches Intervention will be required to improve the habitat conditions in all of
the project reaches Livestock will also be excluded from the enhancement reaches in order to prevent
further degradation and the potential for greater instability Severely eroded streambanks will be
stabilized to improve instream habitat and reduce sediment delivery to receiving waters
The design objectives were developed to deal with the issues described in the paragraphs above The key
factors driving the need for this intervention are
• Without intervention, it is likely that downstream sedimentation will continue to occur
The intervention will provide functional improvement to the ecosystem by restoring riffle /pool
sequences to promote aeration of water, lower water temperature, help maintain dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and restore the aquatic, benthic, and riparian habitat
Treatment of agricultural runoff is needed to support the Falls Lake Watershed Management plan
and help meet nutrient reduction goals in downstream waters
The restoration and buffer enhancement efforts will reduce on -site nutrient inputs by removing
cattle from streams and filtering on -site runoff through buffer zones Off -site nutrient input will
be absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain areas, where flood flow
will spread through native vegetation
l
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 29

• The project will restore and enhance well over a mile of riparian buffers and will create a
conservation corridor by connecting these lands to forested upstream and downstream properties
The project area will be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement
9.4 Sediment Transport Analysis
A sediment transport analysis was performed for the restoration reaches including BC3, SB1, SE1, and
SE2 In general, the analysis was performed to answer two questions
1 What size bed material particles will become entrained at flows at or near the bankfull discharge
(competence), and
2 Does the stream have the ability to pass the sediment load supplied to it (capacity)9
Because the bed material in the project streams is a mix of sand, gravel, and cobble (even though several
of the streams currently classify as sand bed channels due to small diameter d5o values) the analysis
performed for this project addresses both the competence and capacity questions with the information
available Stream competence can be determined through calculations performed with data commonly
collected for stream restoration projects The issue of capacity is much more difficult to analyze due to
lack of reliable data on sediment supply for a given stream and, therefore, must often be analyzed
qualitatively unless initial qualitative analysis warrants further field data collection
Restoration reach BC3 was determined to be a gravel bed stream with a reachwide pebble count d5o of
22 6 mm Coarse riffles are present in this reach Restoration reach SB I was determined to be a sand bed
stream based on a reachwide pebble count d5o of 1 0 mm Restoration reach SE1 was determined to be a
gravel bed stream based on a reachwide pebble count d5o of 13 63 mm The existing bed material matrix
in all design reaches is comprised of cobble, gravel and sand Multiple pebble counts and pavement
C 1 samples throughout the project reaches show bimodal distributions of particle size with a larger sand
fraction as discussed above In gravel bed streams, including bimodal systems, bed load is the dominant
component of sediment transport (Wilcock, et al , 2009) Therefore bed load was the focus of this
sediment transport analysis
Competence Analysis
A competence analysis was performed for each of the restoration reaches by computing the bankfull shear
stress based on the design bankfull depth and slope (table 12a) Standard equations were used to calculate
the critical dimensionless shear stress needed to move the bed material and the depth and slope
combination needed to produce that stress The equations are
(1) T,, = 0 0834(d50 /ds50 872
(2) T,, = 0 0384(Di /ds ) 0 887
(3) T = yWSd
(4) S = (T. *ys *Di) /d
where T. is critical dimensionless shear stress, d50 is median diameter of pavement material, ds50 is median
diameter of subpavement material, ys is specific weight of sediment, Di is the largest diameter of
subpavement material, d is mean bankfull depth of channel, and S is the water surface slope at bankfull
stage The results are shown in Table 13
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 30

Table 13. Bankfull Shear Stress Calculations
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
In addition to the analysis described above, a HEC -RAS sediment transport model was built to represent
the proposed conditions of each restoration reach Bankf ill shear stresses were calculated in the model at
each pool and riffle cross section throughout the restoration reaches Results are presented in Table 14
Table 14. Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
BC3
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
BC3
S131
SE1
SE2
Design Mean Bankfull
181
096
071
072
Depth (ft)
005
50 Percentile
073
088
Calculated Dum,.al (ft)
141-1 95
073-1 01
0 62 -0 82
0 70 -0 74
Design bankfull water
00076-
00052-
00220
00202
surface slope (ft/ft)
00134
00199
00078-
00061-
0024-
0021-
Calculated S,,t, ,a, ( ft/ft)
0 014
00155
0 026
0 025
Critical shear stress
required to move largest
069-1 71
0 28 -0 98
094-1 34
093-1 14
subpavement particle"
(Ibs /ft2)
Design Discharge
Boundary Shear Stress
086-1 51
031-1 19
097
091
(Ibs /ftz)
In addition to the analysis described above, a HEC -RAS sediment transport model was built to represent
the proposed conditions of each restoration reach Bankf ill shear stresses were calculated in the model at
each pool and riffle cross section throughout the restoration reaches Results are presented in Table 14
Table 14. Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
BC3
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
003
026
003
25 Percentile
010
065
005
50 Percentile
073
088
010
75 Percentile
096
1 18
020
Maximum
206
206
029
0
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 31

SB1
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
003
022
003
25 Percentile
085
044
006
50 Percentile
017
054
009
75 Percentile
0 275
067
019
Maximum
086
086
050
SE1
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
003
044
003
25 Percentile
012
083
007
50 Percentile
021
100
017
75 Percentile
038
105
025
Maximum
1 18
1 18
044
SE2
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
005
061
005
25 Percentile
019
071
Oil
50 Percentile
023
097
021
75 Percentile
057
098
023
Maximum
073
098
023
As expected, the shear stresses summarized in Table 14 are greater in riffles than pools for each reach
The median shear stress values shown in Table 14 were plotted on the revised Shields diagram (Rosgen,
2001) to determine the moveable grain size for the calculated shear stress The movable grain sizes are
presented in Table 15
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 32

Table 15. Grain Size Calculations for Bankfull Shear Stress
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
The results of the competence analyses indicate that the channel will move the existing bed material at
design bankfull flow To minimize the scour potential, riffles will be constructed with the d5o grain sizes
exceeding the values presented in Table 15 Grade control structures such as reinforced constructed nffles
will be installed dunng construction at locations where bed scour potential is significant Natural matenal
revetments such as brush mattresses and brush toe will also be used along with bioengineenng to prevent
bank erosion In- stream structures and revetments are shown on the design plans
Capacity Analysis
The competence analysis described above only provides an estimate of the necessary shear stress and
related slope and flow depth needed to move the existing bed material A capacity analysis is necessary to
determine if the stream has the ability to pass its sediment load A capacity analysis is much more
difficult to perform and is prone to error (Wilcock, 2009)
Sediment deposition was observed in the existing Byrds Creek channel and has been interpreted to come
primarily from bank erosion upstream and on the tributaries due to lateral instability and cattle trampling
but also from watershed erosion Multiple site visits indicated that the deposition may be temporal and
vary with flow regime and the frequency and magnitude of flushing flows Nonetheless, observations
indicate that the existing stream reach is not adequately moving all the sediment supplied to it The design
approach for BO increases stream power by increasing the stream slope and reducing mean depth This
should facilitate increased transport of sands in a wider range of flow conditions In addition, upstream
enhancement and tnbutary restoration activities should decrease supply To validate the design approach,
sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing reach, BO and for the
restoration reach BO The analysis was performed to ensure the restoration reach has a greater transport
capacity as compared to the existing reach
South Branch, and Southeast Branch were observed to be in or following the Stage IV and Stage V
process and the bed and bank degradation has likely contributed to the sediment deposition in Byrds
Creek The capacity of these reaches has likely exceeded the supply and the systems are now sediment
starved The design approach for SB1, SEI, and SE2 was to stabilize the stream reaches to reduce the
erosion and construct threshold bed structures that are not mobile during bankfull flows In addition width
to depth ration is increased and mean depth and, in some cases, slope are decreased These measures are
predicted to reduce the stream capacity and help to balance the sediment supply To validate the design
approach, sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing and proposed
reaches of SB1, SEI, and The analysis was performed to verify the improvement to the sediment balance
A HEC -RAS Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) was prepared for BC3, SB, SEI, and SE2 to
estimate the sediment balance in each of the restored stream reaches This module of HEC -RAS allows
the user to input flow data, bed material data, sediment source data, channel dimension, and slope data
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 33
BC3
S131
SE1
SE2
Calculated Grain Diameter
(mm), Colorado Data Power
Trendline
138
96
152
149
Calculated Grain Diameter
(mm), Leopold, Wolman, and
Miller Power Trendline
68
41
78
75
The results of the competence analyses indicate that the channel will move the existing bed material at
design bankfull flow To minimize the scour potential, riffles will be constructed with the d5o grain sizes
exceeding the values presented in Table 15 Grade control structures such as reinforced constructed nffles
will be installed dunng construction at locations where bed scour potential is significant Natural matenal
revetments such as brush mattresses and brush toe will also be used along with bioengineenng to prevent
bank erosion In- stream structures and revetments are shown on the design plans
Capacity Analysis
The competence analysis described above only provides an estimate of the necessary shear stress and
related slope and flow depth needed to move the existing bed material A capacity analysis is necessary to
determine if the stream has the ability to pass its sediment load A capacity analysis is much more
difficult to perform and is prone to error (Wilcock, 2009)
Sediment deposition was observed in the existing Byrds Creek channel and has been interpreted to come
primarily from bank erosion upstream and on the tributaries due to lateral instability and cattle trampling
but also from watershed erosion Multiple site visits indicated that the deposition may be temporal and
vary with flow regime and the frequency and magnitude of flushing flows Nonetheless, observations
indicate that the existing stream reach is not adequately moving all the sediment supplied to it The design
approach for BO increases stream power by increasing the stream slope and reducing mean depth This
should facilitate increased transport of sands in a wider range of flow conditions In addition, upstream
enhancement and tnbutary restoration activities should decrease supply To validate the design approach,
sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing reach, BO and for the
restoration reach BO The analysis was performed to ensure the restoration reach has a greater transport
capacity as compared to the existing reach
South Branch, and Southeast Branch were observed to be in or following the Stage IV and Stage V
process and the bed and bank degradation has likely contributed to the sediment deposition in Byrds
Creek The capacity of these reaches has likely exceeded the supply and the systems are now sediment
starved The design approach for SB1, SEI, and SE2 was to stabilize the stream reaches to reduce the
erosion and construct threshold bed structures that are not mobile during bankfull flows In addition width
to depth ration is increased and mean depth and, in some cases, slope are decreased These measures are
predicted to reduce the stream capacity and help to balance the sediment supply To validate the design
approach, sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing and proposed
reaches of SB1, SEI, and The analysis was performed to verify the improvement to the sediment balance
A HEC -RAS Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) was prepared for BC3, SB, SEI, and SE2 to
estimate the sediment balance in each of the restored stream reaches This module of HEC -RAS allows
the user to input flow data, bed material data, sediment source data, channel dimension, and slope data
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 33

and then choose from a variety of transport functions to analyze transport capacity For this analysis the
Meyer- Peter - Mueller (MPM) equation was used because the range of input values best reflect the values
for the restored stream reaches It is important to note that this model is not expected to produce precise
results but rather provide an estimate of the proposed channel's capacity to move an estimated sediment
load from the local bed supply, upstream reaches, and watershed erosion
The results of the SIAM sediment supply, transport, and balance for each reach for existing and restored
conditions are presented in Table 16
Table 16. Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) Results
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Reach
Transport
Capacity
(9 /sec.)
Sediment Supply
(9 /sec.)
Local Balance
(9 /sec.)
BC3 Existing
3134
13182
+10048
BC3 Restored
13250
8780
-4470
SB Existing
1371
69
-1302
SB Restored
177
69
-108
SE1 Existing
742
29
-714
SE1 Restored
91
29
-62
SE2 Existing
1977
29
-1949
SE2 Restored
21 5
29
-186
In general, the sediment impact assessment models described in this section indicate the restoration
reaches have lower sediment balances closer to equilibrium than the existing reaches (Table 17) The
modeling results also demonstrate the transport capacity for BC3 restored reach exceeds the transport
rates for the existing reach Therefore, it is expected that the restored reach will transport a larger
sediment load than the existing channels and evacuate the accumulating sands more effectively The
proposed channels will move their sediment loads and any bed adjustments will most likely be in the form
of scour As concluded in the competence analysis section, constructed riffles and grade control structures
will therefore be a key component of the design
9.5 Project Implementation Summary
The stream restoration will be constructed as described in this section A full set of preliminary (60 %)
design plans are included with this mitigation plan for review
951 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction
The stream restoration elements of the project will be constructed as Priority 1 restoration The stream
bed will be raised so that the bankfull elevation will coincide with the existing floodplain, the cross
sections will be constructed for the design discharge, and the pattern will be reconstructed so that the
channel meanders through the floodplain In the case of BC3 and SB1, the stream is connected at or
near the existing floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation but does not exhibit proper pattern and
dimension for long term stabililty In these two reaches the stream bed will be raised to accommodate
the increase in width to depth ratio and the corresponding decrease in depth associated with correcting
the existing dimension deficiencies Enhancement I components of the project will involve
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 34

constructing riffle structures and stabilizing banks as necessary but will not involve altering the
existing channel pattern Enhancement II construction will include bank treatments and stabilization
only
The stream reconstruction will result in appropriately sized channels that will meander across the
floodplain The cross - sectional dimensions of the design channels will be constructed to flood the
adjacent floodplain and the existing wetlands frequently The reconstructed channel banks will be
built with stable side slopes, planted with native materials, and matted for long -term stability The
sinuous planform of the channel will be built to mimic a natural Piedmont stream
The bedform of the reconstructed gravel and sand bed channels will vary between pools and riffles
Generally the pools will occur in the outside of the meander bends and the riffles in the straight
sections of channel between meanders Riffle /pool sequences will be built in the new channels as they
are common for streams in Piedmont streams with bed material similar to the project reaches These
features provide energy dissipation and aquatic habitat As a result of the project, the floodplain will
be more frequently inundated
Instream structures will include constructed riffles, log sills, log vanes, log J- hooks, and rock cross
vanes The constructed riffles will include native gravel /cobble material harvested from the existing
channel, Class A and B quarry stone, and a mix of native and quarry gravel Riffles will also include
wood in some cases Log J -hooks and log vanes will provide additional grade control and will deflect
flows away from banks while creating habitat diversity Log sills will be used to allow for small grade
drops across pools In a few instances rock cross vanes will be used as grade control structures and to
prevent potential bank erosion At select outer meander bends, the channel banks will be constructed
of brush toe or brush mattress treatments to reduce erosion potential and encourage pool formation
Four culvert crossings will be installed outside of the easement boundaries at the request of the
^� landowner on the Homeplace Property These include one crossing on Byrds Creek, two on South
`— Branch, and one on Southeast Branch Livestock have been removed from the Homeplace property
There is no livestock on the Bradsher property Livestock will be excluded from the Hall property
utilizing existing fencing
9.5.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration
As a final stage of construction, riparian stream buffers will be planted and restored with native trees
and herbaceous plants The natural community within and adjacent to the project easement can be
classified as Piedmont bottomland forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) The woody and herbaceous
species selected are based on this community type, observations of the occurrence of species in the
downstream forest previously described, and best professional Judgment on species establishment and
anticipated site conditions in the early years following project implementation Permanent herbaceous
seed will be placed on stream banks and bench areas and all disturbed areas within the project
easement The stream banks will be planted with live stakes The riparian buffers and wetland areas
will be planted with bare root seedlings Proposed permanent herbaceous species are shown in the
plan set
Individual tree and shrub species will be planted throughout the project easement including stream
banks, benches, tops of banks, and floodplains zones These species will be planted as bare root and
live stakes and will provide additional stabilization to the outsides of constructed meander bends and
side slopes Species planted as bare roots will be spaced at an initial density of 520 plants per acre (12
feet by 7 feet spacing) Live stakes will be planted on channel banks at 2 -foot to 3 -foot spacing on the
outside of meander bends and 6 -foot to 8 -foot spacing on tangent sections Point bars will not be
planted with live stakes Targeted densities after monitoring year 3 are 320 woody stems per acre
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 35

