20120916 Ver 1_Draft Final Mitigation Plans_20121002

20120916
To: Eric Kulz, NC DWQ
From: Kristin Miguez, Project Manager, EEP
RE: Draft Final Mitigation Plan
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
EEP Project #: 95019
White Oak 03030001, Onslow County
Date: l October 2012
Here are two hardcopies of the Draft Final Mitigation Plan for the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
for your review. This document was posted on the EEP Portal, 1 October 2012. Please forward to the
appropriate DWQ Field Representative for their review.
0f'T -22012

20120916
FINAL DRAFT
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Onslow County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID No. 95019
White Oak River Basin: 03030001 - 010020
b-
®� l e
� emen
PROGRAM
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
September 2012
0-This document was printed using 100% recycled paper.
scot -T

20120816
FINAL DRAFT
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Onslow County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID No. 95019
White Oak River Basin: 03030001 - 010020
Prepared for: VCT ��22012
NLedENR WATER QUALITY
ater &ark
opstem
E a m nt
e
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. S E P 2 8 2012
- 8000 Regency Parkway
Calry, North Carolina 27518 NC ECOSYSTEM'
Phone- 919 463 5488 t4HANCEM►E4T PROGRAPJ
Fax: [phone]
September 2012
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE II 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore 3,521 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream and
4.0 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands, and enhance 600 LF of stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Mill
Swamp in Onslow County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 2.1). The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project site
(project) is located in Onslow County, approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The
project site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 03 -05 -02 and the Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001- 010020 of the White Oak River Basin. The purpose of the project is to
restore and enhance stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions along areas where the impaired stream
channel flows through the site. Examination of the available hydrology and hydric soils data indicate that
there are favorable conditions for the restoration of a headwater stream and wetland ecosystem.
The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project will involve the restoration and enhancement of a Coastal Plain
Headwater Small Stream Swamp system (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) which has been
impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. Due to the productivity and accessibility of
these smaller stream and wetland systems, many have experienced heavy human and cattle disturbance. The
main stem (Reach UT I) is primarily wooded, yet extremely unstable and actively widening and downcutting.
Restoration practices on UT1 will involve raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the
relic floodplain, and restoring diffuse flows to abandoned wetland floodplains and hydric soils areas
previously drained by ditching activities. The existing ditches within the restoration area will be partially
filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Cattle will be excluded
from Reach UT3 through permanent fencing and vegetation buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established
along both sides of the reaches. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 19.6 acres (AC) will protect
the site in perpetuity. Additionally, Reach UT2 was submitted with the proposal, however is not part of this
mitigation plan. The reach designations will remain the same in order to be consistent throughout the
document.
Based on the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's ( NCEEP) 2010 White Oak River Basin Restoration
Priority (RBRP) Plan, the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local
watershed (TLW) within the White Oak River Basin
(http: / /www.nceep. net / services /restplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2OWhite %200ak %2020110523 pdf), although
it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The restoration strategy for the White Oak River
Basin targets specific projects that will address water quality impacts from nonpoint source pollution. Water
quality monitoring conducted by the Onslow Water Quality Program found high levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the Richlands area (2008 White Oak River Basinwide Plan, Chapter 2, p. 81). The proposed
project aligns with NCEEP goals, which focus on restoring wetland and riparian area values such as
maintaining'and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of floodwaters, and improving fish and wildlife
habitat.
The proposed project areas are shown in Figure 17.2 and described briefly in Tables ES.1 and ES.2. The
primary restoration goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions to the impaired areas within the
White Oak River Basin as described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE III 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their relic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary and thus reduce excessive bank erosion,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion,
• Plant native riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments
during the monitoring period.
Table ES.1 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
T to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
4
1D�
s:
Reach
G Q
W a
1
Ca a
a.
Comment
Unnamed Tributaries (Reaches UT1 and UT3)
Stream Enhancement Level I is proposed for
he upper reach of UTL Work will include
ank sloping, installation of in- stream
10 +00 to
structures, vegetation planting in the riparian
UTIa
E I
600
600
1.5:1
400
16+00.
one, and permanent fencing. Enhancement
activities will consist of filling the channelized
portions of stream and restoring valley
topography.
Restoration would consist of filling the
channelized portions of stream and restoring
16 +00 to
valley topography. The system would be
UT1 b
R
2,131
2,068
1:1
2,068
37 +00
allowed to form on its own, as a single or
multi-thread channel headwater stream within
"
he valley. (DA stream type)
Restoration would follow a Rosgen Priority
Level I approach. A new single thread
37 +00 to
meandering channel would be constructed
UTIc
R
1,360
1,453
1:1
1,453
51 +53
across the abandoned floodplain. The old
stream channel and drainage ditches would be
filled and spoil piles removed.
T3 is an intermittent stream and no
mitigation credit is proposed for the work
10 +00 to
along this reach. Cattle will be excluded from
UT3
P, R
1,060
N/A
N/A
0
23 +60
UT3 and woven wire fences will be located a
minimum of 50 feet from both of the
streambanks. Trees will not be planted along
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE IV 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

Table ES.2 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands)
T to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan — EEP Project No. 95019
,1
o U
"
ea
Q
U
o
a
e�
UT3 within the fencing and the cattle
Comments
'
exclusion area will be left to regenerate
A�3Ua3
Wetland 1 (WI)
aturally. The lower 50 feet of UT3 will be
Riparian wetland restoration will involve removal of the existing spoil
restored by filling" in the section that is incised
Iles and filling in existing drainage ditches that currently direct surface
and subsurface drainage away from the hydric soils and directly to the
and unstable due to headcuts, and restoring the
stream. Microtopography and wetland hydrology will be reintroduced
Restoration
6.8
atural floodplain topography to connect with
1:1
4.0
to drained areas of hydric soil and overbank flooding regimes will be
he restored UTI floodplain.
Total
5,151
4,121
3,921
Table ES.2 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands)
T to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan — EEP Project No. 95019
,1
o U
"
ea
Q
U
o
a
e�
Comments
A�3Ua3
Wetland 1 (WI)
Riparian wetland restoration will involve removal of the existing spoil
Iles and filling in existing drainage ditches that currently direct surface
and subsurface drainage away from the hydric soils and directly to the
stream. Microtopography and wetland hydrology will be reintroduced
Restoration
6.8
4.0
1:1
4.0
to drained areas of hydric soil and overbank flooding regimes will be
estored. Planted pines and privet will be removed and appropriate
wetland hardwood species will be planted within restored riparian
buffer areas.
TOTALS
6.8
1 4.0
1:1
4.0
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 NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE V 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................. ............................1 -1
2.0 SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................ ............................2
-1
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE ..........................:.. ...............................
2 -1
2.2 SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................ ...............................
2 -1
2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................. ...............................
2 -1
2.2.2 Successional Trends ...................................................................................... ...............................
2 -2
2.3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP .................................................................................... ...............................
2 -4
2.4 WATERSHED MAP ............................................................................................. ...............................
2 -5
2.5 SOILS MAP ........................................................................................................ ...............................
2 -6
2.6 CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP ............................................................................. ...............................
2 -7
2.7 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS MAP ......................................................................... ...............................
2 -8
2.8 LIDAR MAP ...................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -9
2.9 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................ ...............................
2 -10
2.9.1 Reach U77 .................................................................................................. ...............................
2 -10
2.9.2 Reach UT3 and Wetland Area # 1 ................................................................ ...............................
2 -I1
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT .............................................................. ...............................
3 -1
3.1 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT SUMMARY INFORMATION .............................. ...............................
3 -1
3. L.1 Potential Constraints .................................................................................... ...............................
3 -1
3.2 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FIGURE ........................................................... ...............................
3 -1
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ............................................................................ ...............................
4 -1
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS .................................................................. ...............................
5-1,
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .................................................................... ...............................
6 -1
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ........................................................................... ...............................
7 -1
7.1 TARGET STREAM TYPE(S), WETLAND TYPE(S), AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ... ...............................
7 -1
7. L.1 Target Stream Types ........................................................................................ ...............................
7 -1
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types ...................................................................................... ...............................
7 -1
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities ............................................................................... ...............................
7 -2
7.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS ....................................................................................... ...............................
7 -2
7.3 DATA ANALYSES ............................................................................................... ...............................
7 -4
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................................... ...............................
8 -1
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................................................................... ............................9
-1
9.1 STREAM MONITORING — REACH UT 1 A & UT 1 B ............................................... ...............................
9 -1
9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions ...................................................... ...............................
9 -1
9.1.2 Photo Reference Stations .............................................................................. ...............................
9 -2
9.2 STREAM MONITORING — REACH UT 1 C ............................................................. ...............................
9 -2
9.2.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions ...................................................... ...............................
9 -2
9.2.2 Cross - sections .................................................................................................. ............................9
-2
9.2.3 Pattern .............................................................................................................. ............................9
-3
9.2.4 Longitudinal Profile ...................................................................................... ...............................
9 -3
9.2.5 Bed Material Analyses .................................................................................. ...............................
9 -3
9.2.6 Photo Reference Stations .............................................................................. ............................... 9 -3
9.3 WETLAND MONITORING ................................................................................... ...............................
9 -4
9.3.1 Groundwater Data Collection ...................................................................... ............................... 9 -4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE VI 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

9.3.2 Hydrology ........................ ...............................
9.3.3 Photo Reference Stations . ...............................
9.4 VEGETATION MONITORING .. ...............................
9.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING......
........................................... ............................... 9 -4
............................................ ............................... 9 -4
............................................ ............................... 9 -5
............................................ ............................... 9 -5
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... ...........................10 -1
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................. ...........................11 -1
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................. ...........................12 -1
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .............................................................................. ...........................13 -1
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION ................................................................................... ...........................14 -1
14.1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................ ...........................14 -1
14.2 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ ...........................14
-3
15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT .................................... ...........................15 -1
16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA ...................................... ...........................16 -1
16.1 USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS — PER REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT TO 1987
MANUAL..................................................................................................................... ...............................
16 -2
16.2 NCWAM FORMS — EXISTING WETLANDS ...................................................... ...............................
16 -3
16.3 NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS ................................................... ............................... 16 -4
16.4 FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORM ...................................................... ............................... 16 -5
16.5 FEMA COMPLIANCE - EEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST ......... ............................... 16 -6
17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES ..... ...........................17 -1
17.1 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY (ROSGEN ANALYSIS) ............................................. ............................... 17 -1
17. ].1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................. ...............................
17 -1
17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions ...................................................... ...............................
17 -5
17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators ......................................................... ...............................
17 -10
17.2 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ANALYSIS ........................................................... ...............................
17 -12
17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge ............................................................... ...............................
17 -12
17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves) .......... ...............................
17 -13
17.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ................................................................ ...............................
17 -13
17.3.1 Methodology ......................................................................................... ...............................
17 -13
17.3.2 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge ...................................... ...............................
17 -16
17.4 EXISTING VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ........................................................... ...............................
17 -17
17.4.1 Successional Deciduous Forest ............................................................ ...............................
17 -17
17.4.2 Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas ................................................. ...............................
17 -17
17.4.3 Disturbed Pine Forest ............................................................:.............. ...............................
17 -17
17.4.4 Invasive Species Vegetation .................................................................. ...............................
17 -17
17.5 SITE WETLANDS ............................................................................................ ...............................
17 -18
17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment ....................................................... ...............................
17 -18
17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations ................................................... ...............................
17 -19
17.5.3 Climatic Conditions .............................................................................. ...............................
17 -19
17.5.4 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................. ...............................
17 -20
17.5.5 Soil Characterization ............................................................................ ...............................
17 -24
17.5.6 Plant Community Characterization ...................................................... ...............................
17 -24
17.6 REFERENCE WETLANDS ................................................................................ ...............................
17 -24
17.61 Wetland Description ............................................................................. ...............................
17 -24
17.6 2 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................. ...............................
17 -25
17.63 Soil Characterization ............................................................................ ...............................
17 -26
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE VII 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

