20181034 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_2021_20210510

UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Mitigation Plan — Final
Haywood County,North Carolina
French Broad River Basin: 06010106
DMS Project ID No. 100068, DEQ Contract No. 7535, DMS RFP#16-007335
(Issued: 9/8/2017),USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01171,DWR#20181034
•
Yr
r .,
lik
� .�'� -:. ter^T:• .. __ _ - _ .. _
• :`1.. a ss . J - - .
r /_=.,-*-_,..71 -5:A„,:ri-W.::-':„'-'-47-::'L,:'''''.-tr'ZW.'..40. .:.:...- . - - -'_ -' 'r:'_- , , :. ' - ,- ,7 LT'. _'7.' •- .
rir
:.i.,Az,.,„_.,„2„_.,t.:.:. .. .5_17,... , .., • . c..., .,
...., .,..A.v,., • .. ..
.,... .. .
,, .._ .
_ ..i...,..
,.r.:..ciritorta.,._;,7 ., ,t.i.w...., ;.. ,.. ..,,.... 4 .. .„,. . .. 4.... ,_ _. ..
_ . • _
• ,, . . _
1.:(5_,r....r:i.. „,...,•,...,__.....„...,...;;.. , ..t.e ._....'",,''r i. . ' -" -... -* --. . .._._.•
*�� i t 4, s :ig .;: ,.,.-'.it -•_- ,i., a -.:
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)
217 West Jones St.—Suite 3000A
Raleigh,North Carolina 27603
April 2021

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
{'� ! '�*ti• WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
(e
�. ...
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
lQY',.M; WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
• REPLY TO April 19, 2021
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Site /
Haywood Co./ SAW-2018-01171/ NCDMS Project # 100068
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the UT to Rush Fork Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on March 28, 2021. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
USACE Mitigation Office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily
addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does
not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you
are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may
require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Kimberly
Kimberly Danielle Danielle Browning
Browning Date:2021.04.19 15:08:14
-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Ronnie Smith, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Scott King—Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office: 919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
April 29, 2021
Kim Browning, Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division
US Army Corps of Engineers—Wilmington District
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Subject: Response to IRT Comments for Draft Mitigation Plan Review
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project, Haywood County, French Broad River Basin,
CU#06010106, DMS Project#100068, DEQ Contract#7535.
Ms. Browning:
Please find enclosed our responses to the IRT review comments dated March 30, 2021 in reference to the
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project's Draft Mitigation Plan. We have revised the Draft document in
response to the referenced review comments as outlined below.
WRC Comments,Andrea Leslie:
1. As noted in my response to an earlier scoping letter, a trout moratorium does not apply for this project.
Response: Thank you for reiterating this point.
2. I am glad to see culvert specifications include floodplain culverts.The plan set shows site-specific culvert
specs. For culvert on UT1-Reach 1,floodplain culverts are noted. However,they are not noted for the
culverts on UT1-Reach4 or UT3. Is this because there will be no floodplain culverts?Seems more important
for the larger channel of UT1-Reach 4.
Response: Only the crossing on UT1-R1will have floodplain culverts installed. It's located at an existing
crossing on a noticeably flatter/wider section of reach that is not particularly entrenched(despite the
reach overall being a B-type stream),thus the addition of floodplain pipes will provide meaningful benefit
here. Reach UT3 is a smaller system overall and as an entrenched B-type stream has a very narrow
natural floodplain upon which to place any additional culverts. Similarly,the crossing on UT1-R4 is
located in an entrenched and incised section of B-type stream just below NC-209. There simply isn't a
floodplain present and the channel bed cannot be raised enough at this point so close to the road,nor can
the proposed bank sloping be enough to provide for the practical use of floodplain culverts here. Baker
wants to install floodplain pipes but only in locations where they will provide meaningful benefits. Please
note that the new cu lverts being installed are larger than any of the existing culverts being replaced and
do represent meaningful hydrologic improvements.
3. The planting list includes canopy and understory species, and in general the list includes a nice mix of rich
cove/riparian species found in this general area. However, both river birch and sycamore are much more
typical of larger systems, and we recommend eliminating these species from the planting plan. Red maple is
included at 5%of the wetland canopy species list, and we recommend eliminating that species, as it will very
likely volunteer into the site.
Response: As both river birch and sycamore are specifically listed as being commonly found in the target
plant community types of both the Montane Alluvial Forest(small stream subtype)and the South-Central

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office: 919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
Interior Small Stream and Riparian communities, Baker feels strongly that theyshould remain in the
planting plan. They are a part of a fairly wide mix of selected species and should not dominate. Red
maple has been reluctantly removed from the planting list,though it would be expected to be a fairly
important species in these communities. Baker also understandsthis WRCcomment to imply that any red
maple volunteers will be accepted for countingtowards closeout density numbers.
4. The plan notes that the existing riparian community is degraded;thus there is no on-site reference.We
recommend informing the planting plan by finding nearby riparian/wetland community reference sites.
Response: While there is no direct on-site reference due to degraded conditions, Baker staff investigated
the undisturbed stream areas both above and below UT1,as well as riparian areas in the immediately
surrounding area,and incorporated the existing mature vegetation into our species selection.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Table 6.7:Since red maple is a pioneer species that is more shade tolerant and longer lived than the usual
early successional species, please remove red maple from the planting list as it will likely occur naturally.
Response: As noted above,red maple has been removed from the planting list. Baker understandsthis
USACE comment to imply that any red maple volunteers will be accepted for counting towards closeout
density numbers.
2. Please move the fixed veg plot on UT1(just south of UT4)slightly south to encompass the existing
wetlands.
Response: That fixed veg plot was moved further south to encompass more of the wetland area as
requested.
3. General note: Please do not use green lines on the figures to show streams; It's very difficult to
differentiate the line from the pasture in the background.
Response: The green line stream in the figures was changed as requested.
4. Figure 11: Please mark locations of photo points,to include crossings and culverts. If cross-sections are to
be used as fixed photo points, please footnote the Figure.
Response: Bakerwill absolutely include annual monitoring photo points at all crossing and culvertsfor
the project. And while the cross-sectionswill include photosof both banks,they have never been
considered part of the project photo points per se,but simply a part of the cross section assessments.
Bakerwill show all photo point locationson the CCPV with the as-built report.
5. Section 3.2: Please include a discussion on biological and cultural resources, and summarize any agency
responses.
Response: Appendix!contains the Categorical Exclusion information,which already includes both a 2-
page checklist summary and a 6-page written summary of all agency communications. Baker added a
discussion of the biological and cultural resource investigation from those summaries to Section 3.2
6. Section 4: Since this proposed site is adjacent to forested areas,consideration should be given to the
possible future conversion of that land to agricultural use and/or timbering.The addition of wider buffers
would have been beneficial, especially in upper UT3 and UT1,given the slope of the surrounding forested
property. The potential for adjacent timbering would also be helpful to describe in Section 6.7.
Response: Text was added to Sections 4and 6.7 to specifically acknowledge the potential for upstream
land use changes for agriculture and timbering. It should be noted that the upstream drainage area for

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office: 919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
the project consists of very steep slopes and isn't particularly suited for agriculture(even pasture)though
timbering remains a possibility as noted. The project will certainly help the stream to remain stable from
changes to hydrology caused by timbering(or other development). The restoration includes significant
bank stabilization,improved access to thefloodplain,restored buffers,and numerous in-stream grade
control structures and poolfeatures. Then through the exclusion of livestock from the streams the system
will be allowed to fully stabilize and establish itself,thus providing significant protection against any
potential damage from upstream changes,particularly as compared to the existing conditions.
7. Section 6.1: Please include a map that shows the reference sites in relation to the project site.You can
add these locations to Figure 3 if you prefer.
Response: The UT to Wilkins reference site is now shown on Figure 3,while the other reference reaches
used were located approximately 300ft above and 200ft below UT1 within stable,mature,wooded areas.
8. Reach UT3: Please ensure there is a photo point between stations 19+20 and 20+60 in the area where the
stream becomes braided, as single-channel formation will be a concern.
Response:This area will certainly be monitored with photo points as advised but Baker believes this
section is braided primarily due to the particularly intense cattle activity present here. They appear to
prefer this section as it a relatively flatter area. Once cattle are excluded, Baker is confident the restored
single-thread channel will maintain form.
9. Section 6.2: I appreciate the detail of the existing conditions and proposed approaches.The section
describing UT1-R2 indicates that a few locations along the right bank are vertical and will be sloped and
stabilized. Please indicate the general area of these on Figure 4, Existing Conditions & Features.
Response: The vertical bank sectionsalong UT1-R2 have been added to Figure4as requested.
10. Section 7.1.1:The 30-days of consecutive flow is only applicable to intermittent streams(UT2&UT4).
Since UT3 is perennial, it is expected to have flow throughout the year. I believe the flow gauge on UT3 was
requested to document flow in the area that flattens out (comment#8 above). Additionally, UT4,though a
very short reach,should have some sort of documentation of flow(whether through a gauge,video or
photo) due to its designation as intermittent and the small drainage area. Please revise the performance
standard for Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions.
Response: The location of the flow gauge along UT3 has been adjusted to be installed within the
previously discussed section that flattens out. Additionally,a flowgauge will be installed within UT4to
confirm flow.
11. Section 7.2:The minimum height standard at monitoring year 7 should be 8 feet, excluding the
understory/shrub species.
Response: Revision made as advised.
a. Regarding the statement, "While measuring species densityand 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...." If monitoring suggests that the vegetation is not on
a trajectoryfor success, an adaptive management plan should be submitted that may include the evaluation
of native volunteer species and additional plant community indices.
Response: Text was added to this section to include the potential addition of an adaptive management
plan as described.

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office: 919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
12. Section 7.3:Stream relocation is estimated to impact existing wetlands within the easement.Though it is
anticipated that the total wetland acreage will likely increase as a result of stream restoration,the Corps
must still ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands as a result of ecological restoration. Please plan to
reverify the extent of jurisdiction at the end of the monitoring period to document that wetland acreage was
not lost.Thank you for including this section and the forethought put into it.
Response: We understand the Corps'concern. This section was added to addressthose very issues.
13. Section 7.1.2&Table 8.1: Please note that UT4 is proposed as a C-type channel.
Response: Changes made as requested.
14. Sheet 9: It's unclear on the drawing where existing wetlands are. Please clarify this layer throughout the
plan sheets.Additionally, please confirm that the entirety of the BMP will not be placed in a jurisdictional
feature.
Response: The existing wetland layer boundary has been added to the plan sheets. And to confirm,none
of the BMP itself is being placed within any jurisdictional feature(stream or wetland),though there is a
narrow rock-lined overflow swa le that will go through"23 ft2 of wetland adjacent to the restored stream.
This swale is needed to safely convey the BMP overflow down the fairly steep slope and into the stream.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 6-10, BMP Subsection—A revegetation plan is referenced. Please confirm whether the BMP will be
planted/seeded with species proposed for the larger site planting plan or if additional species are proposed
specifically for this area.Also, please state whether there is an expectation of long-term maintenance for
this BMP design.
Response: The BMP will be held to its own revegetation plan as per the NCDEQ Stormwater Design
Manual's minimum design criteria(MDC) as referenced in the BMP design sub-section description and the
BMP design memo in AppendixA. Newly added Sheet 17 of the plan set shows the revegetation table of
selected species. There is no long-term maintenance expected for this BMP.
2. Page 6-17,Table 6.7—DWR appreciates the diversityof canopy and understory/shrub species proposed.
Since it is a common volunteer species, please remove red maple from the plant list.
Response: As noted above,red maple has been removed from the planting list. Baker understandsthis
DWR comment to imply that any red maple volunteers will be accepted for counting towards closeout
density numbers.
3. Page 7-3,Section 7.2
a.The mountain counties tree vigor performance standard applies to this site,so the average tree height in
Year 7 should be 8 feet. Response: Correction made as noted.
b. Please confirm that only native herbaceous species will be seeded/planted within the conservation
easement. Response:Yes, Baker confirms that only native herbaceous species will be seeded within the
easement as part of the permanent seed mixture(see Table 6.8 for details). The text was slightly revised
to make that more clear.
4. Page 8-1,Table 8.1
a. Please note that bankfull events are to occur in separate years.
b. Please include the vegetation vigor performance standard.
Response: Both corrections made as noted.

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office: 919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
5. Page 8-2,Table 8.2—DWR requires that at minimum a photo point be included along UT4 to document
that channel features are maintained. DWR may request a gauge or cross section be added during
monitoring in order to support restoration credit if we observe evidence of instability or characteristics
trending towards a wetland feature.
Response: Baker will certainly include photo points of this short reach and will look for any indications of
instability throughout the monitoring period.
6. Figure 11 —DWR is concerned with the number of mature black walnut proposed to remain within the
300-ft Enhancement II section of UT1 Reach 2. Given that vegetative success is a significant component for
Ell credit, DWR requires an additional veg plot in this area to document density,vigor, diversity standards
are met within the vicinity of the black walnuts.
Response: Based on the level of concern expressed regardingthe black walnut in this location from
various groups, Baker has elected to remove these fewtrees and plant the UT1-R2 buffer fresh.
7. Sheet 1-A—Was the "WLB"wetland jurisdictional boundary line show on the plan sheets? If so, please
make more visible. If not, please add.
Response: WLB wetland boundary line has been added to the plans.
8. Sheet 2B— Is this Rock Dam being proposed as a permanent structure(different from the Temporary Rock
Damon Sheet EC-2)?
Response: The Rock Dam drawing shown was erroneously included on Sheet 2B and is not being installed
as a permanent structure and has been removed. It was an accidental repeat of the Temporary Rock Dam
shown on Sheet EC-2as part of the Erosion Controlstructures.
9. Sheet 2E— Please include a detail for the proposed stormwater BMP.
Response: A newdetail found on Sheet 17 has been addedforthe stormwater BMP.
10. Sheet 3 —No. 15 notes no roughening of any areas not excavated. Please confirm that any disturbed
areas compacted during construction or previously used as farm roads will be de-compacted before seeding
and planting.
Response: Yes, Baker confirms we will loosen or rip/disk the soil prior to placing out seed and straw in all
areas impacted during construction to include compacted vehicle paths,old farm roads,etc.,not just
those areas directed graded or excavated.
11. Sheet 4 —DWR appreciates the inclusion of notes relating to invasive treatment and topsoil application.
Please confirm the minimum topsoil layer depth as either 8 inches or 6 inches (Sheet 1-A#7).
Response: The note has been revised to showa consistent 8 inch topsoil depth.
12. Sheet 5 —Does the culvert under the adjacent gravel road extend into the conservation easement? If so,
the landowner needs to be aware that maintenance coordination with DEO Stewardship may be required.
Response: Yes,the end of the culvert extends approximately 5feet into the easement. The landowner
will be made aware of the need for coordination with DEQ Stewardship prior to any maintenance work.
13. Sheets 4 &5— Please show/callout all proposed stream enhancement construction work areas, including
bank grading, along UT1 Reach 2 and UT2.
Response: Forthesetwo reaches,Sheets4and 5 of the plans set have had the existing conditions tops-of-
banks line identified with a label. This should more readily illustrate the location and degree of bank

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office: 919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
work to be performed on these sectionsth rough their easy comparison with the proposed design
channels.
14. Sheet 6 —Please confirm that no structures or bank treatments are proposed for UT4 and that the
restoration reach has been designed for long-term stability as shown on the plan sheet.As noted in the
above comment, design sheets should show all proposed work. The Mitigation Plan Table 3.1 identifies this
reach as a Cb stream classification, correct?
Response: While no structures are proposed for UT4,a completely newchannel and alignment is being
constructed for this"40ft long reach as shown on the plan sheets. The newchannel dimensions are
based on regional curve information and are certainly being designed for long-term stability. And yes,the
new channel is considered to be a Cb-type,though admittedly it is so short that it is somewhat more
difficult to conclusively define as compared to the other reaches. But as UT4flows onto the floodplain of
UT3 prior to their confluence,it will not be particularly entrenched(a defining difference between B and C
types)and thus the C-type designation. Further upstream out of the easement,the reach does have
characteristics closer to a B-type.
15. Sheets 4-8& 11—No existing channel fill or channel plugs are shown on these plan sheets. Please
confirm that all the associated stream reaches will be restored/enhanced completely in-place.
Response: That is correct,stream reaches will be restored in place and there is no channel fill or plugs
being proposed.
16. Sheets 17-19—The planting plan shows the entire conservation easement area will be seeded, mulched
and planted with lives stakes or bare root trees.The Mitigation Plan Table 3.1 indicates that 7.3 acres of the
8.26 easement with be planted and Page 7-2 notes that plots won't be placed in undisturbed wooded areas
onsite. Please make a distinction on the planting plan or a separate figure of areas to be fully planted,
partially planted (understory), and not planted.
Response: The planting plan is correct-the entire site is to be fully planted as shown. But of course the
streams themselves will not be planted between their tops of banks and when those open water areas are
removed from the conservation easement area you arrive at a final 7.3 acre planted area. The statement
on Page 7-2 is part of our general description of planting practices.
17. DWR appreciates efforts made to enhance the proposed project, including additional fencing of the
upper UT4, installing and fencing a BMPon UT3,collating of the utility and farm access crossing,and
additional non-credit work to stabilize stream sections within road/utility ROWs.
Response: Thank you for the positive feedback!
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding our response submittal.
Sincerely,
,f4A-
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Project Manager

UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Stream Mitigation Plan — Final
Haywood County,North Carolina
French Broad River Basin: 06010106
DMS Project ID No. 100068, DEQ ContractNo. 7535, DMS RFP#16-007335
(Issued: 9/8/2017),USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01171,DWR#20181034
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)
217 West Jones St. —Suite 3000A
Raleigh,NC 27603
Prepared by:
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
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).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July
28, 2010.
These documents governNCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
April 2021
MICHAEL BAKER ENGI NEERI NG,INC. PAGE II
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION 2-1
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 3-1
3.1 WATERSHED PROCESSES AND RESOURCE CONDITIONS 3-2
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics 3-2
3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover,Impacts,Historic, Current and Future 3-5
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response 3-6
3.2 REGULATORY REVIEW 3-7
3.2.1 Categorical Exclusion 3-7
3.2.2 FEMA Regulated Floodplain Compliance 3-8
3.2.3 Section 404/401 Permitting 3-8
4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL 4-1
4.1 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS 4-1
4.2 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT SUMMARY 4-2
5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 5-1
6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN 6-1
6.1 PROJECT DESIGN APPROACH 6-1
6.2 DESIGN MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS 6-2
6.3 DESIGN DISCHARGE ANALYSIS 6-11
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage Discharge 6-11
6.3.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships(Regional Curve Predictions) 6-11
6.3.3 Bankfull Discharge Summary 6-12
6.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS 6-12
6.4.1 Sediment Competency Analysis 6-13
6.5 VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN 6-15
6.5.1 Existing Vegetation and Plant Community Characterization 6-15
6.5.2 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings 6-15
6.6 PROJECT WORK PLAN 6-18
6.7 PROJECT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES 6-18
7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 7-1
7.1 STREAM MONITORING 7-1
7.1.1 Bankfull Events andFloo ding Functions 7-1
7.1.2 Cross Sections 7-1
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile and Pattern 7-2
7.1.4 Visual Assessment 7-2
7.2 VEGETATION MONITORING 7-2
7.3 WETLAND MONITORING 7-3
7.4 STORMWATER BMP MONITORING 7-4
8.0 MONITORING PLAN 8-1
9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 9-1
10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN 10-1
11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS 11-1
12.0 REFERENCES 12-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE III
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FIGURES,PHOTOS,AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
APPENDIX B: SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX C: CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
APPENDIX D: FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
APPENDIX E: MAINTENANCE PLAN
APPENDIX F: DWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS
APPENDIX G: NC-SAM AND NC-WAM ASSESSMENT FORMS
APPENDIX H: APPROVED JD AND WETLAND FORMS
APPENDIX I: APPROVED FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORMS
APPENDIX J: CORRESPONDENCE MEMOS
APPENDIX K: PLAN SHEETS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGI NEERI NG,INC. PAGE IV
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MII1GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
Table 3.2 Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Table 3.3 Summary of Field Investigations on Jurisdictional Wetlands
Table 3.4 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
Table 3.5 Federally Listed Species
Table 5.1 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
Tables 6.1 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
Tables 6.2a-c Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Table 6.3 NC Rural Regional Curve Equations
Table 6.4 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Table 6.5 Bankfull Discharge and Velocity Analysis Summary
Table 6.6 Sediment Competence Analysis
Table 6.7 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
Table 6.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
Table 11.1 Project Assets and Components
Table 11.2 Project Credits
Table B.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
Table C.1 Stream Credit Release Schedule
Table E.1 Routine Maintenance Components
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE V
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MII1GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Map
Figure 3. Adjacent and Proximal Planning Elements Map
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Features Map
Figure 5. Geologic Features Map
Figure 6. Drainage Area and Land Use Map
Figure 7. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 8. FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 9A. Historical Aerial Image— 1956
Figure 9B. Historical Aerial Image— 1995
Figure 10. LiDAR Map
Figure 11. Proposed Monitoring Features
Figure 12. Project Asset and Credit Map
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE VI
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MII1GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project(project)is located on two adjacent parcels of an active
cattle farm in Haywood County, North Carolina, halfway between the unincorporated communities of
Crabtree and Fines Creek as shown on the Project Vicinity Map(Figure 1). The project site entrance is 5.9
miles down Route 209 on the right at 9503 Rush Fork Road. Coordinates for the approximate center of the
project are 35.644607 N Latitude, -82.940170 W Longitude.
The proj ect area lies within the French Broad River Basin,Hydrologic Unit Code(HUC)06010106-020010
(named the Pigeon River/Crabtree Creek Watershed), which is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in the NC Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS) 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) report. The project is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Region, within the
Southern Crystalline and Mountains Level IV ecoregion. The project watershed drains into Rush Fork
Creek approximately 700 linear feet (LF)below the project property. Rush Fork flows for approximately
2.8 miles to its confluence with Crabtree Creek which continues for approximately 0.7 miles where it flows
into the Pigeon River. All of these tributaries and streams are designated as Class C waters by the DWR
surface water classification.
The project will restore 2,865.36 LF and enhance an additional 1,185.64 LF of stream along 7 reaches.
Additionally, approximately 0.996 acres of adjacent riparian wetlands will be enhanced and protected
within the conservation easement.
Historic and current agricultural use on the project site has predominantly been livestock pasture. These
activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the project stream
reaches. The resulting observed stressors include streambank erosion,sedimentation,excess nutrient input,
channel modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.
To address the observed stressors,the goals of this project include:
• Reconnect stream reaches to their floodplains,
• Improve stream stability,
• Improve aquatic habitat,
• Reestablish forested riparian buffers, and
• Permanently protect the project in a conservation easement.
The project is anticipated to generate a total of 3,533.610 cold-water stream mitigation credits(contracted
for 3,000), and the site will be protected by an 8.26 acre permanent conservation easement(Appendix B).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGI NEERI NG,INC. PAGE 1-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The UT to Rush Fork Stream project is located in Haywood County within the Pigeon River/Crabtree Creek
subwatershed (06010106-020010) of the French Broad River Basin (Figure 1), which is identified as a TLW in
DMS' 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report. The report states that this
subwatershed has the highest proportion of agricultural land within the larger Pigeon River drainage area, and
notably only has 44% of its stream length adequately buffered. The resulting water quality impacts include high
nutrient levels, which have impacted the biological community as demonstrated by a reported lack of sensitive
species. The RBRP outlines four primary watershed restoration goals to address the water quality stressors and
habitat degradation affecting the basin. The UT to Rush Fork project will directly or indirectly address two of these
stated goals: to implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients by
restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring natural geomorphology,
especially in headwater streams; and to restore and protect habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish
species in the basin. Furthermore,the RBRP also lists an additional goal specific to the Pidgeon River watershed:
to work with the Haywood Waterways Association to implement their restoration priorities.
The NC Division of Water Resources' (formerly Division of Water Quality)2011 French Broad River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan(DWR 2011)lists six major stressors affecting watershed functions in the basin, and the UT to
Rush Fork project will directly address three of those stressors: pathogens, turbidity, and habitat degradation.
Additionally, the Haywood Waterways Association's 2002 Watershed Action Plan for the Pigeon River Watershed
(updated in 2014)identified sediment as a primary stressor to the Pigeon River, with eroding streambanks as one
of the maj or contributing sediment sources.The action plan also identifies nutrient and sediment loading as a notable
problem for Rush Fork Creek, and specifically highlights the need to improve cattle pasture management and to
reduce the number of animal access points to Rush Fork to help address the water quality issues in the watershed.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission(WRC)2015 Wildlife Action Plan(WRC 2015)identifies the project as
being located within a Tier 2 Priority watershed for wildlife conservation. It notes that are 26 Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (SGCN) in the basin including 2 amphibian species, 1 crayfish, 19 freshwater fishes, and 4
freshwater mussel species. The report also makes several management practice recommendations for the basin,
which includes the conservation and restoration of streams and riparian zones in priority areas. It also encourages
working with conservation programs and partnerships, and specifically mentions the Haywood Waterways
Association.
In addition, the protection and restoration of the UT to Rush Fork site will assist in providing a geographical
connection with surrounding conservation features such as the Raven Cliff and Crabtree Bald Natural Areas, the
Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservation Easements and Preserves,the Pisgah National Forest,and the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park(Figure 3).
Thus, the UT to Rush Fork project will directly and/or indirectly address several of the priority stressors identified
in the watershed planning documents discussed above, through the implementation of many of their recommended
management practices, and will permanently protect the entire project area within a conservation easement.
Therefore, the proposed project location and restoration approaches align well with the overall goals and
implementation needs outlined by DMS.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 2-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project is located along Route 209 halfway between the
unincorporated communities of Crabtree and Fines Creek in Haywood County,North Carolina, within the
French Broad River Basin. The following sections will describe the existing conditions found on the project
and include a description and history of the surrounding landscape and overall watershed land use and
conditions, as well as a discussion of the specific environmental impacts and responses they have produced
on the project.
Table 3.1 below provides a summary of the key project attributes and individual reach parameters for the
existing conditions on site. Existing stream lengths listed below include any piped stream length.
Table 3.1.Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDM S Project No.100068
Project Information
Project Name UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County Haywood
Project Area within Easement(acres) 8.26
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 3 5.644607 N,-82.940170W
Planted Acreage(woody stems to be planted) 7.3
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Blue Ridge
River Basin French Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 06010106 UCGS Hydrologic Unit 14- 06010106-020010
dit
DWR Sub-basin 04-03-05
Project Drainage Area(acres) 308 acres/0.48 square miles(at downstream endofUT1)
Project Stream Thermal Regime Cold
Project Drainage Area Percentage of o
Impervious Area 0.18/o impervious area
CGIALandUse Classification' 79.8%forested,17.1%hay/pasture,and2.9%developed(open
space).
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4
Existing length of reach in CE(linear feet) 2,464 99 1,618 18
Valley confinement(Confined,moderately Moderately Moderately
confined,unconfined) Confined Unconfined Confined Unconfined
Drainage area(acres) 308 24 98 27
Perennial,Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C
Stream Classification(existing) B4a B A to B4 B
Stream Classification(proposed) B4a B A to B4 Cb
IV IV—
Evolutionary trend(Simon) Degradation III— Degradation III—
and Widening Degrading and Degrading
Widening
FEMA classification Zone X Zone X Zone X Zone X
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes No PCN
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes No PCN
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion
CoastalZoneManagementAct(CZMAor No N/A N/A
CAMA)
FEMA Flo odplain Compliance No N/A N/A
EssentialFisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
i Source:USGS National Land Cover Database(NLCD)for 2016
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project(project)is located on an active cattle farm in Haywood
County within the Pigeon River/Crabtree Creek Watershed of the French Broad River Basin. The project
is situated in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Region, within the EPA's Level IV Ecoregion 66d: Southern
Crystalline and Mountains ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2002). This ecoregion is composed of low to high
mountains with gently rounded to steep slopes, and narrow valleys with high gradient bedrock and boulder-
bottomed cool, clear streams. This region has greater relief and higher elevations than many of the other
Blue Ridge systems, with elevations ranging between 1,200-4,500 feet(this project site is located at—3,000
feet). The region consists of mostly Mesic and Udic moisture regimes with annual averages of 45-60 inches
of precipitation and 145-180 frost-free days,though the project is also located in the northern portion of
this region which is typically warmer and drier than the southern portion. The region is generally composed
of vegetation typical of an Appalachian oak forest and is primarily covered by well-drained, acidic, loamy
soils.
Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
Field evaluations for the presence of jurisdictional features on the project were conducted on November 20
and December 19, 2017;August 14 and 15, 2018; and April 11, 2019; and included the determination of
stream intermittent/perennial status, wetland delineations, and both stream and wetland qualitative
assessments. These evaluations were based on the NCDWR Methodology for Identification of Intermittent
and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (v 4.11, 2010), the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (v2.0, April 2012), the NC Stream Assessment
Methodology (2015), and the NC Wetland Assessment Methodology (2016). Results from these field
reviews indicate that there are approximately 4,200 linear feet of jurisdictional stream and approximately
0.966 acres of jurisdictional wetlands located within the proposed project boundary (Figure 4). Tables 3.2
and 3.3 below present the summary findings of the stream and wetland classifications and assessment
ratings. These field assessments were subsequently confirmed by USACE in the Preliminary JD received
on May 1, 2019. Copies of the all the completed assessment forms and PJD confirmation can be found in
Appendices F, G, and H.
Project Reaches UT1 and UT4 are denoted as solid "blue-line"streams on the USGS Topographic Map
(Fines Creek Quadrangle, Figure 2), and UT3 is shown as a stream on historic soil surveys (see Appendix
A) and the USGS StreamStats website. An additional tributary UT2 was identified in the field flowing into
the upper section of UT1. DWR stream forms were completed for all stream reaches in the project area,
and all sections of UT1 and UT3 were identified as perennial systems, while the remaining were
intermittent.
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-2
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Reaches UT1, UT3, and UT4 have been straightened, ditched and dredged in the past for agricultural use
and currently have access by livestock. As a result, they are incised and have long sections of eroding
banks,with excess sediment deposition present in portions of the bed(with filled pools and clogged riffles),
and a noted overall lack of good riffle-pool morphology. Reach UT2 has access by livestock and has cut
down as a result of having its receiving stream(UT1)incised. Additionally,all the reaches lack appropriate
riparian buffers, with either absent or very narrow buffers consisting predominantly of invasive Chinese
privet(Ligustrum sinense) along the majority of the banks. Thus, given the level of degradation observed,
all reaches rated as 'Low' in the NC-SAM assessment.
Thirteen separate wetland areas were also found scattered throughout the project floodplain and headwater
drainage areas totaling 1.288 acres(10 areas found within the easement totaling 0.996 acres). They all are
classified as either headwater forest or bottomland hardwood forest in the NC-WAM methodology,though
they have all been almost entirely cleared for agricultural use as pasture, with current livestock access to
each one. Due to this clearing,they generally classify as emergent wetlands in the Cowardin system. The
majority of the wetlands have also been hydrologically impacted by the incision of the adjacent stream.
Thus, given the significant level of degradation observed in the wetlands, they all rated as 'Low' in the NC-
WAM assessment. Further information and discussion of the project's jurisdictional features can be found
in Section 3.2.3.
Table 3.2. Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDM S Project No.100068
Project Reach Existing Project NCDWR Stream NC-SAM Watershed Drainage Stream
Designation Reach Length(ft)1 Classification Score Rating Area(acres)2 Status
UT1 2,464 37.0 Low 308 Perennial
UT2 99 24.5 Low 24 Intermittent
UT3 1,618 30.5 Low 98 Perennial
UT4 18 24.25 Low 27 Intermittent
Notes: 1Existing Reach length within the Conservation Easement, 2 Watershed drainage area was estimated using the online USGS
StreamStats program,as well as topographic and LiDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
Table 3.3. Summary of Field Investigations on Jurisdictional Wetlands
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDM S Project No.100068
Existing Wetland Area Classification
Project Wetland Within
Designation Total(ac) Conservation NC-WAM Classification NC-WAM Cowardin
Easement(ac) Rating
W-A 0.020 0.020 Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-B 0.009 0.009 Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-C 0.242 0.158 Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-D 0.011 0.011 BottomlandHardwoodForest Low PEM1
W-E 0.308 0.308 BottomlandHardwoodForest Low PEM1
W-F 0.050 - Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-G 0.393 0.313 Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-H 0.008 - Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-I 0.023 0.023 Headwater Forest Low PSS1
W-J 0.075 0.067 Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-K 0.033 - Headwater Forest Low PEM1
W-L 0.069 0.040 BottomlandHardwoodForest Low PEM1B
W-M 0.047 0.047 BottomlandHardwoodForest Low PEM1B
1.288 0.996
Climatic Conditions
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-3
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM M Ill GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

The Waynesville 1E,NC weather station in Haywood County is located approximately 11 miles south
of the proj ect site. As reported in the AgACIS(Agricultural Applied Climate Information System)data
generated for this station, the WETS table (Appendix A) lists the average annual rainfall for the
surrounding area as 50.24 inches, based on data collected from 1989-2019 as shown below in Table
3.4 along with the monthly historic averages. This station will be used to determine departures from
normal rainfall amounts throughout the project. The WETS table also reports the growing season for
the site as 190 days in length beginning on April 15 and ending on October 22, using the 50%
probability data for a temperature of 28° F or higher(http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=37087).
Table 3.4. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project-NCDM S Project No.100068
Waynesville 1E Station 30%Probability 30%Probability
Month Average Monthly Precipitation is less Precipitation is more
Precipitation(in) than(in) than(in)
January 4.67 3.39 5.5
February 4.36 3.1 5.17
March 4.55 3.42 5.31
April 4.34 3.23 5.08
May 4.19 3.09 4.92
June 4.28 3.14 5.03
July 4.12 2.89 4.9
August 4.2 2.92 4.99
September 4.22 2.56 5.11
October 2.95 1.46 3.60
November 3.63 2.52 4.32
December 4.74 3.52 5.55
Total 50.24
Annual Averages 45.09 54.59
Geology and Soils
Geologically,the Rush Fork Site lies within the Blue Ridge Belt, consisting of the sedimentary and
metamorphic rock group in the biotite gneiss formation(see Figure 5). Described as migmatitic, it is
interlayered and gradational with biotite-garnet gneiss and amphibolite, and with locally abundant
quartz and alumino-silicates. The stratigraphic position of the formation is uncertain, as its complex
mixture of rocks has been repeatedly squeezed, fractured,faulted,deformed,and twisted into folds ova
its one to one-half billion-year geologic history. (NSGS, 1985).
The project site is located with the Low and Intermediate Mountain Soil System of the Mountain Soil
Region of North Carolina(Daniels et al., 1999), consisting primarily of residium and colluvium of the
underlying metamorphic parent material. Topographically,these lower elevation mountain systems
commonly have low rounded ridges, moderate to steep valley slopes, and fairly narrow river terraces
and wet floodplains. The specific elevation and the aspect/exposure for a given area strongly influence
soil development and properties in this system. Yet as compared with higher-elevation mountain
systems,the soils found here typically have a thinner A-horizon,with stronger structural developmcnt,
redder color, and a higher clay content in the B-horizon. Springs and seeps are also commonly found
in the colluvial materials of these systems.
The specific soils found on the Rush Fork project site (Figure 7) are entirely dominated by Saunook
loams, both with 8-15%slopes throughout the bulk of the floodplain,and with 15-30%slopes found in
the upstream/upslope portions of the proposed reaches. Saunook loams are stony, but generally very
deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils typically found on benches, fans, and toe slopes in
coves and valleys of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Their formal taxonomic classification is: fine-loamy,
mixed,superactive,mesic Humic Hapludults. They form from colluvium derived from weathered felsic
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-4
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