Proposed tree and shrub species are representative of existing on -site vegetation communities and are
typical of Piedmont bottomland forests Species are detailed in the plan set
10.0 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following
Table 18. Maintenance Plan
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
Component/ Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking
of in- stream structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting,
Stream
and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the channel Areas where storm water and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank
failures and head - cutting
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted community Routine vegetation maintenance and repair
activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and
Vegetation
fertilizing Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by
mechanical and /or chemical methods Any vegetation control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties Boundaries may
Site boundary
be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other
means as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired
and /or replaced on an as- needed basis
Utility right -of -way within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Utility Right -of -Way
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements
Ford crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Ford Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Road Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements
Storm Water
Storm Water management devices will be monitored and maintained
Management Device
Per the protocols and procedures defined by the NC Division of Water
Quality Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual
qb
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 36

-�� 11.0 Performance Standards
The stream restoration success criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 1 0, 10/01/2010), EEP Baseline Monitoring
Template (version 2 0, 10/14/2010), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the
USACE and NCDWQ Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the
condition of the finished project for five years, or until success cnteria are met The stream restoration
and enhancement level I reaches (BC -2, BC -3, SB -1, SE -1, and SE -2) of the project will be assigned
specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation The
enhancement level II reaches (BC -1, BC -4, and WB -1) will be documented through photographs and
visual assessments to verify that no significant degradational changes are occurring in the stream channel
or riparian corridor These success criteria are covered in detail as follows
111 Streams
1111 Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration and enhancement reaches should be stable and should show
little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio and width -to -depth ratio Riffle cross - sections
should generally fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream
type If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is
showing signs of instability Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding
channel banks Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat
include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth
Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability
In order to monitor the channel dimension, two permanent cross - sections will be installed per 1,000
linear feet of stream restoration work, with riffle and pool sections in proportion to EEP guidance
Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location An annual cross -
section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull,
edge of water, and thalweg
11.12 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable The riffles should be steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools should
be deep with flat water surface slopes The relative percentage of riffles and pools should not change
significantly from the design parameters Adjustments in length and slope of run and glide features
are expected and will not be considered a sign of instability The longitudinal profile should show that
the bank height ratio remains very near to 1 0 for the majority of the restoration reaches
A longitudinal profile will be completed for the restoration reaches of the project in years one, three
and five of the monitoring penod For reaches greater than 3,000 feet in length, the profile will be
conducted for at least 30% of the restoration length of the channel, per USACE and NCDWQ Stream
Mitigation Guidance For reaches less than 3,000 feet in length, the profile will be completed for the
entire reach length Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank
These profile measurements will be taken at the head of each riffle, run, pool, and glide, as well as at
the maximum pool depth The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and NC State Plane
coordinates
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 37

1113 Photo Documentation
- Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis
Cross - section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical
incision Grade control structures should remain stable Deposition of sediment on the bank side of
vane arms is preferable Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected
Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for five years following
construction Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on
the site are monitored each year Photos will be used to monitor restoration and enhancement stream
reaches as well as vegetation plots
Lateral reference photos should show a stable cross - section with no excessive erosion or degradation
of the banks The reference photo transects will be taken of both banks at each permanent cross -
section A survey tape pulled across the section will be centered in the photographs of the bank The
photographer will make every effort to maintain the same area in each photo over time
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or vertical
incision The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time
Grade control structures should remain stable Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms
is preferable Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected Photographs
will be taken at representative grade control structures along the restored stream The photographer
will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time
Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots One representative digital photo
of each vegetation plot will be taken on the same day vegetative cover estimates are conducted
11.1.4 Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features A
reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification
purposes A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement
11.1 5 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented on the project within the five -year
monitoring period Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage, photographs, and visual
assessments such as debris lines Three crest gages will be installed, one on Byrds Creek, one on
South Branch, and one on Southeast Branch The crest gages will be installed within a riffle cross -
section of the restored channels at a central site location The gages will be checked at each site visit
to determine if a bankfull event has occurred Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of
debris lines and sediment deposition
112 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 five -year planted stems per acre in the
riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the five -year monitoring period The
( interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per
%4WO VV
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 38

acre at the end of the third monitoring year The extent of invasive species coverage will also be
monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period (year five)
12.0 Monitoring Plan
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP Monitoring Report template (version 1 3,
01/15/2010) The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an
understanding of project status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysts, research purposes,
and assist in decision making regarding close -out The monitoring period will extend five years for stream
and hydrology assessments beyond completion of construction or until performance critena have been
met Project monitoring requirements are listed to more detail in Table 21 All survey will be tied to grid
Table 19. Monitoring Requirements
B rds Creek Miti ation Site
Notes
1 Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location Surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg
2 Survey will include thalweg, water surface, and bankf ill, and top of low bank at the head of each riffle, run,
pool, and glide, and max pool
3 Device will be inspected quarterly or semi- annually, evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo
4 Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols
5 Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped
6 Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc will be mapped
7 Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 39
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitonng
Frequency
Notes
SB-
Feature
BC -1
BC -2
BC -3
BC-4
1
SE -1
SE -2
WB - 1
Riffle Cross
n/a
3
2
n/a
1
1
1
n/a
Annual
Sections
Dimension
1
Pool Cross
n/a
2
2
n/a
1
1
1
n/a
Annual
Section
Pattern
Pattern
'
`
'
Annual
Profile
Longitudinal
n/a
1 639
1 411 LF
n/a
970
787 LF
710
n/a
Annual
2
Profile
LF
LF
LF
Reach wide
1
(RW), Riffle
1 RW
RW
1 RW
Substrate
(RF) 100
n/a
3 RF
1 RW 3 RF
n/a
1
1 RW 1 RF
1 RF
n/a
Annual
pebble
RF
count
Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
n/a
1
1
n/a
Annual
3
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
3 5 5
2
4
3 3
2
Annual
4
Exobc and
nuisance
Annual
5
vegetation
Project
Annual
6
Boundary
Reference
Photographs
3 8 7
2
5
4 4
3
Annual
Photos
Notes
1 Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location Surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg
2 Survey will include thalweg, water surface, and bankf ill, and top of low bank at the head of each riffle, run,
pool, and glide, and max pool
3 Device will be inspected quarterly or semi- annually, evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo
4 Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols
5 Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped
6 Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc will be mapped
7 Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 39

12 1 Additional Monitoring Details
Ve eta atzon
Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration and
enhancement areas to measure the survival of the planted trees The number of monitoring
quadrants required is based on the EEP monitoring guidance documents (version 13,
11/15/2010) The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species
and shrubs Vegetation assessments will be conducted following the Carolina Vegetation Survey
(CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006)
The initial baseline survey will be conducted within 21 days from completion of site planting and
used for subsequent monitoring year comparisons The first annual vegetation monitoring
activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, during the month of September
The restoration and enhancement sites will then be evaluated each subsequent year between June
1 and September 31 Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an
annual basis by plot and for the entire site Individual plot data will be provided and will include
diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival Planted woody stems will be
marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off of a known origin, so they can be
found in succeeding monitoring years Mortality will be determined from the difference between
the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems
13.0 Long -Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close -out by the interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the
( NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation and Stewardship Program) This
i� party shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld Endowment funds required to
uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statue GS 113A- 232(d)(3) Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory
mitigation sites Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account
to offset losses due to inflation
14.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction EEP will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are Jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
EEP will
1 Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions
2 Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE
dw
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 40

3 Obtain other permits as necessary
4 Implement the Corrective Action Plan
5 Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed
15.0 Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program
16.0 References
Bunte, K, Swingle, K W, and Abt, S R, 2007 Guidelines for Using Bed load Traps in Course - Bedded
Mountain Streams Construction, Installation, Operation, and Sample Processing General Technical
Report RMRS- GTR -191 USDA, Fort Collins, CO
Dalrymple, T 1960 Flood- Frequency Analyses Manual of Hydrology Part 3 Flood -Flow Techniques
USGS Water Supply Paper #1543 -a USGPO, 1960
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1981 Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow
Frequency Bulletin 17B Washington, D C
KCI Technologies, 2007 Collins Creek Restoration Plan Morrisville, NC
Multi - Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2001 National Land Cover Database
http //www mrlc gov /nlcd php
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2011 Web Soil Survey
http //websoilsurvey nres usda gov /app/HomePage htm
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2006 Chatham County Soil Survey
http //soils usda gov/ survey /online_surveys /north _ carolina/
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NC CGIA), 2001 Landcover GIS layer
http //data nconemap com/geoportal /catalog/main/home page
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
http //h2o enr state nc us/basinwide /draftCPFApril2005 htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011 Surface Water Classifications
http //portal ncdenr org /web /wq /ps /csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009 Mineral Resources
http //www geology enr state nc us/ Mineral %20resources /mineralresources html
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009 Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Chatham County, NC http //149 168 1 196 /nhp /county html
North Carolina State University (NCSU), 2010 DramMod Related Publications Accessed May 10, 2010,
at http //www bae ncsu edu/soil _water /drainmod/drainmod —Papers html #wetland
Lagasse, P F, Schall, J D, Johnson, F, Richardson, E V , Richardson, J R, and Chang, F, 2001 Stream
Stability at Highway Structures, Second Edition US Department of Transportation, Report No
FHWA -IP -90 -014, HEC- 20 -ED -2 Washington, DC Federal Highway Administration, 132 p
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 41

�- Pitlick, J, Cui, Y, and Wilcock, P, 2009 Manual for Computing Bed Load Transport Using BAGS (Bed
load Assessment for Gravel Bed Streams) Software Gen Tech Rep RMRS- GTR -223 Fort Collins,
Co U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 45 p
Rosgen, D L 1994 A classification of natural rivers Catena 22 169 -199
Rosgen, D L 1996 Applied River Morphology Pagosa Springs, CO Wildland Hydrology Books
Rosgen, D L 1997 A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision Center For Computational
Hydroscience and Bioengmeermg, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12 -22
Rosgen, D L 2006 & 2007 Personal Communication
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
3rd approx North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina
Simon, A 1989 A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(l) 11 -26
Simon, A, Rinaldi, M 2006 Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution The roles of excess
transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response Geomorphology 79 361-
383
Simon, A 2006 Flow energy, time, and evolution of dynamic fluvial systems implications for
stabilization and restoration of unstable systems In Proceedings of the 2006 World Environmental
and Water Resources Congress (R Graham, Ed ), May 21 -25, 2006, Omaha, Nebraska CDROM
Skaggs, R W 1980 DramMod Reference Report Methods for design and evaluation of drainage -water
management systems for soils with high water tables U S Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service 329 pp
Shields, D F, Copeland, R R, Klingman, P C, Doyle, M W, and Simon, A 2003 Design for Stream
Restoration Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8) 575 -582
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Chatham County, North Carolina
http //SoilDataMart nres usda gov
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006 Assessing
Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions Publication no FHWA- HRT -05 -072
McLean, VA Federal Highway Administration Office of Infrastructure Research and Development,
147 p
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008 Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Rockingham County, NC
http //www fws gov /nc- es /es /countyfr html
URS Corporation, 2007 Unnamed Tributary to Cane Creek Restoration Plan Morrisville, NC
Wilcock, P, et al , 2009 Sediment Transport Primer Estimating Bed - Matenal Transport in Gravel Bed
Rivers Gen Tech Rep RMRS- GTR -226 Fort Collins, Co U S Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 78 p
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 42

i
Recordsfound of Threatened and Endangered Species in the South Flat River
Common Name Scientific Name Signlfiw nu
yellow lampmussof Lempsilis canosa Federal Species d Concern, State Endargered
St,00Ntus -dulatus Skate Threatened
Eastern lempmussel Lempslls radials slate Threatened
chameleon lamorn —el Lamosilis so. Slate SiQnificanlly Rare
nurse:, LOCOOM
�rbun (e[►Unt�
dn„r i:otnttt ts' - .
i
Hydrologic Unit Code 14
EEP Targeted Local Watershed
Natural Heritage Element Occurances
® Significant Natural Heritage Areas
r r'
I ' 1
i
,c6 R -
A
l✓ J
J
4
/ r
f
/ k
t son Cuu It%
1 t
� r
J
.t
1
� XX7
1-f TAM D,
4
Yi
Project lies within '
Falls Lake Water
Supply Watershed
i� roco �+�r� *.ar•. .HL_
W I L D L A N D S
ENGINEERING
Figure I Vicinity Map
0 1.1 2.2 Miles Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
r r , _J Mitigation Plan
EEP #95020
Person County, NC

Figure 2 Watershed Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 1,250 2,500 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I Mitigation Plan
EEP # 95020
Person County, NC

Figure 3 Site Map
W I L D L A N D S Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 150 300 600 Feet Mitigation Plan
I I I I I t EEP #95020
Person County, NC

Figure 4 Soils Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 600 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Mitigation Plan
EEP #95020
Person County, NC

Figure 5 Hydrologic Features Map
INV,WILDLANDS 0 150 300 soo Feet B y rds Creek Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G Mitigation Plan
EEP #95020
Person County, NC

Wetland Determination Points
WOW
W I L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Person County, NC

Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs
(�1

- R
� 1
am 4"6`
* arr

i
kill

BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 3 Appendix I — Project Site Photographs

BYRDS CREEK REACH BC4
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 4 Appendix l — Project Site Photographs

SOUTH BRANCH REACH SB1
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 5 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

6
Fn IN
J
n

SOUTHEAST BRANCH REACH SE2
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 7 Appendix I — Project Site Photographs

�`�'�
`�ET'�.
s - .,�,�,,�:.,
,. ..,� ;
�S�_.'
�'; ,.
� � � a
��
':r
_ '� ��
�,�� - .
-�,� a
,�.
i :. - �� � 7cn. r
.. `�,;'�
1.^ :.