17.64 Plant Community Characterization ...................................................... ............................... 17 -26
17.7 RESTORATION OF WETLAND HYDROLOGY ................................................... ............................... 17 -28
17.7.1 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings .............................................. ............................... 17 -28
17.8 SITE CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... ............................... 17 -32
17.8.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction ................... 17 -32
17.8.2 In- stream Structures and Other Construction Elements ....................... ............................... 17 -33
18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS ...................................................... ...........................18 -1
19.0 APPENDIX E — LICENSED SOIL SCIENTIST REPORT ............................. ...........................19 -1
20.0 APPENDIX F — HEADWATER REFERENCE INFORMATION .............. ............................... 20 -1
LIST OF TABLES
Table
ES.1
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
Table
ES.2
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands)
Table
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Summary
Table
4.1
Baseline Information
Table
5.1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
6.1
Credit Release Schedule
Table
7.1
Project Design Stream Types
Table
8.1
Routine Maintenance Components
Table
10.1
Monitoring Requirements
Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for UT I: Stream Channel Classification
Table
17.1
Level 11
Table
17.2
Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Table
17.3
Natural Channel Design Parameters for Reach UTIc
Table
17.4
Reference Reach Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios for Reach UTIc
Table
17.5
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
Table
17.6
Design Discharge and Sediment Transport Data Summary
Table
17.7
Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Table
17.8
NRCS Soil Series (Onslow County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1984)
Table
17.9
Reference Wetland Hydrologic Parameters — Hoffman Forest Site
Table
17.10
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Table
17.11
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Table
17.12
Proposed In- Stream Structure Types and Locations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE VIII 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1
Vicinity Map
Figure
2.2
Watershed Map
Figure
2.3
Soils Map
Figure
2.4
Current Conditions Plan View
Figure
2.5
Historical Conditions Plan View
Figure
2.6
LiDAR Map
Figure
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Map
Figure
17.1
Existing Riffle Cross - Sections for Reach UT
Figure
17.2
Mitigation Work Plan
Figure
17.3
Channel Form Data Comparisons for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream References
Figure
17.4
Bankfull Shear Stress Versus Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches
Figure
17.5
Stream Power Versus Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches
Figure
17.6
Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Figure
17.3
Channel Form Data Comparisons for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream References
Figure
17.4
Bankfull Shear Stress Versus Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches
Figure
17.5
Stream Power Versus Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches
Figure
17.6
Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Figure
17.7
Monitoring Well Locations Map
Figure
17.8
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 1 -4 Compared to Local Rainfall
(October 2011 through August 2012)
Figure
17.9
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 5 -7 Compared to Local Rainfall
(October 2011 through August 2012)
Figure
17.10
Reference Wetlands Locations Location Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE IX 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A
Site Protection Instruments
Appendix
B
Baseline Information Data
Appendix
C
Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix
D
Project Plan Sheets
Appendix
E
Licensed Soil Scientist Report
Appendix
F
Headwater Reference Information
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE X 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) develops River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRPs) to guide its mitigation activities within each of the state's 17 major river basins.
RBRPs designate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and
riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds, designated as Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs), receive
priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds. The 2010 White Oak River Basin RBRP
identified cataloguing unit (HUC) 03030001 - 010020 as a TLW
(http: / /www.nceep. net / services /restplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %20 White %200ak %2020110523.pdf).
The Mill Swamp sub - watershed is located in HUC 03030001- 010020. The sub - watershed covers 17
square miles, including 38 miles of stream. Approximately 40 percent of stream reaches within the sub -
watershed lack adequate riparian buffers. The sub - watershed is characterized by agricultural (44 percent
of total area) and forested (21 percent of total area) land uses. Impervious surfaces constitute a small
percentage of land use in the watershed (EEP, 2009). In addition to inadequate riparian buffers, there are
23 permitted animal operations in the sub - watershed. This leads to multiple opportunities to restore,
enhance, or preserve streams and riparian buffers throughout this area.
Animal operations, agricultural development, disturbance of natural riparian buffers (timber harvesting)
and other various land - disturbing activities in the Mill Swamp sub - watershed have negatively impacted
both water quality and bank stability of the riparian buffers along Mill Swamp and its various tributaries.
To improve watershed health, one of the 2010 White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities emphasized
the need for increased implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in the Mill
Swamp watershed. Nutrients, sedimentation, streambank erosion, livestock access to streams, channel
modification and loss of wetlands and riparian buffers are major stressors within this TLW.
Additionally, water quality monitoring conducted by the Onslow Water Quality Program found high
levels of nitrogen and phosphorus near Richlands (2007 White Oak River Basinwide Plan, Chapter 2, p.
81). The nearest assessed reach downstream of the proposed project is the New River (Stream ID 19 -(1)).
According to the North Carolina 2010 Integrated Report, during the 2008 assessment the section of the
New River near the project area was listed as having potential secondary contact recreation impairment
due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
The restoration strategy for the White Oak River Basin targets specific projects that will address water
quality impacts from nonpoint source pollution. Water quality monitoring conducted by the Onslow
Water Quality Program found high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Richlands area (2008 White
Oak River Basinwide Plan, Chapter 2, p. 81). The proposed project aligns with NCEEP goals, which
focus on restoring wetland and riparian area values such as maintaining and enhancing water quality,
increasing storage of floodwaters, and improving fish and wildlife habitat.
The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project was identified as an opportunity to improve water quality and
ecological functions within the TLW. The primary restoration goals of the project are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 1 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement,
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their relic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary and thus reduce excessive bank erosion,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools
and reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion,
• Plant native riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition
of woody debris, and reduction of water temperature,
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments
during the monitoring period.
The project goals will directly address stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin RBRP, namely
degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs. The
proposed natural channel design approach will result in a stable riparian headwater stream and wetland
system that will reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the Mill Swamp sub- watershed, while improving
water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic species, including priority species identified in
the White Oak River Basin.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 1 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Project Description and Directions to Project Site
The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project site (site) is located in Onslow County, NC,
approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands, as shown on the Project Site Vicinity
Map (Figure 2.1). To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40 southeast and take the NC
Highway 24 Exit East/ NC Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and Magnolia. From
Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC Highway 24
East. After turning right onto NC Highway 24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway). Once on US Highway 258, travel for
approximately 1.2 miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road. Then proceed 0.5 miles and
turn left while heading north through a large field. The site is located where the farm road intersects
UT to Mill Swamp at a downstream culvert crossing.
2.2 Site Selection
The site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) subbasin 03 -05 -02 of the White
Oak River Basin (Figure 2.2). The site includes two unnamed headwater tributaries (UTs) to Mill
Swamp and areas of previously disturbed wetlands. Soils and topographic information (Figures 2.2,
2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) indicate that the area once supported a headwater stream and wetland complex.
Like many headwater systems in the Mid - Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic region, the area was
drained for agricultural production. Man -made ditches along the UTs have caused incision and
disconnected the stream from their historic floodplains. The relic valley signatures for the UTs are
clearly visible from LiDAR imagery of the site (Figure 2.6), and were verified during field
investigations.
The UT1 (mainstem) project reach is shown as a dashed blue -line stream on the USGS topographic
quadrangle map in the upstream portions of the reach, changing to a solid blue -line approximately
half -way down the proposed project reach. UT1 is also shown as a perennial stream within the
project limits on the Onslow County Soil Survey. UT3 is not shown on the USGS or County Soil
Survey, however the presence of historic valleys can be seen from LiDAR imagery for the site and
observed during field investigations.
Based on field evaluations of intermittent/ perennial status and use of NCDWQ stream assessment
protocols, UT l is classified as a perennial stream system, while UT3 is considered an intermittent
stream reach. Due to its channelized nature, UT is most appropriately classified as a Rosgen G5 /175
stream type. Historically, it is likely that the area functioned as a headwater stream and wetland
system, with diffuse flow and no clearly defined channel towards the upper reaches. A more defined
channel more likely existed towards the bottom reaches of the tributary, due to the increased drainage
area and steeper valley slopes. By restoring historic stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions to
the site, the area will provide improved habitat for biota, and improved water quality to receiving
waters. The restoration approaches described in Section 16.1 will seek to restore these lost functions.
2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Land use in the watershed is approximately 52 percent forested, 44 percent agricultural, and non -
forested stream buffer account for more than 40 percent. Recent land use of the site includes
silviculture (managed pine plantation for timber production), agricultural production, and lands
managed as pasture. Potential for land use change or future development in the area adjacent and
upstream to the conservation easement is low, given the rural setting of the project location.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 2 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Through channelization, the project area was drained many years ago for agricultural purposes.
Since then, the channels have incised and the UTs have become disconnected from their historic
floodplain. In addition, the ditched channels have also served to drain wetlands at the site. Over
time, these practices have contributed excessive sediment and nutrient loading to the UTs and their
receiving waters: Mill Swamp, Squire Run, and the White Oak River.
2.2.2 Successional Trends
To convert the land for agricultural use, early settlers excavated ditches to drain the wetlands for
use as fields and plantation areas. Over time, the drainage ditches incised and connectivity with the
floodplain became further reduced. Additionally, landowners cleared some of the riparian area
within the project area to provide additional land for agricultural purposes. For example, cattle
pasture surrounds UT3 up to the streambanks; there is no forested buffer.
UTI flows into the project limits as a channelized headwater stream system,,receiving its drainage
from parallel ditches on upstream agricultural and timberlands. Within 500 feet downstream of that
point, the bed elevation drops approximately 6 feet over a series of active headcuts that are
migrating upstream. This portion of the Reach UTI is in Stage W of the Simon Channel Evolution
Model (Simon, 1989), undergoing active degradation and widening. These headcuts will eventually
cause further channel incision, bank collapse, and subsequent channel widening and mass wasting if
left unaddressed.
Based on streambank erosion rates using the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank
Stress (NBS) estimation method (see Section 17.1.1.3), it is estimated that as much as 153 tons of
sediment are being lost annually; a rate that will likely increase as headcuts progress up the system.
This evolutionary sequence has already occurred further downstream within the middle portions of
the project reach, where the channel cross - section is as much as 10 feet deep and 20 feet across and
active erosion is widespread. At this point, the stream is in Stage V with widening continuing and
some aggradation occurring. Near the downstream terminus of the project, the stream is beginning
to enter Stage VI of the Simon Model, quasi - equilibrium, with minimal downcutting taking place.
Without restoration efforts, bank erosion will likely continue to supply tons of sediment
downstream until quasi- equilibrium conditions exist throughout the system.
Wooded riparian buffers exist along most of the UT I streambanks, with mature successional
species, such as Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and Sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciva), making up the majority of the canopy in the upper and middle portions
of the site. Along the downstream portion of Reach UTI, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is the
primary bank side vegetation and is extremely dense in this area. A section approximately 800 feet
long on the left bank lacks a forested riparian buffer. While mature successional trees are located
along much of its length, bank erosion and collapse have caused trees to fall into the highly incised
channel in some locations, accelerating the process of bank erosion and disconnecting the stream
from its floodplain.
UT3 flows into UTI from the northwest near the upstream portion of the project. There are some
mature trees near confluence of UT3 with UT 1, but for the majority of its length, UT3 has no
woody riparian vegetation. The upstream limit of the project begins where UT3 flows through an
active cattle pasture. The upstream watershed consists of formerly wooded areas that have been
cleared and ditched to expand the available arable land. Through the cattle pasture section, the
stream channel was previously ditched and straightened, and bank erosion is widespread due
primarily due to on -going cattle access. In this area, the stream is in Stage IV of the Simon Model,
with active degradation and widening taking place. Near the downstream end of the reach, the
channel loses definition in an area where cattle frequently congregate, before flowing into a narrow,
channelized wooded section that is not currently undergoing incision. This section of the stream
has transitioned to Stage V of the Simon Model, aggradation and widening. Approximately 50 feet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 2 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

before its confluence with UT I, there is a large headcut where the bed elevation abruptly drops
approximately 5 feet. From the headcut downstream to its confluence, the channel is highly incised
and unstable, with active bank erosion and collapse. At this point, UT3 is attempting to reach
equilibrium with the base level of UT I, but it is unlikely to occur due to on -going degradation
along UT I.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -3 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

2.3 Vicinity Map
W
-N-T
LENO'IR
C O U47-T-
'fain
•
i
ONSL
CODA
T
Project Location
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030001010020.
Figure 2.1
Project Vicinity Map
UT to Mill Swamp Site
r_ N
em
�:Illal Y111t111
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -4 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

2.4 Watershed Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2.5 Soils Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -6 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2.6 Current Conditions Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -7 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2.7 Historical Conditions Map
UT 3 UT 2
��.
j
Proposed Conservation Easement
ME
93
1993 Orthoimagery
N Figure 2.5
A Historical Condition
Plan View
UT to Mill Swamp Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT
Y
�Yn,ya
0
250 500
cft=c.�..m
9.40.x.
Feet
Pb—
meat
Proposed Conservation Easement
ME
93
1993 Orthoimagery
N Figure 2.5
A Historical Condition
Plan View
UT to Mill Swamp Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

2.8 LiDAR Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -9 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2.9 Site Photographs
2.9.1 Reach UT1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -10 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2.9.2 Reach UT3 and Wetland Area #1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -11 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels. A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix A.
Table 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project 95019
Parcel
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Number
Landowner
PIN
County
Instrument
Page Numbers
Protected
Robert Gregory. and
CE -1
Tammie Justice
442303241544
Onslow
009927840014
3822 / 514 -527
7.461
Robert Gregory. and
CE -1A
Tammie Justice
442303241544
Onslow
009927840014
3822 / 514 -527
4.606
Robert Gregory. and
CE -2
Tammie Justice
442303328810
Onslow
009927840014
3822 / 514 -527
2.788
Robert Gregory. and
CE -2A
Tammie Justice
442303328810
Onslow
009927840014
3822 / 514 -527
4.743
Baker has obtained a conservation easement from the current landowner for the UT to Mill Swamp
Restoration Project area. The easement and survey plat (Deed Book 64, Page Numbers 222 -222A) is held by
the State of North Carolina and has been recorded at the Onslow County Courthouse. The secured easement
allows Baker to proceed with the restoration project and restricts the land use in perpetuity.
3.1.1 Potential Constraints
No fatal flaws have been identified at the time of this mitigation plan. A farm bridge crossing along UT1
will be improved as part of this project. No exiting or proposed easements for power and telephone utilities
are located within the conservation easement. Riparian buffer widths will be at least 50 feet across along
both banks (100 foot minimum total buffer width) for all of the proposed stream reaches. The project area
is not located in a special flood hazard area and hydraulic trespass would not result from the proposed
project. Other regulatory factors discussed in Section 16, Appendix B were also not determined to pose
potential site constraints. Construction access and staging areas have been identified and will be
determined during final design.
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
The conservation easement for the project area is shown in Figure 3.1 and copies of the recorded survey plat
are included in Section 15, Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 4.1 Baseline Information
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
County
Onslow
Project Area (acres)
19.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
34.9377 N, - 77.5897 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin
White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03030001 / 03030001010020
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -05 -02
Project Drainage Area (AC)
421 (mainstem UT1)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03.99, Other Hay, Rotation, or Pasture; 413
NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill
Swamp Watershed (White Oak River Basin
Restoration Priorities, 20 10)
Forest (52 %)
Agriculture (44 %)
Impervious Cover (0.6 %)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UT1
Reach UT3
Length of Reach (LF)
4,091
1,060
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
X
X
Drainage Area (AC)
421
23
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
40.5
21.0
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
Morphological Description (Ros en stream e)
G/F
(Channelized Headwater System)
Intermittent Ditch (N /A)
Evolutionary Trend
Gc4F
Intermittent Ditch (N /A)
Underlying Mapped Soils
Mk, St, L , FoA
Mk, St
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly
drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly
drained
Soil H dric Status
H dric
H dric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0041
0.0058
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swam
Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive Vegetation
—10%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1 Non - Jurisdictional W1
Size of Wetland (AC)
4.0
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Mk (Muckalee), St (Stallings), L (Lynchburg)
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil H dric Status
H dric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im airment
Partially (disconnected flood lain from ditches and channel incision)
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, Successional
Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive Vegetation
—5%
Regulatory Considerations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Table 4.1 Baseline Information
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - E Project No. 95019
-Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
(Appendix B)
Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
(Appendix B)
Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
(Appendi x B)
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
(Appendix B)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Categorical Exclusion
Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
(Appendix B)
Categorical Exclusion
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
No
N/A
(Appendix B)
Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
(Appendix B)
Notes: See Figure 2.3 for key to soil series symbols.
Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010
h : / /www.ncee .net/services /res lans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2OWhite %200ak %2020110523. df)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 4 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan, Onslow County - EEP Project No. 95019
Miti ation Credits,
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R, El
R
E
Totals
3,921 SMU
4.0 WMU
0.0
Project Com onents
Project Component or
J P
Reach ID
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach UTIa
10 +00 -16 +00
600 LF
Enhancement
Level I
400 SMU
600 LF
1.5:1
Reach UT b
16 +00 —37+00
2,131 LF
Headwater
Restoration
2,068 SMU
2,068 LF
1:1
Reach UTIc
37 +00 -51 +53
1,350 LF
Single thread
Restoration
1,453 SMU
1,453 LF
1:1
UT3
10 +00 —23+59
1,060 LF
Cattle
Exclusion
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Area # 1
See plan sheets
6.8 AC
Restoration
4.0 WMU
4.0 AC
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
AC
Non - riparian Wetland
AC
Buffer
SF
Upland
AC
Riverine
Non -
Riverine
Restoration
3,521
4.0
Enhancement 1
600
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI= Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 5 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements
of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may
still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required. to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of
project credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 6.1 as follows:
Table 6.1 Credit Release Schedule
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Forested Wetland Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
50%
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
60%
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
70%
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may allow the
5
NCEEP to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth year, vegetation
monitoring must continue for an additional two years after the fifth year for
a total of seven years.
10%
80%
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
90%
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met and project has received closeout approval.
10%
100%
Non - forested Wetland Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year-
Release
Release
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 6 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