to mafic materials, from both igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Slopes range widely from
2%to 60%, while their typical mean annual temperature is 53 degrees and mean annual precipitation
is 55 inches. While Saunook loam soils are not listed by the NRCS as being hydric, there are clear
pockets of hydric soils and wetlands found in the riparian areas throughout the project site.
Topography
The general topography within the project's 0.48 square mile drainage area is typical of this portion of
Blue Ridge region. The surrounding terrain is rugged with steep hills and ridges overlooking narrow
stream valleys. The average elevation of the drainage area is 3,360 feet, with a minimum elevation of
2,900 feet and a maximum elevation of 4,290 feet. The topography of the project site itself and its
immediate surrounding area is very similar, with adjacent moderate to steeply sloped hills overlooking
the project streams and floodplain. The project valley slopes vary for each of the two major project
reaches. The valley for UT1 is steep with a 5.7%slope, while the UT3 valley is even steeper with a
7.5%slope. The project area within the easement has a high-point elevation of 3,088 feet and a low-
point elevation of 2,912 feet. Figures 2 and 10 depict the topography for the project site and immediate
surrounding area.
Existing Vegetation:
Vegetation on the project site itself has been heavily disturbed fromyears of use in agriculture,currently
cattle pasture, but also from historic orchard groves. Currently the site is predominantly managed as
pasture for livestock and the buffer of the project streams largely consists of a range of typical pasture
grasses (fescues and clovers)with scattered weeds and other common herbaceous species present such
as docks (Rumex spp.), wild geranium (Geranium carolinianum), common violet (Viola sororia),
buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), thistle (Cirsium vulgare), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), horsenettle
(Solanum carolinense), plantains (Plantago spp.), and dandelions (Taraxacum officiniale), with soft
rush(Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.), and jewelweed(Impatiens capensis)found in wetter areas.
A very narrow buffer of scattered trees and shrubs is only present along small portions of the project
reaches,mostly notable along the upper section of UT1 and UT3. The trees consist primarily of Chinese
privet(Ligustrum sinense), with a few black walnut (Juglans nigra), black cherry(Prunus serotina),
and tulip poplar(Liriodendron tulipifera)also present. A few remnant apple trees(Malus sp.) are also
present on upper UT3. Thinly scattered shrubs present include multi-flora rose(Rosa multiflora),and
blackberry (Rubus spp.).
Notable invasive species found on the site include Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense)and multi-flora
rose(Rosa multiflora), which are found scattered within the project buffer as described above.
3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover,Impacts,Historic,Current and Future
Relevant land use / land cover and their impacts were investigated for the project and surrounding
watershed through landowner discussions, a review of historic aerial photographs, GIS analysis using
historic datasets, and field reconnaissance.
Based on landowner conversations,historic agricultural uses on the project site itself has included the
current cattle pasture as well as orchard groves in the past. These activities have negatively impacted
both water quality and streambank stability along the project streams and their tributaries. The resulting
stressors include excess nutrient input, streambank erosion and sedimentation, channel modification,
and the loss of riparian buffers.
The USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2016 shows that the entire 0.48 square mile
(308 acres) project drainage area was 79.8%forested, 17.1%hay/pasture, and 2.9%developed(open
space), with 0.18%impervious surface. For comparison,the 2009 French Broad RBRP describes the
overall Pigeon River/ Crabtree Creek watershed (35 square miles) as being somewhat similar with
approximately 64%forested area, 30% in total agriculture, and 6% developed. Thus, it appears that
the greater watershed is slightly less forested and has more agricultural use.
Historic aerial photographs from 1956 and 1995 were reviewed for the project and its surrounding area
(Figures 9A and 9B). The 1956 aerial reveals that the project area itself was once entirely cleared,
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-5
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

along with much of the immediately adjacent watershed drainage area.Large open areas of what appear
to be pasture are present throughout these cleared portions. The project stream channels can also be
faintly seen, more or less in their current locations, with the same lack of sinuosity and apparent
relocation(and likely dredging/channelization). The 1995 aerial reveals significant reforestation within
large portions of the previously observed clearings in the adjacent watershed drainage area,though the
project area itself remains almost entirely cleared, with only short,narrow sections of buffer consisting
of scattered vegetation observed in a few locations. The location and pattern of the channels also
remains the same as they are clearly identifiable here as very straight with virtually no sinuosity
observed.
By comparison,the most recent aerial from 2019 shows a landscape quite similar to the 1995 aerial.
The project site itself remains cleared with only short sections of narrow buffer present. The adjacent
watershed is slightly more reforested than in 1995,particularly in the upper drainage areas to both UT2
and UT4. And while the watershed to the north and east of the project have significantly reforested
since the 1956 aerial, an extensive network of trails or paths are clearly evident throughout this hilly
area in the 2019 aerial. They are likely the logging roads used in timbering activities. Overall, the
historic aerial assessment reveals that the project area itself appears to have been highly impacted since
at least 1956 with relocated, straightened channels with cleared buffers used for pasture. The larger
project watershed area has reforested to a significant degree from the earlier observed clearing,but the
area remains virtually undeveloped and has remained in either agriculture or forested land.
Thus, the history of the land use and land cover of the site and surrounding watershed indicates that
significant impacts to water quality have occurred, certainly resulting in increases in erosion,
sedimentation, and nutrient inputs to the streams, and decreases in stream and riparian habitat and
function.
Currently,the project site is used as livestock pasture, and livestock have unrestricted access to all
reaches: UT1-R1 (40%), UT1-R2, UT1-R3, UT1-R4, UT2, UT3,and UT4. While UT1-R1 is currently
impacted by livestock on 40%of this reach, it has historically had direct livestock impacts throughout.
The upstream extent of UT1 begins at the transition from forested land to historical livestock pasture
and there is an old crossing near this area that will be reconstructed as part of the restoration project.
An overhead utility line crosses both UT3 and UT1 upstream of their confluence. A new stream
crossing is proposed on UT3 at the location of the utility line crossing to replace an existing ford further
downstream. Downstream of the confluence of UT3 and UT1, the stream passes through a 60-inch
culvert under Route 209. Further downstream, a 24-inch culvert allowed passage across the stream
below Route 209; however, this culvert was washed out during flooding in early 2020. This culvert
will be replaced but located upstream of the easement.
The future for the project watershed will likely remain undeveloped and rural in nature with large
amounts of forested cover within a general agricultural and silvicultural landscape.
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response
The watershed disturbances are described above and include the relocation and straightening/
channelization of proj ect reaches,the removal of forested buffers,livestock impacts,and the installation
of culverts. The project reaches have been heavily impacted from these modifications and historic land
use practices, predominantly livestock production. The overwhelming majority of reaches have been
cleared for pasture and have inadequate, poorly functioning riparian buffers consisting of short,narrow
sections of woody vegetation, with a noted lack of deeply rooted vegetation on stream banks. And
those few sections of woody vegetation that are present are generally quite sparse and are dominated
by invasive species. Figure 4 shows the most recent aerial photography with clearly absent and/or
narrow riparian buffers.
The reaches have responded to these disturbances by becoming incised,though the upstream portions
of the reaches are generally not as incised as the downstream ends. Large sections of the reaches are
laterally eroding, as streambanks are mostly vertical with large areas of scour and some mass wasting,
all of which is exacerbated by hoof shear from livestock. The lack of protective woody and deep rooting
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-6
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

vegetation along the project reaches have also contributed to accelerated bank erosion and migration.
The channel incision and associated decrease in overbank flooding frequency has also likely resulted
in a lowered water table in the adjacent floodplain. Thus, the cumulative effects of the watershed
disturbance have severely impacted the functioning of the project reaches and buffers.
3.2 Regulatory Review
3.2.1 Categorical Exclusion
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA)requires agencies to use an interdisciplinary
approach in planning and decision-making for actions that will have an impact on the environment.The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have
determined that DMS projects will not involve significant impacts and therefore a Categorical
Exclusion(Cat-Ex)is the appropriate type of environmental document for this project.FHWA has also
determined that stream restoration projects are considered land disturbing activities;therefore, Parts 2
and 3 of the DMS Cat-Ex checklist and a summary of the findings applicable to the environmental
regulations associated for this project are included.
The Cat-Ex for the UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project was approved by FHWA and NCDMS on
August 17, 2018. The Cat-Ex summarized impacts to natural, cultural, and historical resources and
documented coordination with all stakeholders and federal and state agencies. All documentation for
the Cat-Ex is included in Appendix I, including a summary of all communications. Below is an
additional summary specific to the biological and cultural resources investigation for the project.
Biological Resources
Baker conducted an on-line review of the project area with the use of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service(USFWS)IPAC website(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/),on May 21, 2018. This review generated
an Official Species List (OSL), which identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate
species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that could be affected by the proposed
project. Results from the review found the following nine federally listed species. No USFWS
designated critical habitats were located within the project boundaries.
Table 3.5. Federally Listed Species
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project-NCDM S Project No.100068
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina Northern Flying No No Effect
coloratus Squirrel
Myotis grisescens Gray Bat E No No Effect
Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat E No No Effect
Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat T No No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian Elktoe E No No Effect
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir Moss Spider E No No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia T Yes No Effect
Geum radiatum Spreading Avens E No No Effect
Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen E No No Effect
Baker also conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP) Data
Explorer(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018. Results from this search found no known
occurrences of any of the above referenced species within two miles of the project site. Based on our
review, subsequent field surveys, USFWS and FHWA consultation, Baker reached the Biological
Conclusion of'No Effect' for the above referenced species.
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-7
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Cultural Resources
Baker also requested a review and comment from the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO) and
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' Tribal Historic Preservation Office (EBCI THPO) on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to architectural,archaeological,and/or cultural resources
from the restoration project on June 1, 2018. On June 28, 2018, Baker received a letter from EBCI
THPO with the finding that no cultural resources important to the Cherokee people should be adversely
impacted by the proposed proj ect. On July 3,2018,Baker received aresponse letter from SHPO finding
that no historic resources would be affected by the project. All correspondence on this issue is included
in the Appendix.
3.2.2 FEMA Regulated Floodplain Compliance
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation project is in FEMA Zone X as noted on the Haywood County
Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels 3700872100J and 3700873100J(Figure 8). The topography of the
site and location in the upper watershed supports the design without creating the potential for
hydrologic trespass.
3.2.3 Section 404/401 Permitting
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the
United States in accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990,the Clean Water Act, and
subsequent federal regulations and guidance. In fulfillment of the proj ect's Section 404/401 permitting
requirement, a Pre-Construction Notification(PCN)will be submitted for a Nationwide Permit(NWP)
27: Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement,and Establishment Activities. As discussed previously
in Section 3.1.1, the project area was evaluated in the field for the presence of these resource features
on November 20 and December 19, 2017;August 14 and 15,2018; and April 11, 2019. The evaluation
confirmed the presence of five jurisdictional streams and thirteen jurisdictional wetlands,ten of which
are at least partially located within the conservation easement. These results were subsequently
confirmed in the field by the USACE and a PJD was received on May 1, 2019(Appendix H).
The proposed mitigation design will avoid or minimize all disturbance or impacts to the existing stream
and wetland features during project construction wherever practicable. Due to the inherent nature of
the project, a complete avoidance of all impacts to jurisdictional features is not possible. However, any
impacts to stream or wetland resources from construction(both temporary and permanent)will be more
than offset by the ultimate restoration and/or enhancement of stream and wetland resources both in their
overall length or area and in the resource functional uplift. Though no wetland credits are being sought
for this project, the existing wetlands will be enhanced through the restoration of a more natural
flooding regime, by raising their water table, and by planting native wetland vegetation. All existing
streams are currently rated as 'Low' in NC-SAM, and all existing wetlands are rated as 'Low' in NC-
WAM. Ultimately,the project will restore resource function such that all features will be rated higher
than their current respective assessments. Approximately 0.25 acres of fringe wetlands located
alongside the stream banks are currently anticipated to be impacted from construction activities, almost
entirely through necessary bank sloping measures. A copy of the Pre-Construction Notification(PCN)
will be provided with the Final Mitigation Plan, which will include figures detailing the areas of
temporary and permanent impacts.
MICHAEL BAKERENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 3-8
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
Current stream and watershed conditions within the project site as well as throughout the Rush Fork Creek
watershed described in previous sections allow for functional improvements at this site. Channel incision,
removal of riparian buffer, and livestock impacts are the predominant impairments within the project reaches,
and have contributed to the overall degradation of the local ecosystem due to a lack of floodplain connectivity,
minimal bedform variation,poorly functioning riparian buffers,and high amounts of sediment inputs from bank
erosion.
The uplift for these project reaches will primarily be achieved at the hydraulic and geomorphological functional
levels. Hydraulic improvements will come from the reintroduction of bankfull flows to the historic floodplain
through a Priority 1 Restoration of UT3 and UT1-R4. This approach will elevate the stream beds and add an
appropriate meandering sinuosity to the channels. It will also reestablish floodplain connectivity, which will
return a hydraulic routing regime allowing flood stages to access a broader flood prone area more frequently
distributing flood flows instead of containing within a confined channel. This should also raise the adjacent
groundwater table, which will improve the hydrology of the adjacent pockets of existing wetlands found
alongside project streams.
Geomorphological functional uplift will be achieved through channels sized to the bankfull flow, a planform
and profile design emphasizing improved bedform variation with high amounts of woody debris for bank
protection and habitat, and the reestablishment of a forested riparian corridor. As a result, bank migration and
lateral stability will be restored to a sustainable level and the banks and bed will accommodate design flows in
a stable manner. Sediment inputs will decrease due to reduced bank erosion and sediment transport can return
to a stable level that will accommodate watershed inputs. Riparian plantings will further support
geomorphological functionality by increasing bank stability.
Consideration of future impacts to the area that could limit functional uplift opportunities is important when
assessing project potential. As mentioned in previous sections, the project exists within a predominantly rural
area where agriculture and silviculture are the primary land uses. Substantial changes to the surrounding area
are not expected, with the exception of potential periodic timbering activity in the upper watershed drainage
area. This upstream area consists of steep slopes unsuited for agriculture(even pasture) and land conversion to
this use is considered unlikely. The watershed is also not likely to experience any increase in development in
the future based on previous land use changes over time, and the area is almost certain to remain predominately
rural. Therefore,the hydrology of the site will likely remain relatively unchanged as well, though the potential
for temporary changes to hydrology do exist if significant timbering occurs in the watershed. However,the
restoration effort will allow the stream to remain stable during any such temporary change,as the project work
includes significant bank stabilization, improved access to the floodplain, restored buffers, and numerous in-
stream grade control structures.
4.1 Project Constraints
The principle constraints to achieve maximum uplift potential for the project are related to upstream and off-
site issues, as these existing upstream conditions within the project watershed will have significant impacts to
potential physicochemical and biological improvements. Examples of upstream of off-site water quality issues
include nutrient and sediment loading, and the presence of diverse biology near the site to repopulate the
improved habitat. Additional project constraints are the necessity of easement breaks and stream crossings.
There is a power line easement that transects the project and crosses both UT1 and UT3. Conservation easement
breaks will be incorporated in both these areas to allow for the exclusion of the power line easement. A
culverted crossing will be installed within the easement break at the power line along UT3 in an effort to
minimize the total number of necessary breaks. This crossing will allow the landowners access to different
parts of their properties and rotate livestock without disturbing the restored stream or the riparian areas.
Additionally,two other existing but failing crossings will be reconstructed as part of this project across UT1-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 4-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MII1GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