Appendix 2 Historic Aerial Photographs

1955 Aerial (Source USDA)
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan l Appendix 2 — Historic Aerial Photographs

Appendix 3 Project Site USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Forms
0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City/County Person Sampling Date 1/13/12
C- )\pplicant/Owner Wildands Engineering State NC Sampling Point DP1
finvestigator(s) Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range Bushy Fork Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope (oy) 1 %
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat N 36 250082 Long W 79 043548 Datum
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification PF01
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation , Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
\\ J
r
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes 1110/ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Sampling point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area in the floodplains of Byrds Creek
and West Branch
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired.
check all that aaolvl
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
t _ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
'' Drainage Patterns (1310)
{ ° Saturation (A3)
° Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
'' Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
° Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes r No
Depth (inches) 6-12'
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

i
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point DP1
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
° Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styreciflua
40 Yes FAC
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 2 (A)
2 Carpinus carohniana
5 No FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 2 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW or FAC 100% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
Total % Cover of Multiply by
8
45 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
= Total Cover
— data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot sae )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Juncus effusus
80 Yes FACW
—
2 Microstegwm vlmineum
10 No FAC
l 3
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
ll 4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
8
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
12
=Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
)
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
photo numbers here or on a separate sheet
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point DP1
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' L�oc; Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 3/4 100 silt loam
2 -12 10YR 5/2 75 7 5YR 5/6 25 C PL silt loam
RM= Reduced Matrix. M
Hydric Soil Indicator
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbnc Surface (1713) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
in PL =Pore Lining M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County Person Sampling Date 1/13/12
/ 1kpplicant/Owner Wildands Engineering State NC Sampling Point CP2
nvestigator(s) Matt Jenkins, PWS Section Township, Range Bushy Fork Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) floodplain Local relief (concave convex none) none Slope ( %) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Let N 36 251192 Long W 79 042521 Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Chewada (ChA) NWI classification N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ° No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Sampling point is representative of a non- junsdlctlonal upland area In the floodplain of Byrds Creek
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required,
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
I _ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Saturation Presents Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
it
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point
DP2
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
° Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
I� 1 Fagus grandifolia
50
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
2
(A)
i 2 Carpmus carohrnana
5
No
FAC
5.
2 = Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
Total Number of Dominant
—
2
3 Acer rubrum
5
No
FAC
Species Across All Strata
3
(B)
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
Percent of Dominant Species
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
5
height
8
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
67%
(AB)
6
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Prevalence Index worksheet
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11
7
12
40 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
8
)
height
1
Total % Cover of,
Multiply
by,
60
= Total Cover
OBL species
x 1 =
4
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15'
)
FACW species
x 2 =
1 Ulmus rubra
2
Yes
FAC
FAC species
x 3 =
= Total Cover
2
FACU species
x 4 =
3
UPL species
x 5 =
4
Column Totals
(A)
(B)
5
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Prevalence Index = B/A =
8
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
4 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5.
2 = Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
40 Yes FAC
—
2
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
3
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
12
40 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30
)
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point DP2
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
I (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci Texture Remarks
0 -1 7 5YR 3/4 100 sandy sift loam
1 -12 10YR 4/4 100 silt loam
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
m PL =Pore Linina. M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prame Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County Person Sampling Date 1/13/12
C4pplicant/Owner Wildands Engineering State NC Sampling Point DP3
-Investigator(s) Matt Jenkins, PWS Section Township, Range Bushy Fork Township
Landforrn (hillslope, terrace etc) floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope ( %) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Let N 36 253643 Long W 79 041267 Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Georgeville loam (GeC)
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
NWI classification N/A
✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes '' No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Soil Presents Yes No '' within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Sampling point Is representative of a non- junsdlctlonal upland area In the floodplaln of Byrds Creek
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired.
check all that apoly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
✓
Saturation Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Easter Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point DP3
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Fagus grandifolia
50
Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 2 (A)
2 Carpmus carohrnana
5
No FAC
3 Aoer rubrum
5
No FAC
Total Number of Dominant 3
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW or FAC 67'x° (A(B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
8
Total % Cover of Multioly by.
60
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1 Ulmus rubra
2
Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
—
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
—
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
—
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5.
2
=Total Cover
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
40
Yes FAC
—
(�
2
3
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present unless disturbed or problematic
J)
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants regardless
11
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
12
40
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 It in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

i
SOIL
Sampling Point DP3
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % T)22L Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 4/4 100 sandy rwn loam
RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Linina M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (N observed)
TVDe
Depth (inches)
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

i
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County Person Sampling Date 1/13/12
j ��Applicant/Owner Wildands Engineering State NC Sampling Point DP4
Investigator(s) Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range Bushy Fork Township
Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc ) hllislope Local relief (concave convex none) none Slope (off) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat N 36 247061 Long W 79 044003 Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Chewada (ChA) NWI classification N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ''
� Is the Sampled Area ✓
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Sampling point is representative of a non- junsdlctional upland area adjacent to Southeast Branch
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required,
check all that amly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (04)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

10
t
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point DP4
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Liqwdambar styraclflua
30
Yes FAC
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 1 (A)
2
Juniperus virginiana
2
No FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 2 (B)
'4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW or FAC 50% (AB)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
Total % Cover of, Multiply by.
8
32
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling
/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
— 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
—
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
—
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5.
2
= Total Cover
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetaton' (Explain)
1
Festuca rubra
80
Yes FACU
—
2
Microstegwm wmineum
15
No FAC
3
Solidago canadensis
5
No FACU
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 it (1 m) tall
10
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 It tall
12
100
= Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point DP4
Profile DescnpUon (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Locz Texture Remarks
0-2 7 5YR 4/3 100 silt loam
2 -12 10YR 5/4 100 silt loam
RM= Reduced
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Hisbc (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
IYILRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matnx (S6)
Type
Depth (inches)
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
in PL =Pore Limno. M =Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophybc vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County Person Sampling Date 1/13/12
/ kpplicant/Owner Wlldands Engineering State NC Sampling Point DP5
�rnvesbgator(s) Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range Bushy Fork Township
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope ( %) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat N 36 246306 Long W 79 045068 Datum
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification REM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation , Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes '' No Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Sampling point Is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area connected to South Branch
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reawred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reawred.
check all that aooly)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (66)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
i High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
it Saturation (A3)
'' Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aqudard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes '' No
Depth (inches) 1 -3"
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches) <12"
Saturation Present? Yes `' No
Depth (inches) 0-12"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point DP5
-,s
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 )
Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
I�° 1
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 3 (A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 3 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 100% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
Total % Cover of Multioly by
8
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling
/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
10 Yes FACW
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5-
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1
Microstegwm vimineum
50 Yes FAC
—
2
Cyperus stngosus
20 Yes FACW
(g
Juncus effusus
5 No FACW
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
II
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
6
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
12
75 = Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

l`J
SOIL
Sampling Point DP5
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 6/1 80 7 5YR 5/6 20 C PL sit loam
'Tvpe C= Concentration D =De lebon, RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains `Location PL =Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Hisbc Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Hisbc (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
'' Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophybc vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (If observed)
Tvoe
Depth (inches)
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Byrds Creek Mitigation Sde City /County Person Sampling Date 1/13/12
ti'-�,Applicant/Owner Wddands Engineering State NC Sampling Point DP6
� nvestigator(s) Matt Jenkins, PWS Section Township Range Bushy Fork Township
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) floodplain Local relief (concave convex, none) none Slope ( %) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MI-RA 136 Lat N 36 246351 Long W 79 048094 Datum
Sod Map Unit Name Chewada (ChA) NWI classification N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes No '' within a Wetland? Yes No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Sampling point Is representative of a non jurisdictional upland area In the floodplain of Byrds Creek
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reawred.
check all that molt')
_ Surface Sod Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Agwtard (133)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes '' No
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
✓
Saturation Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fn e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point DP6
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 That Are OBL FACW or FAC 1 (A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3 Species Across All Strata 1 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5 That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 100% (AlB)
6
7 Prevalence Index worksheet
8
Total % Cover of, Multiply by
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Saplinq /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x4=
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophyhc Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5
2 = Total Cover
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
Problematic Hydrophytrc Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Panicum wrgatum
95 Yes FAC
—
2 Solidago canadensis
4 No FACU
3 Juncus etfusus
1 No FACW
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
12
100 = Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
30'
height
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6 Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Area is located within an actively maintained open pasture
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point DP6
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 5/4 100 silt loam
RM= Reduced Matrix. MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Sol[ Indicators
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (N observed)
Tvoe
Depth (inches)
2Location PL =Pore Lining M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No!,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Intenm Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County Person Sampling Date 1/13/12
Ckpplicant/Owner Wildands Engineering State NC Sampling Point DP7
'Crivestigator(s) Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range Bushy Fork Township
Landfomt (hilislope terrace, etc) floodplain Local relief (concave convex none) concave Slope ( %) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat N 36 245827 Long W 79 047789 Datum
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification PEM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No _
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Presents Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes '' No
Remarks
Sampling point Is representative of a small jurisdictional wetland depression In the floodplaln of
Byrds Creek
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired.
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
+ _ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
!' Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
° Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
° Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes '' No
Depth (inches) 4-12"
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos previous inspections), if available
Remarks
I
US Army Corps of Engineers Easter Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use sclenttfic names of plants
Sampling Point DP7
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 2 (A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 2 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% (AB)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
Total % Cover of Multiply by
8
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Soplma /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
10
4 - Morphological Adaptabons' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Juncus effusus
60 Yes FACW
—
2 Cyperus stngosus
30 Yes FACW
� 3 Panicum vtrgatum
10 No FAC
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
�
it 4
be present, unless disturbed or problemabc
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
8
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling /Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
10
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
12
100 = Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30,
)
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Area is located within an actively maintained, open pasture
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point DP7
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvae Loci Texture Remarks
0 -2 10YR 4/3 100 silt loam
2 -12 10YR 5/1 90 7 5YR 5/4 10 C PL silt loam
'Type C= Concentration D= Depletion RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains `Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matnx
Hydric Soil Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis3
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (All 0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
'' Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Tvpe
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

l�
U
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 3 0
Ratlna Calculator Version 3 0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland AA Date 01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest + Assessor Name /Organmatlon Matt Jenkins PWS
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont + Nearest Named Water Body B rds Creek
River Basin Neuse I + USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
Yes • No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude deci -de rees 36 250082 °N 79 043548 °W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent Consider departure from reference if appropriate in recent
past (for instance approximately within 10 years) Noteworthy stressors include but are not limited to the following
• Hydrological modifications (examples ditches dams beaver dams dikes berms, ponds etc)
Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples discharges containing obvious pollutants presence of nearby
septic tanks underground storage tanks (USTs) hog lagoons etc )
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples vegetation mortality insect damage disease storm damage salt intrusion, etc)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples mowing Gear - cutting exotics etc )
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes F.', No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
No visible stressors are present
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area
r Anadromous fish
r Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
(j NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
r N C Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
r Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW ORW or Trout
(� Designated NCNHP reference community
r Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream Is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal check one of the following boxes) r Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? rj Yes [Vj No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes • No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual) If a reference is not applicable
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect
GS VS
FA FA Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples vehicle tracks excessive
sedimentation fire -plow lanes skidder tracks bedding fill sod compaction obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples mechanical disturbance herbicides salt intrusion [where appropriate] exotic species grazing
less diversity [if appropriate] artificial hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Subsurface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub) Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydnc sods (see USAGE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydnc sods A ditch
5 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water Consider tidal flooding regime if applicable
Surf Sub
• A • A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation)
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples draining flooding sod compaction filling excessive sedimentation underground utility lines)
3 Water Storage /Surface Relief — assessment area/wetiand type condition metric
Check a box in each column for each group below Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT)
AA WT
A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
•� D •j D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
•� C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4 Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below Dig sod profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature Make sod observations within the 12 inches Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydnc Sods guidance for
regional indicators
r,A Sandy sod
[•j B Loamy or clayey sods exhibiting redoxymorphic features (concentrations depletions, or rhizospheres)
[; C Loamy or clayey sods not exhibiting redoxymorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed sod
(; E Histosol or histic epipedon
[;A Sod ribbon < 1 inch
[; B Sod ribbon 2 1 inch
(•; A No peat or muck presence
[; B A peat or muck presence
5 Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box In each column Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub)
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST) etc
Surf Sub
• A • A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen particulate or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration dead vegetation excessive
sedimentation odor)
6 Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column) Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS) within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M) and within 2 miles gad within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M) Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion
WS 5M 2M
r A r A r� A z 10% impervious surfaces
17 B � B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
r C r C r C Confined animal operations (or other local concentrated source of pollutants)
r D r D r D 2 20% coverage of pasture
I— E r E r E 2 20 %i coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
r F rl F ri F t 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
r G r G , G Z 20% coverage of sdvicultural land characterized by a clear -cut < 5 years old
H r H [ H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area
7 Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area condition metric
7a Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water
Yes No If Yes continue to 7b If No skip to Metric 8
,
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed
7b How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weland? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer
A a 50 feet
• B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c Tributary width If the tributary is anastomosed combine widths of channels/braids for a total width
r 5 15 -feet wide F", > 15 -feet wide r] Other open water (no tributary present)
7d Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tnbutary/open water?
r. Yes F,' No
7e Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic
Exposed — adjacent open water with width 2 2500 feet or regular boat traffic
8 Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric
Check a box in each column for nverme wetlands only Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment
area (WT) and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC) See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries
WT WC
A A z 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
• E • E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
�,-
�H �H <5feet