I
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
15%
55%
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
20%
75%
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
85%
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
5
are being met and project has received closeout approval.
15%
100%
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
1
are being met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
50%
2
are being met
10%
(65 % *)
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
60%
3
are being met
10%
(75 % *)
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
70%
4
are being met
10%
(85 % *)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
5
are being met and project has received closeout approval.
15%
100%
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the
USACE covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction
means that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an
as -built report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to
project closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 6 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent, credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of 15%
of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate years,
provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less than two
bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion
of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCEEP will submit a request
for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for
release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 6 -3 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Stream Type(s), Wetland Type(s), and Plant Communities
7.1.1 Target Stream Types
The primary goal when targeting a stream type was to select a site - specific design approach that would
return Coastal Plain headwater stream functions to a stable state prior to past disturbances as described
in the guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal
Plain of North Carolina." (USACE, DWQ 2005). Current assessment methods and data analyses were
utilized for identifying lost or impaired functions at the site and to determine overall mitigation
potential. Among these are reviewing existing hydrogeomorphic conditions, historical aerials and
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) mapping, evaluating stable reference reaches, and a comparison
of results from similar past projects in Coastal Plain headwater systems.
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for restoration, an
approach to the site was developed, that would address restoration of both stream and wetland functions
within the project area. Topography and soils on the site indicate that the project area most likely
functioned in the past as headwater tributary stream system with associated wetlands, eventually
flowing downstream into the larger Mill Swamp system. Assigning an appropriate stream type for the
corresponding valley that accommodates the existing and future hydrologic conditions and sediment
supply was considered prior to selecting the proposed design approach. This was primarily based on
the range of the reference reach data available and the desired performance of the site.
Research performed by Baker in the Croatan National Forest aimed at determining the point at which
smaller (zero to first order) Coastal Plain streams develop into defined channels. As described further
in Section 17.1.3, and with supplemental information presented in Section 20.0, Appendix F , data
collected suggest that for small tributary drainages, single thread channels are often found when
drainage areas approach one square mile and slope is 0.001 ft/ft or greater. For smaller drainages and
decreased slopes, multi- thread systems that function more like headwater wetlands are more common.
These data, along with successful project implementation, helped to provide a basis for evaluating the
valley topography of the site and determining how these stream and wetland systems may have
functioned historically.
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
The restoration approach for the downstream riparian wetland area targets a "Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp" (Blackwater subtype), as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of
this system will be palustrine, "intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded ", as the restored
channel is designed to carry the bankfull flow, and to flood (flow out of its banks) at discharges greater
than bankfull.
The goal of the wetland design component of the project is to restore functions in areas where evidence
of hydric soil conditions are present. The wetland restoration approach is based on a detailed soil
analyses by a licensed soil scientist, hydrologic monitoring using rainfall data and groundwater level
monitoring wells, as well as other assessment data collected at the site. Four main activities will be
employed to restore on -site wetlands:
• Minor grading to remove overburden and spoil piles from buried hydric soil layers,
• Re- establishing hydrology by filling existing ditches and raising of the local water table,
• Planting native wetland species to establish buffer vegetation,
• Restore overbank flooding regime by connecting channels to their relic floodplains.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

As a result of raising the streambeds and reconnecting the stream to its relic floodplain, significant
hydrologic lift will occur across the project area, raising the local water table and restoring wetland
hydrology to drained hydric soils adjacent to the steam and wetland system. Most of this wetland uplift
and restoration (approximately 6.8 acres of hydric soils) will occur within the 50 -foot restored buffers
of the stream system, and therefore is unavailable for wetland mitigation credits.
However, there is an area of drained and impacted hydric soils near the downstream end of UT1 that
lies outside the proposed 50 -foot buffers of the stream restoration and is available for wetland
restoration. The area is approximately 4 acres in size, and soil conditions have been independently
confirmed as hydric by a licensed soil scientist (see Section 19, Appendix E). These soils have been
modified by a series of ditches that were installed in the past for agricultural and timber production.
The area consists of open fields, as well as immature planted pines and dense stands of Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense). Baker has verified with the landowner and the local NRCS office that the planted
pines are not part of a federal cost -share program. These pines were planted by the previous landowner
since the land was marginal for crop production.
During field investigations, no jurisdictional wetlands were identified. However, any temporary
impacts to marginal or fringe wetlands associated with the restoration activities would be considered
minimal and would involve minor surface excavation or roughening, re- establishment of native wetland
vegetation, and adjustments to drainage patterns as necessary to restore historic channel pattern to the
system. Exposed soils will be ripped and tilled to reduce compaction from past farming practices and
further soils tests will be conducted to determine appropriate liming and fertilization rates appropriate
for the targeted'vegetation types. Thus, stream and wetland restoration activities would improve the
existing hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions throughout the site. Additional information
regarding the design approach for wetland restoration activities is located in Section 17, Appendix C.
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities
Native riparian vegetation will be established in both the restored stream buffer and wetland complexes
throughout the site. Schafale and Weakley's (1990) guidance on vegetation communities as well as the
USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN- RS -4.1 (1997) were referenced during
the development of riparian and wetland planting lists for the site. In general, bare root vegetation will
be planted at a target density of 564 stems per acre. Live stakes will be planted along the single thread
channel (UT Ic) at a target density of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet. The stakes will be spaced two to
three feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections using triangular
spacing along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and bankfull elevation. Site
variations may require slightly different spacing. Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), will be removed and to allow native plants to become established within the
conservation easement. Dense pine stands or monocultures will be thinned out whenever possible,
however larger native tree species will be preserved and harvested woody material will be utilized to
provide cover and/or nesting habitat. Wetland hardwood species will be planted to provide the
appropriate vegetation for the restored riparian buffer areas. Species will include the same species
proposed for riparian buffer restoration on other parts of the site: Swamp black gum (Nyssa Mora),
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Overcup oak (Quercus
lyrata), Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), and Water oak (Quercus nigra).
7.2 Design Parameters
Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference reach
data, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from past projects, and best professional
judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from multiple Coastal
Plain headwater stream and wetland projects provided pertinent background information to determine the
appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and overall site potential. The design
parameters for the site (shown in Section 17, Appendix C) also considered current guidelines from the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

USACE and NCDWQ guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the
Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina." ( USACE, DWQ 2005).
The restoration activities and structural elements are justified for the following reasons:
Site streams have been channelized or otherwise manipulated during the conversion of the
surrounding area for agricultural use. Re- establishing the historic stream and wetland conditions will
reduce bank erosion, improve floodplain connectivity, and improve wetland hydrology;
Site streams are incised (Bank Height Ratios greater than 2.0) and exacerbated by the man -made spoil
piles that were deposited as waste material at the top of bank and as soils were displaced in the
floodplain;
Past agricultural and silvicultural activities, such as timber production, have resulted in erosion and
sedimentation, silt - clogged stream channels and the loss of woody vegetation within the riparian
zone;
4. Enhancement or preservation measures would not achieve the highest possible level of restoration or
functional lift for the degraded stream and wetland system.
For design purposes, the mainstem UT was divided into three reaches labeled UTIa, UTIb, and UTIc,
as shown in Table 7.1. Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design
criteria for reaches UT 1 a, UT 1 b and UT l c. The approach was based on the potential for restoration as
determined during the site assessment and the specific design parameters were developed so that plan
view layout, cross - section dimensions, and profile could be described for developing construction
documents. The design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the
selected stream types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension, facet slope, and bed features to
form over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re- colonization of vegetation, and
watershed influences.
Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Proposed
Stream
Reach
Stream
Approach/Rationale
T e
Enhancement Level I: From the upstream project limits to
approximately 600 feet downstream, Enhancement activities
would consist of partially filling portions of the channelized
stream, stabilizing headcuts with grade control structures, and
UTla
DA
sloping back streambanks to prevent active bank erosion. Flows
at the downstream location would then be routed outside the
existing channel boundaries and the system would be
reconnected with its historic floodplain and allowed to form on
its own within the restored valley.
Coastal Plain Headwater Stream: Restoration would consist of
UT to Mill
filling the channelized portions of stream and restoring valley
Swamp
topography. Shallow flow paths will be graded and woody
debris incorporated, and the system would be allowed to form on
its own, either as a single or multi - thread channel. This approach
UTlb
DA
will allow for restoration of historic flow patterns, with minimal
disturbance to the existing buffer vegetation. Riparian buffers at
least 50 feet wide (100 foot total minimum width) will be
established or protected along both banks of the proposed stream
reach and all buffer areas will be protected by a perpetual
conservation easement.
UTIc
C
Reference reach studies indicate that low slope sand -bed systems
typically form C type channels in wider valleys, with higher
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -3 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Proposed
Stream
Reach
Stream
Approach/Rationale
Type
width -to -depth ratios. A higher width -to -depth ratio channel will
also support the restored adjacent wetland hydrology. A Rosgen
Priority Level 1 approach will be used and a new meandering
channel would be constructed across the wider abandoned
floodplain. A constructed channel approach is proposed for this
reach because reference site studies have also indicated that
streams of similar drainage areas and slope exhibit single thread
channel morphologies. The old stream channel and drainage
ditches would be filled and existing spoil piles would be
removed. Riparian buffers at least 50 feet wide (100 -foot total
minimum width) will be established or protected along both
banks of the proposed stream reach and all buffer areas will be
protected by a perpetual conservation easement.
Cattle Exclusion / Permanent conservation easement fencing.
Although no additional mitigation credit is proposed for this
reach since it classified as intermittent, the lower 100 feet of UT3
UT3
-
will likely be restored by filling in the section that is incised and
unstable as a result of headcutting, and restoring the natural'
floodplain topography to connect with the restored UT
floodplain.
Based on BEHI/NBS estimates along upper portions of UT and a small portion of UT3, bank erosion
rates range from moderate to extreme relative to the rest of the project reaches, with large amounts of
sediment being discharged downstream each year to receiving waters. Excess nutrients are currently
entering the system from farm fields where buffers are either minimal or non - existent. Ecological uplift
will come from the restoration of diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that area appropriate for the
ecoregion and landscape setting. By raising the stream bed and reconnecting the relic floodplains, the
maximum degree of potential uplift will be provided, restoring stream, buffer, and wetland functions.
Uplift will also be provided to the system by restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect with
existing wetlands and wooded areas near the upstream and downstream extents of the reaches. The water
quality of receiving waters will be improved by reduced nutrient and sediment inputs, and cattle exclusion
along UT3. Approximately 19.6 acres of riparian buffer will be restored and /or protected by a perpetual
conservation easement.
7.3 Data Analyses
The mainstem tributary (UTI) has been straightened /channelized and dredged in the past and this
manipulation has created a channel that is overly wide and overly deep for the given drainage area. The
channel slope within the sections upstream of the farm crossing are slightly steeper (0.0080 ft/ft) until the
valley widens towards the bottom portion as the drainage area increases. Within the existing forested
areas at the upstream end of the project, the UT1 most likely existed prior to conversion as a multi - thread
channel (DA stream type), or a transition between a single and multi- thread system. This is evidenced by
the presence of small remnant channels and soil features in the area and described further in Section 17,
Appendix C.
Additionally, detailed topographic surveys were conducted to determine the elevation of the stream where
it comes onto the project property, and to validate the headwater valley signatures shown on the LiDAR
imagery. The valley slope flattens slightly (0.0041 ft/ft) across the downstream section of UT south of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7-4 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