R1 and UT1-R4 just below Route 209. Though no credit is being sought for these sections, restoration and
enhancement measures will be continue through these sections to ensure the long-term success of the project.
An existing NCDOT culvert is located under Route 209, in roughly the middle ofUT1-R4. In order to maintain
aquatic passage while allowing for the implementation of stabilization measures, stream transitional sections
will be implemented to tie the proposed streambed elevations into the existing culvert elevations.
4.2 Functional Uplift Summary
Substantial functional uplift for the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation project is expected and is described in
detail above. Improvements to site hydraulics and geomorphology will be clear and measurable post-
construction, while improvements to other functions such as physicochemical and biological may not be as
easily determined and can be greatly affected by offsite conditions. Since only the hydraulics and
geomorphology of the project streams are being directly measured, project goals are primarily linked to these
functions. While proj ect vegetation will also be monitored and can be linked to biological and physicochemical
uplift, these parameters are more difficult to directly measure. Table 5.1 summarizes the project goals and
objectives that will lead to functional improvements and the monitoring tools that will be used to track these
changes to the site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 4-2
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives for the UT to Rush Fork Stream project are detailed below in Table 5.1. They represent
the logical conclusion to the previous discussions of current site conditions and historic use, watershed
disturbance and response, and the functional uplift potential for the project. The listed goals are broad
statements about intended project accomplishments and are consistent with the identified watershed priorities
as outlined in the Watershed Approach and Site Selection discussion in Section 2. By comparison, the
objectives and outcomes are intended to be more specific, measurable, and represent direct steps towards
accomplishing the associated goal. The project objectives will have performance standards and success criteria
associated with them as described later in Section 7 of this report and will be evaluated throughout the
monitoring phase of the project.
Table 5.1 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Goals Objectives Functional Level Monitoring Measurement
Tool
To raise channel beds and/or
Reconnect excavate sloping vegetated
stream reaches floodplains appropriate for a B Hydraulics Flood Frequency
to their stream type,by utilizing either a Cross-Sectional Survey
floodplains Priority I Restoration approach or an
EnhancementLevel I approach.
To construct streams of appropriate
dimensions,pattern,andprofile in
Improve stream restored reaches,slope stream banks Cross-Sectional Survey
stability on enhanced streams,install grade Geomorphology Visual Inspection
controlwith plunge pools,and utilize
bio-engineering to provide longterm
stability.
Construct an appropriate channel
morphology to all streams increasing
the number and depths ofpools,
Improve increasing the amount of woody Cross-Sectional Survey
aquatic habitat debris with structures including geo- Geomorphology Visual Inspection
lifts with brush toe,woody riffles,
log vanes/weirs,cross-vanes,and/or
J-hooks.
Reestablish Establish riparian buffers at a 30-ft
forested minimum width a long all stream Geomorphology Vegetation Plots
riparian buffers reaches,planted with native tree and Visual Inspection
shrub species.
Establish a permanent conservation
Permanently easement restricting landuse in
protect the perpetuity. This will prevent site Geomorphology Visual Inspection
project disturbance and allow the project to
mature and stabilize.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 5-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Project Design Approach
The selection of project design criteria was based on a combination of approaches, including a review of
information from reference streams within the geographic area, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring
results from numerous past projects, and best professional judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach
surveys and the monitoring results from multiple NC Mountain projects provided the most pertinent
background information to determine the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and
overall site functional uplift potential. The design parameters for the site also took into consideration current
guidelines from the USACE and NCDMS.
While reference reach data can be a useful aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are
limitations in smaller stream systems. The flow patterns and channel formation for most reference reach
quality streams is often controlled by slope, drainage areas, and larger trees and/or other deep-rooted
vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are particularly affected by
vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be applicable or are often adjusted in
the design criteria to create more conservative designs that are less likely to erode after construction, before
the permanent vegetation is established. Reference reach data was used to provide additional confidence in
the design parameters chosen but not used as the only basis for design parameter selection.
Baker selected three reference reaches from stable locations within six miles of the project location. Two
reference reaches were along the project stream UT1 itself; one upstream of the project site and one
downstream of the site. These reaches are within forested areas and have stable cross-sections. A third
reference reach was located on Wilkins Creek, six miles by direct line north-west of the project site and within
the Pisgah National Forest (see Figure 3). These reference reaches had drainage areas that were similar to
those within the project site. Additionally, reference parameters from Baker's internal database based on
successful past projects were consulted and analyzed. The data shown on Table 6.1 helped to provide a basis
for evaluating the project site and determining the stream systems that may have been present historically
and/or how they may have been influenced by changes within the watershed. These reference reaches are
similar in landscape setting and stream type as the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project reaches.
Table 6.1 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Parameter Upstream of UT1 Downstream of UT1 UT to Wilkins
(Off Project Site) (Off Project Site) Creek
Valley Width(ft) 23 35 30
Contributing Drainage Area(acres) 96 313.6 236.8
Channel/Reach Classification B4a B4 Ba
Discharge Width(ft) 9.9 12.88 10.4
Discharge Depth(ft) 0.55 0.87 1.16
Discharge Area(ft2) 5.42 11.23 12.1
Discharge Velocity(ft/s) 4.40 3.42 6.8
Discharge(cfs) 23.9 38.41 25.3
Water Surface Slope 0.102 0.041 0.045
Sinuosity 1.02 1.14 low
Width/Depth Ratio 18.0 11.94 8.97
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.38 1.25
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 1.47 1.63
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp 5.03/18.55/48.46/ 4.13/10.14/19.02/
97.33/ 86.04/ N/A
(mm) 168.14/256/80 156/180/100.3
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for functional uplift,
specific approaches were developed for each reach that would address the restoration or enhancement of
stream functions within the project area. Prior to impacts from past channel manipulation,the topography,
elevation, adjacent vegetation, and soils on site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the past
as a Montane Alluvial Forest or Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. Therefore, overall design
approaches were formulated to best restore and/or enhance this type of system. First, an appropriate stream
type for the valley type, slope, and desired stream functions was selected and designed for each reach. Then a
design plan was developed to improve the hydrology, geomorphology, and habitat of the project streams.
6.2 Design Morphological Parameters
For design purposes, the selected approaches were based on the maximum potential for functional uplift as
determined during the site field assessments and previously described in Section 4. The specific design
parameters were developed so that appropriate planform geometry, cross-section dimensions, and reach
profiles could be accurately described for developing construction plan documents. The overall design
philosophy is to use conservative design parameter values for the constructed stream types and to allow natural
variability in stream dimension, facet slope, and bed features form over longer periods of time under the
processes of flooding, re-colonization of vegetation, sediment deposition,and other watershed influences.
The following tables present the design stream morphology parameters proposed for Restoration and
Enhancement reaches, as needed. The proposed design values and design criteria were selected using existing
conditions surveys and bankfull identification, sediment collection and analysis, regional curve analysis,
NCDOT reference reach data, site-specific reference reach data, and Baker's internal reference ratios proven
to be successful on numerous past projects. Following the initial application of the design criteria, Baker staff
made detailed refinements to accommodate the existing valley and channel morphology. This step minimizes
unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area and wetlands, makes adjustments around specific features in the
field, maximizes the uplift to the ecological resources, and allows for natural channel adjustment following
construction.
Reach UT1-R1: Enhancement Level I
Reach UT1-R1 is located at the northeastern, upstream end of the project. This 227-foot long reach is
perennial and runs southwesterly and downslope at a slope of 8.76%. The reach has been impacted historically
through the removal of riparian vegetation, channelization,and agricultural activities. As a result,the channel
is experiencing active erosion on over 50 percent of the streambank upstream of the old crossing. There is an
old, degraded ford road crossing in this reach that is silted over and has a headcut on the downstream side.
Downstream of this crossing the channel enters a pasture and is impacted by livestock access.
An Enhancement Level 1 approach was selected for this reach. The stream banks upstream of the degraded
crossing are unstable due to past livestock use and there is little woody vegetation. This approach will allow
for addressing any erosion issues by establishing stable channel dimensions and installing grade control
structures. The old ford crossing will be removed, and the correct slope reestablished. A new culverted
crossing will be established just upstream of the existing, failing crossing, and will be located within a 20-foot
wide easement break. The stream channel will be raised as needed to access the existing floodplain. These
channels are B type streams and stream banks thorough this reach will be connected to the existing sloping
floodplain where the channel is currently too incised to provide access. Energy dissipation will be over
structures that form plunge pools and provide grade control. These structures will also provide a diversity of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-2
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

habitat types as they support pools and associated riffle grades. This reach lacks mature woody vegetation;
however, any existing isolated trees or shrub will be protected or transplanted. The riparian buffer will be
planted with native hardwood species and seeded with native herbaceous species.
The design width-to-depth ratio for the channel will be 13.8, though over time the channel may narrow due to
deposition of sediment and the growth of streambank vegetation. Channel narrowing will not indicate
instability because any narrowing would be in response to stabilizing processes(i.e.,vegetation establishment,
point bar formation, sequestering of sediment on the floodplain, etc.). The entrenchment ratio will be 1.4 to
2.2 as the adjacent flood-prone width allows and in accordance with the expected entrenchment ratio for B
type streams. Channel banks will be graded to a stable slopes and this will promote stability and provide
sediment storage.
In-stream structures will be used to control grade, dissipate energy, protect stream banks, and eliminate the
potential for upstream head-cutting and channel incision. In-stream structures will include constructed riffles,
cross vanes, log or boulder step structures, and grade control j-hook vanes for grade control and habitat.
Additionally, rock or log vanes will be used for increased bank stability and habitat diversity. Double drop
cross vanes will be used to transition across especially steep sections of channel. Bioengineering techniques
such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream
banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. The described stream structures will
be utilized on all of the described reaches.
Riparian buffers at least 30 feet in width will be restored and protected along all reaches, except at the stream
crossings located outside of the easement or other easement gaps. Any invasive vegetation found scattered
along the banks and within the riparian buffer will be removed and/or treated. Permanent fencing will be
installed to exclude livestock from the easement and reduce sediment, fecal coliform, and nutrient inputs.
Table 6.2a Upper UT1 (R1,R2,R3) Stream Design Morphology Parameters.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project No. 100068
Parameter Existing Conditions Design Proposed
Parameters
(Upper to Lower Upper3 Lower'
Sections) Section Section
Valley Width(ft) 15 -30 15 30
Contributing Drainage Areal (acres) 109- 134 96 134
Channel/Reach Classification B4a B4a B4a B4a
Discharge Width(ft) 12.2-7.1 9.0 10.0
Discharge Depth(ft) 0.27-0.89 0.65 0.70
Discharge Area(ft2) 3.33-6.36 5.9 7.0
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 3.0-4.64 3.5 -5.0 2.15 2.47
Discharge(cfs)2 10.0-29.5 12.6 17.3
Water Surface Slope 0.082-0.051 0.082 0.0510
Sinuosity 1.07- 1.06 1.05 1.05
Width/Depth Ratio 45.26- 7.98 10.0- 15.0 13.8 14.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.86- 1.0 1.0- 1.1 1.0 1.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.15- 1.71 1.4-2.2 1.4 2.2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-3
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp 5.03/1814/42566/0733/
'Existing Condition drainage areas were taken from the surveyed cross-section locations,while the Proposed drainage areas were
taken from the downstream end of each section.
2Existing Condition Discharge calculated by Manning's Equation for the degraded existing stream channel parameters,Proposed
Discharge calculated as described in Section 6.3.3.
3Upper Section here includes R1,R2,and R3 upstream of the confluence with U2,while Lower Section includes R3 downstream
of UT2 to its confluence with UT3.
Reach UT1-R2: Enhancement Level II
Reach UT1-R2 begins at the end of R1 at Station 13+25. This perennial reach runs southwest and down valley
for approximately 275 feet through a short, narrow stand of scattered trees predominately consisting of black
walnut(Juglans nigra) to a point where the trees end roughly 80 feet upstream of a 40-foot wide power line
right-of-way (ROW). This reach is classified as a B stream type and has a slope of 8.64%. The narrow line
of trees along the banks of this reach provide greater stability than the area above or below. The channel is
not deeply incised here,having a lower left bank and a higher right bank with herbaceous vegetation growing
well along the channel. Bank erosion along R2 was minimal in spite of the fact that livestock have access to
the reach. and the reach was vertically stable due to larger stones embedded in the channel providing grade
control.
Work along R2 will involve common Enhancement Level II practices to re-establish a woody buffer and to
maintain the stability of the channel. While no chronic vertical instability has been noted within this reach, if
any develops by the time construction begins, grade control structures will be added. Any bank erosion that
is identified will be stabilized by grading, seeding, mulching and matting. A few locations along the right
stream bank that are vertical will be sloped and stabilized. Riparian buffers at least 30 feet in width will be
planted and protected. To help with the successful establishment of the planted vegetation,the black walnut
trees noted in this area will be removed.
At the end of this reach on the far-left bank,just outside of the easement, is an old cabin. In order to ensure
that this structure will not potentially impact the easement area at some time in the future, Baker has agreed
with the landowner to remove this structure during construction. The cabin will be demolished and all debris
removed so that it does not interfere with the habitat quality of the easement area.
Reach UT1-R3: Enhancement Level I
UT1-R3 is located immediately downstream of R2 beginning at Station 16+00 and continues for roughly 79
linear feet to a powerline ROW. The conservation easement excludes this 40-foot ROW crossing and R3
begins again after the ROW break, continuing downslope to the confluence with Reach UT3 at Station 22+61.
The total reach length is approximately 662 linear feet. While the ROW area is cut out of the conservation
easement, stream restoration activities will be conducted through the opening to restore stream stability;
however,trees will not be planted within this area. This reach continues southwesterly at a slope of 6.21%,
slightly lower than the slope over the upper two reaches. Perhaps because the slope is a bit lower,this reach
has suffered more historical impacts through the removal of riparian vegetation, channelization, and
agricultural activities. This reach continues to be impacted by livestock access. As a result,the channel is
experiencing active erosion for well over 50 percent of the streambank length. The absence of woody
vegetation along this reach also contributes to the instability. Stream bank vegetation is pasture grass, a few
scattered trees and a stand of multiflora rose along the left bank below the confluence with UT2. Below UT2
the channel is aligned against a steep left bank for approximately 100 feet and any soil eroding from the slope
fails directly into the stream.
An Enhancement Level 1 approach was selected for this reach. The stream banks have unstable areas due to
livestock access, there is little woody vegetation and the steep left bank causes sedimentation of the stream.
The Enhancement I approach will address erosion issues by establishing stable channel dimensions along the
reach. These channels are B type streams so where the channel is incised it will be raised to access the sloping
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-4
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

floodplain or the stream banks may be sloped as needed. Establishing an entrenchment value of 1.4 to 2.2
will guide this activity. Grade control is limited through this reach due to an absence of bedrock and roots.
Vertical stability and habitat diversity will be improved through the reach by installing grade control
structures. These structures will provide energy dissipation and channel depth.They will also be used to raise
the stream channel where needed to access the existing floodplain.
The design width-to-depth ratio for the channel will be 13.8,though over time the channel may narrow due to
deposition of sediment and the growth of streambank vegetation. Channel narrowing should not cause
instability because any narrowing would be in response to stabilizing processes(i.e.,vegetation establishment,
point bar formation, sequestering of sediment on the banks, etc.). Channel banks will be graded to stable
slopes, and connected to existing floodplains,this will promote stability and provide sediment storage. In the
area below the UT2 confluence the channel will be moved several feet away from the steep left bank and a
bench constructed to eliminate colluvial sedimentation of the stream along that 100-foot section. Stream
dimensions increase slightly below the confluence with UT2 to accommodate the increase in drainage area
(Wbkf goes from 9.0 to 10.0; Dbkf from 0.65 to 0.70;Abkf from 5.9 to 7.0).
Reach UT1-R4: Restoration
Reach UT1-R4 extends from the confluence with UT3 downstream to the culvert under Route 209 at station
28+01. The project stream and easement resumes below the road at station 31+14 and continues down valley
to Station 37+91 at the end of the project. This results in a break in the conservation easement that runs 313
linear feet The resulting total length of UT1-R4 from its origin at the confluence with UT3 to the end is
approximately 1,530 linear feet,though only 1,216 linear feet are located within the conservation easement.
R4 has an overall valley slope of 4.8%, with the upper section(above Route 209)having a slope of 5.8%and
the lower section (below Route 209) having a slope of 4.2%. R4 is classified as an incised Ba stream type
with a high stream slope and a very low sinuosity of 1.08. The drainage area measured at the lower end of the
Reach is 0.48 square miles(308 acres)and at the lower end of the upper section of the reach the drainage area
is 0.42 square miles(269 acres). R4 is slightly incised from the UT3 confluence downstream for the first 300
linear feet and becomes more incised as the channel drops to the Route 209 culvert. Below the highway the
stream is very incised close to the road, but the incision decreases towards the lower end of the project. Bank
height ratios (BHR) greater than 1.5 are common across the reach but are less over the last 200 feet of the
project. This reach is exhibiting bank scour ranging from 50-60%over most of the project reach. This was
exacerbated by aflood in the winter of 2019/2020 that caused significant scour particularly below the highway.
This washed out an existing culvert crossing in this area and caused bank scour in multiple locations. Mass
wasting is occurring on approximately 15-20%of the reach as a whole and headcuts are present across the
reach.
The bed material is predominantly(75%) composed of very course gravel and smaller (d50 = 19.02 mm)
particles. Only 8%is composed of very coarse sand and smaller particle sizes. This was unexpected due to
the presence of more sand in upstream reaches but may be explained by the scouring flood flows that this
reach experienced in 2020. The high flows may have moved smaller particles through the reach,but they also
caused bank failures that contributed larger gravel size particles to the bed, increasing the percentage of these
larger particles. The reach has a few deep pools primarily associated with headcuts and is largely composed
of riffles or runs. There are also areas of aggraded sediment just downstream of locations where banks have
failed,or the channel blockages allowed sediment deposition. Asa result,habitat is poor throughout the reach
Reach R4 has little or no vegetated buffer with only a few scattered trees along the stream, predominantly
Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense). For much of the upper part of the reach and at least 50% of the lower
part, there is only herbaceous vegetation, primarily pasture grasses. Along the upper section of the reach
above Route 209 the stream flows at the foot of a steep slope along the left bank and has extensive wetland
areas on the right bank. The valley floor along the upper reach is fairly narrow and becomes narrower as you
approach the culvert. The lower reach downstream of the culvert has a wider valley beyond the top of bank
that is at least 50' on each side. This lower valley is managed as pasture with livestock having access to the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-5
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

pasture, stream banks and stream. Once the project is complete the landowners will no longer utilize this
lower area as pasture and will allow it to naturalize.
There is one existing easement break within the middle of this reach located between Stations 28+00 and
35+14. The culvert under Route 209 controls stream bed grade across this reach. There was also a second
culverted crossing just downstream of the highway that washed out during 2020 flooding.This culvert will be
replaced to allow access for forest management on the property. This culvert will be located upstream of the
conservation easement line and will be appropriately sized to improve hydraulic functions and channel
stability.
A Priority Level I restoration approach will be used for the restoration of R4 in order to fully restore stream
and associated buffer functions. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain.
This will promote more frequent over bank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events
greater than the bankfull discharge and will also improve adjacent groundwater hydrology.The design width-
to-depth ratio for the channel will be 13.7-13.9, though over time the channel may narrow due to deposition
of sediment and streambank vegetation growth. Channel narrowing should not risk downcutting because any
narrowing would be in response to stabilizing processes (i.e., vegetation establishment, point bar formation,
etc.). These channels are B type streams, and while the channel will be raised to access the sloping floodplain,
the stream banks may be sloped where they are excessively steep to achieve a typical B type cross-section.
Raising of the stream and sloping of stream banks will be done to establish an entrenchment value of 1.4 to
2.2 and this objective will guide these activities. As a B stream type with significant valley and channel slope
this stream will not be a sinuous channel. However, it will not be a straight channel, but have some limited
sinuosity constructed(as practicable)to give the stream a natural appearance. This reach will not be a typical
riffle/pool type channel but rather a channel that dissipates energy over plunge pools created using drop-type
structures. Grade control is limited through this reach due to an absence of bedrock and few tree roots.
Vertical stability will be achieved, and habitat improved through the reach by installing grade control
structures at regular intervals across the reach. They will also help raise the stream channel as needed to access
the existing floodplain. Stream structures will provide a diversity of habitat types as they support pools with
connecting riffles. The various structures used will provide energy dissipation, grade control and habitat
heterogeneity.
Table 6.2b UT1-R4 Stream Design Morphology Parameters
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project No. 100068
Parameter Existing Condition Design Proposed
Parameters
(Upper-Lower Upper3 Lower'
Sections) Section Section
Valley Width(ft) 25 -40 30 40
Contributing Drainage Areal (acres) 288-294 269 308
Channel/Reach Classification B4 B4 B4 B4
Discharge Width(ft) 13.4-8.73 12.5 13.0
Discharge Depth(ft) 0.73- 1.28 0.90 0.95
Discharge Area(ft2) 9.86- 11.10 11.25 12.1
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 3.17-4.04 4.0- 6.0 3.37 3.17
Discharge(cfs)2 31.24-44.81 37.88 38.37
Water Surface Slope 0.050-0.045 0.050 0.045
Sinuosity 1.14- 1.08 1.1 - 1.2 1.14 1.08
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-6
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Width/Depth Ratio 18.36—6.82 12.0- 18.0 13.9 13.7
Bank Height Ratio 1.0- 1.62 1.0- 1.1 1.0 1.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.48—3.42 1.4-2.2 1.4 2.2
2d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp 4.13/10.14/19.02/86.04/
(mm) 156/180/100.3
'Existing Condition drainage areas were taken from the surveyed cross-section locations,while the Proposed drainage areas were
taken from the downstream end of each section.
2Existing Condition Discharge calculated by Manning's Equation for the degraded existing stream channel parameters,Proposed
Discharge calculated as described in Section 6.3.3.
3Upper Section includes R4 from UT3 to its confluence with UT4,while Lower Section includes R4 from UT4 to the end of the
project.
Reach UT2: Enhancement Level II
Reach UT2 begins at the outlet of a small culvert located just inside the project easement and crosses under
an access road from the adjacent farm property. The intermittent reach runs west from the culvert until its
confluence with UT1-R3. This channel drainage area is small(0.04 sq.mi. or 24 acres) and the existing length
of channel within the easement is just 99 linear feet. This reach is classified as a B stream type with a slope
of 9.7%. There is limited herbaceous vegetation along the right bank and a thick stand of multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora) on the left bank. The channel bed has some cobble at the culvert outlet, but practically no
channel morphology at that location. As stream flow moves downslope,the channel becomes slightly incised
with a bed of silt and sand. This area is regularly and heavily disturbed by livestock. The relatively low
stream flow limits erosion along the watercourse but general stability is lacking. Erosion probably increases
with high flows and livestock access.
Work along UT2 will involve common Enhancement Level II practices to re-establish a woody buffer and to
establish stability of the channel. While no chronic vertical instability has been noted within this reach,if any
develops, appropriate grade control structures will be added. Any bank erosion that is identified will be
stabilized by grading, seeding, mulching, and matting of the area. This size channel is very difficult to
construct with heavy equipment and will require hand tools for spot repair work, but it will be fully stabilized
both vertically and horizontally. Removing livestock access and planting the stream banks along this channel
will likely provide the greatest benefit and improvement to functionality.
This channel falls within the riparian buffer of UT1 and will have a wide buffer relative to the stream width
and greater than 30 feet in width overall. This buffer area will be restored and protected within the
conservation easement. Invasive Rosa multiflora growing along the left bank of this channel will be
mechanically removed during construction and will be chemically treated thereafter, throughout the
monitoring phase. The buffer area surrounding this tributary will be planted with native hardwood species
and seeded with native herbaceous species. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude
livestock and reduce sediment, fecal coliform, and nutrient inputs.
Reach UT3: Restoration
Reach UT3 begins at the head of a steeply sloping valley that begins near Rush Fork Gap. This valley parallels
Route 209 which goes through this gap and is oriented north to south with the higher elevation to the north
and the lower elevation to the south. UT3 is perennial and begins as a series of springs just upstream of the
project limits and within the upper 200 feet of the project. Flow has been consistent within the project limits
for the last two years that Baker has been visiting this site. Stream flow forms a defined channel within this
upper 200 linear feet and it continues down slope almost directly south for 1,664 linear feet. There is one
break in this stream reach where a powerline ROW crosses the channel. This ROW required a conservation
easement break of 46.4 linear feet. There is an existing ford crossing at the lower end of this reach,just above
its confluence with UT1. This crossing, which is required for farming operations, will be moved to the ROW
break and will be constructed as a culverted crossing of the stream.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-7
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