9
Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landforrn
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
• B Evidence of saturation without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long - duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10
Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition)
re, A Sediment deposition is not excessive but at approximately natural levels
B Sediment deposition is excessive but not overwhelming the wetland
P C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland
11
Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box In each column Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area the
size of the wetland type (WT) the size of the wetland complex (WC) and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable see User
Manual) See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas If assessment area is dear -cut select "K" for the FW column
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A
_ A
A t 500 acres
B
B
B From 100 to < 500 acres
C
C
C From 50 to < 100 acres
D
D
D From 25 to < 50 acres
E
E
E From 10 to < 25 acres
F
F
F From 5 to < 10 acres
G
G
G From 1 to < 5 acres
H
H
H From 0 5 to < 1 acre
I
I
I From 0 1 to < 0 5 acre
• J
• J
• J From 0 01 to < 0 1 acre
K
K
K < 0 01 acre or assessment area is dear -cut
12
Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosm is the full extent (Z 90 %) of its natural landscape size
B Pocosm is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size
E
13
Connectivity to Other Natural Areas— landscape condition metric
13a Check appropriate box(es) (a box maybe checked in each column) Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (it appropriate) Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads urban landscapes maintained
fields (pasture open and agriculture) or water > 300 feet wide
Well Loosely
A 2 500 acres
B
B •
B From 100 to < 500 acres
•
C
C From 50 to < 100 acres
D
D From 10 to < 50 acres
E
E < 10 acres
F
F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b Evaluate for marshes only
[° Yes' No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands
14
Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges Artificial edges include
permanent features such as fields development two-lane or larger roads (2 40 -feet wide) utility line corridors wider than a two-lane road
and dear -cuts < 10 years old Consider the eight main points of the compass
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15
Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
. A Vegetation is dose to reference condition in species present and their proportions Lower strata composed of appropriate
species with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcuttmg or
clearing It also includes communities with exotics present but not dominant over a large portion of the expected strata
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non- charactenstic species or inappropriately composed of a single species
16
Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics)
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics)
1

L
17 Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a Is vegetation present?
Yes C No If Yes continue to 17b If No skip to Metric 18
17b Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for all marshes only Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands
A 2 25% coverage of vegetation
tC�N B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c Check a box In each column for each stratum Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately
AA VVr
A P A Canopy closed or nearly closed with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A
A
Dense mid- story/sapling layer
• B
• B
Moderate density mid- story/sapling layer
C
C
Mid- story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A
A
Dense shrub layer
B
B
Moderate density shrub layer
• C
• C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
A
A
Dense herb layer
. B
• B
Moderate density herb layer
C
C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18 Snags —wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH or large relative to species present and landscape stability)
• B Not A
19 Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
J•" A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH few are > 12 -inch DBH
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees
20 Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris
R A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter or large relative to species present and landscape stability)
B Not A
21 Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type /open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas while solid white areas indicate open water
["A E:B E"C L'D
22 Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric
Evaluate for nverine wetlands only Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching fill sedimentation channelization, diversion, man -made berms beaver dams, and stream incision
• A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area
D Both overbank gnd overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area
Notes

I �
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 3 0
Rating Calculator Version
3 0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland AA
Date
01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name /Organization
Matt Jenkins PWS
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y /N)
YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metncs
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence9 (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metncs/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 3 0
Rating Calculator Version 3 0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland BB Date 01/13/12
Wetland Typal Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name /Organization Matt Jenkins PWS
Level III Ecoregion I Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body B rds Creek
River Basinj Neuse USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
Yes F, No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude deci -de reel 36 246306•N 79 045068•W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent Consider departure from reference if appropriate in recent
past (for instance approximately within 10 years) Noteworthy stressors include but are not limited to the following
• Hydrological modifications (examples ditches dams beaver dams dikes berms, ponds etc)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples discharges containing obvious pollutants presence of nearby
septic tanks underground storage tanks (USTs) hog lagoons etc )
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples vegetation mortality insect damage disease, storm damage salt intrusion etc)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples mowing Gear - cutting exotics etc)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes r, No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
The area exhibits extensive management of vegetation and is part of the active pastures located on -site
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area
r Anadromous fish
j I Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
r NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
rj Publicly owned property
r. N C Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
E Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW ORW or Trout
r Designated NCNHP reference community
r Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream Is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply)
Blackwater
F.2 Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal check one of the following boxes) r Lunar rj Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes [Vj No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes • No
Ground Surface ConditionfVegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual) If a reference is not applicable
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect
GS VS
• A • A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples vehicle tracks excessive
sedimentation fire -plow lanes skidder tracks bedding fill soil compaction obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples mechanical disturbance herbicides salt intrusion [where appropriate] exotic species grazing
less diversity [if appropriate] artificial hydrologic alteration)
2 Surface and Subsurface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box In each column Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub) Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydnc soils (see USACE Wilmington Distnct website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydnc soils A ditch
s 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water Consider tidal flooding regime if applicable
Surf Sub
PA Water storage capacity and duration are not altered
B PA
B Water storage capacity or duration are altered but not substantially (typically not sufficient to change vegetation)
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples draining flooding soil compaction filling excessive sedimentation underground utility lines)
3 Water Storage /Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
Check a box in each column for each group below Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type Wo
AA WT
A (" A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B .P B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
. C �:; C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
P A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4
Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below Dig sod profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature Make sod observations within the 12 inches Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydnc Sods guidance for
regional indicators
(; A
Sandy sod
(•; B
Loamy or clayey sods exhibiting redoxymorphic features (concentrations depletions or rhizospheres)
C
Loamy or clayey sods not exhibiting redoxymorphic features
D
Loamy or clayey gleyed sod
[; E
Histosol or histic epipedon
[;A
Sod ribbon < 1 inch
B
Sod ribbon 2 1 inch
A
No peat or muck presence
B
A peat or muck presence
5
Discharge Into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surfl and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub)
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank underground storage tank (UST) etc
Surf
Sub
A
e." A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B
�� B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C
C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation odor)
6
Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column) Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS) within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M) and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M) Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion
WS
5M 2M
r A
r A r A 2 10% impervious surfaces
)j B
R B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
r C
r C r C Confined animal operations (or other local concentrated source of pollutants)
r D
E D r D 2 20% coverage of pasture
r E
11 E r E z 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
R. F
r F 17 s F Z 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
G
ri G [ G 2 20% coverage of sdvlcultural land characterized by a clear -cut < 5 years old
r H
r j H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area
7
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area condition metric
7a
Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes , No If Yes continue to 7b If No skip to Metric 8
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed
7b
How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer
A 2 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
• C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c
Tributary width If the tributary is anastomosed combine widths of channels/braids for a total width
s 15 -feet wide r. > 15 -feet wide rJ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d
Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tnbutary/open water?
r Yes [r, No
7e
Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
P'! Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic
Exposed — adjacent open water with width 2 2500 feet pr regular boat traffic
8
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetiand type/wetiand complex metric
Check a box in each column for rrverine wetlands only Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment
area
(VTO and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC) See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries
WT
WC
A
A Z 100 feet
B
B From 80 to < 100 feet
C
C From 50 to < 80 feet
D
D From 40 to < 50 feet
E
E From 30 to < 40 feet
•� F
• F From 15 to < 30 feet
G
G From 5 to < 15 feet
H
JH <5feet

9 Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform
. A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10 Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition)
. A Sediment deposition is not excessive but at approximately natural levels
B Sediment deposition is excessive but not overwhelming the wetland
P C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland
11 Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area the
size of the wetland type (WT) the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable see User
Manual) See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas If assessment area is dear -cut select "K° for the FW column
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A z 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0 5 to < 1 acre
• 1 • 1 1 From 0 1 to < 0 5 acre
J J J From 0 01 to < 0 1 acre
K K • K < 0 01 acre or assessment area is dear -cut
12 Wetland Intactness —wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (Z 90 %) of its natural landscape size
E B Pocosm is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size
13 Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked In each column) Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate) Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads urban landscapes maintained
fields (pasture open and agriculture) or water > 300 feet wide
Well Loosely
O
A A 2 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D • D From 10 to < 50 acres
• E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b Evaluate for marshes only
[: Yes C_ No Welland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands
14 Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges Artificial edges include
permanent features such as fields development two -lane or larger roads (2:40-feet wide) utility line corridors wider than a two -lane road
and dear -cuts < 10 years old Consider the eight main points of the compass
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
• C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is Gear -cut
15 Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
r:A Vegetation is dose to reference condition in species present and their proportions Lower strata composed of appropriate
species with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after dearcutting or
clearing It also includes communities with exotics present but not dominant over a large portion of the expected strata
�." C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non- charactenstic species or inappropriately composed of a single species
16 Vegetative Diversity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics)
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics
PA
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics)

L
17 Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a Is vegetation present?
Yes C No If Yes continue to 17b If No skip to Metric 18
17b Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for all marshes only Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands
A z 25% coverage of vegetation
tp�t B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c Check a box in each column for each stratum Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately
AA WT
A A Canopy dosed or nearly dosed with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present but opened more than natural gaps
• C • C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid- story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid- story/sapling layer
• C • C Mid- story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
• C • C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18 Snags — wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH or large relative to species present and landscape stability)
B Not A
19 Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH few are > 12 -inch DBH
• C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees
20 Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris
H A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter or large relative to species present and landscape stability)
B Not A
21 Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion —wetland type /open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas while solid white areas indicate open water
[;A B C D
I
22 Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric
Evaluate for nvenne wetlands only Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity Include Intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream Incision
• A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area
Notes

�J
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 3 0
Rating Calculator Version
3 0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland BB
Date
01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name /Organization
Matt Jenkins, PWS
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y /N)
YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metncs
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presences (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metncs/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 3 0
Ratina Calculator Version 3 0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland CC Date 01/13/12
WetlandTypej Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name /Organization Matt Jenkins PWS
Level III Ecoregionj Piedmont 1-1 Nearest Named Water Body Byrds Creek
River Basinj Neuse (: USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
Yes F, No Precipitation within 48 his? Latitude/Longitude deci -de rees) 36 245827 °N 79 047789 °W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent Consider departure from reference if appropriate in recent
past (for instance approximately within 10 years) Noteworthy stressors include but are not limited to the following
• Hydrological modifications (examples ditches dams beaver dams dikes berms ponds etc)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples discharges containing obvious pollutants presence of nearby
septic tanks underground storage tanks (USTs) hog lagoons etc)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples vegetation mortality, insect damage disease storm damage salt intrusion etc )
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples mowing dear - cutting exotics etc )
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes r", No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
The area exhibits extensive management of vegetation and is part of the active pastures located on -site The area shows evidence of ditching
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area
r Anadromous fish
r Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
r NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
r N C Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
r Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW ORW or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
r Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply)
Blackwater
• Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal check one of the following boxes) r Lunar r Wind r Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r. Yes M No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes r*, No
Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box In each column Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual) If a reference is not applicable
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B •� B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples vehicle tracks excessive
sedimentation fire -plow lanes skidder tracks bedding fill sod compaction obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples mechanical disturbance herbicides salt intrusion [where appropriate] exotic species grazing
less diversity [if appropriate] artificial hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub) Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydnc sods (see USACE Wilmington Distnct website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydnc sods A ditch
s 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water Consider tidal flooding regime if applicable
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered
• B • B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically not sufficient to change vegetation)
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples draining flooding sod compaction filling excessive sedimentation underground utility lines)
3 Water Storage /Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
Check a box In each column for each group below Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT)
AA WT
A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
• C • C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
y D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
•� C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4 Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below Dig sod profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature Make sod observations within the 12 inches Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydnc Sods guidance for
regional indicators
[;A
Sandy sod
[; B
Loamy or clayey sods exhibiting redoxymorphic features (concentrations depletions or rhizospheres)
C
Loamy or clayey sods not exhibiting redoxymorphic features
(; D
Loamy or clayey gleyed sod
E
Histosol or histic epipedon
[;A
Sod ribbon < 1 inch
[; B
Sod ribbon a 1 inch
�.; A
No peat or muck presence
B
A peat or muck presence
5 Discharge
Into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box In each column Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub)
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank underground storage tank (UST) etc
Surf
Sub
• A
• A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B
B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C
C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen particulate or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration dead vegetation excessive
sedimentation odor)
6 Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box In each column) Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M) and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M) Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion
WS
5M 2M
C A
(i A rr A a 10% impervious surfaces
(S B
(? B 17 B < 10% impervious surfaces
r C
r C r C Confined animal operations (or other local concentrated source of pollutants)
(? D
r D r D a 20% coverage of pasture
r E
r E r E a 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F
r F 17' F a 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
j G
r G r G z 20% coverage of sdvicultural land characterized by a clear -cut < 5 years old
r H
j I H H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area
7 Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer— assessment area condition metric
7a
Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
or Yes , No If Yes continue to 7b If No skip to Metric 8
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed
7b
How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer
A 2 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
• C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c
Tnbutary width If the tributary is anastomosed combine widths of channels/braids for a total width
5 15 -feet wide >)15 -feet wide r] Other open water (no tributary present)
7d
Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tnbutary/open water?
r. Yes r No
7e
Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
P;! Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic
Exposed — adjacent open water with width 2 2500 feet or regular boat traffic
8 Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric
Check a box In each column for riverine wetlands only Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment
area
(Wr) and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC) See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries
WT
WC
A
A 2 100 feet
B
B From 80 to < 100 feet
C
C From 50 to < 80 feet
D
D From 40 to < 50 feet
E
E From 30 to < 40 feet
4 F
F From 15 to < 30 feet
• G
• G From 5 to < 15 feet
�H
JH <5feet