the farm road crossing before it eventually connects to the confluence with Mill Swamp downstream and
exhibits a more free flowing system within the forested areas.
Under Coastal Plain headwater reference conditions where channel formation is poor, unregulated flows
are often conveyed through multiple small channels across a relatively well - defined floodplain. These
stream and wetland systems flood regularly and their associated floodplains are typically characterized as
depositional, which provide sediment storage during higher flow events. Microtopography that develops
across these broad bottomlands is quite variable, because of tree roots, tip mounds, and debris jams.
Debris appears to be a critical component in maintaining the characteristics of diffuse flow, as stream
energy is not sufficient to provide excess scour and movement of large debris. Shear stress and stream
power relationships developed for these reference sites are used in the sediment transport analysis shown
in Appendix C.,
Regional curve equations developed from the EcoScience NC Coastal Plain study (Sweet and Geratz,
2003) estimates a bankfull cross - sectional area of approximately 7 square feet for a 0.66 square mile
watershed (see Appendix C, Table 17.5). However, the existing channel has cross - sectional areas at the
top -of -banks that range from 40 square feet to 120 square feet. Since Rosgen's stream classification
system (Rosgen, 1996) depends on the proper identification of bankfull, the stream classification is
difficult under these conditions. The UT mainstem was assessed as a channelized G5c -F5 stream type
due to its calculated entrenchment ratio (based on an estimation of bankfull area from the EcoScience NC
Coastal Plain regional curve), channel slope, and channel substrate (sand).
Additionally, feature formation throughout the channelized reach is poor with minimal habitat diversity or
woody debris except for trees that have slumped or eroded from the stream banks. The riparian buffer
vegetation is adequate throughout most the reach areas with exception of the cleared areas at the
downstream end of the project reach. The stream displays no measurable meander geometry due to its
channelized condition. These conditions generally lead to lateral instability over time; however, a low -
flow regime and vegetation on the banks have served to maintain some stability or quasi - equilibrium
conditions along downstream portions of the reach.
Automated groundwater well data collected from October 2011 through July of 2012 indicate that the site
currently exhibits hydrologic conditions drier than jurisdictional wetland conditions. The data were
collected during both dormant and growing season, when the water table is typically at its highest for the
year, and jurisdictional wetland hydrology was not observed across the project site The ditches and
channelized streams on the site transport surface and shallow, subsurface drainage from the farms fields,
lowering the water table and keeping soil conditions favorable for agricultural production. Examination
of the available hydrology and hydric soil data indicate that there is good potential for the restoration of a
productive wetland and stream ecosystem.
The proposed design approach will restore hydrologic conditions prior to channelization by raising the
local water table, base flow levels and introducing a natural flooding regime with the removal of
overburden. The existing conditions data indicates that proposed mitigation activities will result in re-
establishment of functional stream, floodplain and wetland ecosystem. The restoration and enhancement
efforts, including site protection from a conservation easement, will promote the greatest ecological
benefit, a rapid recovery period, and a justifiable and reduced environmental impact over a natural
recovery that would otherwise occur through erosional processes with associated impacts on water quality
and flooding.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -5 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a well as a physical inspection of the site at least once a 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
will be most likely in the first two years following site construction and may include the following
components as described in Table 8.1:
Table 8.1 Routine Maintenance Components
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in- stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated
stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head - cutting until vegetation becomes established.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
matting and supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland. Areas of
concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the wetland may also require
maintenance to prevent scour.
Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will controlled by
mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, 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.
Culverted Farm Road
The road crossing within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Crossing
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 8 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has been involved in obtaining recent approvals'from the regulatory agencies for several Coastal Plain
stream and wetland mitigation plans. The success criteria for the project site will follow the mitigation plans
developed for these projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE 2003 and NCDWQ 2003)
and EEP's recent supplemental guidance document Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation dated November 7, 2011. Additionally, the USACE and NCDWQ
Guidance Document Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina
will be referenced for monitoring purposes. All monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years
unless the site demonstrates complete success by year 5 and no concerns have been identified. An early
closure provision may be requested by the provider for some or all of the monitoring components. Early
closure may only be obtained through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the NCIRT.
Based on the design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the project reaches. For
reaches UTIa and UTIb, which involves the enhancement (bed/bank stabilization) and restoration of the
historic flow pattern as a multi- thread headwater stream system to be constructed as a broad or diffuse Swale
with shallow flow paths, monitoring will focus primarily on visual assessments and flow documentation. For
reach UT c, which involves a more traditional restoration of a single thread channel, geomorphic monitoring
approaches follow those recommended by the 2003 SMG and the 2011 EEP supplemental guidance. They
shall be consistent with the requirements described in the Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation sites in
the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5
paragraphs (a) and (b). Specific success criteria components and evaluation methods are described below.
9.1 Stream Monitoring —Reach UTla & UTIh
Geomorphic monitoring of reaches UTIa and UTIb will conducted once a year for seven years following
the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Since this
approach involves the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a multi- thread
headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to document stability and
the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding functions. The methods
used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events and flooding functions within the monitoring period will be
documented by the use of automated water level gauges and photographs. Groundwater levels within
the restored headwater valley should approximate the wetland hydroperiods of similar reference sites.
At least four automated gauges will be installed a minimum of 500 feet apart within the restored system
to document flow duration. The automated loggers will be programmed to collect data at a minimum of
every 6 hours to capture flow frequency and duration. Installation of monitoring stations will follow
the standard methods found in Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE and NCDWQ 2006).
A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum
of 30 days. Two surface water flow events must be documented within a five -year monitoring period;
otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in
separate years. The flow gauges should document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow
surface ponding, indicative of flow. Gauges should also document flooding connectivity between the
restored UTIa and UTIb reaches for at least 30 consecutive days under normal climatic conditions.
Additional monitoring or alternative analyses may be necessary in the event of abnormal climatic
conditions.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

9.1.2 Photo Reference Stations
Visual monitoring of all stream sections will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five
months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to visually document system performance.
Reference stations will be photographed annually for a minimum of seven years following construction.
Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be
established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are documented in each
monitoring period.
The headwater stream reaches will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of
the restoration site and moving upstream to the end of the site. Photographs will be taken looking
upstream at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points will be close enough
together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The angle of the shot
will depend on what angle provides the best view and will be noted and continued in future shots.
Lateral photographs will also be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Photo
reference stations will be marked and described for future reference to document the development of
appropriate vegetation.
A series of photos over time should demonstrate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. When
modifications to photo position must be made due to obstructions or other reasons, the position will be
noted along with any landmarks and the same position will used in the future. Additional photographs
and /or video footage may be taken to document any observed evidence of flooding patterns such as
debris /leaf litter, wrack lines, water marks, diffuse flow features, sediment sorting/deposits, shelving,
etc.
9.2 Stream Monitoring — Reach UTlc
Geomorphic monitoring of reach UTIc will be conducted once a year for a minimum of seven years
following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices.
Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross- sections), pattern (planimetric survey),
profile (longitudinal profile survey), and visual observation with photographic documentation. The
methods used and related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
9.2.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will be installed on the floodplain within ten feet of the
restored channel. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gauge
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 on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within a five -year monitoring period. The two bankfull
events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull events
have been documented during the seven year post construction monitoring period.
9.2.2 Cross - sections
Per the USACE 2003 SMGs, permanent cross - sections will installed at a rate of one cross - section per
twenty bankfull widths of restored stream, with approximately 50% of cross - sections located at riffles,
and 50% located at pools. Each cross - section will be marked on both banks with permanent
monuments to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross - sections
and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data. The cross - section surveys will
occur in years one, two, three, five, and seven, and must include measurements of Bank Height Ratio
and Entrenchment Ratio. The monitoring survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present.
Riffle cross - sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream � Classification System.
There should be little change in as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place, they will be
documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., down - cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -
sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross -
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than
2.2) defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the small channel size, sandy substrate, and
large floodplain widths of the proposed steam, bank pins will not be installed unless required by the
USACE.
9.2.3 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders for the first year of monitoring only. Subsequent visual monitoring will
be conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
9.2.4 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction
to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey will be tied to
a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features installed are
consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during
subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions /repairs
are required by the USACE.
9.2.5 Bed Material Analyses
Since the streams through the project site are dominated by sand -size particles, pebble count procedures
would not show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the monitoring period;
therefore, bed material analyses are not recommended for this project.
9.2.6 Photo Reference Stations
Visual monitoring of all stream sections will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five
months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to visually document system performance.
Reference stations will be photographed annually for a minimum of seven years following construction.
Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be
established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are documented in each
monitoring period.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will betaken at each permanent cross - section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross - section. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of
the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will betaken of grade control structures along the restored stream, and
will be limited to log weirs or steps. Photographers will make every effort to consistently maintain the
same area in each photo over time.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -3 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

9.3 Wetland Monitoring
9.3.1 Groundwater Data Collection
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in the wetland mitigation area to document hydrologic
conditions of the restored wetland area. Up to four (4) groundwater monitoring wells will be installed
to evaluate hydrology during each growing season for seven years of hydrologic monitoring, or until
success criteria have been met, whichever occurs later. To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the
monitoring gauge data must show that for each normal year within the monitoring period, the site has
been inundated or saturated for a certain hydroperiod. The targeted hydroperiod will be based on the
range of wetness conditions for the type of wetland system to be restored and comparable hydrology of
a nearby reference wetland site.
9.3.2 Hydrology
In order to determine if the hydrologic success criteria are achieved, automated groundwater -
monitoring stations will be installed across the restored site and monitored year- round. Groundwater
monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in the WRP Technical Notes
ERDC TN- WRAP- 00 -02, (July 2000). In the event that there are years of normal precipitation during
the monitoring period, and the data for those years do not show that the site has been inundated or
saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod during the normal precipitation year, the review agencies may
require remedial action. Baker will provide any required remedial action and continue to monitor
hydrology on the site until it displays that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate
hydroperiod.
The objective is for the monitoring data to show the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding.
Groundwater levels will be compared to pre- restoration conditions and reference conditions. The
success criteria for wetland hydrology will be met when the site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil
surface for "fourteen (14) or more consecutive days during the growing season, during a period when
antecedent precipitation has been normal or drier than normal ... for a minimum frequency of 5 years in
10 or 50 %" of the monitoring time frame ( USACE, 2010 and 2005) and /or for 12% of the growing
season (NCEEP, 2009b).
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will be installed on the
site to compare precipitation amounts using tallied data obtained from the Onslow County WETS
Station and from the automated weather station at Albert Ellis Airport (KOAJ- AWOS), approximately
twelve miles south of the site. Data from the Jacksonsville station can be obtained from the CRONOS
Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website. If a normal year of
precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, Baker will continue to monitor
hydrology on the site until it documents that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate
hydroperiod.
If the rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring period are abnormal, it is possible that the
desired hydrology for the site may not meet specific success criteria. However, reference wetland data
will be assessed to determine if there is a positive correlation between the underperformance of the
project site and the natural hydrology of the reference site(s).
9.3.3 Photo Reference Stations
Visual monitoring of all stream sections will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five
months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to visually document system performance
and identify areas of low stem density, invasive species vegetation, beaver activity, or other areas of
concern. Reference stations will be photographed twice a year for a minimum of seven years following
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -4 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

construction. Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent
markers will be established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are
documented in each monitoring period.
9.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to
determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation- monitoring quadrants will be installed and monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be a minimum of 2% of the planted portion of
the site with a minimum of four (4) plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas per
Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants will be established within the undisturbed wooded
areas of reach UTIa and UTIb. The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody
tree species.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will
be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first full growing season (baseline /year 0) or after 180 days between March 1St and
November 30th, species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent
year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success
criteria are achieved. The restored site will be evaluated between March and November. The interim
measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. At year five, density must be no less than 260,
5 -year old, planted trees per acre. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210, 7 -year
old, planted trees per acre at the end of the seven year monitoring period, which must average 10 feet in
height. However, if the performance standard is met by year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260, 5-
year old stems /acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE and
Interagency review Team (IRT).
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating
vegetation success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for
assessing plant community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the
evaluation of additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive
species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success.
Baker will provide any required remedial action on a case -by -case basis, such as replanting more
wet/drought tolerant species, beaver management/dam removal, or removing undesirable /invasive species
vegetation, and continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate that
the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses, will be seeded/planted throughout the site.
During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project site must be in
compliance with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
9.5 Stormwater Management Monitoring
No stormwater BMPs are proposed at the site therefore no such monitoring will be included.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -5 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined within Table 10.1 below will be submitted to
EEP by December 3 l' of the each year during which the monitoring was conducted. The monitoring report
shall provide a project data chronology for EEP to document the project status and trends. Project success
criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until
unmet criteria are successfully met.
Table 10.1 Monitoring Requirements
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003 USACE
Pattern data will be collected only if there are
X
Pattern
Wilmington District
As -built Year
indications through profile and dimensional data
Stream Mitigation
and as needed
that significant geomorphological adjustments'
Guidelines
occurred
As per April 2003 USACE
The number of cross - sections installed will be
Wilmington District
Monitoring
based in accordance with EEP's Monitoring
X
Dimension
Stream Mitigation
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
Requirements and Performance Standards for
Guidelines
and 7
Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation Document,
dated 11/7/11.
As per April 2003 USACE
For restoration or enhancement I components,
Wilmington District
As -built Year
3,000 linear feet or less, the entire length will be
X
Profile
Stream Mitigation
and as needed
surveyed. For mitigation segments in excess of
Guidelines
this footage, 30% of the length or 3,000 feet will
be surveyed, whichever is greater.
As per April 2003 USACE
A substrate sample will be collected if
Wilmington District
constructed riffles were installed as part of the
Substrate
Stream Mitigation
Annually
project One constructed riffle substrate sample
Guidelines; Most recent
will be compared to riffle substrate data collected
EEP Guidance
during the design phase.
As per April 2003 USACE
A Crest Gauge and/or Pressure Transducer will be
X
Surface Water
Wilmington District
Annually
installed on site; the device will be inspected on a
Hydrology
Stream Mitigation
quarterly /semi -annual basis to document the
Guidelines
occurrence of bankfull events on the project.
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Will be determined in
recording devices will be installed on site as
X
Groundwater
consultation with EEP as
Annually
necessary to characterize the degree of attainment
Hydrology
applicable
of the reference hydrology. The data will be
downloaded on a monthly basis during the
growing season.
X
Vegetation
EEP -CVS Guidance
Annually
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols.
Exotic and
Twice
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will
Nuisance
Annually
be visually assessed and mapped a minimum of 5
Vegetation
months apart.
Project
As- Needed
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
Boundary
boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
Photo stations will be established to capture the
Digital
state of the channel and for vegetation plots.
X
Photos
Annually
Stream photos will be preferably taken when the
vegetation is minimal and within the same 2-
month window between monitoring ears
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 10 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the IRT the site will be transferred to the EEP. This party shall be responsible
for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed
restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall
be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 11 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

12.0 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.
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 12 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