UT3 is a perennial channel with an overall valley slope of 6.58%, with the upper section(above ROW break)
having a slope of 7.67%and the lower section having a slope of 4.1%. UT3 is classified as an incised A to
B stream type with a high stream slope and a very low sinuosity of 1.02. The drainage area measured at the
lower end of the Reach is 0.15 square miles(98 acres)and for design purposes the upper 650 feet was evaluated
separately because the drainage area to that point was 0.10 square miles. UT3 is incised over most of its
length;however,there is a section from 19+20 to 20+60 where the valley flattens, and the channel is braided
into multiple small paths flowing around and through a thick stand of rushes (Juncus spp.). It appears that
past land use has caused deposition in this area resulting in a D type channel for a short distance. Once the
stream flows beyond this flat feature the slope increases and becomes slightly incised again before reaching
the confluence with UT1. Bank height ratios(BHR)greater than 1.5 are common across the reach. This reach
is exhibiting varying degrees of bank scour which appears to be dependent on time of year and livestock
access. Mass wasting is primarily a problem where the stream is flowing up against a steep bank or where
cattle trails cross the stream bank or cattle lounging areas occur.
The bed material for this stream was difficult to determine because most of the channel has thick grassy growth
present,though over the upper 450 feet of channel there is significant shading of the channel by riparian trees
which limit grass growth in that area. However, the channel through this upper section is relatively small and
similar to the other project streams in having mostly gravel where the bed material is undisturbed. Much of
the stream bed is disturbed by livestock, which has resulted in many sections of silt and mud deposition in the
channel. For these reasons a bed sample was not obtained from this reach. It was assumed that if undisturbed
it would be similar to the bed material sample taken from the reference site located upstream of UT1 off the
project. The reach has a few deeper pools primarily associated with headcuts or vegetation blockages but is
primarily composed of shallow riffle or run type habitat that flows around clumps of grass. In the winter when
the grass dies back a more pronounced channel is evident. There are also areas of aggraded sediment where
vegetation blocks the channel. As a result, lotic habitat is poor and degraded throughout the reach.
UT3 begins in a partially buffered forested area consisting of a narrow row of tree which extends over the first
450 linear feet of channel. However, after that point it has virtually no woody buffer for the remainder of its
length,primarily just herbaceous vegetation consisting mostly of pasture grasses growing on the terrace,banks
and channel. In the uppermost section of the reach,the stream flows along the foot of a steep slope on its left
bank and has constant sediment inputs coming off this slope. The land along this entire reach is managed as
pasture with livestock having access to the pasture, stream banks and stream.
A Priority Level I restoration approach will be used for the restoration of UT3 in order to fully restore stream
and associated buffer functions. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain.
Where the channel is being raised the subgrade will be filled and compacted to keep hydrology at the surface.
This will promote more frequent overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events
greater than the bankfull discharge and will also improve adjacent groundwater hydrology.The design width-
to-depth ratio for the channel will be 13.1,though over time the channel may narrow due to deposition of
sediment and streambank vegetation growth;however, this is expected to be limited on this steeply sloping
channel. Channel narrowing should not risk downcutting because any narrowing would be in response to
stabilizing processes (i.e., vegetation establishment, point bar formation, etc.). The channel will be raised to
access the sloping floodplain and the stream banks sloped where they are excessively steep to achieve a typical
B type cross-section. Raising of the stream and sloping of stream banks will be done to establish an
entrenchment value of 1.4 to 2.2. As a B stream type with significant valley and channel slope,this stream
will not be a sinuous channel. This channel type loses energy over plunge pools created using drop type
structures. Grade control is limited through this reach due to an absence of bedrock and few trees. Vertical
stability will be achieved, and habitat improved through the reach by installing grade control structures at
regular intervals across the reach. They will also help raise the stream channel as needed to access the existing
floodplain. Stream structures will provide a diversity of habitat types as they support pools with connecting
riffles. This reach lacks mature woody vegetation; however, any existing isolated trees or shrubs will be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-8
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

protected or transplanted if possible. From the top of the stream bank out to the conservation easement line
the area will be planted with native hardwood species and seeded with native herbaceous species.
Table 6.2c UT3 Stream Design Morphology Parameters
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project No. 100068
All-Parameter Existing
Condition Design
Parameters Proposed
Upper Lower
Section Section
Valley Width(ft) 10- 30 15 30
Contributing Drainage Areal (acres) 70 64 98
Channel/Reach Classification Ba B4 Ba Ba
Discharge Width(ft) 6.58 7.5 8.5
Discharge Depth(ft) 0.82 0.57 0.65
Discharge Area(ft2) 5.4 4.3 6.0
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 3.48 4.0-6.0 4.42 5.0
Discharge(cfs)2 18.8 19.0 30.0
Water Surface Slope 0.062 0.079 0.056
Sinuosity 1.05 1.1 - 1.2 1.02 1.02
Width/Depth Ratio 8.02 12.0- 18.0 13.1 13.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.83 1.0- 1.1 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 2.17 1.4-2.2 1.4 2.2
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp(mm) N/A N/A N/A N/A
'Existing Condition drainage areas were taken from the surveyed cross-section locations,while the Proposed drainage areas were
taken from the downstream end of each section.
2Existing Condition Discharge calculated by Manning's Equation for the degraded existing stream channel parameters,Proposed
Discharge calculated as described in Section 6.3.3.
Reach UT4: Restoration
Reach UT4 begins at an existing culvert under Route 209, and this short intermittent reach is not included
within the conservation easement for most of its length. After exiting the culvert, the stream has been
channelized to run due south,parallel to the highway,and into a second culvert that goes under the farm access
road and onto the project site, discharging from the culvert directly into UT1-R4. Livestock have access to
this entire reach. In addition, the reach has little woody vegetation and has dredge material piled on the left
bank. This reach is classified as a B stream type. The existing highway ROW and a power line ROW along
the highway exempts this stream from being included in the conservation easement. However, at the point
where it enters the conservation easement it will be included in the project. The existing culvert will be
replaced so that the farm access road can be moved entirely out of the easement, with the outfall of the culvert
placed just outside of the easement boundary. From this new culvert outfall to the new alignment of UT1, a
new-40linear foot channel will be constructed for UT4 to connect it into UT1-R4.
Given that this will be new channel length, it is considered Restoration and will be constructed to fully access
the floodplain along both UT1 and UT4. Stream dimensions for this short reach have been determined based
on a regional curve analysis. The W/D ratio will be 12.9, other dimensions that will be used for this channel
are Wbkf= 5.8;Dbkf=0.45; Abkf=2.6. This size channel is very difficult to construct with heavy equipment
and may require hand tools, but it will be stabilized both vertically and horizontally. As with other channels
on this project,drop structures may be used to provide vertical energy dissipation and improved habitat quality.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-9
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

This channel falls within the riparian buffer along UT1 and will have a wide buffer relative to the stream
width; greater than 30 feet in width. This buffer area will be restored within the protected easement area. The
buffer area surrounding this reach will be planted with native hardwood species and seeded with native
herbaceous species. Additionally, permanent fencing will be used to exclude livestock and reduce sediment,
fecal coliform, and nutrient inputs. It has been agreed with the landowners that permanent fencing will be
added to all of UT4 extending out of the easement and up to Route 209 to exclude livestock from the entire
stream and improve the water quality coming from this tributary.
Stormwater Best Management Practice(BMP) on Upper UT3
A stormwater best management practice(BMP)is proposed at the top of UT3 where an existing vegetated
drainage swale (an old abandoned roadbed) conveys stormwater flow into the reach. This feature is not
being provided for direct mitigation credit,but for the water quality improvement of the receiving stream.
The BMP will receive runoff from 4.25 acres of drainage area, including roughly 0.12 acres of impervious
area. Sizing of the BMP was completed using a 1-inch design storm rainfall depth, and runoff was calculated
using the discrete SCS curve number method. This BMP was designed to meet the stormwater design
criteria of a constructed wetland following the North Carolina Stormwater Design Guidance Manual. Most
of the minimum design criteria(MDC)were able to be accommodated;however, a few could not be met as
outlined below. Even with these limitations,the design will be able to provide significant water quality
improvement benefits.
The BMP meets the temporary ponding depth(MDC-1), surface area(MDC-3),and percentage of deep
pool, shallow water and temporary inundation zones(MDC 7, 8, and 9). Construction will ensure that any
needed soil amendments(MDC-4) are accommodated. Peak attenuation is not proposed for this BMP,
therefore MDC-2 is met. The BMP is collecting runoff that is currently conveyed directly to the receiving
channel UT3 from the existing drainage swale, allowing the design to meet the requirement for protection of
the receiving stream by minimizing hydrologic impacts(MDC-11).
The BMP collects surface runoff along the southern and western side of the proposed BMP and will then
discharge runoff through an overflow weir along its northern side. The topography of the site does not allow
the inlet and outlet configuration to completely prevent short-circuiting(MDC-5), and a forebay cannot be
reasonably accommodated for all inflow(MDC-6). Preventing short-circuiting is not feasible in a BMP of
this size and configuration, and the site topography precludes alternative orientations or designs. Forebays
are typically required to provide an opportunity for sediment and debris to fall out before reaching the BMP
treatment area. Since the BMP will not receive concentrated discharges from stormwater conveyance
outfalls and the receiving runoff passes through a vegetated area prior to entering the BMP, a lack of a
forebay should not impact treatment efficacy.
The BMP is unable to meet MDC-10, which requires a 2 to 5 day drawdown time between the temporary
and permanent pool elevations. For a BMP of this size, meeting this criterion would require an orifice that
would likely be subject to frequent clogging in the proposed application. As such, the BMP was designed to
accommodate the treatment volume in the permanent pool, instead of in the temporary pool. This design
criteria is consistent with the constructed wetland design requirements of other jurisdictions, such as the
State of Virginia. A stone weir structure is proposed for the wetland outlet, which also eliminates the need
for a trash rack(MDC-17).
The revegetation plan meets the requirements of the landscaping plan(MDC-12), shallow water plantings
(MDC-13), temporary inundation zone plantings(MDC-14)and plantings on the perimeter fill slopes
(MDC-15).
Agricultural Practices and Crossings in Support of the Restoration Plans
Drinking water is being provided for excluded livestock using a well and two drinking stations. The general
location of this well and the drinkers has been indicated in the plans, on Sheet 11. Power will be run from
the utility line crossing to a well and waterlines run from the well locations to two different drinking
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-10
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

stations. Each drinking station will have a four-hole drinker and the area around the drinker will be
hardened to avoid erosion. The conservation easement will be fenced so that livestock will not have access
to site streams. Gates will be installed on both sides of the crossing on UT3 and a gate will be installed on
the pasture side of the culvert on UT4 at the pasture entrance. Four-foot gates will be placed in-line with the
easement fencing to allow for human access to conduct monitoring or other inspection. These small gates
are shown on the plans. The crossing gates on UT3 will be used by the cattleman to divide the pasture into
two divided areas and livestock will be moved to rotationally graze the pastures. The field downstream of
Route 209 will no longer be used for pasturing livestock.
There are four(4) culverts being installed on this project. Two will replace failed or failing culverts(on
UT3 and UT1-R4, below Route 209) and two will replace unstable ford crossings, which are presently
located on UT3 just above the confluence and at the top of UT1 within R1. There are no other crossings
other than the Route 209 highway crossing, which is outside of the easement. Culverts that are planned for
installation have been analyzed and designed by our engineers to ensure they are the appropriate size. All
culverts are specified to be installed 12"below the bed of the stream to allow for aquatic species passage as
required by Nationwide Permit 27.
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage Discharge
Upon completion of the geomorphic field survey, identification of bankfull stages and corresponding
discharges were made at various locations along Reaches UT1 and UT3. However, on degraded, incised
streams such as these, discernible indicators can be difficult to obtain, and the reliability of the indicators can
be inconsistent due to the altered condition of the stream channels. For this reason,regional curve relationships
(based on drainage areas) from two well developed curves were also used to develop the bankfull discharge
estimates for the project reaches. The curve relationships were compared to most stable representative cross
sections taken on site to confirm the bankfull field calls and to ultimately select an appropriate design discharge
estimate.
6.3.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions)
Regional curves are available for a range of stream types and physiographic provinces. The published NC
Rural Mountain Regional Curve(Harmon et al., 2000) and the unpublished NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont
Regional Curve developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Walker, 2018) were used for
comparison with site-specific field methods of estimating bankfull discharge. The regional curve equations
developed from the studies are shown below in Table 6.3, while Table 6.4 compares the estimated regional
curve bankfull areas for the project reaches with those measured from bankfull indicators in the field. Baker
has successfully implemented a significant number of stream restoration projects in North Carolina using both
these regional curves,though the general design team preference is for the more recent NRCS equations as
they continue to be revised with the addition of new stream data.
Table 6.3 NC Rural Mountain Regional Curve Equations
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
(Harman et al.,2000) Curve Equations,Revised(Walker,2018)
Qbkf = 100.64 Aw 0.76 0.79
Qbkf =55.33 Aw
Abkf =21.61 Aw 0.68 Abkf = 19.13 Aw 0.65
Wbkf = 19.05 Aw 0.37 Wbkf = 17.41 Aw 0.37
Dbkf — 1.11 Aw 0.31 Dbkf — 1.10 Aw 0.28
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-11
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Table 6.4 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project No. 100068
Bankfull Area Estimates Design
Reach DA from 2000/ 2018 Bankfull Area Measured at Bankfull
(sq mi) Regional Curves(sq ft) Bankfull Indicator(sq ft) Area(sq ft)
Upper UT1 (R3) 0.21 7.48/6.90 3.33 (XS-4), 6.36(XS-11) 7.0
Lower UT1 (R4) 0.46 12.74/ 11.51 11.10(XS-5), 9.86(XS-12) 12.1
UT3 0.11 4.82/4.52 5.4(XS-1) 6.0
Note: No data is reported here for Reaches UT2 and UT4. UT2 will not have its channel dimensions altered to any
significant degree,while UT4 is a very short transitional reach.
The results of the bankfull area comparison as shown above in Table 6.4 reveal that the regional curves are
well aligned in their predictions of bankfull area, which subsequently also align fairly well with the field
measured estimates. These values were then compared with the off-project reference reaches and stream
projects of similar size. Based on this evaluation,the final design values were then selected using past designer
experience and best professional judgement.
6.3.3 Bankfull Discharge Summary
Table 6.5 provides a summary of the bankfull discharge and velocity analyses based on the regional curves
along with the selected design values, as determined from the lowermost portion of each Reach section unless
otherwise noted. The design velocity estimates were determined using the design bankfull discharge with the
design cross-sectional areas. Additionally, the discharge was calculated for each reach section using
Manning's 'n' associated with Stream Type to compare to the regional curve and reference reach values, and
accounted for the fact that these reaches are on the steeper end of the typical range of values for Ba stream
types. The design values ultimately selected will provide for stable stream channels, while during above
bankfull flows the streams will have improved access to their floodplain,thus reducing stream scour potential
and improving streambank stability.
Table 6.5 Bankfull Discharge and Velocity Analysis Summary
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project No. 100068
Bankfull Discharge Bankfull Velocity Design
Design
Reach DA from Regional from Regional Bankfull
Section (mil) Curves(2000/2018) Bankfull Curves(2000/2018) Velocity
(cfs) Discharge(cfs) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
Upper UT1 0.21 30.7/ 16.2 17.3 4.1/2.4 2.5
(R1-R3)
Lower UT1 0.48 57.6/31.1 38.4 4.4/2.6 3.2
(R4)
19.0to30.0 4.4to5.0
UT3 0.15 23.8/ 12.4 (upper to lower 4.0/2.3 (upper to lower
section) section)
Note: No data is reported here for Reaches UT2 and UT4. UT2 will not have its channel dimensions altered to any
significant degree,while UT4 is a very short transitional reach.
6.4 Sediment Transport Analysis
For this project, a qualitative sediment supply analysis was conducted from visual inspections of the project
reaches and from aerial photography of the greater watershed. Current sediment supply appears to be almost
entirely from localized bank erosion from within the project reaches themselves. The watershed upstream of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-12
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