l i
9 Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform
A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
. B Evidence of saturation without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long - duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
/—
10 Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition)
e:! A Sediment deposition is not excessive but at approximately natural levels
B Sediment deposition is excessive but not overwhelming the wetland
EiP� C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland
11 Wetland Sure — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box In each column Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area the
size of the wetland type (WT) the size of the wetland complex (WC) and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable see User
Manual) See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas If assessment area is Gear -cut select "K" for the FW column
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A z 500 acres
B B 4 B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C 4 C From 50 to < 100 acres
4 D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0 5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0 1 to < 0 5 acre
• J • J J From 0 01 to < 0 1 acre
K K • K < 0 01 acre or assessment area is dear -cut
12 Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosm is the full extent (Z 90°x) of its natural landscape size
E B Pocosm is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size
13 Connectwity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column) Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate) Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads urban landscapes maintained
fields (pasture open and agriculture) or water > 300 feet wide
Well Loosely
A A 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
F
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
• F • F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b Evaluate for marshes only
C" Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands
14 Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges Artificial edges include
permanent features such as fields development two-lane or larger roads (Z 40 -feet wide) utility line comdors wider than a two-lane road
and dear -cuts < 10 years old Consider the eight main points of the compass
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
• C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is dear cut
15 Vegetative Composition —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
[:A Vegetation is dose to reference condition in species present and their proportions Lower strata composed of appropriate
species with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after dearcutting or
Gearing It also includes communities with exotics present but not dominant over a large portion of the expected strata
�." C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species
16 Vegetative Diversity —assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics)
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics
PA
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics)
l i

EA
17 Vegetative Structure— assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a Is vegetation present
: Yes 0 No If Yes continue to 17b If No skip to Metric 18
17b Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for all marshes only Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands
r'! A 2 25% coverage of vegetation
tF�# B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c Check a box In each column for each stratum Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately
AA Wr
A A Canopy dosed or nearly dosed with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present but opened more than natural gaps
• C • C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid- story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid- story/sapling layer
• C • C Mid- story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
• C • C Shrub layer sparse or absent
• A • A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18 Snags — wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH or large relative to species present and landscape stability)
B Not A
19 Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH few are > 12 -inch DBH
• C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees
20 Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter or large relative to species present and landscape stability)
• B Not A
21 Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion —wetland type /open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas while solid white areas indicate open water
A B E"C D
�y
22 Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric
Evaluate for nvenne wetlands only Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity Include intensive
ditching fill sedimentation, channel¢ation, diversion man -made berms, beaver dams and stream Incision
• A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 3 0
Rating Calculator Version
3 0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland CC
Date
01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name /Organization
Matt Jenkins, PWS
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (YIN)
YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (YIN)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (YIN)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (YIN)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (YIN)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metncs
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condibon /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metncs/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Habitat Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

1
Appendix 4 Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms

1
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date Z(-7 f ��
Project/Site 13�pS CRe�r�
Latitude
Evaluator `�) --�—
County _L1M_.a.'_>
Longitude,
Total Points:(
Stream Determination (cir n
Other .SC
Stream is at least Intermittent J� 1 ��j
N2 19 or erenrdatff2:30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e g quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal = 2
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalwag
0
1
2
0
3 In- channel structure ex nHle -pool, step -pool,
ripple pool sequence
0
1
2
t
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
15
5 Active/relict flood plain
0
1
2
15
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1 5
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
15
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0 5
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
No= 0
Yes =
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 10 :�� )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13 Iron oxidizing bactena
0
1
1
3
14 Leaf litter
16
1
2
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
3
16 Organic debris fines or piles
0
05
1
15
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C Bloloav (Subtotal = I Z,Z S )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants In streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22 Fish
0
06
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
05
1 5
25 Algae
0
0 5
1
15
26 Wetland plants In streambed
FACW = 79 OBL = 15 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWO Stream Identification tot m Version 4.11
Date Zf -% I
Project/Site -54�5 ���
Sot -,KNA Q
Latitude,
Evaluator -0 —�-
County. ve -R.So�
Longitude
2
1
2
Total Points,
Stream Determ ation (circle one)
Other
Stream Is at least
Z�1
Ephemeral nterrnitten erennlal
e g Quad Name
lffk 30'
rf2 i9 or rerrrrrafB2 30'
0
3
A Geomorphology Subtotal = i .S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
19 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool, step -pool,
n le of sequence
0
3
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
2
3
5 Active/relict flood lain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
0
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
0
3
9 Grade control
0
06
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No =0
Yes = 3
° artifldal ditches are not rated, see dl sslons In manual —
B Hvdroloov (Subtotal = CD )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
3
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
0
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or plies
0
2
Cer>
15
17 Soll-based evidence of high water table?
CNo = 0
Yes = 3
C Bloloav (Subtotal = )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19 Rooted upland plants In streambed
3
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
06
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
1
15
25 Algae
0
0
1
16
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
OBL = 16 Other = 0
•perennial streams may also be Identified using olher methods Seep 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWn Stream Identrtication Form Veesion 4.11
Date* /
Z 1-7 ! / t
Project/Site S G.RE'i±K
�� ��� tiL
Latitude
Evaluator —�—
County �SQ�
Longitude.
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cir
Other .503
Stream Is at leastlntemrtftent / )/_
`�1
Ephemeral Intermitten Pe a nlal
eg Quad Mama'
It a 19 or erennlel/l a 30' �P ,�
(60
3
A Geomorphology ( Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1° Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thaiwe
0
1
(60
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
0
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
3
5 Active/rellct fioodpiain
0
1
2
15
6 Deposibonal bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
"artificlal dlWies are not rated, see discusslons In manual
R Hvdminnv 1Suhtofal = P, S 1
12 Presence of BasefioW
0
1
2
1
13 Iron oAdIzing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14 Leaf lifter
15
20 Macrobenthos (note drverslty and abundance)
(60
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
15
16 Organic debns lines or plies
0
05
3
15
117 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
s = 3
C Rininnv tSnhtntal = V%. ZA 1
16 Fibrous roots In streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note drverslty and abundance)
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22 Fish
0
0
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
CUDS
1
15
25 Algae
0
05
16
26 Wetland plants In streambed
FACW
75 OBL = 1 9--Other = 0
'perennlal streams may also be Identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

J
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date. 2 �.y �((
Projecusite NT'oS
Latitude
Evaluator -7 , -t-
County
Longitude
Total Points,
Stream Is at least Intermittent / 1 f '�
Stream Determination (c rel
Other SG Pj
If a 19 or ersnnial if 2:306 `�� �P S
Ephemeral Intennitten Pe ennla)
e g Quad Name.
A Geomorphology Subtotal = Z I•s
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
0
4 Particle srze of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5 Achvelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
CD
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
Ep
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
15
8 Headcuts
0
1
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
3
9 Grade control
0
05
CT-)
5
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es =
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions In manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal= Ot JS_ )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
2
3
14 Leaf titter
16
1
2
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
2
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
is
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
G 810100v (Subtotal = `t- f75 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22 Fish
0
1
16
23 Crayfish
0
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
5
1
15
25 Algae
0
0
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0 7 r BL = 1 5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

CJ Appendix 5 Resource Agency Correspondence

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Iuida A. Cuhsle, Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 21, 2011
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudm Brown, Acting Admnnrstrator
Re Byrds Creek Mitigation Project, Person County, ER 11 -1409
Dear Ms Eckardt-
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 2011, concerning the above project
Office of Archives and History
Division of Hmoncal Resources
David Brook, Director
While we have no comment on the mitigation project as proposed, we ask that your archaeological contractor,
New South, contact Site Registrar Susan Myers (usan myers@acdcrpov 919/807 -6556) to obtain a
permanent state site number for the null dam and complete a site form for it Although it is within a section of
the project designated as preservation, we would like to record its presence for future reference and to add to
our knowledge of the area
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures
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, , l
6=eClaudia Brown
Location 109 East Jones street, Raiagb NC 27601 Mat'hng Address 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone /Fax [phone] -6599

I �
® Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Exectmve Director
22 July 2011
Matt L Jenluns, PWS
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South ATnt Hill Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject Byrds Creek Mitigation Site, Person County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr Jenkins
Biologists with the North Carohna Wildlife Resources Comirnsslon have reviewed the subject
Information. Our comments are provided m accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wddhfe Coordination
0 Act (48 Star 401, as amended-, 16 U S.0 661 -667d) and North Carolina General Statutes (G S 113 -131 et seq )
The proposed project would provide in -krnd mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts
Several sections of stream channel are significantly degraded from past agneuttural activities Byrds Creek Is a
tributary to South Flat Rarer in the Neuse River basin Tyre are records for the federal species of concern and
state endangered yellow label (Lampsihs canosa), the state threatened creeper (Strophlius undulates) and
Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilrs radtata), and the state significantly rare chameleon lan4mmtsscl (LanWilis sp )
In South Flat River Also, the Slgmficant Natural Heritage Area — Flat Rarer Aquatic Habitat — is located
downstream of the site
Stream and wetland restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. We
recommend establishing nave, forested buffers in riparian area to protect water quality, Improve terrestrial
habitat, and provide a travel corridor for wddhfe species Provided natural channel design methods are used and
measures are taken to mmmuze erosion and station from consuactionlrestorahon activities, we do not
anticipate the project to result in slgmficant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625
i
Sincerely,
Shan L Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fishenes - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
, J -- - - - - - - - - - - ...Mc IfT 7 1o11� ANn -7T TT -77 Tn/l

Andrea Eckardt
From Myers, Susan <susan myers @ncdcr gov>
l` J`5ent Thursday, August 18, 2011 1 52 PM
To Andrea Eckardt
Cc Chris Espenshade
Subject RE Site form for mill, ER 11 -1409
Andrea,
Thanks for the map And, thanks Chns, for the form I rec'd it this morning The site's number is 31 PR129"" Appreciate
both your help w/ this, figured we should get it on the map, into the database
Susan
Susan Myers
Site Registrar and Staff Archaeologist
Office of State Archaeology
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4619
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
This communication may not reflect or represent the views of the Department of Cultural Resources E-mail
correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS Ch 132" and
may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official
Please note my new e-mail address susan myers ncdcr gov
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto aeckardt @wildlandseng com]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 20115 12 PM
To: Myers, Susan
Subject: RE Site form for mill, ER 11 -1409
Susan -
Attached is a figure showing the location of the Mill Let me know if you need a different scale
Andrea
Andrea Spangler Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
704- 332 -7754 ext 101
Please note my new email address aeckardt0wildlandsena com effective immediately
From: Myers, Susan [mailto Susan myers @ncdcr gov]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 20113 46 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt
Subject: Site form for mill, ER 11 -1409
Andrea,
)ThanThanks for your call Attached is our site form New South has a copy of this template 'on file' too I'll assign the site
ks
once I've rec'd your map, then you or Chris /Shawn can complete the site form and send to me (I imagine you'll
want to wait to have him complete the time period, etc and evaluation parts) If a photo or two could be attached to the
form that'd be great Thanks

Susan
Cusan Myers
ite Registrar and Staff Archaeologist
- /Office of State Archaeology
4619 Mad Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4619
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
This communication may not reflect or represent the views of the Department of Cultural Resources E -mail
correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS Ch 132" and
may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official
Please note my new e-mail address susan myersCilncdcr gov
1
I—_

WILDLA[vDS
ENGINEERING
June 30, 2011
Dale Sutter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P O Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, North Carohna
Dear Mr Suiter,
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts Several sections of stream channels
throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of past
agricultural activities, including cattle
We have already obtained an updated species list for Person County from your web site
(http / /nc -es fws gov /es /countyfr html) The threatened or endangered species for this
county are the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red - cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) We are requesting that
you please provide any known information for each species in the county The USFWS
will be contacted if suitable habitat for any listed species is found or if we determine that
the project may affect one or more federally listed species or designated critical habitat
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 restoration project on the subject properties A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the
approximate property lines and area of potential ground disturbance is enclosed Figure 1
was prepared from the Hurdle Mills and Caldwell, NC 7 5- Minute Topographic
Quadrangles
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list and site
determination are 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
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 0 (P) 704- 332 -7754 a (F) 704- 332 -3306

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project
Sincerely,
Matt L Jenkins, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachment
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map
2

�� Appendix 6 Existing Morphologic Survey Data

570
0•
570
565
0•
570
565
564
0•
565
0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00 3 +50
0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00 3 +50
0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00 3 +5
560
0 +00 0 +50 1 +00
570
2
- 570
L -i--i- 565
4AB05
570
1 565
564
3 +86
565
560
1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00 3 +50 3 +69