13.0 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
USACE - 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 13 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
This document is consistent with the requirements of the federal rule for compensatory mitigation sites as
described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section
§ 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14). Specifically the document addresses the following
requirements of the federal rule:
(2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of
compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and /or preservation), and the manner in
which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the
watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest.
(3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. This should
include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of
accomplishing ecologically self - sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement,
and /or preservation at the compensatory mitigation site. (See § 332.3(d).)
(4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site
ownership, that will be used to ensure the long -term protection of the compensatory mitigation site (see §
332.7(a)).
(5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory
mitigation site and, in the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include
descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a
map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those
site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation. The
baseline information should also include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed
compensatory mitigation site. A prospective permittee planning to secure credits from an approved
mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline information about the impact site,
not the mitigation bank or in -lieu fee site.
(6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief
explanation of the rationale for this determination. (See § 332.3(f).)
(7) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory
mitigation project, including, but not limited to, the geographic boundaries of the project; construction
methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands;
methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the
proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and erosion
control measures. For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also
include other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical channel cross -
sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings.
(8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued
viability of the resource once initial construction is completed.
(9) Performance standards. Ecologically -based standards that will be used to determine whether the
compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. (See § 332.5.)
(10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the
compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be
included. (See § 332.6.)
(11) Long -term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be
managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long -term sustainability of the
resource, including long -term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long -term
management. (See § 332.7(d).)
(12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site
conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties
responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide
decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both
foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See §
332.7(c).)
(13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are
sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be
successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (see § 332.3(n)). 2) Objectives. A
description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i.e.,
restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource
functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion,
physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

14.2 References
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal and
Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679 -693.
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants and
Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.
Washington, DC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1, 2007.
Faber - Langendoen, D., Rocchio, J., Schafale, M., Nordman, C., Pyne, M., Teague, J., Foti, T., Comer, P.
(2006), Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Hardin, J.W. 1977. Vascular plants. In: Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.).
Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum
of Natural History, Raleigh.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Henson, T.H. 1990. Bald eagle. In: Lee, D.S. and J.F. Parnell (eds.). Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Fauna of North Carolina, Part III. A Re- evaluation of the Birds. Occasional Papers of the North
Carolina Biological Survey. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh.
Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes — A New Perspective. Arnold Publishers. London.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234 -1279.
Leopold, Luna B., M. Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology.
San Francisco, CA. (151).
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2006. Water Quality Stream
Classifications for Streams in North Carolina. Water Quality Section, November 2006. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Upper White Oak River Basin Restoration
Priorities. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /www.nceep .net/services /restplans/Upper White Oak RBRP 2009.pdf .
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /www.ncfloodmaps.com.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -3 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 2010, 2011. [Online WWW].
Available URL: http: //149.168.1.196/nhp .
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 352 -B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 14(1):11 -26.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113 -116.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(4):861-
871.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y -87 -1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
_. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN- rs -4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
_. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
2000. Onslow County Soil Survey, [Online WWW]. Available URL:
(http: / /soi ldatamart.nres.usda. gov/ Manuscripts /NCO23 /0 /Onslow.pdf J.
2002. Climate Information- Wetlands Retrieval for North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Onslow County, Morganton WETS Station:NC5838. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
( http: / /www.wcc.nres.usda.gov /ftpref /support/climate /wetlands /nc /3 7023.txt).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
Personal communication, 2011. NC BEHI/NBS rating curve.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Onslow County. 2010. [Online WWW]. Available
URL: http: / /www.fws.gov /nc -es /es /coup ft ry htmi.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover Data. 2002. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /seamless.usas. aov /.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Technical standard for water -table monitoring
of potential wetland sites. ERDC TN- WRAP -05 -2, Vicksburg, MS.
http: / /el.erdc.usace.army.mil /wrap /pdf /tnwrap05 -2.pdf
Young, T.F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological
condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. EPA Science
Advisory Board. Washington, DC.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -4 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

This page intentionally left blank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -5 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 15 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Prepared by and return to:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. O. Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
6f C',: r. r" P-54% 80
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ONSLOW COUNTY
SPO# 67 -AM
EEP SITE ID #: 95019
I�Illllllllllf IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfllllflllllllllilll�lll�lllll�llllll
Doc ID: 009927840014 Type: CRP
Recorded: 07/31/2012 at 12:11:26 PM
Fee Amt: $320.00 Pape 1 of 14
Revenue Tax: $294.00
Onslow County NO
Rebecca L. Pollard Reg. of Deeds
BK33 2 PG514 -527
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY MITIGATION CONTRACT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this
s%
3/ day of
J 2012, by ROBERT GREGORY JUSTICE and wife, TAMMIE L. JUSTICE,
( "Grantor "), to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North
Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include
said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et SeMc ., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Enviromnent and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources purchase and Services Contract Number 003992.
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilnungton
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (the "MOA ") duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8`h day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
2

the Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple a certain parcels of real property situated, lying
and being in Richlands Township, Onslow County, North Carolina, which parcels are identified
by PIN: 442303241544 containing approximately 202.72 acres having been conveyed to Grantor
by deed recorded in Deed Book 2586, Page 833, Onslow County Registry, North Carolina and
PIN: 442303328810 containing approximately 156.35 acres having been conveyed to Grantor by
deed recorded in Deed Book 2903, Page 587, Onslow County Registry, North Carolina (the
"Property„); and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement (as hereinafter
defined) over portions of the Property referred to above, thereby restricting and limiting the use
of the included portions of the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set
forth, and Grantee is willing to accept such Conservation Easement for the protection and benefit
of the waters and the other portions of the UT to Mill Swamp, Onslow County, North Carolina;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal
sufficiency of which is hereby acicnowledged,'Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby
grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a
Conservation Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows:
The Easement Area consists of the following:
All of the land identified as follows:
Conservation Easements CE -1, CE -IA, CE-2 and CE -2A, as shown on a
Plat entitled "UT to Mill Swamp Conservation Easement Survey for State
3

of North Carolina — Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property of
Robert G. Justice & Tammie L. Justice" dated April 4, 2012, prepared by
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. and recorded at Plat or Map Book
�o Page 7,
Onslow County Registry.
TOGETHER WITH easements for access, ingress, egress and regress as
described on the above - referenced recorded plat.
The Conservation Easement described above is hereinafter referred to as
the "Easement Area."
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, create and
preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the protection
and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat,
and recreational opportunities; to maintain pennanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, lessees, agents and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved,as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
4

as inconsistent with the purposes, of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor are hereby and have been acquired by the Grantee. Any rights
not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits,
including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from
each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped
recreational uses, including hiking, bud watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Usage of motorized vehicles in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others
to engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the Conservation
Easement shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Vegetation Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants,
diseased or damaged trees, and vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area
to persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees
and vegetation in the Easement Area is prohibited.

E. Industrial Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within, the Easement Area,
including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna,
utility pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or
paving in the Easement Area.
Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Easement Area, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area.
I Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or other material in the Easement Area is prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or
other materials in the Easement Area.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or
permitting the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
IN

discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticides or biocides in the
Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other
water sources, water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause
shown as needed for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple (`fee')
that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future
conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property. Any future transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and
repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes
set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed fiom the
Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary fiom the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement and the Grantor obtains advance written approval fiom the N. C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is currently 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699 -1652.
7

Ill. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and
agents, successors and assigns, receive the perpetual Right of Access to the Easement Area over
the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage,
maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and other riparian resources in the Easement
Area in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term management plan. Unless
otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights granted herein do not
include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and
herbaceous vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade,
fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subtenaneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be
permitted to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following:
describe the project, prohibited activities with the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall
be permitted to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access. Although the Grantee
is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its
sole discretion.

IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement,
Grantee is allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the
purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in
the Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or use. Upon any
breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as
provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach, and the Grantor shall have ninety
(90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. if the breach
and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation
Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as
well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority,
consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by
acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to otherwise
preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate
person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right,
without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if
the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would
be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee
provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies
available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
9

B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have
the right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the
terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Be,, ondrantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation
Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury
to or change in the Easement Area caused by third parties or resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including , without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or fiom
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring, any costs incurred
by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor including,
without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions in
violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Conservation Easement shall be at the discretion
of the Grantee and any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder
in the event of any breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by
Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
10

remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges
levied upon the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind
related to the ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the
Property are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of
the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply
to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested
to the parties at their addresses shown above or to such other address(es) as such parry
establishes in writing upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to
whom the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is
made. Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which
any interest in the Property is conveyed shall be subject to the Conservation Easement herein
created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall
survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in a
writing signed by all parties hereto, or their successors and/or assigns, and provided such
11

amendment does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the
Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation
Easement. The owner of the Prop6rty shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such
notification shall be addressed to: Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of
Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement
are in gross and assignable; provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees,
that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area.
12

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same are free from
encumbrances except the easements, leases, restrictions and rights -of -way reserved or granted
herein or otherwise of record and described below and that Grantor will warrant and defend title
to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever. The easements, leases, restrictions
and rights -of -way reserved herein or of record constituting exceptions to title are as follows:
1. Reservation of rights as set forth in Article II, above.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunder set its hand and seal, the day and
year first above written.
Gregory
Tammie L.
13

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 6045M U)
I, 2Jvq 4PIew .17 -4- do certify that Robert Gregory Justice and wife, Tammie L.
Justice personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging that they voluntarily signed the
foregoing document for the purposes therein expressed. I have received satisfactory evidence of the
principals' identity in the form of �.(�!!/�i.S ( t L L--n St`f
-Ir"
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal this 31 day of T "Y , 2012.
My Commission Expires: 2,017
00335181
_/ -61 � � It � - �' -
Notary Public �v_g
Printed or typed notary name
YAP r
14

a
H ,
W
T �
N (p
D
O
2
Ti
2
=
F. X
Z 11
D
O
r
Z r,
p D
zg' Z
0
ra n�m m
o<
Cc: 1-12
p
CC C '2
sqm,Z,
m
r m
N
2 m
° Z
a
52 n (1) C rn D .Z)
Z
D --I
O
0
D
0
f
0
z
0
0
wow AIN ?
oomu)m�
° N-oo En
��9Z0 0
�DOO Oo 3
_ o
m
J
0 �
'* a
N
8
�u
MI
go U-6
aW b o
�o o f
C
4 ;u
�° Vl
O
Pi
-q
�n 1
O
Z
9
2
�1
v
All o a
z
o q
s = z
z
or�
r-
W IAA
N
p � �$::se�• o
•PgP�O� om000mvom000 mm m0000av A
N reS � mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm � m
�q/ o<£s4� NNWN mm�ANNpNN�A NNNNUU M
C, � � 9 � $air46� Vmib ObtUO (limOOPimOW°UimA VOUm �OVO O M
m
DaD�nG�'�UO z Z
"m
sge to
I
N N z
o >
o
A N N
4- m w
W m
s � O
m m
m
0
O O :9 i i z
j A
O N
w
? V j
V
G N
M
g qa�g$
g y
!JAI®
F.
O
g�
� o
A1
O
O
z
Am
C
O
�Z
D
{rq
r
m
Z
E
O
Z
zz
O
4n°W n
m
D
m
a
eN
9.11 IH
a R
obi �I
�u
MI
go U-6
aW b o
�o o f
C
4 ;u
�° Vl
O
Pi
-q
�n 1
O
Z
9
2
�1
v
All o a
z
o q
s = z
z
or�
r-
W IAA
N
p � �$::se�• o
•PgP�O� om000mvom000 mm m0000av A
N reS � mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm � m
�q/ o<£s4� NNWN mm�ANNpNN�A NNNNUU M
C, � � 9 � $air46� Vmib ObtUO (limOOPimOW°UimA VOUm �OVO O M
m
DaD�nG�'�UO z Z
"m
sge to
I
N N z
o >
o
A N N
4- m w
W m
s � O
m m
m
0
O O :9 i i z
j A
O N
w
? V j
V
G N
M
g qa�g$
g y
!JAI®
F.
O
g�
� o
A1
O
O
z
Am
C
O
�Z
D
{rq
r
m
Z
E
O
Z
zz
O
4n°W n
m
D
m
a

gig g
V m
5
5
me m
B 3
o =°
o
N
D
O
A
x O C
Z w
N 0
O P
D r
2 A N
0
Z
D
�$1 o
Nm
An
0 -1!; (n
CC7
marl zz
m
>
m
2 m
A Z Z
5! O C
D ;u
O Z i
A
D --I
O
O
:n
D
N m-f'I Vl ;
�-1� 00 3
y A 12 0 1
Z� c I m
o
ON01p tiD
O zr 0
N N o In
o m
W
N p
T
0
f
0
8
A
S
siSo
�3
- --------- ---- - - - ---
v �
n A Di \11 i
07
o D
° m
m�
g £m�
OR
S
`c
I�€ m
_ II
zvaa I
I
d
g+��n��Y�
U3UNOwY.NE -
lip �e
60.
x
0
•vu
NP9
D
4
xr
�
� I
I
I I
A P
m
z
wRF
ED
R
t-
R
$$
R3g
f8
Az
$ms
8
R
o z
S
��_
v �
n A Di \11 i
07
o D
° m
m�
g £m�
OR
S
`c
I�€ m
_ II
zvaa I
I
d
g+��n��Y�
U3UNOwY.NE -
lip �e
60.
x
0
•vu
NP9
D
4
xr
�
� I
I
I I
A P
m
z
wRF
R
R
t-
R
$$
R3g
f8
Az
$ms
8
R
e
S
��_
P
Pg
N8�
Spa
91
6S��G:LNU.uNG�d�
�u��i�umz8mc °om °m� j
D
��emmNmNN�� -uU�w�
F�
�u
g�
n rZiN
m ZSv
y �x
°a
N
NSA
---v
•vu
NP9
4
xr
�
� I
I
I I
A P
m
z
I
I i
e
x m' i
9SA
v9�w
, \
G 1
6S��G:LNU.uNG�d�
�u��i�umz8mc °om °m� j
D
��emmNmNN�� -uU�w�
F�
�u
g�
n rZiN
m ZSv
y �x
°a
N
NSA
---v
•vu
4
xr
�
° ai �`
I
I I
A P
m
z
I
I i
e
I �
, \
G 1
1 I I
0 -1111
o�m
11
rn
S
'
v,m
I
�
Y
jRTi'pi�
gS� \
6S��G:LNU.uNG�d�
�u��i�umz8mc °om °m� j
D
��emmNmNN�� -uU�w�
F�
�u
g�
n rZiN
m ZSv
y �x
°a
N
NSA
---v

r-` 16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

16.2 NCWAM Forms — Existing Wetlands
(NC Wetland Assessment Method (WAM) Forms were not provided for this project, as
the NC Division of Water Quality did not require them at the time this project was
designed.)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -3 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