the project is forested and stable and in overall good condition, and the observed bedload sediment supply
within it does not appear large enough to result in capacity limited stream channels. Livestock access to the
project reaches, along with their historic ditching and relocation,have clearly contributed to accelerated bank
erosion. Field inspections reveal that significant aggradation is not a problem for the site;there are no notable
bar formations observed for example. However,there are long sections of channel that have sediment-filled
pools and embedded riffles found throughout UT1 and UT3. Additionally, UT3 is seasonally filled with
herbaceous vegetation, which appears to help capture sand, silt, and livestock manure in the system. During
the winter, much of this material washes out once the vegetation dies back. Once the project is complete, on-
site sediment sources from bank erosion along all reaches will be stabilized,and reestablished forested buffers
should ultimately shade out the in-stream herbaceous vegetation. Stream power was calculated but does not
provide significant useful information since a sediment rating curve has not been developed for the site. Thus,
the focus of this project's sediment transport analysis will be on competency to demonstrate the ability of the
constructed channels to pass the sediment present in the watershed.
6.4.1 Sediment Competency Analysis
To conduct the sediment competency analyses; pebble count, pavement, and subpavement sediment samples
were taken at or near surveyed riffle cross sections on upper and lower UT1. The sediment samples were
weighed to generate cumulative frequency plots. The sediment competence analysis was conducted using the
methodologies presented in WARSSS (2006). Design mean depth and slope were checked against the
predicted required depths and slopes to provide confidence that the design streams will be able to transport
their sediment supplies. Analyses were conducted using a dimensional shear stress methodology, which
utilizes both the Shield's and Modified Shield's/CO Data curves to compare the shear stress value to the size
particle able to be entrained by that shear stress. The Modified Shield's curve is based on Colorado field data
(WARS SS, 2006)and the Shield's Curve is based on laboratory and field data compiled from various sources
(Leopold,Wolman, and Miller, 1964). The results from the analyses are presented below in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Sediment Competence Analysis
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Parameter Upper UT1 Lower UT1(R4)
(R1,R2,R3)
Design Bankfull Slope, average(ft/ft) 0.0690 0.0476
Design Mean Depth(ft) 0.70 0.95
D50 Pavement(mm) 52.9 6.6
D50 Subpavement(mm) 20.3 16.2
D100 Subpavement(mm) 80.0 100.3
D95 Pebble Count(mm) 168.1 155.9
Design Dimensional Shear(lbs./sq-ft) 2.64 2.28
Largest Movable Particle(mm) (Mod. 310 290
Shield's Curve/CO Data)
Largest Movable Particle(mm) (Shield's 214 194
Curve)
Predicted Shear Stress to move D100(lbs./sq- 0.4 0.55
ft) (Mod. Shield's Curve/CO Data)
Predicted Shear Stress to move D100(lbs./sq-
ft) (Shield's Curve) 1.0 1.4
Predicted mean depth to move D100(ft)
(Mod. Shield's Curve/CO Data) 0.08 0.19
Predicted mean depth to move D100(ft)
(Shield's Curve) 0.19 0.47
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-13
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Predicted slope to move D100(ft/ft) (Mod.
Shield's Curve/CO Data) 0.0092 0.0093
Predicted slope to move D100(ft/ft) (Shield's
0.00229 0.0236
Curve)
The sediment transport analysis using the design geometry and profile values were compared with their
predicted values. As can be seen from the figure below,design shear stress values plotted against the measured
D100 Subpavement values match reasonably well within the scatter of the data points, particularly for the
Shield's Curve data, lending confidence that the stream will be able to move the existing bed load that is
currently supplied. Using the estimated dimensional shear for the design channels, the predicted largest
moveable particles based on the curves is significantly larger than the existing D100 subpavement sizes, while
the predicted shear stresses required to move the D100 are much lower than those of the design. Further, the
predicted depths and slopes required to move the D100 are much less than those of the designed system. All
of this again indicates that the designed system should have no difficulty moving the existing bed load, and in
fact indicates that excess shear stress is potentially an issue. It should be noted however, that there are much
larger particles in the system than the D100 subpavement, as the pebble count values demonstrate.
These are very steep gradient stream systems and the resulting high shear stress values are natural and to be
expected. To address any potential negative effects of the excess shear stress, the restoration design has
incorporated numerous structures to control grade and increase roughness in the channel as previously
discussed in more detail in Section 6.2. The designed riffles will include larger sized materials, including
Class I and Class B stone, such that the new channels should not produce enough shear stress to entrain the
larger sized particles. Thus,the constructed channel beds will remain stable,while still allowing for the active
movement and transport of much of the bed load through the stream system.
ills, ..01 .-.. .- I.
ocu Colorado Nis.Power PentaneI a�;r r
200l .. .. ...S;.
Dia.two=152.0217 '
Rs-D.838 Q ), �.
100
E301 C. *'
is r .r
1. r,-A '
W 3 •
O 2 •e, '
z 4 }
0 Syr 4 Powier-mamma.
�,
5 a Leopold,woman a mar[t9841
4.
7 r ` Dia.lmmy=7T.966rjut
2 �ei :` Rs=4.9336
fll a ao
tg a § .01 n.33.444 .1 -2 .3..4.6 1 2 3 45 10
tic=CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS(lbs/0
Lltre atory arul Reid data z critiusl sheer stress required to initiate
movement of grains[Leopold,Wolmsn,&M&r,19a4).The solid line is the
Shields curve of aAr threnhafd of moeinn;transposed fmm the 9verau8 Rg
form into the present form,in which critical shear stress is plotted as a
function of grain diameter.
is Leopold,Woiman&hiller OW)
Colorado Bars MIldland Hydrology)
(Adapted frorr,WAR555,Fgu•e5-44,Runge n20391
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-14
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

6.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan
6.5.1 Existing Vegetation and Plant Community Characterization
Vegetation on the project site itself has been heavily disturbed from years of use in agriculture, currently
livestock pasture, but also from historic orchard use too. Currently the site is predominantly managed as
pasture for livestock and the buffer of the project streams largely consists of a range of typical pasture grasses
(fescues and clovers) with scattered weeds and other common herbaceous species present such as docks
(Rumex spp.), wild geranium (Geranium carolinianum), common violet (Viola sororia), buttercup
(Ranunculus spp.),thistle(Cirsium vulgare), goldenrod(Solidago spp.),horsenettle(Solanum carolinense),
plantains (Plantago spp.), and dandelions (Taraxacum officiniale), with soft rush(Juncus effusus), sedges
(Carex spp.), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) found in wetter areas. A very narrow buffer of scattered
trees and shrubs is only present along small portions of the project reaches, mostly notable along the upper
sections of UT1 and UT3. The trees consist primarily of Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense), with a few black
walnut(Juglans nigra),black cherry(Prunus serotina), witch hazel(Hamamelis virginiana), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) also present. A few remnant apple trees(Malus sp.) are also present on upper UT3.
Thinly scattered shrubs present include multi-flora rose(Rosa multiflora), and blackberry (Rubus spp.).
Notable invasive species found on the site include Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense) and multi-flora rose
(Rosa multiflora), which are found scattered within the project buffer as described above.
However,the riparian areas along the stream reaches and wetlands of the project would naturally consist of
species more consistent with those of a Montane Alluvial Forest plant community(Schafale 2012)based on
site elevation(-3,000 ft), soil classification(Humic Hapludult), and general ecoregion. However, given that
the elevation is within the intermediate height range for its ecoregion (listed as 850 ft to 5,500 ft), it could
reasonably be expected to contain species from lower elevation mountain communities as well. Additionally,
the general ecological communities being restored for the project include both the South-Central Interior Small
Stream and Riparian(CES202.706)and Southern Appalachian Small River Floodplain Forest(CEGL007143)
ecosystems (NatureS erve 2020).
6.5.2 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetative components of this restoration project include streambank and riparian planting zones within
the buffer. These planting boundaries will be comprised of species found within native plant communities as
presented below in Table 6.7 and shown on the revegetation plan sheets in Appendix K. In addition to the
riparian buffer zones noted above, any areas of the site that lack diversity or were disturbed or adversely
impacted by the construction process will also be planted. Existing non-native grasses(such as fescue)within
the easement will be treated prior to or concurrent with construction, as appropriate.
Bare-root trees and live stakes will be planted within designated areas of the conservation easement, with the
objective of establishing a minimum 30-foot buffer along all proposed streambanks for all the stream reaches
within the project boundary. In many areas, the buffer width will be in excess of 30 feet along one or both
streambanks and will also encompass significant portions of the adjacent jurisdictional wetland areas. In
general, bare-root vegetation will be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. Planting will be
conducted during the dormant season, with all trees and shrubs installed between November 15th and March
15th. The anticipated planted area for the project is approximately 7.3 acres.
Selected species for hardwood revegetation planting are presented in Table 6.7.Riparian zone species wetness
tolerance will range from being at least somewhat tolerant of flooding (FACU) to tolerant (OBL).
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted
as compared to the revegetation plan, which will also incorporate the location of the jurisdictional wetlands to
facilitate the accurate planting of appropriate species in their correct planting zone.
Once the vegetative species are transported to the site, they should be planted within two days. Disturbed
soils across the site will be prepared by sufficiently loosening to a depth of four inches prior to planting as
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-15
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

described in the technical specifications. Heavily compacted soils (e.g.,hardpans or areas that experienced
heavy equipment use) will be loosened to a depth of eight to ten inches by disking or ripping to prepare for
tree planting. In any areas where excavation depths will exceed ten inches, topsoil shall be separated from
rocks, brush, or roots, stockpiled, and placed back over these areas to achieve design grades and create a soil
base for vegetation. Trees and shrubs will be planted by manual labor using a dibble bar, mattock, planting
bar,or other approved method.Planting holes for the trees will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread
out and down without"J-rooting."Soil will be loosely compacted around trees once they have been planted
to prevent roots from drying out. Soil tests will be conducted in the riparian buffer areas during construction,
and soil amendments such as fertilizer or lime may be added as recommended to improve growing conditions.
Live stakes will be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and stakes will be spaced two to
three feet apart around plunge pools and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections using triangular spacing
along the streambanks between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. Site variations may require
slightly different spacing as appropriate.
A permanent seed mixture consisting only of native species will be applied on the project. Table 6.8 lists the
species and application rates that will be used. This mixture is designed to be suitable for this project's
streambank, riparian, and wetland areas, and will provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and
provide biological habitat value. The species selected are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate
along restored stream channels, providing long-term stability. The mixture will be applied to all areas within
the conservation easement from the top of the stream banks to the easement boundary, excluding only those
areas that are already forested. Separate seed mixtures for temporary seeding(rye grain or browntop millet)
will be also be used to stabilize disturbed areas throughout the project site.
Final species selection may change due to a refinement of site specific conditions during construction or to
species availability at the time of planting. If species substitution is required,the planting Contractor will
submit a revised planting list to for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
Table 6.7 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project No. 100068
Botanical Name Common Name %Planted by Wetland Tolerance
Species
All Buffer Plantings at 680 stems/acre using 8'X 8' spacing
General Riparian Zone—Overstory/Canopy Species
Betula nigra River Birch 10% FACW
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 10% FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 10% FACU
Betula lenta Sweet Birch 10% FAC
Quercus alba White Oak 10% FACU
Tilia americana American Basswood 5% FACU
Aesculus flava Yellow Buckeye 5% FACU
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 5% FAC
Fraxinus americana White Ash 5% FACU
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 5% FAC
Ulmus americana American Elm 5% FACW
General Riparian Zone—Understory/Shrub Species
Rhododendron maximum Rosebay 5% FAC
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 2.5% FAC
Ilex verticillata Winterberry 2.5% FACW
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam 2.5% FAC
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-16
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Table 6.7 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project No. 100068
Botanical Name Common Name %Planted by Wetland Tolerance
Species
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 2.5% FAC
Magnolia tripetala Umbrella Tree 2.5% FACU
Halesia carolina Carolina Silverbell 2.5% FAC
Wetland Zone—Overstory/Canopy Species
Betula nigra River Birch 15% FACW
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 15% FACW
Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 10% FAC
Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak 5% FAC
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 5% FAC
Acer negundo Box Elder 5% FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5% FACW
Ulmus americana American Elm 5% FACW
Wetland Zone—Understory/Shrub Species
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 15% OBL
Ilex verticillata Winterberry 5% FACW
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 5% FAC
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 2.5% OBL
Corpus amomum Silky Dogwood 2.5% FACW
Xanthorhiza simplicissima Yellow-root 2.5% FACW
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry 2.5% FACW
Streambank Live Stake Plantings
Salixsericea Silky Willow 25% OBL
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 20% FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 10% OBL
Corpus amomum Silky Dogwood 25% FACW
Salix nigra Black Willow 20% OBL
Table 6.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Botanical Name Common Name %Planted by Density Wetland
Species (lbs/ac) Tolerance
Agrostis perennans Autumn Bentgrass 10% 1.5 FACU
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wildrye 15% 2.25 FACW
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 15% 2.25 FAC
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern Gamma Grass 5% 0.75 FACW
Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania 5% 0.75 FACW
Smartweed
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Blue Stem 5% 0.75 FACU
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 5% 0.75 FACW
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-17
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Bidens frondosa(or Beggars Tick 5% 0.75 FACW
aristosa)
Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-Leaved Tick 10% 1.5 FACU
Seed
Dichanthelium Tioga Deer Tongue 15% 2.25 FAC
clandestinum
Andropogon gerardii Big Blue Stem 5% 0.75 FAC
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass 5% 0.75 FACU
Total 100% 15.00
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement of site conditions or to availability at the time
of planting. If species substitution is required,the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to
Baker for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
6.6 Project Work Plan
The project work plan is included in the plan sheet set for the project and provides a detailed description of
proposed construction timing and sequencing, specific in-stream structure and other construction element
designs, as well as a description of all grading and planting activities. All work will be conducted using
common machinery,tools, equipment, and techniques for the successful implementation of the project. The
complete plan sheets can be found in Appendix K.
6.7 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Due to the rural and primarily forested nature of the project watershed,the overall project risk for the UT to
Rush Fork site is considered low. The anticipated potential project risks are described below:
Land Use Development: There is the potential for increased land use development(to include timbering
and agricultural uses)within the project watershed that could alter the watershed hydrology,particularly to
runoff quantity and quality. These changes would be out of the control of the provider.
Methods to Address: While any potential future development within the project watershed is out of
the control of the provider, the stream restoration and enhancement techniques being applied to the
project reaches will help protect them from further degradation and reduce downstream impacts usually
associated with watershed development.
Easement Encroachment: Any encroachment to the conservation easement including livestock access,
mowing, utility easement violations, culvert maintenance,etc.
Methods to Address: The landowners are fully aware of the land use restrictions associated with the
conservation easement. The easement boundaries will be clearly marked following DMS protocol as
specified in the RFP and livestock exclusion fencing (barb-wire type) will be installed. Any
encroachments will be appropriately remedied by the provider throughout the monitoring phase.
Drought and Floods: There is the potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring phase
of the project. These conditions would be out of the control of the provider.
Methods to Address: The provider will take appropriate measures to address any impacts to the project
caused by the extreme climatic conditions. Such measures may include vegetation replanting, channel
or structure repair, soil amendments, etc.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-18
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Beavers: While there is no evidence of beaver activity currently present on the site,there is the potential
for beavers to move onto the project during the monitoring phase. This would be out of the control of the
provider.
Methods to Address: The provider will take appropriate steps to remove the beaver from the project
during the monitoring phase and repair any damage they may have caused.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 6-19
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The performance standards and success criteria for the project will follow the NCIRT guidance document
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update dated October 24, 2016.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years unless otherwise noted.
Based on the design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the project reaches. Reaches
UT1-R4, UT3, and UT4 will implement a Restoration design approach, Reaches UT1-R1 and UT1-R3 will
implement an Enhancement Level I approach, while Reaches UT1-R2 and UT2 will implement an
Enhancement Level II approach. For all project reaches,geomorphic monitoring methods and specific success
criteria components and evaluations are described below. Report documentation will follow the NCDMS's
template Annual Monitoring Report Format,Datcy and Content Requirements(October 2020).
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted annually following the
completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. The methods used and
related success criteria for each monitored stream parameter are described below. Figure 11 shows the
approximate locations of the proposed monitoring devices throughout the project site.
7.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented using crest gauges
consisting of continuous stage recorders (using pressure transducers) and photographs. Gauges will be
installed in the floodplain within five to ten feet(horizontal)from the top of stream bank along the upstream
sections of Reaches UT1 and UT3, and another along the downstream section of Reach UT1. Additionally,
photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits. In-stream flow gauges will be installed in Reaches UT2 and UT3 to
record water depth and flow duration.
Four bankfull events must be documented, in separate years, along UT1 and UT3 within the seven-year
monitoring period. Otherwise, monitoring will continue until the required four bankfull events have been
documented. Additionally, 30 days of consecutive flow must be documented annually by the flow gauges
located within UT2 and UT3.
7.1.2 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at an approximate rate of one cross section per twenty bankfull
widths of restored stream, with approximately half of the cross sections located at riffles and half located at
pools. Eighteen cross sections are proposed for this project. Each cross section will be marked on both
streambanks with permanent monuments using rebar cemented in place to establish the exact transect used.
A common benchmark will be used for cross sections and 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 (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points
measured at all breaks in slope,including top of streambanks,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(Rosgen 1994 and 1996). The BHR cross section parameter will be calculated following the technical
workgroup guidance memo `Standard Measurement of the BHR Parameter' provided by DMS in 2018,which
will apply the as-built bankfull cross sectional area to the current monitoring year channel to determine
bankfull elevation. The Low Top of Bank(LTOB) depth will also be provided in the monitoring data table.
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 7-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