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Project Name
B rds Creel. Mitigation Site
Data Collected By
M , JK
Location
Person County NC
Data Collected On
9/8/2011
Job #
005 02128
Reach
BC1
Date
9/8/2011
Cross Section #
Reachwrde
Partic�eClCass
Diameter (mm)
Parade Count
Riffle S
Pool S
Reach Summary
018
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Clase
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CLAY
la
0 000
0 062
4
6
10
80
8
12
12
10
10
30442
Very fine
0 062
0 125
1
D99 =1
1
2 0
10
12
1
11
Fine
0 125
0 250
4
4
10
8
20
4
15
9
Medium
0 250
0 500
15
25
40
300
40
50
70
40
55
Coarse
0 5
10
19
3
22
380
78
6
76
22
77
Very Coarse
10
2 0
5
1
6
100
88
2
78
6
83
Ve Fme
2 0
28
88
78
83
V Frne
28
4 0
88
78
83
Fine
4 0
57
88
78
83
Fine
57
80
1
1
2 0
90
78
1
84
Medium
80
113
90
78
84
- Medium
113
160
1
1
2
2 0
92
2
80
2
86
Coarse
160
226
92
80
86
Coarse
226
32
92
80
86
Very Coarse
32
45
92
80
86
Ls
YSH Coarse
45
64
92
80
86
Small
64
90
1
1
2
2 0
94
2
82
2
88
Small
Large
90
128
180
128
180
256
2
1
1
4
1
3
5
1
40
20
98
100
100
2
8
2
84
92
94
3
5
1
91
96
97
Small
256
362
1
1
100
2
96
1
98
Small
362
512
100
96
98
Medium
512
1024
100
96
98
Large/Very La
1024
2048
100
96
98
BE>�ROCg Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
100
4
100
2
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16=
029
D16=
018
D16=
025
DJ5 =
045
D35 =
031
D35 =
035
DSO =
060
DSO =
038
D50 =
046
Ds, =
152
Da., =
12800
Ds, =
1100
D95 =
9828
D95 =
30442
D95 =
168 14
D100 =1
180
D99 =1
>2o48
D99 =1
>2048

�III������•••rr11NM���Cmll
�iiiiiia�
■��
■■�mi
��■�n�ii
II�I��I�
I�
n��■�

ain
578
577
576
0
m 575
m
w 574
573
572
571
0
5 10
Bankfull
Dimensions
558
x- section area (ft sq )
230
width (ft)
24
mean depth (ft)
33
max depth (ft)
257
wetted panmeter (ft)
22
hyd radi (ft)
95
width-depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
32
velocity (ft/s)
1782
discharge rate (cfs)
038
Froude number
Cross Section
Riffle �
15 20
25 30
Width
Flood Dimensions
1540
W flood prone area (ft)
67
entrenchment ratio
33
low bank height (ft)
10
low bank height ratio
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS - --
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 38 5
Channel Slope
percent slope - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n' NO 031
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' P 009
Flow Resistance
0 035 Manning's roughness
011 D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
95 resistance factor u/u-
13 8 relative roughness
35 40 45
Matenals
— D50 (mm)
5367 D84 (mm)
13 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
02 channel slope ( %)
027 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
037 shear velocity (ft/s)
097 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
50
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

580
579
578
577
m o 576
575
.92 S.
w
574
573
572
571
0 10
Bankfull Dimensions
626
x- section area (ft sq )
236
width (ft)
27
mean depth (ft)
36
max depth (ft)
265
wetted parameter (ft)
24
hyd radi (ft)
89
width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
36
velocity (ft/s)
2275
discharge rate (cfs)
042
Froude number
Cross Secbon
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS –
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 47 7
Channel Slope
percent slope�� --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n"IffsT33=0 015
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' P' 002
Rifle
20 30
Width
Flood Dimensions
1558 W flood prone area (ft)
66 entrenchment ratio
36 low bank height (ft)
10 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 033
Manning's roughness
009
D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
201
resistance factor u /u'
9758
relative roughness
40 50
Materials
— D50 (mm)
083 D84 (mm)
14 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
02 channel slope ( %)
029 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
039 shear velocity (ft/s)
1 21 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
60

otsu
579
578
577
576
c
0 575
m 574
W 573
572
571
570
569
0
5 10
15 20 25 30
35 40 45 50
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
775
x- section area (ft sq)
— W flood prone area (ft)
— D50 (mm)
270
width (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
— D84 (mm)
29
mean depth (ft)
— low bank height (ft)
-- threshold grain size (mm)
48
max depth (ft)
— low bank height ratio
307
wetted panmeter (ft)
25
hyd radi (ft)
94
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & Power
—
velocity (ft/s)
— Manning's roughness
— channel slope ( %)
–
discharge rate (cfs)
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
—
Froude number
— resistance factor u/u'
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— relative roughness
— unit strm power (lb/fVs)
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevabon —
Low Bank Height
FS —
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 45 4
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Mammng's "n': m_
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' P —
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Project Name
Byrds Creel. Mihgation Site
jData Collected By
M], I K
Location
Person County, NC
jData Collected On
9/8/2011
job #
005 02128
lReach
BC2
Date
9/8/2011
JCross Section #
Reach -de
Particl
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool S
Reach Summary
S4tlClay,
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CLAY
0 000
0 062
12
14
26
245
24
28
28
26
26
17006
Very fine
0 062
0125
362
4
4
D99 =
24
8
36
4
30
Fine
0 125
0 250
8
8
24
16
52
8
38
9
Medium
0 250
0 500
6
10
16
122
37
20
72
16
55
Coarse
05
10
6
4
10
122
49
8
80
10
65
Ve Coarse
10
2 0
8
2
10
163
65
4
84
10
75
Very Fine
2 0
2 8
65
84
75
—
Very Fine
2 8
4 0
65
84
75
Fine
40
57
65
84
75
-s
'
Fine
57
80
65
84
75
r
Medium
80
113
65
84
75
Medium
113
160
1
1
2 0
67
84
1
76
y
Coarse
160
226
67
84
76
Coarse
226
32
67
84
76
-
-
Ve Coarse
Ve Coarse
32
45
45
64
1
1
1
1
2 0
2 0
69
71
84
84
1
1
77
78
"
Small
64
90
1
3
4
2 0
73
6
90
4
82
Small
90
128
3
3
61
80
90
3
85
`
128
180
2
3
5
41
84
G
96
5
1
90
1
"
180
256
7
7
14 3
98
96
7
97
Small
256
362
1
1
2 0
100
96
1
98
Small
362
512
100
96
98
Medium
512
1024
100
1 A
96
98
Large/V ry Large
1024
2048
100
96
98
BEUROCFC
Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
100
4
100
2
100
Tot
49
50
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
Largest Particle (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
Slit/Clay
D16 =
S4tlClay,
D16 =
Sift/Clay
D }s =
045
Dis =
011
D }s =
019
D,p =
104
Dso =
023
Dsu =
041
Dg, =
18145
D84 =
64 00
Ds, =
11598
D95 =
23799
D95 =
17006
1393 =
23207
Dim =1
362
D99 =1
>2048
D99 =
>2048

MEMINO
ShIiII�E29����wiwd�-
--.-
�!�5
mil
■�IIII
■�IIII
■1■�II■�IrNY
IIII
■11111111■�I�III
�
II�IIIII��
111
I
oil
Reach Summary Riffle Summary ---A - Pool Summa

Wo
577
576
575
c
°– 574
m
2 573
U.1
572
571
570
569
0
5 10 15
Bankfull
Dimensions
584
x- section area (ft sq )
261
width (ft)
22
mean depth (ft)
38
max depth (ft)
304
wetted panmeter (ft)
19
hyd radi (ft)
117
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
27 velocity (ft/s)
1548 discharge rate (cfs)
034 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation -
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 43 7
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning s n' � � 0 038
DArcy Weisbach - 013
Note
Riffle
20 25 30
Width
Flood Dimensions
144 8 W flood prone area (ft)
55 entrenchment ratio
38 low bank height (ft)
10 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 033 Manning s roughness
010 DArcy- Weisbach fnc
77 resistance factor u/u'
65 relative roughness
35 40 45
Materials
— D50 (mm)
104 66 D84 (mm)
8 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
014 channel slope (%)
017 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
029 shear velocity (fUs)
052 unit stns power (Ib/f /s)
50
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

578
577
576
575
c 574
0
573
W 572
571
570
569
568
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
645
x section area (ft sq )
190
width (ft)
34
mean depth (ft)
44
max depth (ft)
246
wetted panmeter (ft)
26
hyd radi (ft)
56
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
30
vekxoty (ft/s)
1951
discharge rate (cfs)
033
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevahon —
Low Bank Height
FS —
elevabon
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 37 6
Channel Slope
percent slope r —
Flow Resistance
Manning s n 0 037
D Arcy Weisbach i Oil
Note
Riffle
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
2306 W flood prone area (ft)
12l entrenchment ratio
44 low bank height (ft)
1 0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 035 Manning s roughness
010 D Arcy Weisbach fnc
84 resistance factor u /u'
99 relabve roughness
30 35 40
Materials
— D50 (mm)
10466 D84 (mm)
11 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
014 channel slope (%)
023 shear stress (lb /sq It )
034 shear velocity (ft/s)
09 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omd Notes

578
577
576
575
c 574
o---------------------------
7a 573
w 572
571
570
569
568
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
659
x- section area (ft sq )
219
width (ft)
30
mean depth (ft)
39
max depth (ft)
251
wetted panmeter (ft)
26
hyd radi (ft)
73
width-depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
Pool
15 20 25 30
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
43 low bank height (ft)
1 1 low bank height ratio
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevabon
Low Bank Height
FS –
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 44 4
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" —
D'Arcy - Weisbach "P' —
Flow Resistance
— Manning s roughness
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u`
— relative roughness
35 40 45 50
Matenals
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit stns power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omd Notes

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Project Name
Byrds Creel. Mitigation Site
Data Collected By
M K
Location
Person County NC
Data Collected On
9/8/2011
Job #
005 02128
Reach
BO
Date
9/8/2011
Cross Section #
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Stimm ary
Pool Summary
Reach S
SilMay
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Clare
Percent a
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
1'
S7L CLAY
Silt /Cla
0 000
0 062
7
13
20
140
14
26
26
20
20
2898 31
Very fine
0 062
0 125
362
1
1
1 D99 =1
14
2
28
1
21
Fine
0 125
0 250
3
1
4
60
20
2
30
4
25
9
Medium
0 250
0 500
6
8
14
120
32
16
46
14
39
Coarse
05
10
1
1
2
20
34
2
48
2
41
lVery Coarse
10
20
2
1
3
40
38
2
50
3
44
Ve Fine
20
28
38
50
44
r Vc Fine
28
40
38
50
44
Fine
4 0
57
2
2
40
42
50
2
46
Fine
57
80
1
1
42
2
52
1
47
Medium
80
113
2
2
40
46
52
2
49
Medium
113
160
46
52
49
r Coarse
160
226
1
1
20
48
52
1
50
Coarse
226
32
1
1
48
2
54
1
51
Very Coarse
32
45
1
3
4
20
50
6
60
4
55
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
50
6
66
3
58
Small
64
90
9
2
11
18 0
68
4
70
11
69
Small
90
128
8
5
13
160
84
10
80
13
82
128
180
5
1
6
100
94
2
82
6
88
`
Lanze
180
256
2
3
5
40
98
6
88
5
93
Small
256
362
1
1
2
20
100
2
90
2
95
Small
362
512
100
90
95
Medium
512
1024
1
100
1
90
95
Large/Very Latge
1024
2048
100
90
95
BEAROC%
Bedrock
2048
>2048
5
5
1
1 100
10
100
5
100
Totall
50
I 50
100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
DI6 =
016
D16 =
SilMay
D16 =
SiIVClay
D35 =
119
D35 =
031
D35 =
041
D50 =
64 00
D50 =
560
DSo =
2260
D8, =
12800
Da., =
20242
Ds4 =
14340
D95 =
19657
Dqs =
2898 31
Dqs =
204800
Diro =1
362
1399 =1
>2048
1 D99 =1
>2048

��� O
�mi�
ra���.�
�III�P.,���`�`p
�pi,���I
111
■
■��IIYIIII�II�����dlY��ll
��
■Illlli
■1
II
�II���Il�d
�'�
I�
■■II
�liii�':;�
■III■IIE��!l�iii������lll
a�i!l
I
I
■�'�YI■■■I■
■!I
Ilu
��� O

573
572
571
570
0
i 569
m
w 568
567
566
565
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
547
x- section area (ft sq )
225
width (ft)
24
mean depth (ft)
34
max depth (ft)
251
wetted panmeter (ft)
22
hyd radi (ft)
93
width depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
29
velOGty (ft/s)
1574
discharge rate (cfs)
034
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation–
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
vndth fpa 37 9
Channel Slope
percent slope –
Flow Resistance
Mannmg's' n 0 046
D Arcy - Weisbach IF 019
Note
Riffle
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
1244 W flood prone area (ft)
55 entrenchment ratio
34 low bank height (ft)
10 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 033 Manning s roughness
009 D Arcy Weisbach fnc
65 resistance factor u /u'
41 relative roughness
30 35 40
Matenals
— D50 (mm)
180 D84 (mm)
9 threshold grain size (mm
Forces & Power
014 channel slope ( %)
019 shear stress (Ib /sq ft )
031 shear velocity (ft/s)
061 unit stns power (lb /ft(s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

572
571
570
569
m
w
566
567
566
565
0 10
Bankfull Dimensions
667
x section area (ft sq )
359
width (ft)
19
mean depth (ft)
26
max depth (ft)
382
wetted panmeter (ft)
1 7
hyd radi (ft)
193
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
25
velocity (ft/s)
1660
discharge rate (cfs)
033
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation –
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Drone Area
vndth fpa 53 4
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flaw Resistance
Manning e n r r 0 044
D Arcy Weisbach Y 018
Note
Rr le
20
30 40
Width
Flood Dimensions
1160
W flood prone area (ft)
32
entrenchment ratio
34
low bank height (ft)
13
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 033
Manning s roughness
010
DArcy Weisbachfnc
66
resistance factor u/u'
42
relative roughness
50
Materials
— D50 (mm)
135 48 D84 (mm)
8 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
014 channel slope (%)
015 shear stress (Ib/sq ft )
028 shear velocity (ft/s)
04 unit strm power (lb/tt/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
60

b /:S
572
571
570
0 569
m
m 568
U.1
567
566
565
564
0
5 10
Bankfull
Dimensions
709
x- section area (ft sq )
238
width (ft)
30
mean depth (ft)
35
max depth (ft)
275
wetted panmeter (ft)
26
hyd radi (ft)
80
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS —
elevaGon
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 42 1
Channel Slope
percent slope --
Flow Resistance
Manning s "n
D Arcy - Weisbach ' P
Note
Pool
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
— low bank height (ft)
— low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning s roughness
— DArcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u•
— relative roughness
30 35 40 45
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb/sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