16.3 NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -4 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

NC DWO Strain Identification Torn' Ve 14.11 U 1_ �4 Ali All .l, - gun
Date: 'Zb
PrbJectlSlte: $�, fits
Latitude:
t Y l4tator:
CoonEy, 1tSlo�J
Lon�itatle:-
TOW Pollits:
S(reantfsi(loost /nternttflent
` qO
Stream petenitinatlon (circle'ono)
hitermittent Peennial
Other
`e.g.QaadNarne:
if z fig or erennlal f z 30
2. Sinuosity of ohaMal along thattiveg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal; �S
Abs`OM
'Weak'
- Nlodeiate-
Stroltb
1®• Continulty of- channel bad _and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of ohaMal along thattiveg
0
1
2
3
3. In- dhanhdl strudlure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool ss Ushce
0
1
1
1.6
4. Peirticie size of scream substrate
0
1
1
3.
(i. Active /relict tioodplain
0
1
2
3
•G; De osilional bars or benches
0
1
CYD
-a
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
O.6
3
$. Heado.Ols
'0
1
3
9. Grade control
U
q,6
1
1.G
-10. Natural valley -
0
:0.1$
1
1.
'11, Second or greater order Channel
-=NQ
yes 3
arUlicjai afSGnes are not ratea; see d1sousslons in manual
B. WVdrolociV (Suhtntnl = 118 1
12. Presence of Hasd €low
0
1
2
C'
13. Iron oxidizing beotQrla
'0
1
2
3
14. Leaf Illter
1.0
1
(-O.-6-D
0
16. Sediment on plants or debris
q
t).ti
1
1.6
1Q. Organlo debris lines or piles
0
0.6
1
1.6
17. Soll -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
-- 3
U. Hlnlf3nV fStihtntnt = '7- C 1
18. Figrou$ roots In streambed
3
ON
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants In streambed
1
0
20. Macrobenthos note dIveralty and abundance) 1&4(AtS
0
2
3
21. Aq uatio Mollusks
0
1
•2
3
22. Fish
0
0.6
'
1
1.6
23, Crayfish
0 1
O.6
1
116
24. Nophiblans
U5
0.6
1
1.6
26, Algae,
0
26. Welland plants In streambed
PACW = 0.76; OBL a 1.5
Other 0
`perennial streams may also be Identified using other molhods. See
p. 35 of manuat.
Notes:
t�wr ltSSesSrH(f� nn
.

XC bWO S tream Meiitlflentlon Foi�m Versfnn 4.11
A. Qeo111pr polo Subtotal n )
Project/81W Ur
Latitude-
Evaluator:
County: ()nS�oj
Lotigilurie:
Total Points:
Sfreahilsafleas(lnterrplttent ��
ff l8or ere)rn1aJ!la30'
Stream DotorMinatIon (circle one)
l= piiemeral Interrnitfenf PerQnnlal
Other
- e.g'.4uadMame:
m
A. Qeo111pr polo Subtotal n )
'Al)iont
-Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a, Contimilty bf_obannel bed and bank
0
1
2
'3
2. Sinuoslt ,of channel along thal%veg
0
1
0.6
3
3. ' In-channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
rl le ool se Uence
0
.0.
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2_ _
3.
6. Activetrellet fioodplatn
0
1
3' '
1.6
6, DeposlUonal bars or benches'
T63
1'
2
3
7, Recent allgvlal deposits
0
0.6
2
3
0. Headcuts
- .0
1
lWc,
3
S. grade control
0
Notes;
1
1,6
1.Q. Natural valley
0
0.6
1
1.6
11. Second or dreal @r order channel
No - 0
Yes-:1 3
"ad(ttclal ditghes are not rated; see dlscusslons In manual
B. Hvdrolonv lSuhtnfal a.Y 1
12. presence of Haseflow
b
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
Oy
1
2
3
14.-Leaf litter
1.6
.1
0.6
0
16, Sediment on plants or debris
0
.0.
1
1.6
.16.Ordanlo debris lines or plies
0
1 CW'
1
1.6
17. Soll -based evidence of high water table?
'No = 0
Ye'
3' '
C_ Rlnincry f,.qnhtnfai = Z_`F 1
10. Flbrous.roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants In streambed
3
2
0
20. Macrobenlhos (note diverslty and abundance)
1
2
3
21. A uatic Mollusks
1
2
3-
22. Fish
0
0.6
r 1
116
23, Crayfish
0
0.6
1
1.6
24, Amphiblans
0
0.6
•1
1.6
26. Algae
0.6
1
1.6
26. Welland Plants In streambed
FACW ri 0.76; OOL n 1.6 Other = 0
lWc,
'perenhlal streams may also be tdentifled using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes;
Sketch:

16.4 FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -5 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document,
Project Part 1 : General • •
Pro ect Name: UT to MIII Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration
Count Name: onslow
E P Number: 003992
Pro ect Sponsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ro•ect Contact Name: Kayne Van Steil
Project Contact Address: 13000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 Cary NC 27518
Project Contact E -mail: [e-mail]
-EEP Project Mana er: KdstinMiguez
Project Description
%Il�l+$Wa,mp,, site is-fo<i te¢" ¢ i oiciii�fitoly,' wo iriil s nai ry 4 o tliti 'own fiticlil�n�s vifl iri`c ta4�igl l ; f "it'/.':',
Jr t .+`7 rr,
3 3.0�}�,l�;�ii N�]�iyisipn;oF\�ate% tiali ` CD'�V .SUkblsin' 3= ��= 62, "QP+ e` fi t�;4�1('�ii±er'B'��n;�., iii Sr ` "��''��•"
.. :� . t�,'�1, Q ?r" Rj, , r, #�• � �: , . , a . ivI � .��'�
ci s k#iesl;as° ►0 outr'i; n631� itiv� r tetTOW tt 0108!`S.C',', ( SV�! a? rtpi?i ratef�t��il+th�$.f�t2a:<<^ f�`t"gq. s or }
Pro c1 i' tit's a Iii e;
tliri`t;xor:}>`:iQn' ofapprgxi�j ►�fely�3;833'liti��r F��I;•nfstr�slr� "and tHI� r�s�oratiq ,`'ti.of,�},'ttere�,`of ti��7'�a�•W4��1a »fl�:�br, the`p�ttpo`se 6f �;a
an ',W4 `;:., ;f,< <' ; �:�5 r<.1+ 1,jr,f.l.,,r,tF't..s.
rel rr 1'+:• s .r. ),l J r ` +` :
` ,
r.� *3 rj r r * < , r•.. r +f :. 'rr -, f,'1' s7 ;r•§ r r: .tr`t''•
• Official Only
}Rev y:
;f EPp Pro) t1Ma got'
�tonditlolial Approved By:
;bate . •Fdr WASIgn Administrator
YCheck this box if there are outstanding issues
Tlhai Approval By:
Daie or Divislon Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8118105

Part 2: All Projects
RegL1latiO11/Q11OStiO11 Response
_r7,�
(UM
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
✓
Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Yes
Environmental Concern (AEG)?
✓❑
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
[Z]
Yes
Program?
❑
No
N/A
e
1. Is this a 'lull-delivery" project?
✓
Yes
[:1
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
Yes
designated as commercial or Industrial?
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑
Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?.
No
❑
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
No
✓
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑
No
1
✓
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
El
Yes
'E]
No
✓
N/A
°f• NS #iorial;iiistorlc'i?i'es lon,A&Wdtlo
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
LJ
Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
✓
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPOITHPO concur?
El
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
0
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
1i'" ''.; Urilfo'rm' 12elocbtlon Asl;islEance anti ire l `Pro erg" c "uisi `AcC(Un"045
1. Is this a 'full-delivery" project?
❑
Yes
El
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
✓
Yes
❑
No
E]
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the Intent to use federal funds?
Ll
Yes
❑
No
El
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
✓
Yes
• prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
No
• what the fair market value is believed to be?
El
N/A
Version 1.4, 8118/05

Part 3: Gl'OL111CI-DiStUrbing Activities
Reg UlatiONQUOSti011 Response
.............
Mird L6
t is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
Yes
Cherokee Indians?
✓ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
Yes
❑ No
[Z]
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
El Yes
Places?
❑ No
N/A
Res
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ No
✓ N/A
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
0
Yes
[Z]
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
[Yes
of antiquity?
❑
No
[Z]
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
777`,-` A)_
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
0
Yes
MNo
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
Yes
❑
No
NIA
4. Has a permit been obtained?
El
Yes
❑
No
N/A
S6 bld;'Ad(F.;�A
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
✓
Yes
for the county?
❑
No
-listed
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
El
Yes
❑
No
El
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
El
Yes
Habitat?
❑
No
[Z]
N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑
Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑
No
✓
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
_DYes
❑
No
✓
NIA
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
Yes
❑
No
[Z]
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

9 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
L] Yes
by the EB 1?
0 No
2. Has the EBCI Indicated that Indian sacred sites may be Impacted by the proposed
E] Yes
project?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
U Yes
sites?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
•
1. Will real estate be acquired?
✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
✓ Yes
Important farmland?
❑ No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
Q Yes
❑ No
N/A
'Idflf6';b64d1h'd A F P
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
✓ Y.s
water body?
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
✓ Yes
❑ No
E] NIA
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
Ll
Yes
outdoor recreation?
✓
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑
Yes
❑
No
NIA
6TA-651 gEfMtlall PISI
M61W)",
1. Is the project located In an estuarine system?
❑
Yes
✓
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
L]
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
Yes
project on EFH?
❑
No
✓
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
L]
Yes
❑
No
FZ]
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
"r''to P W
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the META?
Yes
✓ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
L] Yes
[:] No
✓ N/A
1. Is the project In a Wilderness area?
OYes
❑ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
El Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
9 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Gilland, Ken
' "Om: Dail, Jason gason.dail @ncdenr.gov]
ant: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:15 PM
To: Gilland, Ken
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: RE: CAMA Permit applicability for the UT to Mill Swamp site in Onslow County
Ken,
I am not going to require any additional Information on this project, but the 401 certification from DWQ and Corps
approval is still required.
Take Care,
Jason
*Please note that e-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.*
From: Gilland, Ken fmailto :KgillandaOmbakercoro.coml
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:54 AM
To: Dail, Jason
Subject: CAMA Permit applicability for the UT to Mill Swamp site in Onslow County
Jason,
As per our discussion, I have reviewed the requirements for CAMA applicability for the UT to Mill Swamp site in Onslow
County. Neither UT1 nor UT3 can be boated by canoes (the average water depth is around six inches). I've enclosed a
photolog that shows average site conditions. As the waterbody isn't navigable, I don't think it meets the criteria for an
AEC.
If this is the case, are we through with the CAMA Issue and don't need to do any type of CAMA permit (understanding
that 401 and 404 permits still apply)?
,auks for your help with this,
Ken

16.5 FEMA Compliance - EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
The topography of the site supports the design without creating the potential for hydrologic trespass.
The site is not located in a FEMA mapped area and therefore an extensive hydraulic analysis is not
required to obtain a "No- Rise/No- Impact" certification. The project will also not require a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) following construction in order to document changes (reductions) to Base Flood
Elevations (BFEs). The EEP Floodplain Checklist was provided to the Onslow County Floodplain
Manager along with this report.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -6 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

a�cer��
May 30, 2012
Kristin Miguez
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Subject: NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist: UT to Mill Swamp Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project, Onslow County, North Carolina. NCDWQ
sub -basin 03- 05 -02, USGS hydrologic unit 03030001010020, NCEEP
Project Number 95019
Dear Ms. Miguez:
Please find enclosed one copy of the NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist for the UT
to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Onslow County, North Carolina
(see Figure 2.1). The project site includes two unnamed tributaries to Mill Swamp, west of
the Town of Richlands off Warren Taylor Road (see Figure 2.2). The site lies within NC
Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -05 -02 and local watershed unit 03030001010020.
Currently, the project reaches are impacted by the historic draining of area wetlands for
agricultural use and the lack of adequate riparian buffers. Project goals include
approximately 3,563 linear feet of headwater stream restoration, 600 linear feet of stream
enhancement (Level 1), and 4 acres of riparian wetland restoration to improve area water
quality and the surrounding ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the White Oak
River Basin. The watershed areas and soil descriptions are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure
2.3 and the Firm Map for the project is included (with the project area indicated in red).
Project activities will include filling drainage ditches, raising the existing stream bed,
establishing riparian buffers, stabilizing degraded stream channels, and installing in- stream
structures. As per our previous discussion with the Local Floodplain Administrator about
the project, Baker has prepared the following checklist to summarize the potential
Foodplain impacts of the project.
Sin cerely,
K a
Oe / GnV L
en Gilland
Enclosures
Cc: Edward Curtis, NC Floodplain Mapping Program
John Gerber, NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
Karen Wagley, CFM, Local Floodplain Administrator, Onslow County

aker ��
May 30, 2012
Karen Wagley, CFM
Onslow County Floodplain Administrator
PIanning and Development
4024 Richands Highway
Jacksonville, NC 28540
Subject: NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist: UT to Mill Swamp Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project, Onslow County, North Carolina. NCDWQ
sub -basin 03- 05 -02, USGS hydrologic unit 03030001010020, NCEEP
Project Number 95019
Dear Ms. Wagley:
Please find enclosed one copy of the NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist for the UT
to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Onslow County, North Carolina
(see Figure 2.1). The project site includes two unnamed tributaries to Mill Swamp, west of
the Town of Richlands off Warren Taylor Road (see Figure 2.2). The site lies within NC
Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -05 -02 and local watershed unit 03030001010020.
Currently, the project reaches are impacted by the historic draining of area wetlands for
agricultural use and the lack of adequate riparian buffers. Project goals include
approximately 3,563 linear feet of headwater stream restoration, 600 linear feet of stream
enhancement (Level 1), and 4 acres of riparian wetland restoration to improve area water
quality and the surrounding ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the White Oak
River Basin. The watershed areas and soil descriptions are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure
2.3 and the Finn Map for the project is included (with the project area indicated in red).
Project activities will include filling drainage ditches, raising the existing stream bed,
establishing riparian buffers, stabilizing degraded stream channels, and installing in- stream
structures. As per our previous discussion about the project, Baker has prepared the
following checklist to summarize the potential Foodplain impacts of the project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland, PG
Enclosures
Cc: Edward Curtis, NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Kristin Miguez, North Carolina Pcosystem Enhancement Program
John Gerber, NC Floodplain Mapping Unit