(e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System, all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters(i.e. BHR no more than 1.2
and ER no less than 1.4 for B' stream types or 2.2 for 'C' stream types)defined for channels of the design
stream type(Note: Reach UT4 is proposed as a C-type channel while all others are B-type). Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pins will not be installed unless monitoring
results indicate active lateral erosion. The cross sections will document stability in the surveyed riffle or pool
to confirm they are maintaining appropriate form for that feature and are not eroding/scouring or
aggrading/filling with sediment, and thus are continuing to provide improved habitat as intended.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Lateral photos should not indicate
excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the streambanks. Photographers shall try to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
over time.
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile and Pattern
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of constructed channel immediately after
construction to document as-built baseline conditions. 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 profile will not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability
has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
Pattern measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, and meander width ratio will be calculated on
newly constructed meanders using the plan views from the as-built plan sheets and reported in the as-built
baseline document. Subsequent visual monitoring will be conducted annually to document any changes or
excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the constructed channel.
7.1.4 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted at least once per monitoring year
following the requirements described in the DMS monitoring guidance documents. Photographs will be used
to visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank stability, condition
of in-stream structures, channel migration,headcuts, channel aggradation(bar formation) or degradation,live
stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, riparian vegetation success, condition
of pools and riffles, culvert and crossing stability, easement encroachments, and overall stream morphology
assessment. All photo locations and any areas of concern will be shown in the Current Condition Plan View
(CCPV)figure in the baseline and annual monitoring reports.
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration of the riparian vegetation on a site is dependent upon the successful planting and establishment of
native woody species, along with the volunteer regeneration of the plant community. To determine if the
success criteria are achieved,vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and monitored across the restoration
site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee at al., 2008).
These vegetation plots shall consist of both permanent and random plots, totaling a minimum of 2%of the
planted portion of the site established within the planted riparian buffer areas per CVS Monitoring Levels 1
and 2. Six fixed plots and one random plot are proposed to monitor vegetation for this project. The size of
each individual plot will be 100 square meters. No plots will be established within any undisturbed wooded
areas found within the project boundary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 7-2
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Data from the permanent vegetation
plots will include: species, height, planted vs. volunteer, and age(based on the year the stem was planted, or
first observed if a volunteer). Data from the random plots will include only the species and height. Both plot
types will include invasive and exotic species data, if present. Plot densities will also be calculated for each
plot. Individual plant stems will be marked such that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years in the
permanent plots. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living,planted
stems and the current year's living, planted stems.
At the end of the first full growing season from baseline (MYO), after a minimum of 180 days, species
composition,heights,stem density,and survival will be evaluated for monitoring year one(MY1). Vegetation
plots shall subsequently be monitored in years 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success criteria are achieved.The
interim measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320 stems per acre at the
end of the year 3 monitoring period. At year 5, density must be no less than 260 stems per acre. The final
vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 stems per acre at the end of the year 7 monitoring period.
Volunteer plants may count towards the vegetation performance standard if they are on the approved planted
species list and are present for at least two growing seasons, or at the discretion of the IRT. A single species
should only account for up to 50%of the required number of stems to meet success criteria.
Additionally, the height of the vegetation at Year 7 should average 8 feet tall. Certain native species, which
are appropriate to plant on-site to provide a diverse vegetation community, do not typically grow to these
heights in 7 years and will be excluded from the height performance standard. For this project,these excluded
species include all of the understory/shrub species presented in Table 6.7. Baker would also like to note that
the overstory planting list contains numerous slower growing species such as a mix of five oak species and
persimmon at a combined total of 25%of the planted stems for both the general riparian and wetland planted
areas.
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 may incorporate the evaluation of
additional plant community indices,native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species vegetation
to assess overall vegetative success. If monitoring suggests that the vegetation is not on a trajectory for
success, an adaptive management plan could be submitted that may include any of these additional evaluation
indices.
Required remedial action will be provided on a case-by-case basis, such as: replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species as appropriate, conducting beaver management/dam removal, and the treatment of
undesirable/invasive species vegetation, etc. Any necessary remedial action will continue to be monitored as
part of the vegetation performance assessment until the corrective action demonstrates that it is trending
towards or again meeting the standard requirement. Invasive species will be treated such that they compose
no more than 5%of the easement area, and a visual inspection of the entire site for the presence of invasives
species will be conducted at least annually. Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored
during annual site visits to document any mortality due to construction activities or changes to the water table
that negatively impact existing forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
Additionally, native species herbaceous vegetation, primarily grasses, will be seeded/planted throughout the
site. During and immediately following construction activities,all ground cover at the proj ect site must follow
the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
7.3 Wetland Monitoring
There are ten existing jurisdictional riparian wetland areas totaling 0.996 acres identified within the project
conservation easement. They are primarily located immediately adjacent to the project reaches as a narrow,
wet fringe, with a few larger pockets located in low-lying areas of the pasture that drain into the reaches. As
previously described,they have been heavily impacted through their clearing and the establishment of pasture.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 7-3
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Enhancement of these wetland areas will be performed through both the reestablishment of a vegetated buffer
consisting of appropriate native species, and through the exclusion of livestock. Hydrologic improvement of
these wetlands is also anticipated through the restoration of the adjacent reaches, which will raise the stream
bed and reestablish a floodplain connection, thus raising the adjacent water tables and increasing flood
frequency. It is also expected that through these measures additional floodplain wetlands will naturally
reestablish so as to offset the wetland impacts necessary during construction.
Visual inspections will be conducted for the wetland areas periodically throughout the monitoring period
and will document any visual indicators that would be typical of jurisdictional wetlands. These include, but
are not limited to, vegetation types present, surface flow patterns, stained leaves, and ponded water, etc. A
reverification of the extent of jurisdictional wetlands can be conducted at the end of the monitoring period
by IRT request. Wetland plant establishment will be documented along with other visual indicators noted
above, and as part of the general vegetation monitoring protocol as described in section 7.2.
Please note that these wetland areas are not being presented for mitigation credit but are being documented
for both their functional uplift value and for verification of no net wetland loss on the project. Thus, there are
no formal performance standards or success criteria being presented for the wetlands.
7.4 Stormwater BMP Monitoring
A stormwater BMP will be constructed as part of the overall restoration approach for Reach UT3 as
described in detail in Section 6.2. The BMP will be visually monitored for vegetative survivability,outlet
stability, and permanent pool storage capacity using photo documentation throughout the 7-Year monitoring
period. Maintenance measures to be implemented during the monitoring may include the replacement of
dead vegetation(herbaceous and/or woody)as needed, and the removal of excess sedimentation from the
permanent pools, as needed. Additionally, should the outlet of the constructed wetland become unstable
during the monitoring period, corrective measures will be implemented to rectify the instability issues.
Please note that this BMP is not being installed for direct mitigation credit, but for the water quality
improvement of the adjacent receiving stream. As such, there are no formal performance standards or
success criteria being presented for the BMP.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 7-4
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

8.0 MONITORING PLAN
The monitoring plan for the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project is outlined below in Table 8.1 and
describes the measurable connections between the previously stated goals and objectives to the performance
standards and expected functional uplift. The approximate post-construction monitoring feature locations can
be found in Figure 11.
Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Performance Monitoring Likely Functional
Goal Treatment Outcome
Standards Metric Uplift
A dissipation of
Restore streams Four bankfull Increased damaging high flow
Reconnect with appropriate events in Continuous bankfullevents, during flood events,
stream channel separate years stage recorders restoring a more hydrologic
reaches to improvement of
dimensions and during the 7-year used to record natural flooding
their adjacent wetlands,
raise stream bed monitoring bankfull events. regime to the
floodplains. elevations. period. system. and increased
floodplain access for
sediment storage.
Restored streams
will maintain
Restore streams bank-height- A reduction in
with appropriate ratios of less Stable stream sediment loss to
dimensions, than 1.2and Cross section streams from bank
banks with
pattern,and entrenchment surveys and erosion,along with
Improve profile,stabilize ratios greater visual appropriate the re suiting nutrient
stream channel
streambanks, than 1.4 (B- inspections with loss,increased
stability. provide type)or2.2(C- photographic dimensions and woody debris and
floodplain type)provided documentation. sediment organic material in
access,utilize visual transport. stream resulting in
bio-engineering. inspections also improved habitat.
reveal
stabilization.
Install a variety Inventory
of in-stream comparisons of Increased number
structures, in-stream An increase in the
of pools and
Improve mcreasingthe structures and woody structures quantity and quality
woody debris features from of aquatic habitat
aquatic and the number N/A existing and debris features for
habitat and types of conditions and comp
and the macroinvertebrates
pools.Reduce as-built project existing and fish.
sedimentation surveys and conditions.
within riffles. assessments.
Plant Interim survival At the end of Improved riparian
appropriate rates of 320 monitoring,a corridor habitat for
Vegetation
Reestablish native hardwood stems/acre at monitoringplots vegetatedriparian native species,
tree and shrub MY3 and 260 2 buffer will be improved
forested (100 m each
riparian species on steams/acre at covering2%of established at a stabilization of
buffers. streambanksand MY5,withfinal the total planted minimum30-foot stream floodplain
in the riparian rate of 210 width and at a (reducing sediment
buffer at a 30- stems/acre at area). minimum 210 loss),increased
foot minimum MY7. stems/acre of woody and organic
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 8-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Performance Monitoring Likely Functional
Goal Treatment Standards Metric Outcome Uplift
width in all native species, material in
areas within the including buffer/stream
conservation volunteers(with system.
easement where IRT approval).
established Average height
native trees and will be 8 ft.
shrubs do not
exist.
Establish a Visual Restored streams, The functional uplift
Permanently permanent inspections to wetlands,and improvements from
protect the Conservation N/A confirm no buffers protected
the projectare
project. Easement(CE) encroachments from damaging maintained and
for the entire protected in
project. into CE. encroachments. perpetuity.
The as-built/ baseline report will be submitted within 90 days of the completion of project construction(to
include complete as-built record drawings with all vegetation planted and monitoring devices installed), and
will follow the NCDMS guidance document Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content
Requirements(October 2020), as will all subsequent annual monitoring reports,while the closeout report will
follow the Closeout Report Template—ver. 2.2(January 2016). There will be at least a minimum of 6 months
between the submission of the As-Built Baseline Report and the Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report.
The annual monitoring reports will provide the information defined below within Table 8.2 and will be
submitted to NCDMS by December 1" of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. The
monitoring reports will provide a project data chronology for NCDMS to document the project status and
trends, will assist with the population of NCDMS databases for analysis and research purposes, and will assist
in decision making regarding progress towards a successful project close-out. 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 as directed by NCDMS and NCIRT.
Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Required Parameter Frequency Number/Locations Notes
Pattern measurements will be
calculated as part of the as-
built/baseline report. Additional
X Pattern Baseline/As- Reaches UT1 and UT3 Pattern data, such as bank erosion
built(MYO) pins/arrays, will be collected only if
there are visual indications or cross
section survey data that suggest
significant changes have occurred.
18 total cross sections:
Monitoring 1 on UT-R1, 1 on Cross sections to be monitored over
X Dimension Years 1 2 UT1-R2, 4 on UT1- seven (7)years and shall include
3 5 and 7 R3, 5 on UT1-R4, and assessment of bank height ratio(BHR)
7 on UT3. See Figure and entrenchment ratio(ER).
11 for locations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 8-2
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Required Parameter Frequency Number/Locations Notes
For the Restoration and Enhancement I
X Longitudinal Baseline/As- Reaches UT1 and UT3 components of this project,the entire
Profile built(MYO) channel length will be surveyed as part
of the as-built record drawings.
3 crest gauges
(pressure transducers) The devices will be inspected on a
Surface in the floodplain along quarterly/semi-annual basis to
X Water Annually upper UT1, lower UT1 document the occurrence of bankfull
Hydrology and UT3, and in- events and flow duration for UT2 and
stream pressure UT3.
transducers in UT2 and
UT3
6 fixed vegetation
plots will be Vegetation will be monitored using the
Monitoring established throughout
X Vegetation Years 1, 2, the planted area, with 1 Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
e 100 m2
3, 5 and 7 additional random plot and total 2%Plotscols. of the plant d area.n size
each year(7 plots total
annually)
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Exotic and Annually vegetation will be visually assessed,
Nuisance photographed, and mapped. These
X Vegetation and as Project wide areas will be treated as needed. Beaver
and Animals needed signs and damage will be noted and
beaver will be trapped if discovered.
Representative photographs will be
taken to capture the state of the
Annually restored stream, wetland, and vegetated
Visual buffer conditions. Stream photo-points
X Assessment and as Project wide will be preferably taken in the same
needed location when the vegetation is
minimal to document any areas of
concern or to identify trends.
Proj ect Complete easement Locations of fence damage, vegetation
X Boundary Annually boundary damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
will be photographed and mapped.
Stormwater wetland BMP will be
Stormwater Semi- visually monitored for stability and
X BMP Annually BMP at top of UT3 vegetation survival during the 7-year
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 8-3
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, the post-construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this
document will be implemented. Project maintenance will be performed as previously described in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, DMS will be notified 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 Plan of Corrective Action is prepared and finalized Michael
Baker will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Notify the NCDWR.
3. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary
and/or required by the USACE.
4. Obtain other permits as necessary.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. 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 9-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The NC Department of Environmental Quality's Stewardship Program currently houses DMS stewardship
endowments within the non-reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment
Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS
113A-232(d)(3).Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The NCDEQ Stewardship
Program intends to manage the account as a non-wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the
endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those
purposes will be re-invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation. The site-protection
instrument for the site is included in Appendix B.
The project site will be protected and managed under the agreed upon terms outlined in the recorded
conservation easement. The appropriate signage will be installed to mark the conservation easement
boundary. The long-term manager/steward will be responsible for inspecting the site easement and signage,
and for taking any corrective maintenance actions as needed. The landowner shall contact the long-term
manager/steward regarding any clarification about easement restrictions and is responsible for maintaining all
livestock-excluding fencing and/or permanent crossings. Should land use change in the future,the landowner
will be responsible for the installation and maintain of any additional fencing that might be required to fulfill
the conditions of the conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 10-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
The determination of stream credits for the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project are detailed below in Tables 11.1 and 11.2 and are shown in
Figure 12. They have been calculated according to all applicable DMS, IRT, and DEQ guidance documents. The Credit Release Table can be found
in Appendix C.
Table 11.1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project- NCDMS Project No. 100068
Original
Mitigation Original Original Original
Plan* As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments
Stream
Reach UT1-R1 206.20 - Cold El 1.5 137.467
Reach UT1-R2 275.00 - Cold ElI 2.5 110.000
Reach UT1-R3 612.10 - Cold El 1.5 408.067
Reach UT1-R4 1,216.33 - Cold R 1.0 1,216.330
Reach UT2 86.24 - Cold ElI 2.5 34.496
Reach UT3 1,584.45 - Cold R 1.0 1,584.450
Reach UT4 42.80 - Cold R 1.0 42.800
Total: 3,533.610
Wetland
N/A - - - - - -
Total: N/A
*The lengths shown for each reach are the creditable lengths and were calculated after all exclusions were accounted for,such as easement breaks,utility impacts,stream
crossings,etc.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 11-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MI11GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Table 11.2. Project Credits
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project- NCDMS Project No. 100068
Stream Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Restoration Level Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration - - 2,843.580 - - -
Re-establishment - - -
Rehabilitation - - -
Enhancement - - -
Enhancement I - - 545.533
Enhancement II - - 144.496
Creation - - -
Preservation - - - - -
Total s 3,533.610
Total Stream Credit 3,533.610
Total Wetland Credit -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 11-2
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM M Ill GATONPROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

12.0 REFERENCES
Arcement, G.J., and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for
Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2339.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2339/report.pdf
CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,Version 4.2(Lee at al., 2008).
Daniel III, Charles C. and Paul R. Dahlen. 2002. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Assessment and Study Plan for
a Regional Ground-Water Resource Investigation of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces ofNorth
Carolina(Report 02-4105). Dept. of the Interior—United States Geological Survey.
Daniels et al. 1999. Soils Systems of North Carolina. Technical Bulletin 314. North Carolina State
University, Dept. of Soil Science. Raleigh,NC.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company,New
York.
Federal Geographic Data Committee(FGDC).2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic
Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, DC.
Griffith,G.E.,Omernik,J.M.,Comstock,J.A.,S chafale,M.P.,McNab,W.H.,Lenat,D.R.,MacPherson,T.F.,
Glover, J.B., and Shelburne,V.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey(map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harman,W.H. et al. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In: Kane, D.L.
(Ed.). Proc. AWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, AK.Pp. 185-190.
Harman,W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012.A Function-Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Haywood Waterways Association's 2002 Watershed Action Plan for the Pigeon River Watershed(updated
in 2014)
Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A.,Yang, L., Jin,S.,Danielson, P.,Xian, G., Coulston, J.,Herold,N.D.,Wickham,
J.D., and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change
information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5,p. 345-354
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234-1279.
Leopold, L.B. 1994.A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge,MA.
Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some
Physiographic Implications. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. US Dept of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Leopold, L. B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P.Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Francisco,
CA. (151).
National Resource Conservation Service(NRCS). 1997. Soil Survey of Haywood County,North Carolina.
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north carolina/hay woo dNC1997/haywo
oodNC1997-I.pdf
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 12-1
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 2019. Agricultural Applied Climate Information
System (AgACIS) for Clay County. WETS Station Hayesville 5.2 E, NC (CoCoRaHS). Website
Cited on June 17, 2019. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2011. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan,North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Available URL:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/PlanningBPU/BPU/French Broad/French%20Broad
%20Plans/2011%20Plan/French%20Broad%202010%20Plan.pdf
.French Broad River Basin Classification Schedule.NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh,
NC. Available at: https://deq.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-schedule
NCDWQ (now NCDWR) Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their
Origins (v 4.11), the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), and the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region(v2.0).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Reference Reach Database. In publication.
North CarolinaDivision of Mitigation Services. 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009.
NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC. Available URL:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed Planning/French Broad River Basin
/French Broad RBRP 15july09.pdf
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. 2018. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
www.ncfloodmaps.com Also available as ArcGIS Server feature at
http://hazards.fema.gov/gis/nfhl/services.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section. Scale
1:500,000. Available for download as GIS feature at
http://data.nconemap.gov/downloads/vector/geol.zip.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC. September 2017. Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/)
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. 2015. North Carolina Stream Assessment Method.
V2.1, September 2015.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2016. North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method.
V5, February 2016.
Pidgeon River Recovery Project watershed action plan, available online at:
http://haywoodwaterways.org/watershed-restoration/
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
. 1996. Applied River Morphology.Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
. 2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 18-26, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV:
Subcommittee on Sedimentation.
. 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply(WARS SS). Wildland Hydrology
Books, Fort Collins, CO. (648).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 12-2
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Department ofNatural and Cultural Resources,Natural Heritage
Program. Raleigh,NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
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.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team — October 24, 2016. Wilmington
District.
. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps ofEngineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region Version 2.0. ed. J.F. Berkowitz, J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Geological Survey. 2012. The StreamStats web program for North Carolina. Available online
at: https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north carolina.html.
. 2011. National Land Cover Database. Available online at: https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php.
Walker, A. 2018. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. Unpublished, NRCS. Personal
Communication.
Wolman,W.G., and L.B. Leopold. 1957. River Flood-plains—Some Observations on their Formation. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 282C: 87-109
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. PAGE 12-3
UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATON PROJECT,DMS NO.100068
MITIGATION PLAN(FINAL)