PFRRI.F. COI TNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Project Name
B rds Creel. Mitigation Site
Data Collected By
MI IK
Location
Person County, NC
Data Collected On
9/8/2011
job #
005 02128
Reach
BC4
Date
9/8/2011
Cross Section #
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle S
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
I m°
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Ctirriulative
Class
Percen a
Percent
Cumulative
Sibs /CLAY
Sdt/Clay
0 000
0 062
4
15
19
80
8
30
30
19
19
10733
Very fine
0 062
0125
>2048
3
3
D99 =1
8
6
36
3
22
Fine
0 125
0 250
3
1
4
6 0
14
2
38
4
26
9
Medium
0 250
0 500
10
12
22
200
34
24
62
22
48
Coarse
0 5
10
1
1
2
2 0
36
2
64
2
50
lVery Coarse
10
2 0
36
64
50
'
Ve Fine
2 0
28
64
50
Ve Fine
28
40
64
50
Fme
4 0
5 7
2
2
4 0
P36
64
2
52
Fme
5 7
8 0
64
52
Medium
8 0
11 3
1
2
3
2 0
4
68
3
55
Medium
113
160
3
1
4
60
48
2
70
4
59
Coarse
160
226
3
2
5
6 0
54
4
74
5
64
Coarse
226
32
2
2
40
58
74
2
66
V Coarse
32
45
1
1
2
2 0
60
2
76
2
68
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
140
74
2
78
8
76
Small
64
1 90
4
7
11
80
82
14
92
11
87
Small
90
128
6
3
9
120
94
6
98
9
96
_r a
128
180
1
1
94
2
100
1
97
180
256
1
1
1 20
96
100
1
98
Small
256
362
96
100
98
Small
362
512
96
100
98
Medium
512
1024
96
100
98
Large/VeryLugei
1024
2048
96
100
98
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
4 00
100
100
2
100
Totall
50
I 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm)
Rile
Channel materials (nun)
Pool
Charnel materials
Cumulative
Charnel materials
D16 =
027
D16 =
SdVClay
D16 =
Sift/Clay
D35 =
071
D35 =
Oil
D35 =
033
D50 =
1795
Di0 =
035
D50 =
400
Ds4 =
9544
De, =
7407
138.1 =
8201
D95 =
21466
D95 =
10733
1395 =
12309
D100 =1
>2048
D99 =1
180
D99 =1
>2048

J
11��111-�1■�e��m�,
II�■Ir
��F
��I■un
°��i
miiii�u
�n�
J

570
569
568
567
c
$ 566
ca
565
w 564
563
562
561
Rifle
I
�
Bankfull
Dimensions
609
r
I
-
' I
t
i
0
5 10
Bankfull
Dimensions
609
x section area (ft sq )
197
width (ft)
31
mean depth (ft)
37
max depth (ft)
244
wetted panmeter (ft)
25
hyd radi (ft)
64
width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
34
velocity (ft/s)
2048
discharge rate (cfs)
037
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation r -
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation r
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 38 6
Channel Slope
percent slope r -
Flow Resistance
Manning's n r r 0 035
D Arcy - Weisbach f' Oil
Note
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
– W flood prone area (ft)
– entrenchment ratio
37 low bank height (ft)
10 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 030 Manning s roughness
008 D Arcy- Weisbach fnc
87 resistance factor u /u'
11 3 relative roughness
30 35 40 45
Matenals
— D50 (mm)
83 42 D84 (mm)
10 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
0 135 channel slope ( %)
021 shear stress (lb/sq ft )
033 shear velocity (ft/s)
087 unit stns power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

aiu
569
568
567
c 566
0
m 585
d 564
w
563
562
561
560
0
5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
651
x- section area (ft sq )
21 2
width (ft)
31
mean depth (ft)
39
max depth (ft)
247
wetted panmeter (ft)
26
hyd radi (ft)
69
width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
35
velocity (ft(s)
2265
discharge rate (cfs)
038
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station m—_
Banktull Stage
FS –
elevabon –
Low Bank Height
FS —
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 35 5
Channel Slope
percent slope -
Flow Resistance
Manning s' n
DArcy - Weisbach f
Note
Rifle
15 20
Width
Flood Dimensions
1380 W flood prone area (ft)
65 entrenchment ratio
39 low bank height (ft)
1 0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 030 Manning s roughness
008 D Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u'
– relative roughness
25 30 35
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
11 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
0 135 channel slope ( %)
022 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
034 shear velocity (ft/s)
09 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
40

570
569
568
567
c 566
0
m 565
w 564
563
562
561
560
0 5 10 15
Bankfull Dimensions
708
x section area (ft sq )
260
width (ft)
27
mean depth (ft)
36
max depth (ft)
285
wetted panmeter (ft)
25
hyd radi (ft)
95
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation —
Low Bank Height
FS —
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 447
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Manning s' n —
D Arcy - Weisbach P —
Note
Pod
20 25 30
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
36 low bank height (ft)
10 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning s roughness
— DArcy Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u'
— relative roughness
35 40 45
Matenals
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (lb/ft(s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
50

575
570
0
580
575
574
0
575
570
567
0.
580
0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00
D
1
■
0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00
1
■
575
--L-� 570
i02 +64
580
575
574
9
0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50
575
570
567
0 3 +21
580
575 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 575
0 +00 0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00
0

PFRRI.F COUNT ANAT.VSIS WORKSHF.F.T
Project Name
B rds Creek Mibgation Site
Data Collected By
MI IK
Location
Person County NC
Data Collected On
9/8/2011
Job #
005 -02128
Reach
South Branch
Date
9/8/2011
Cross Section #
Reachvnde
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle S
Pool S
Reach Summary
Sitt/Clay
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percen a
Percent
[Cumulative
SILT Igmy
Sdt /Cla
0 000
0 062
6
40
46
120
12
80
80
46
46
1902
Very fine
0 062
0 125
180
D99 =1
32
D99 =
12
80
46
Fine
0 125
0 250
12
80
46
9
Medium
0 250
0 500
2
2
40
16
80
2
48
Si'
Coarse
05
10
1
1
2
2 0
18
2
82
2
50
Very Coarse
10
2 0
4
1
5
80
26
2
84
5
55
= Ve Fine
2 0
2 8
26
84
55
Ve Fine
28
40
2G
84
55
r x Fine
40
57
2
2
4 0
30
84
2
57
" Fine
57
80
2
2
4
4 0
34
4
88
4
61
n Medium
80
11 3
9
2
11
18 0
52
4
92
11
72
Medium
113
160
4
1
5
80
60
2
94
5
77
Coarse
160
226
2
1
3
40
64
2
96
3
80
` Coarse
996
32
1
2
3
2 0
66
4
100
3
83
m V Coarse
32
45
1
1
2 0
68
100
1
84
Ve Coarse
45
64
2
2
4 0
72
100
2
86
Small
64
90
6
6
120
84
100
6
92
Small
90
128
6
6
120
96
100
6
98
128
180
2
2
40
100
100
2
100
`
Large
180
256
100
100
100
Small
256
362
100
100
100
Small
362
512
100
100
100
Medium
512
1024
100
100
100
/Ve La
1024
2048
100
100
100
BEDROCS
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
100
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Largest Particle (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
13I6 =
Sitt/Clay
D16 =
Sitt/Clay
1316 =
Sit=ay
D35 =
814
D35 =
sduclay
D35 =
Sift/Clay
Dso =
1062
D5o =
S11uClay
1350 =
100
Ds, =
9000
Ds i =
560
D8 =
45 00
D95 =
12430
D95 =
1902
D95 =
10733
D100 =1
180
D99 =1
32
D99 =
180

�� � ,
,`_ ,,
����
���Yli��69�1�
�1���1������
_
"'•
°�'�9�����i�l�niill�i��i'
II
YIY
���I
i�lllll
■IIIIIIY■1
■I
■I■
I ■1111111
■1■II
■��in�iii
II
um
��
�.��,
��i
��
�� � ,
,`_ ,,

578
577
576
c
0
Ii 575
m
W 574
573
572
0 2 4
Bankfull Dimensions
80
x- section area (ft sq )
79
width (ft)
10
mean depth (ft)
23
max depth (ft)
103
wetted panmeter (ft)
08
hyd radi (ft)
78
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
37
velocity (ft/s)
296
discharge rate (cfs)
074
Froude number
Cross Section
Riffle
6 8 10 12
Width
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station
Bankfull Stage
FS –
elevation m_
Low Bank Height
FS --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 187
Channel Slope
percent slope �-
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" � 0 023
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' f' 007
Flood Dimensions
980 W flood prone area (ft)
124 entrenchment ratio
23 low bank height (ft)
10 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 033
Manning's roughness
013
D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
11 1
resistance factor u/u'
246
relative roughness
14 16 18 20
Materials
— D50 (mm)
1261 D84 (mm)
21 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
09 channel slope ( %)
044 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
047 shear velocity (ft/s)
21 unit stun power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

578
577
576
575
0
W 574
w 573
572
571
570
0 2 4
Bankfull Dimensions
99
x- section area (ft sq )
72
width (ft)
14
mean depth (ft)
21
max depth (ft)
96
wetted panmeter (ft)
10
hyd radi (ft)
52
width-depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevation m_
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 15 1
Channel Slope
percent slope- -
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" —
D'Arcy - Weisbach T —
Pool
6 8 10
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
21 low bank height (ft)
1 0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning's roughness
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u /u•
-- relative roughness
12 14 16
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit stns power (lb /ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omd Notes

576
575
574
c
0
is 573
U.1 572
571
570
0 2 4
Bankfull Dimensions
87
x- section area (ft sq )
74
width (ft)
12
mean depth (ft)
24
max depth (ft)
101
wetted parimeter (ft)
09
hyd radi (ft)
62
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
39
velocity (ft/s)
341
discharge rate (cfs)
075
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevation , –
Low Bank Height
FS -
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 13 9
Channel Slope
percent slope �–
Flow Resistance
Mammng's'n" r r –
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' f'
Riffle
6 8
Width
Flood Dimensions
960 W flood prone area (ft)
131 entrenchment ratio
24 low bank height (ft)
1 0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 033 Manning's roughness
013 D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u'
— relative roughness
10 12 14 16
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
24 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
09 channel slope ( %)
048 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
050 shear velocity (ft/s)
26 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

5725
572
571 5
571
c
%705
m
570
w
5695
569
5685
568
0
5
Bankfull Dimensions
78
x- section area (ft sq )
81
width (ft)
10
mean depth (ft)
16
max depth (ft)
91
wetted panmeter (ft)
09
hyd radi (ft)
84
vAdth -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
— velocity (ft/s)
— discharge rate (cfs)
— Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID =
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation r r
Low Bank Height
FS - --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
vndth fpa 21 2
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" —
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'i'
Riffle
10 15
Width
Flood Dimensions
-- W flood prone area (ft)
entrenchment ratio
22 low bank height (ft)
13 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning's roughness
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u /u'
— relative roughness
20
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
L5
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

572
571 5
571
$705
m
570
w
5695
569
5685
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
75
x- section area (ft sq )
100
width (ft)
07
mean depth (ft)
13
max depth (ft)
105
wetted panmeter (ft)
07
hyd radi (ft)
134
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS —
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 27 3
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n' —
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' P —
Riffle
10 15
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
20 low bank height (ft)
15 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning's roughness
— D Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u•
— relative roughness
20 25
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
30

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Pro ect Name
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By
MI, JK
Location
Person County NC
Data Collected On
9/8/2011
Job #
005-02128
Reach
Southeast Reach 1
Date
9/8/2011
Cross Section #
Reachwrde
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach S
mm
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CLAY
Silt/Clay
0 000
0 062
14
32
46
280
28
64
64
46
46
1744
Very fine
0 062
0 125
1
8
9
2 0
30
16
80
9
55
Fine
0 125
0 250
30
80
55
Medium
0 250
0 500
1
3
4
20
32
6
86
4
59
Coarse
0 5
10
32
86
59
lVery Coarse
10
2 0
32
86
59
UffaffffimmfflVery Fine
20
2 8
32
86
59
Very Fine
28
4 0
32
86
59
Fine
40
57
2
2
40
36
86
2
61
Fine
57
80
2
2
4 0
40
86
2
63
Medium
80
113
3
2
5
6 0
46
4
90
5
68
Medium
113
160
5
2
7
100
56
4
94
7
75
Coarse
160
226
4
2
6
80
64
4
98
6
81
Coarse
226
32
7
7
140
78
98
7
88
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
120
90
98
6
94
Very Coarse
45
64
2
1
3
4 0
94
2
100
3
97
Small
64
90
2
2
40
98
100
2
99
\ Small
90
128
98
100
99
128
180
1
1
2 0
100
100
1
100
180
256
100
100
100
Small
WILarm
Small
256
362
362
512
100
100
100
100
100
100
Medium
Large/VeryLargel
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
100
100
100
100
BEDROCK' Bedrock
2048
,2048
100
100
100
Totall
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Largest Parucle (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
DI6 =
Sift/Clay
DI6 =
Slit/Clay
D16 =
Sitt/Clay,
D35 =
515
D35 =
SdUClay
D35 =
Sitt/Clay
D50 =
1278
D50 =
Sitt/Clay
Di0 =
009
Ds.1=
3795
Dyt =
040
Ds4 =
2623
D95 =
6969
D95 =
1744
D75 =
5061
Dim =1
180
D99 =
64
D99 =
180

oil
IIII�IIII
II��IIII����
����
oil

586
5855
585
5845
0 584
t83 5
M4' 583
5825
582
581 5
581
Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
62
x- section area (ft sq )
77
width (ft)
08
mean depth (ft)
10
max depth (ft)
83
wetted panmeter (ft)
07
hyd radi (ft)
96
width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
28 velocity (ft/s)
175 discharge rate (cfs)
058 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS –
elevation —
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 9 5
Channel Slope
percent slope �-
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0 040
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' P' 020
Flood Dimensions
95 W flood prone area (ft)
12 entrenchment ratio
38 low bank height (ft)
37 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 033
Manning's roughness
014
D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
63
resistance factor u/u'
38
relative roughness
Materials
— D50 (mm)
64 D84 (mm)
13 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
0 565 channel slope ( %)
026 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
037 shear velocity (ft/s)
08 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