May 30, 2012
John Gerber
NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
1812 Tillery Place
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist: UT to Mill Swamp Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project, Onslow County, North Carolina. NCDWQ
sub -basin 03- 05 -02, USGS hydrologic unit 03030001010020, NCEEP
Project Number 95019
Dear Mr. Gerber:
Please find enclosed one copy of the NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist for the UT
to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Onslow County, North Carolina
(see Figure 1.1). The project site includes two unnamed tributaries to Mill Swamp, west of
the Town of Richlands off Warren Taylor Road (see Figure 2.2). The site lies within NC
Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -05 -02 and local watershed unit 03030001010020.
Currently, the project reaches are impacted by the historic draining of area wetlands for
agricultural use and the lack of adequate riparian buffers. Project goals include
approximately 3,563 linear feet of headwater stream restoration, 600 linear feet of stream
enhancement (Level 1), and 4 acres of riparian wetland restoration to improve area water
quality and the surrounding ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the White Oak
River Basin. The watershed areas and soil descriptions are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure
2.3 and the Firm Map for the project is included (with the project area indicated in red).
Project activities will include filling drainage ditches, raising the existing stream bed,
establishing riparian buffers, stabilizing degraded stream channels, and installing in- stream
structures. As per our previous discussion with the Local Floodplain Administrator about
the project, Baker has prepared the following checklist to summarize the potential
floodplain impacts of the project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland
1f 1sures
Cc: Edward Curtis, NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Kristin Miguez, North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Karen Wagley, CFM, Local Floodplain Administrator, Onslow County

LEN0'1R
C O U�J -TYJ
E
01 JOW
•;.1rry1; ,�.,�a�•�1j�����1
Onslow County
J
x
O fVSL
CODA
TY
Project Location
Rd
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030001010020.
Figure 2.1
Project Vicinity Map
UT to Mill Swamp Site
aker��
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain Mapping
program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects. The form is
intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The
form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to
NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
UT to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
UT to Mill Swamp
County:
Onslow
Name of river basin:
White Oak
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Onslow County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
4423J
Consultant name:
Ken GilIand, PG
Michael Baker Engineering
Phone number:
919463 -5488
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
FEMA Compliance EEP Checklist UT Mill Swamp Page 1 of

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference
orthophotograph at a scale of I"=500". The project site includes two unnamed tributaries to
Mill Swamp, west of the Town of Richlands off Warren Taylor Road (see Figure 2.1). The site
lies within NC Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -05 -02 and local watershed unit
03030001010020. Currently, the project reaches (see Figure 2.2) are impacted by the historic
draining of area wetlands for agricultural use and the lack of adequate riparian buffers. Project
goals include approximately 3,563 linear feet (LF) of headwater stream restoration, 600 LF of
stream enhancement (Level I) and 4.0 acres of riparian wetland restoration to improve area water
quality and the surrounding ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the White Oak River
Basin.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Reach / Wetland
Linear Feet / Acreage
Priority
UTla
600 LF
(Enhancement 1)
UT1 b •
2,100 LF
(Headwater Restoration )
UTIc
1 A3 LF
(Restoration)
UT3
N/A
I N/A (cattle exclusion fencing)
Wetland Area 1
4.0 AC
I Riparian Wetland Restoration
Floodpiain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes V, No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
1 F Redelineation
r-, Detailed Study
I` i Limited Detail Study
1`7 Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
r Floodway
r Non- Encroaclunent
F None
1' } A Zone
i Local Setbacks Required
No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: No specific setbacks required for areas not requiring a
CAMA ern-tit.
FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist UT Mill Swamp Page 2 of

Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non - encroachment /setbacks?
r" Yes fv, No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
F Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to the Department
of Administration, State Construction Office attn: Herbert Neil y, 919 - 807 -4101
Is community /county participating in the NF1P program?
W Yes 1 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 Floodplain Administrator: Karen Wagley, CFM
Phone Number: 910 -989 -3077
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
tv No Action
r- No Rise
F Letter ofMap Revision
f" Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: LAYA1„ VIJ 57, w
Title: TF-a�e�::r M OAGW.
Signature: y1
Date: 5/7-Y 11 Y
FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist—UT Mill Swamp Page 3 of 4

Criteria for Flooding Requirements
Grading less than Sac:
Notify LFPA
Not Regulated, No Community
Grading more
(zone, X,13,c) Set -backs tl1at15 ac:
Establish
Site BFE not
Defined W /Conununity
(7unc A) Set -backs
Regulated
Zone SFHA FE Floodway Comm. loodplain Criteria
(SFHA)
Encroachment
X,B,C
BFE defined
0
( /.one.. AH,
No
Al - -A30)
BFE data.
No Floodway
(1 ft No -Rise)
Floodway defuzcd
(0 ft No -Rise)
ter- *� - --- � --- --
Area (0 ft
- No Impact Study
- LOMR if:
Oft < Rise < 1 ft
- CLOMR & LOINIR if:
Rise > 1 ft
-- No Impact Study
- CLOMR, LOMR if Rise not met
- LOAiR, if Rise < 0.1 ft
Summary of Scenarios
Zone SFHA FE Floodway Comm. loodplain Criteria
(map) Or Non- et -back
Encroachment
X,B,C
o
0
o
No
a. Notify Floodpiain Administration
b. FP Dev. Permit maybe regtured
Yes
No
No
No
a. If grading < 5 ac, notify LFPA.
A
Yes
No
No
Yes
a. If No -Rise = 0 ft, LOMB not required
b. If Rise > 0 ft, LOMR is Required
. If Rise > 1 ft, CLOW is required
AE,
Yes
Yes
No
/a
a. No -Rise Study
Al -A30
b. CLOMR if > 1ft
c. LOMR
AEPW
Yes
Yes
Yes
/a
a. No -Rise Study
Al -A30
b. CLOMR if > 0 ft
. LOMR
FEMA Compliance EEP Checklist—UT Mill Swamp Page 4 of 4

4 �
TM .jam
. Eli-
Q '
1 it•. ��.. F I 1
t r
SYtre 1Hu�i AnS g j ° !r
vo ON snow
21" of TV
ZU
q05 04y- A SERA
Mal AQ
TOM
Wx
• f j rte''''- is -5� �� ri
a �
tit r1 h r ,t �F{
say
Iwo j Von-
%Vol,
i
R
14 } a ' i + � � l�✓

aker���
May 30, 2012
Mr. Edward Curtis
NC Floodplain Mapping Program
NC Division of Emergency Management
Hazard Mitigation Section
1830 -B Tillery Place, Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist: UT to Mill Swamp Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project, Onslow County, North Carolina. NCDWQ
sub -basin 03- 05 -02, USGS hydrologic unit 03030001010020, NCEEP
Project Number 95019
Dear Mr. Curtis:
Please find enclosed one copy of the NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist for the UT
to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Onslow County, North Carolina
(see Figure 2.1). The project site includes two unnamed tributaries to Mill Swamp, west of
the Town of Richlands off Warren Taylor Road (see Figure 2.2), The site lies within NC
Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -05 -02 and local watershed unit 03030001010020.
Currently, the project reaches are impacted by the historic draining of area wetlands for
agricultural use and the lack of adequate riparian buffers. Project goals include
approximately 3,563 linear feet of headwater stream restoration, 600 linear feet of stream
enhancement (Level I), and 4 acres of riparian wetland restoration to improve area water
quality and the surrounding ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the White Oak
River Basin. The watershed areas and soil descriptions are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure
2.3 and the Firm Map for the project is included (with the project area indicated in red).
Project activities will include filling drainage ditches, raising the existing stream bed,
establishing riparian buffers, stabilizing degraded stream channels, and installing in- stream
structures. As per our previous discussion with the Local Floodplain Administrator about
the project, Baker has prepared the following checklist to summarize the potential
floodplain impacts of the project. .
Sincerely,
OA/
Ken Gilland
Enclosures
Cc: Kristin Miguez, North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
John Gerber, NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
Karen Wagley, CFM, Local Floodplain Administrator, Onslow County

17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND
ANALYSES
17.1 Channel Morphology (Rosgen Analysis)
17.1.1 Existing Conditions
17.1.1.1 Channel Classification
UT to Mill Swamp is a small, perennial headwater stream with a total drainage area of
approximately 0.66 square miles (Figure 2.2). Historically, the area has been extensively
drained for silvicultural and agricultural production and cattle grazing. The UT's were
ditched to promote drainage from the adjacent farm fields and forested areas, which has
resulted in channel incision and a disconnection from their relic floodplain. These
conditions generally lead to vertical and lateral instability over time and were observed .
throughout the site. The riparian vegetation throughout the site is a mix of forested areas
and herbaceous grasses that are regularly maintained by mowing and crop production.
The upstream portion of the site is mostly wooded with a mature bottomland hardwood
swamp forest that has evidence of past channel disturbance.
For analysis purposes, Baker labeled the existing unnamed tributaries UT1 and UT3
respectively. The existing UT reach locations are shown on Figures 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
11, 17.2, and 17.4. The mainstem channel (UT 1) begins at the northernmost project
boundary and flows southeast towards a farm access road where it was disconnected from
its historical flow path towards the confluence with Mill Swamp. During field
verification with the USACE of intermittent or perennial status and subsequent site visits
with NCEEP, UT1 was determined to be a perennial stream based on a minimum score of
30 for perennial streams and /or the presence of biological indicators using the NCDENR
and NCDWQ Determination of the Origin of Perennial Streams stream assessment
protocols and guidelines (see stream forms in Appendix B). UT3 is an intermittent
stream that flows into UT1 from the northwest near the upstream portion of the site,
which flows through an active cattle pasture. The total current length of the existing
stream (UT1) and its associated ditches (UT3) on the site is 5,151 LF according to the
field survey conducted by Baker. Table 17.1 represents geomorphic data compiled from
the existing condition survey.
Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for UT1:
Stream Channel Classification Level I1
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Parameter
Reach UT1
XS1 XS2
I XS3 XS4
Existing Reach Length (ft)
4,091
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.66
Bankf ill Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
6.48
Feature Type
Riffle
Pool
Pool
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
Gc
-
-
Gc
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
6.8
9.6
9.2
8.7
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
Width to Depth Ratio (WbkWdbkf)
8
13
11
9
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
5.6
7.2
7.7
8.6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -1 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.16
1.4
Floodprone Width (Wfpa) (ft)
8.2
14.6
12.5
11.8
Entrenchment Ratio ((Wfpa /Wbkf)) (ft)
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.4
Bank Height Ratio **
4.2
8.4
5.3
2.8
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross - Section Along
Existing Thalweg (ft)
12 +03
18 +61
28 +85
47 +46
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf- (QbkdAbkf) (ft/S)
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d50) - Based on Bulk Sample * **
d 16 / d35 / d50 / dsa / d95 (mm)
0.10 / 0.15 / 0.25 / 1.2 / 2.7
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0055
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.0045
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * **
1.13
* Bankfull discharge estimated using NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
* *High bank height ratios (values greater than 2.0 indicate systemwide self - recovery is unlikely
** *Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure not applicable for sand -bed streams
* ** *Additional meander geometry information such as meander width, meander length, and radius of curvature were
not measured because the channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has been straightened/channelized.
17.1.1.2 Valley Classification
The UT to Mill Swamp Site is located in northwest Onslow County in the Inner Coastal Plain
physiographic region of North Carolina. Undisturbed Coastal Plain valleys in this region are
generally classified as Valley Type `X' ( Rosgen, 2006). These low gradient landforms are typically
characterized as large areas of broad, level flatlands (interstream terraces) with extensive
floodplains intersected by anastomosed stream and wetland complexes. The underlying geology in
this area is identified as Castle Hayne and formed during the tertiary period. The Castle Hayne
formation consists primarily of limestone, dolomite, and conglomerates that contain varying
amounts of coarse - grained clastic sedimentary rock material (Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC
Geological Survey, 1998).
17.1.1.3 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
Baker performed general topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and
produced a contour map based on survey data in order to create plan set base mapping
(see Section 18.0, Appendix D). Four representative cross - sections (2 riffles /2 pools) and
a longitudinal profile survey were also surveyed to assess the current condition and
overall stability of the stream channel (UT1). The existing riffle cross - section data are
shown in Figure 17.1 and compared with the Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
shown in Table 17.2.
Since consistent bankfull indicators could not be identified in the field, bankfull cross -
sectional areas were estimated using the EcoScience NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve to
compare stability ratings. The representative riffle cross - sections have a typical Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) greater than 2.0. The cross - section data illustrate the presence of
existing spoil and overburden from channelization and the lack of natural floodplain
deposits. The longitudinal profile showed UT1 has an average valley slope of 0.0055 ft/ft
with several long riffle sections and infrequently spaced pools. This reach has a sinuosity
of 1. 13, a result of prior straightening/channelization. The reach is moderately to
severely entrenched and highly unstable near the upper portion of the reach where
numerous active headcuts are present.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -2 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.1 Existing Riffle Cross - Sections for Reach UT1
72
70
o 68
> 66
0
U' 64
62
Cross - section 1, Long Pro Station 12 +03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station - --e- -- Bankfull - --e- -- Floodprone
Stability Rating
Bank Height Ratio BHR
'Stable low risk of degradation)
1.0 -1.05
Max
1.06 -1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation)
1.3 -1.5
-
>1.5
Notes: Rosgen, D. L. (2001) A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
WID
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
Elev
Riffle
Gc
5.6
6.8
0.83
1.14
8.22
4.2
1.2
63.7
67.39
72
70
o 68
> 66
0
U' 64
62
Cross - section 1, Long Pro Station 12 +03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station - --e- -- Bankfull - --e- -- Floodprone
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station Bankfull - --e- -- Floodprone
Table 17.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Stability Rating
Bank Height Ratio BHR
'Stable low risk of degradation)
1.0 -1.05
Max
1.06 -1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation)
1.3 -1.5
-
>1.5
Notes: Rosgen, D. L. (2001) A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
TOB
Feature
—Type
Area
Width
Depth
De th
WID
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
Elev
Riffle
Gc
8.6
8.68
0.99
1.43
8.74
2 8
1.4
47.9
50.42
Cross - section 4, Long Pro Station 47 +46
56
54
0 52
> 50
m
- --
w 48
46
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station Bankfull - --e- -- Floodprone
Table 17.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Stability Rating
Bank Height Ratio BHR
'Stable low risk of degradation)
1.0 -1.05
Moderately unstable
1.06 -1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation)
1.3 -1.5
Highly unstable
>1.5
Notes: Rosgen, D. L. (2001) A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -3
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT
9/27/2012