581
580
579
0 578
m
577
.2
576
575
574
Pool
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
114
x- section area (ft sq )
118
width (ft)
1 0
mean depth (ft)
16
max depth (ft)
124
wetted parameter (ft)
09
hyd radi (ft)
121
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS -
elevation –
Low Bank Height
FS –
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 40 6
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n' —
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f —
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
30 low bank height (ft)
19 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning's roughness
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u'
— relative roughness
30 35 40
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
45

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Pro ect Name
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By
Mj JK
Location
Person County NC
Data Collected On
9/8/2011
Job #
005 02128
Reach
Southeast Reach 2
Date
9/8/2011
Cross Section #
Reachwide
Panicle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Iii le Summa
Pool Summa
Reach Summary
min
max
Ri61e
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CLAY
Sdt /Cla
0 000
0 062
23
29
52
46 0
46
58
58
52
52
319778
Very fine
0 062
0 125
1
5
G
20
48
10
68
6
58
Fine
0 125
0 250
48
68
58
A
Medium
0 250
0 500
1
2
3
20
50
4
72
3
61
Coarse
05
10
50
72
61
Very Coarse
10
2 0
1
2
3
2 0
52
4
76
3
64
Ve Fine
2 0
28
52
76
64
V Fine
28
40
4
1
5
8 0
60
2
78
5
69
b�
Fine
40
57
2
2
4 0
64
78
2
71
-� Fine
57
8 0
1
1
2
2 0
66
2
80
2
73
Medium
80
113
1
2
3
2 0
68
4
84
3
76
Medium
113
160
68
84
76
Coarse
160
226
68
84
76
226
32
1
1
2 0
70
84
1
77
MPVV�Koarse
oarse
32
45
3
3
6 0
76
84
3
80
45
64
5
5
100
86
84
5
85
Small
64
90
4
4
80
94
84
4
89
M
Small
90
128
180
128
180
256
1
1
1
1
2 0
94
96
96
2
SG
86
86
1
1
90
91
91
u
362
1
1
2 0
98
86
1
92
Small
512
98
86
92
p1smaLarge
Medium
M256
1024
98
86
92
e/V a
2048
98
86
92
Bedrock
2048
72048
t
7
8
200
100
14
100
8
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Largest Particle (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Sift/Clay
D16 =
002
D35 =
Sift/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
DJ5 =
004
DM =
100
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
005
D. =
5965
Diw =
9000
D84 =
1
3320
D95 =
151 79
1395 =
319778
D95 =
7960
D100 =1
72048
D99 =1
>2048
D99 =1
362

MEMO
n�a■�
n■
��dYi�i

576
575
574
c
0
io 573
U.1 572
571
570
Pool
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
98
x- section area (ft sq )
I
-- -- ----- ------------ - - - - °------._.. _..__. -- — -- -� -- ..
------------ -- ------ ------------- -- —
14
mean depth (ft)
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
98
x- section area (ft sq )
72
width (ft)
14
mean depth (ft)
19
max depth (ft)
90
wetted panmeter (ft)
1 1
hyd radi (ft)
53
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevation - --
Low Bank Height
FS - --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 23 5
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" —
D'Arcy - Weisbaoh "P
10 15 20
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
30 low bank height (ft)
1 5 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning's roughness
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u'
relative roughness
25 30
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

576
5755
575
5745
C 574
X73 5
w 573
5725
572
571 5
571
Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
89
x- section area (ft sq )
81
width (ft)
1 1
mean depth (ft)
1 3
max depth (ft)
94
wetted panmeter (ft)
10
hyd radi (ft)
73
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
29
velocity (ft/s)
256
discharge rate (cfs)
052
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation --
Low Bank Height
FS --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 12 9
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n' Z0034
D'Arcy - Weisbach "P 014
Flood Dimensions
129 W flood prone area (ft)
16 entrenchment ratio
28 low bank height (ft)
21 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 045
Manning's roughness
024
D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
77
resistance factor u /u'
71
relative roughness
Materials
— D50 (mm)
47 27 D84 (mm)
23 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
08 channel slope ( %)
048 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
050 shear velocity (ft/s)
1 58 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omtt Notes

572
571 5
571
2570 5
0
in 570
m
11695
569
5685
568
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
94
x- section area (ft sq )
74
width (ft)
1 3
mean depth (ft)
16
max depth (ft)
88
wetted panmeter (ft)
1 1
hyd radi (ft)
58
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
34
velocity (ft/s)
320
discharge rate (cfs)
058
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS –
elevation -
Low Bank Height
FS - --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 39 8
Channel Slope
percent slope - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n' ,
D'Arcy - Weisbach T
Riffle
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
27 low bank height (ft)
1 7 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 050 Manning's roughness
028 D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u'
— relative roughness
30 35 40 45
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
39 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
12 channel slope ( %)
080 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
064 shear velocity (ft/s)
33 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

5/4
573
572
0 571
m
570
W
569
568
567
Pool
I
I
i
�
I
II
203
I
-�� --. - -- - - -- --
_ -_ =7
I
- - .-
- -�I _
--------- - - - - -- -ate
____1_ _ -_ -_ _ ___.__ -�_
�
0
5 10
Bankfull
Dimensions
203
x- section area (ft sq )
144
width (ft)
14
mean depth (ft)
20
max depth (ft)
169
wetted panmeter (ft)
1 2
hyd radi (ft)
103
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevabon —
Low Bank Height
FSi –
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 35 7
Channel Slope
percent slope —
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" –
D'Arcy - Weisbach ' P'
15 20
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
14 low bank height (ft)
07 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning's roughness
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u /u•
— relative roughness
25 30 35
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omd Notes
40

PRRRI_R COUNT ANAI.YSIS WORiCSHRRT
Project Name
B rds Creek Nitagation Site
Data Collected By
NII IK
Location
Person Coung, NC
Data Collected On
9/8/2011
Job #
005 02128
Reach
West Branch
Date
9/8/2017
Cross Section #
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
Sduclay
D16 =
R.Me
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CL Y
Silt /Cla
0 000
0 062
6
6
12
120
12
12
12
12
12
12070
Very fine
0 062
0 125
256
7
7
1 1399 =1
12
14
26
7
19
Fine
0 125
0 250
2
2
40
16
26
2
21
9
Medium
0 250
0 500
5
12
17
100
26
24
50
17
38
Coarse
0 5
10
4
4
26
8
58
4
42
Very Coarse
10
20
2
2
26
4
62
2
44
Very Fine
2 0
28
26
62
44
Ve Fme
2 8
40
1
1
2 0
28
62
1
45
Fine
4 0
57
1
1
2 0
30
62
1
46
Fine
57
80
1
2
3
2 0
32
4
66
3
49
Medium
8 0
113
1
3
4
2 0
34
6
72
4
53
Medium
113
160
2
1
3
1 4 0
38
2
74
3
56
Coarse
160
226
3
4
7
60
44
8
82
7
63
Coarse
22 6
32
4
3
7
80
52
6
88
7
70
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
80
60
88
4
74
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
120
72
88
6
80
r Small
64
90
6
1
7
120
84
2
90
7
87
Small
90
128
5
3
8
100
94
6
96
8
95
128
180
2
2
4
4 0
98
4
100
4
99
Large
180
256
1
1
2 0
100
100
1
100
Small
256
362
100
100
100
Small
362
512
100
100
100
Medium
512
1024
100
100
100
/Ve a
1024
2048
100
100
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
100
100
Totall
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Largest Panicle (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
025
D16 =
Sduclay
D16 =
sltvclay
D35 =
1208
D35 =
032
D35 =
044
DSO =
2934
D5o =
050
DO =
866
Dea =
9000
Ds 1=
2538
D8, =
7777
D95 =
13939
D95 =
12070
D95 =
12800
Dlro =1
256
D99 =1
180
1 1399 =1
256

MEMO
■
��p
�l���
�IIIII�III�IIA
ry

5825
582
5815
581
g80 5
m 580
°579 5
579
5785
578
5775
Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
150
x- section area (ft sq )
95
width (ft)
16
mean depth (ft)
19
max depth (ft)
11 5
wetted panmeter (ft)
1 3
hyd radi (ft)
61
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
42
velocity (ft/s)
626
discharge rate (cfs)
065
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station m_
Bankfull Stage
FS - --
elevation r —
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 233
Channel Slope
percent slope W -
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" r 0 046
D'Arcy - Weisbach "P' 022
Flood Dimensions
233 W flood prone area (ft)
24 entrenchment ratio
36 low bank height (ft)
1 9 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 046
Manning's roughness
023
D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
60
resistance factor u/u-
3 7
relative roughness
Materials
— D50 (mm)
128 D84 (mm)
47 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
1 18 channel slope ( %)
096 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
070 shear velocity (ft/s)
48 unit strm power (lb /ft(s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

583
582
581
580
0 579
io
578
w
577
576
575
574
0
5
Bankfull Dimensions
315
x- section area (ft sq )
124
width (ft)
25
mean depth (ft)
43
max depth (ft)
165
wetted panmeter (ft)
19
hyd radi (ft)
49
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
—
velocity (ft/s)
—
discharge rate (cfs)
—
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station m—_
Bankfull Stage
FS - --
elevabon -
Low Bank Height
FS - --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 23 2
Channel Slope
percent slope- -
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" —
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'I rm —
Pool
10 15
Width
Flood Dimensions
— W flood prone area (ft)
— entrenchment ratio
43 low bank height (ft)
10 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
— Manning's roughness
— D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
— resistance factor u/u`
— relative roughness
20
Materials
— D50 (mm)
— D84 (mm)
— threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
— channel slope ( %)
— shear stress (lb /sq ft )
— shear velocity (ft/s)
— unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
25

581
580
579
0 578
io
0 577
U.1
576
575
574
Rrffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
137
x- section area (ft sq )
11 3
width (ft)
12
mean depth (ft)
21
max depth (ft)
136
wetted panmeter (ft)
10
hyd radi (ft)
94
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
38
velocity (ft/s)
521
discharge rate (cfs)
067
Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height —
longitudinal station —
Bankfull Stage
FS —
elevabon –
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 19 3
Channel Slope
percent slope® --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0046
D'Arcy - Weisbach " P' 0 25
Flood Dimensions
193 W flood prone area (ft)
1 7 entrenchment ratio
41 low bank height (ft)
19 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0 043 Manning's roughness
021 D'Arcy- Weisbach fnc
56 resistance factor u/u-
2 9 relative roughness
Matenals
— D50 (mm)
128 D84 (mm)
36 threshold grain size (mm)
Forces & Power
1 18 channel slope ( %)
074 shear stress (lb /sq ft )
062 shear velocity (ft/s)
34 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes

Appendix 7 Floodplain Requirements Checklist
�J
I

1--
r
I,F oo tem
t i ] 1'l1 I1 e t
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplam
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects
The form is untended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Project Location
Name of project
Byrds Creek Mitigation Project
Name if stieam or feature
Byids Creek and Un -named Tributaries
County
Person
Name of river basin
Neuse
Is project urban or nural9
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county
Person County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site
FIRM Panel 9980
Community No 370346
Map Number Not Mapped
Effective Map Date Not Applicable
Consultant name
Wildlands Engmeeung, Inc
Jeff Keaton, PE
Phone number
919- 851 -9986
Address
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Appendix 7- hEMA noodplain Checklist Pagel of 4

Design Information
Piovide a general description of project (one paragraph) Include protect limits on a
reference orthophotogtaph at a scale of 1" = 500"
Wildlands Engineei ing is designing a sit east and wetland i estoi anon pi olect to pi oxide
sit eam and ivedand mitigation units (SMUs and [VMUs) fot the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Pt ogi ant A DFIRM is not available fan the panel containing the enttt a pi oject
at eas as there at a no mapped sit earns on special flood hazat d at eas within the pastel botntdw y
No studies of modeling exist foi any of the project streams
Example
Reach
Length
Priority
Byt ds 0 eek Reach BC1
637
Enhancement 11
Byi ds Ct eek Reach BC2
1630
Enhancement I
Byi ds Ci eek Reach BO
1402
Pt ion ity One Resloi ation
Byt ds Ci eek Reach BC4
787
Enhancement II Restot ation
South Bi anch Reach SBl
971
Pi lot ity One Restot ation
Southeast Bi anch Reach SE]
792
A rot ity One Restot ation
Southeast Bi anch Reach SE2
713
Enhancement I/ Pi tot ity One
Restot anon
[Vest Bi anch Reach WBI
589
Enhancement 11
Floodplain Information
Is protect located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes r' No
If ptoject is located to a SFHA, check how it was determined
I- Redelineation
Ir' Detailed Study
r' Lmuted Detail Study
r Approximate Study
r- know
Appendix 7- FEMA Floodplam Checklist Page 2 of 4

List flood zone designation
Check if applies
r AE Zone
• F000dway
• Non - Encroachment
r% None
I— A Zone
* Local Setbacks Required
* No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment/setbacks?
r Yes r No
Land Acquisition (Check)
I— State owned (fee simple)
r- Conservation easment (Design Bid Budd)
R Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Protect)
Note if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn Herbert Nerly,
919 807 -4101
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
r: Yes r No
Note if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn Edward Curtis, (919 ) 715 -8000 x369
Name of Local Floodplam Administrator Paula Murphy
Phone Number. 336 597.1750
Appends% 7- FEMA Floodplam Chccl.l►st Page 3 of 4

Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designee /applicant following veiification with the LFPA
P No Action
r No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Regtttrements
List other ie unements
Comments
Name Jeff Keaton, PE Signature
Title- Sentot Water Resources Engineer Date
Appendi\ 7- FEMA rloodplmn Checklist Page 4 of 4
g--t %- tZ