17.1.1.4 Bank Erosion Prediction (BEHI/NBS)
Sedimentation from bank erosion is a significant pollutant to water quality and aquatic habitat.
Predicting stream bank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for
Non -point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001 a) considers
two bank erodibility estimation tools: the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI), and Near Bank
Stress (NBS). This rating method is used to describe existing bank conditions and statistically
quantify the erosion potential of a stream reach in feet/year. Since it is an estimation/prediction
method, the intent is to be used as a relative comparison for pre- and post- restoration conditions.
Published curve data were initially developed from sites in Colorado with varying sediment
sources, vegetation, and fluvial geomorphic processes characteristic of that region. Although the
published BEHI/NBS curve is not directly applicable to coastal plain streams in North Carolina, it
can provide a framework to develop similar relations in,other hydrophysiographic regions.
Therefore, Baker used more local unpublished NC piedmont BEHI and NBS ratings (obtained
through personal communication with NRCS, 2011) to estimate sediment loss and support field
observations and banks height measurements taken during existing conditions assessment.
The BEHI/NBS estimates for the existing conditions (pre - construction) suggests that the mainstem
UT contributes approximately 153 tons of sediment per year to downstream waters and eventually
the Mill Swamp system. The majority of BEHI ratings varied from `moderate' to `high' with a few
shorter sections rating on the `extreme' category based changes in the velocity gradient and shear
stress. This is typical of a highly degraded stream system with active bank erosion in multiple
areas. After stabilizing streambanks using restoration measures, post - construction BEHI/NBS
estimates typically predict a significant decrease in sediment loading throughout the entire project
area, especially considering the limited sediment supply entering the system from the upstream
headwater tributary.
17.1.1.5 Channel Evolution
Channel stability is defined as the stream's ability to transport incoming flows and
sediment loads supplied by the watershed without undergoing significant changes over a
geologically short time - scale. A generalized relationship of stream stability was
proposed by Lane (1955); it states that the product of sediment load and sediment size is
in balance with the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream power. A change in
any one of these variables induces physical adjustment of one or more of the other
variables to compensate and maintain the proportionality.
Longitudinally, the water and sediment flows delivered to each subsequent section are the
result of the watershed and upstream or backwater (downstream) conditions. Water and
sediment pass through the channel, which is defined by its shape, material, and vegetative
condition. Flow and sediment are either stored or passed through at each section along
the reach. The resulting physical changes are a balancing act between gravity, friction,
and the sediment and water being delivered into the system (Leopold et al., 1964).
Observed stream response to induced instability, as described by Simon's (1989) Channel
Evolution Model, involve extensive modifications to channel form resulting in profile,
cross - sectional, and plan form changes, which often take decades or longer to achieve
resolution. The Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes typical evolution
in six steps:
1. Pre - modified
2. Channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
5. Aggradation and widening
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -4 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

6. Quasi - equilibrium.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well - vegetated stream that
interacts frequently with its floodplain is disturbed. Channelization, dredging, changing
land use, removal of streamside vegetation, upstream or downstream channel
modifications, and /or change in other hydrologic variables result in adjustments in
channel morphology to compensate for the new condition(s). Disturbance commonly
results in an increase in stream power that can cause degradation, often referred to as
channel incision (Lane, 1955). Incision eventually leads to over - steepening of the banks
and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of
soil and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving
upstream in the form of a head -cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream
begins to aggrade. A new, low -flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits. By
the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile
similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new
channel is at a lower elevation than its original form, with a new floodplain constructed
of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
The channel stability assessment incorporated qualitative and quantitative site
observations using detailed topographic data collected for the project. Conclusions
reached from these methods were used to define overall channel stability and determine
appropriate restoration approaches for the site. The mainstem channel (UT I) is a
perennial stream that originates from a watershed that is predominantly forested with low
density housing and agricultural land comprising much the remaining land use. Due to
past channelization and straightening, UT is severely to moderately incised in most
sections as evidenced by an entrenchment ratios greater than 2.0.
Although a majority of UTI has adequate existing buffer widths greater than 50 feet
along both stream banks, the upper portion of UT is transitioning from Step 3 to Step 4
of the Simon Channel Evolution Model and a Rosgen G5c -F5 stream type evolution
scenario ( Rosgen 2001b). Downstream portions of UT are overly -wide and laterally
unstable, and the reach is transitioning into Step 5 of the model and the floodplain
connection has been severely compromised by channelization and vertical degradation.
The system overall is in a degradational phase of channel evolutionary sequence and
would continue to degrade and widen further in order to reach Stage 6 (Quasi -
equilibrium) since it lacks access to its relic floodplain. UT3 has also been manipulated
in the past; the channel was channelized and receives drainage from a farm field with
little to no riparian buffer vegetation. The reach has been heavily impacted by grazing
and the lower 50 feet of UT3 is incised and unstable as a result of active headcutting.
17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for
restoration, an approach was developed that would address restoration of both stream and
wetland functions within the project area while minimizing disturbance to existing wooded
areas. Prior to impacts from past channelization, topography and soils on the site indicate
that the project area most likely functioned in the past as a headwater tributary stream system
with associated wetlands, eventually flowing into the larger Mill Swamp system.
Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore this.type of riparian headwater
system. First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired stream and
wetland functions was selected and designed to restore historic flow patterns within the
wooded area. Then a grading plan was developed in order restore the adjacent wetland
hydrology by removing past channel spoil and other agricultural land manipulations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -5 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

17.1.2.1 Proposed Design Approach and Criteria Selection
For design purposes, the mainstem was divided into three reaches labeled UTIa, UTlb,
and UTIc (Figure 17.2). Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in
selecting design criteria for reaches UT 1 a, UT 1 b and UTIc. The approach was based on
the potential for restoration as determined during the site assessment. Next, the specific
design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross - section dimensions,
and a longitudinal profile could be described for developing construction documents.
The design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the
selected stream types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension, facet slope,
and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re-
colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences.
After selecting an appropriate design approach for the site based on field assessments and
functional lift potential, proposed stream design values and design criteria were selected
using common reference ratios and guidelines. Table 17.3 presents the design parameters
followed for the UTIc channel. Following initial application of the design criteria,
detailed refinements were made to accommodate the existing headwater valley
morphology. This was done to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area,
and to allow for natural channel adjustment following construction. The design plans
have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible,
using a level of detail that corresponds to the tools of construction. The design also
reflects a philosophy that the stream will adapt to the inherent uniformity of the
restoration project. This will allow the system to adjust over long periods of time under
the natural flood processes, re- colonization of vegetation, and local topographic
influences.
UTla Enhancement
Beginning at the project limits until approximately 600 feet downstream of the project
limits, the channel will be filled on a slight downgradient slope. The existing unstable
channel section will be partially to completely filled along its length using a combination
of existing spoil piles that are located along the reach and fill material excavated from
other locations on the farm (outside the project limits). This approach will prevent any
potential backwater conditions past the upstream channel limits and will eventually allow
the stream to be discharged back onto the relic floodplain. Special considerations will be
given in the wooded area and larger trees will be protected whenever possible. The steep
banks will be sloped back and matted. Additional grade control measures such as log
weir structures and vegetation will be installed to prevent future erosion or downcutting.
Because of the relatively steep nature of the upper headwater valley (0.008 ft/ft), and the
presence of headcuts along the reach, the stream will be slightly entrenched and function
as a transitional reach between single and multi- thread channel before reconnecting with
its historic floodplain.
UTlb Restoration
Approximately at Station 16 +00, the restoration of UT1 b will consider the USACE and
NCDWQ guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the
Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina." Rather than the construction of a defined single
thread channel, the current channelized stream will be filled and graded back to
topographic contours that approximate the pre- drained condition. Field surveys were
conducted to determine the elevation of the stream where it comes onto the project
property, and the valley topographic elevations downstream.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -6 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN LIT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

As discussed in Section 7, the tributaries have been channelized through an existing
riparian headwater system. The channelization and piling of spoil along the banks has
disrupted the historic flow and flooding patterns of the site. Restoration of this reach will
seek to restore historic flow and flooding processes. Based on average valley slope
(0.0055 ft/ft) and upper catchment area ( -80 ac), we believe that this area most likely
functioned prior to disturbance as a headwater stream system (Rosgen `DA' stream type).
Restoration will focus on filling in the drainage ditches and main channel, and restoring
the pre - disturbed topography of the valley. The valley bottom will then be graded to
restore the natural microtopographic variability that is common within multi - thread
headwater systems. Shallow flow paths will be connected to allow initial flow of water
toward reach UTIc. The system will be allowed to form multi- thread channels and
diffuse flow patterns on its own over time.
The restoration of UTIb will end near the farm culvert crossing at approximately Station
37 +00. At this location, the UTIb channel will connect with the proposed single thread
channel, which will form the beginning to UTIc. The transition to a single thread
channel will involve grading the shallow flow paths, which gradually merge into a broad
Swale that will connect to the constructed design bankfull width and depth. In this
fashion, the low flows through UTIb will be allowed to follow historic flow patterns and
spread out through channel depressions, restoring a more natural function.
UT1c Restoration
A stable cross - section will be achieved by restoring a single thread meandering channel
across the abandoned floodplain (currently agricultural field/early successional areas),
increasing the width /depth ratio, and raising the streambed (Rosgen Priority Level I) to
restore a channel that is appropriately sized for its increased drainage area. Proposed
grading activities will also be aimed at restoring historic flow patterns and adjacent
wetland hydrology by removing past channel spoil and other agricultural land
manipulations. The channel will be restored to a Rosgen `C' stream type, and the
sinuosity will be increased by adding meanders to lengthen the channel and restore
bedform diversity. Minimal grade control will be required for the project, due to the low
channel slope and low potential for channel incision. In- stream wooden structures, such
as log vanes, log weirs, rootwads, and cover logs will be included in the channel design to
provide natural scour features and improved aquatic habitat.
Table 17.3 Natural Channel Design Parameters for Reach UTIc
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Parameter
Design Values
Design Criteria
Rationale
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.66
--
Design Stream Length (feet)
1,453
--
Stream Type (Rosgen)
C5
E5 /C5
Note I
Bankfull (bkf) Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
12.9
--
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity; Vbkf (ft/s)
1.76
--
V =Q /A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
7.6
--
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
10.3
JAbkf * W1 D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.7
--
d =A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
14
10-14
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
>100
--
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
>10
5.5 - >10
Note 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -7 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.3 Natural Channel Design Parameters for Reach UTIc
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95019
Parameter
Design Values
Design Criteria
Rationale
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
1.0
--
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.4
1.2-1.6
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob /Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0
1.0-1.1
Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
80-110
--
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf *
8.0-11.0
7.0-14.0
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
20-30
--
Rc Ratio, Rc /Wbkf *
2.0-3.0
2.0-3.0
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
35-60
--
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf *
3.5-6.0
3.0-8.0
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.24
1.2-1.5
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0044
0.002 — 0.010
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0038
--
—Sval / K
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
0.004 — 0.010
--
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
1.1-2.3
1.1 — 1.5
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0001 — 0.0007
--
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
1.6
--
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
2.2
1.2-2.5
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
14.3
--
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.4
1.0-1.7
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
30-80
--
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps /Wbkf
3.0-8.0
3.0-7.0
Note 7
Notes:
1 A C5 stream type is appropriate for a low -slope (generally less than 0.010 ft/ft), wider alluvial valleys (generally
eater than 100 ft) with a sand streambed. The choice of a C5 channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D
ratio to slope in NC Coastal Plain reference reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project
valuation.
Bankfull discharge was estimated using Manning's equation (n =0.04) to represent post - construction conditions.
A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Coastal Plain reference reach
streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
Required for stream classification.
This ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar C5 design channels.
6 A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality, resulting in lower risk of channel
stability.
Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluation.
8 Due to the low channel slopes and small channel size, facet slopes were not calculated for the proposed design.
Past project experience has shown that these minor changes in slope between bedform features form naturally within
he constructed channel, provided that the overall design channel slope is maintained during construction.
Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project evaluation. It is more conservative
to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool width may narrow form sediment deposits and vegetation
h which is nsi r d to be iti a evolutionary sto
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -8 9/27/2012
MITIGATION PLAN UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Triage Check List
Date: 10/05/2012 Project Name: UT to Mill Swamp
DWQ #: 12 -0916
County: Onslow
To: Joanne Steenhuis or Chad Coburn, Wilmington Regional Office
60 -Day processing time: 10/02/12 to 12/01/12
From: Ian McMillan Telephone: [phone]
❑ Stormwater has been given to Annette for review
❑ Restoration Project NOT for mitigation issued by RO (copy to Eric)
❑ NON -EEP mitigation project; Issued by RO (copy to Eric)
❑ EEP full Delivery project; issued by RO (copy to Eric)
❑ EEP design -Bid Build; issued by CO (copy to Eric and RO for comments)
❑ IP — needs a public notice
❑ This is a "Courtesy Copy" and is located in Laseffiche
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in Raleigh
as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any complications
you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second reviewer" as the
triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to improve this
process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know. Thanks!