APPENDIX A: FIGURES,PHOTOS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

\---- --N-,_ /
J 1111111111111111111111 li
, /
P /
..
20010
47.
I V
®, /to F 4
ines Creek
A
\___-(4; , --p- ,.. ,
..., A)/
-„,, /
4410 4
/---/ t / 4//1
111111111L-
_ Ay,./ . s Alti
Site Location 44
it
/1
ao idyl /�
71.
4
/ 1r le
t ,
I,.* f\i
4 tfi -- _
,444 ,,,,,,,
ir .
*et ./ / ' Afro , ger)
? I )( t 4 ( i' or 000‘..... ir, A/1 ,
'�". !' P ..tree
/ ro, "eff
ft A/ ,
tillik. (/ ",
......, ise• A____,JI,'"_.-", , /
Project coordinates: • -
/ 35.644607 N, -82.940170 Note: Site is located within Targeted Local
iktr
� i Watershed 06010106-020010
/V/ /,
Haywood County
Haywood County f,.-- .w Site Figure 1.
cflLocation Project Vicinity Map
._,� v ��, UT to Rush Fork Project
�otara�i ililip i� DMS Project No. 100068
ailionor �i �,�. Michael Baker
*4Pat► t (� INTERNATIONAL
i
French Broad River Basin rr"} 0 0.5 1 2
�, [ Miles

-- . ek:- 7. 411 ; 4 -TWIN 'r ' . -5-41:rN1
riWIL-
4 -
lir
PPII,wm. •05 ..,
_t F
, 6
k Conservation Easement 5 -
Ia.
he
e. t-rril. .,- •
. •...,.. -:.. .•_
„,. .
111""*. ,...T1 :: ,..):). '. : oP
{ ..
..,,,L.. :
, ..• .,
..4.4;: ... ..r ....:..1-- ..0,,...,s1-'-...... .,. .. .-1,.
7
. . . ...: : : 1 5 . - AN
rs r ti
Ftit......::. .... I: • - .
' 90 4.....,.i'.3..._.. ...F.Acif.
p ' j ,uj
oriiiiierio
: k \sev‘i/
0 t r( . .:.4 :. . - ' - -"!"111.1.1 Irld
'1.•.:4 .•':".--.t.:it!.-...•..i. .0 0 ill: -
r';
Y. tit
4 ill
•
_i ilho.
•
r
li
.:
Will -!, J. i...
Lea
Iligt / 0 -.‘ •' 41
.01°. A 1104. • . CI fillillidll
North Carolina Figure 2. USGS Map
Michael Baker Division of 0 250 500 1,000 (Fines Creek Quad)
Mitigation Services Feet UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL DMS Proj.No.100068 Haywood County

, y - t . N
Pisgah National Forest }-
—
r ti ,
{ �
- 1= , North American Land , _,} Southern Appalachian Highlands
•• )) Trust Easement ,� Conservancy Preserve
V
• ' _
,.4. .____.4._, Jr_giiii.k„ _ ,
i ■ NC Agrictulture Development t••
- - and Farmland Preservation X'"'
UT to Wilkins
+` t . - Trust Fund Easement .
(Reference Site) '.� . - — 'i".
• y
' - . + i Southern Appalachian Highlands ' '
f Waterville Lake anti`: ti.�` t— Conservancy Easement r �--_ .'' Fines Creek Rare Plant ' Morgan Creek 1 y f
3__ t
,. Y' Site-High Full Delivery Project ;
�4r�.'. � it ,
i 1 k , 4 Raven Cliff Natural Area-High •,,
_c ., -
Project Site ` Crabtree Bald Natural r
1 t ,, �� ? Great Smoky Mountains ' •t. i Area-General ` a
National Park
1. i
iiiir:/
. ..
:y ; e L
._ lir ��
' • r Southern AppalachianAHighlands
•r- ' f .,. I Conservancy Easement . 41
/^••_ Rush Fork
�' '- ` -'f Southern Appalachian Highlands
�^ 'NC Agrictulture Development • +- .` Conservancy Preserve
y and Farmland Preservation ..a�a� _ .-_
.{':.-•-•V - Trust Fund Easement '
•0 .••=- '�* "{`. ' • • DMS Projects
......, if _.. -72 lo-_ ' ,:,.1.. . - %; . _ ,.L
r '`` ,£ Registered Heritage Area
} Pigeon River P Conservation Easement
- ' ri +� ' r'. / Federal Ownership
r�' •
'73 L i -• `r .. ��4 Private Ownership
°; \ , . . �� ' Natural Areas-High
S> -y 'r -�•ti, - Natural Areas Moderate
'k'' ;.,� y.: -• +314-/
Natural Areas-General
irr.
'III
+' 1- - - •_ ' North American Waterbodies
� j - , • Land Trust Easement
_ A
e - = — Streams
- Pigeon River
`�, N.
•
- - ,°
tiVi;
Proposed Conservation Easement
t{; ='rl'a • ' • • • (; 9 - 1 . . LecetAgartrartaVare is Information and Analysis
Figure 3.Adjacent and Proximal
Michael Baker 0 1 2 Planning Elements Map
Miles UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL Haywood County

N
%. W-J
,..,...
..,
x X X Existing Fencing s lip
•
Conservation Easement t ._... . ' �'
95 Existing Culverts and Crossings , :? ,.
Q Headcuts
- - - - Powerlines
— Vertical Banks on UT1-R2
lki
Existing Farm Roads #,Existing Condition Cross-Section / '*
A.
Existing Stream Centerline Q /C31
XS-4 W-A �-
Drainage Swale - . '
C W-H ,
Jurisdictional Wetlands W_B
+ • — ie *op*
,_ ,
di 73
e, 0 W-C V
,, * WD
UT4
`1., ..' ; < _. 0 W-E UT1-R4
J .. }1T yy 'p'•.'"ram
.! IMMI\MIV-All ''
UT1-R4 I W-K
F
' � • i ' _
/
• Aerial 'h•t•gra•11E . 0' Centerfo'rt- •gr jjj" � � y ,
ws _BMW'VII otrr�Wtg]tlrariititkol 11.1 111.4 ,
North Carolina Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Michael Baker Division of 0 125 250 500 and Features
Mitigation Services Feet UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL DMS Proj.No.100068 Haywood County

N
Blue Ridge Belt: Sedimentary
etamorphic Rocks
Biotite granitic gneiss
• Blue Ridge Belt: Ocoee Supergoup
Copper Ifffill Formation
•
•
Blue Ridge Belt: Sedimentary all Metamorphic Rocks
Biotite gneiss
•
Conservation Easement
• _' Geologic Formation
Biotite gneiss
Biotite granitic gneiss
Copper Hill Formation
aatfl Photograph Source:EOneMap,MaRgarzeGeographic ribiThilTerldallATJACI
Figure 5.
Michael Baker 0 0.25 0.5 Geologic Features
Miles UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL Haywood County

‘ , ii, 7.,,.,446. _ I A
+
_ .-:
• i
. i
l i r 1 • -:.f_".. .;.a. i fir_ i
•
�� � Yam.: � ` ,
l
Y
,+ } : -
,r
rA
rA
K ." . II Conservation Easement
Project Watershed Land Use UT1 (308 acres, 0.48 sq. mi.)
(USGS National Land Cover Database 2016)
11 Developed (impervious) 2.9% (0.18%) �. . • UT2 (24 acres, .04 sq. mi.) `,„_
if, Pasture/Hay 17.1% ` -� �- - - UT3 (98 acres, .15 sq. mi.)
10 Forested 79.8% tl ` -
UT4 (27 acres, .04 sq. mi.)
Eal Aerial Photograph Source: [4 OneMap,M@GgiGettgGeogra I n o . i• diaLtatiVal ,l'
Figure 6. Drainage Area
Michael Baker 0 0.25 0.5 and Land Use Map
INTERNATIONAL Miles UT to Rush Fork Project
Haywood County

N
`-t EdE
rr
e go
It•11 k
i^ .� Rm.))
J..iiiii, 11/10
,,,D)
Rio
SdC
•
fT�
•EdE
4•
. r ' .
DsC
IR5g p
r Conservation Easement
Project Streams
SdD
Soil Mapping Units
.,, DsC-Dillsboro loam (8-15%)
EdE-Edneyville-Chestnut complex(30-50%)
fly
SdC EdF-Edneyville-Chestnut complex(50-95%)
, EvE-Evard-Cowee complex(30-50%)
1' M PwF-Plott fine sandy loam (50-95%)
ScB-Saunook loam (2-8%)
SdC-Saunook loam (8-15%)
C#flP • - SdD-Saunook loam (15-30%)
D SeE-Saunook loam (30-50%)
Photograph Source:E OneMap,NC Center for Geographic Information d-Anal sis
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 Figure 7. NRCS Soils Map
Feet UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL Haywood County

Note: The UT to Rush Fork project site contains no FEMA-mapped floodplains. c- _i35
FIRM Panels . 'Yr + _ . , - '.. r .+ r'
7•_ j 1f •�-mid'' i'.`A• _ 1. �i�! I ', ;�
I
Conservation Easement �*' :, ';` '�`". i. '' :� � 'x I F• `F •;;�''' _ ',• ,-
•
Project Streams *' ' ...
.=!► ;`- :; ;' 'Son. -y . , : " _
.'',,.•,, ,.;V..:.44..!.,,,,Z ... ,, -..;ic,,c-. ,Z"Zfo.-!..r.411",;. .;41.:,..4:::A. i11ti� Y _r L •�- it
'..el'%.i.-* -. •:"'•'''''',...::,'A..' .r.i irirripOi-;4. '‘ '4 V 4.1.`: . :.;•.4., . .• ,.- ,
•, 4r:,.., - ;,..
1�.�1,{�y aFy :',v. ti 4 .
�r III
jr
/."..._
J
Panel Panel
3700872100J .- + 370873100J
''fir 4/3/2012 �'! Gal 4/3/2012
/ I IS, - ar-1110411111i1W.C.
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard .. . I '
(Zone X) ` 10,-1**-"
N
-t
' _ y ,Y Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
(Zone X)
..,. :• , . ,
,__ . _ _ . -44140.".04_ ,-.0,
ilingher
. ___ . ___
1
r" ,� P♦anel Panel
37`00872000J 37`0087�3000J
eff. 4/3/2012 i t eff. 4/3/2012
.� ::
Figure 8.
Michael Baker 0 750 1,50eet FEMA Floodplain Map
UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL
Haywood County

—
it
441 A'..i•.•1.„7,4 A,•,,,'•,.:,",,4,4;4,-•-,4-•„
7.
.. .•� • .. . •10;_. ;eil Conservation Easement (apx.)
A`1r,,".4','•.,....-.-.1' ,'Aji4
,'i
,, .. +
r. '3x a , : 4 4" ;. �"� AIM y +.' t.y.e.,.... ,risdoexii....0
If • • .' .'; ..D.' ' Le•Ageiki . t
".:•41114711 110: .elt .,a•-•
•
w1 1'� f*fir + �.�R :�� A,...i{^
a+ „",y,%
,t, �, T• iyi 4 �F .r 41. + •k ..
vie
+ ,Ls ,"-mot
•
;� • r .-,..; .".
. ..1 I. i - .` rya Alp r
{ :C-~,.• y ; L + ti'- 1 �,V,1 SIR ma. "f '.
:w+k. ,�i1 ti •r,:_ 'LA"' +' f y'.Y aM1"
+. �' �,'`. +� „" _ ..:,.pro .. .. � ���
t-#4,4 r.Y .]a a. eft O le%• ~F.�`.r" ,r i .-, . •Y
aIrr,•
�'M�S'`,••r• y r. r- — w #' 'r`'lkr t •,+4 _►-,�.a. k
.4.: ......e."._111:-..;S00;1%414
*Itt
!sue ti.' ..4.
a"
ti ..".•• t• 70 erf
vir
R.
Iw. �,,w 4- ?, ..§• a i .fir Y- _v • �i W.A . !a; i
r"y •.T^ .. y y wit�� .�r^I�_ .d
R .. ''' .ti J f..- ."V; 1 y try 1 t ar _
-*"110.. :fir '
T '' II •
7 - rx t S % cr . 4Y r�# i`r."+f . „ .4� N w .*; 1 Note: The historic aerial photograph is not georeferenced,
4 and the easement boundary location is approximate.
• ir
Historic Aerial Photograph Source: U GS 10-Oct-1956 w_1,-,r:.." , .„ -
Figure 9A.
Michael Baker Not to Scale Historic Aerial 1956
UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL Haywood County

N "_
Conservation Easement(apx.)
• • '9 L''':".'• ',..- re'. ._:- 1- \ PP , fi ' - 4'
.42'9.,:9',6 , .,P• r ,.a 4 1
.,��"''.' !�, Fh`,. �", is6. "411 :;. 7!, We''11,1:,,,.3,� , IN� -,'
N, \ ..
/4r14 'r A. . 14 . ,,' ,
I
•
•
,. ems' j s... .a• c
Note: The historic aerial photograph is not georeferenced,
and the easement boundary location is approximate.
Historic Aerial Photograph Sourc-: N33e 14 3
Not to Scale Figure 9B.
Michael Baker Historic Aerial 1995
UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL Haywood County

N
A
Rush Fork LiDAR
Elevation (ft)
High : 3843
IIllLow : 2856
LConservation Easement
North Carolina Figure 10. LiDAR Map
Michael Baker Division of 0 250 500 1,OOeet UT to Rush Fork Project
Mitigation Services Haywood County
INTERNATIONAL DMSProj.No.100068

• • Y„ .„ + N
P + *
. .,
, ..
d, , . ., I:i11ir . .„,.
.. .. + + :,
q . X
I x •,
4 '+'.ryl, x2'/ X
x x
X X X X Proposed Fencing x '
x
Conservation Easement �'.'••„ x -
Flow Gauges X x
x
U Crest Gauges x x
,x x L'q.� •.x Yx
Cross Sections 1 "�' 7 } x
Fixed Veg Plot x O x • +v +
x Random Veg Plot x x ++ ++
7' x + +
+
Proposed BMP x + ' ++
Stream Centerlines by Approach tx, X `
Restoration '` ' +X `' •
Enhancement
Enhancement II x X X ' •
Jurisdictional Wetlands '` ' ~
Y''
- Powerline
a
Relocated Farm Roads UT4 ' 1�
i /•. / , s- ��
r :
I 4-r" r Y .`.
. '—
` . ., , .• a
U ,.5 T1-R4
i . ,-„
`L{C I1�' Aerial 'h•t•g ra•h a,1 e IIta(,,( 1 r ttgt- •gr4111hre tiinfaltrfp d
North Carolina Figure 11. Proposed
Michael Baker Division of 0 125 250 500 Monitoring Features
Mitigation Services Feet UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL DMS Proj.No.100068 Haywood County

Conservation Easement N
,. I. ' .� ,�; Proposed BMP (no direct credits)
:r °,` Stream Centerlines by Approach
,, , , .
f �:v • H ':� , ,:� 11 it . •. Y Restoration
'J ". - Enhancement I
':;•.+ Enhancement II
F..
t w —
Stream Mitigation Credits ,
Reach Approach Length(ft) Ratio(X:1) Credits w
Reach UT1-R1 El 206.20 1.5 137.467
Reach UT1-R2 ElI 275.00 2.5 110.000
Reach UT1-R3 El 612.10 1.5 408.067
Reach UT1-R4 R 1,216.33 1.0 1,216.330
Reach UT2 ElI 86.24 2.5 34.496 ,
Reach UT3 R 1,584.45 1.0 1,584.450
Reach UT4 R 42.80 1.0 42.800 ,• ,.
Total Footage for Credit 4,023.12 UT1-R2 .
Restoration 2,843.58 2,843.580 M
Enhancement I 818.30 545.533 ,.•
Enhancement II 361.24 144.496 k rig`
Total Credits 3,533.610
UT4 "
_ 4 ;Y A ;:
i I
UT1-R4
.4 a
r rv.F
Y'
;: .. , \ 4
`.4.)IJ Aerial •h•t•gra•ha,uittia(1JG quidarh 11 Zalsarttgt- •gr jjT____ gfg
:� r �u ��rrrWt,Jrilariar3if�ul �1ot u��
North Carolina Figure 12. Project
Michael Baker Division of 0 125 250 500 Asset and Credit Map
Mitigation Services Feet UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL DMS Proj.No.100068 Haywood County

UT to Rush Fork: Existing Conditions Photographs
r
(ift"t':F4V7P;V:t'7 t:.
-,)li,,,,
-.4.,,F,f,,P...ip
N.
41.
Ste\ � sr` F L°¢R M•r• .'F{"' -,- "� :,;
44114: .it tf .:.-iit?V,.., ..-.., ,..z.-..0':,,. .:‘...':'.."ft,„..,—,it.f,:ii;i2i1401AW,t.f.11. :4,-1:",- '"..::"
1- ` '� l may' :' • : �y��` li
UT1-R4,Left Bank(June 2020) UT1-R4,Privet in riparian buffer(June 2020)
Y:
s ., �
sV.' `SmI -
f I �.
r
UT1-R4,upstream at dislodged culvert(Jan.2020) UT1-R4,downstream at dislodged culvert(Jan 2020)
y---...
/
a .. ti v. rr _ .per"
1r-/ . 'L.e ' L, 1 .. S r};4(r till,* - . ,_ .. �! \T
r ,Ai"' r`��-' ,`' , .f.- ti9yt' - } r. .„
r •
i !Y F ;410 s ,` .• w it
y'
UT1 R4,left bank(Jan. 2020) UT1 R4,left bank upstream(Jan.2020)

UT to Rush Fork: Existing Conditions Photographs
r;
° '/`
UT1-R4,downstream(Jan. 2020) UT1-R4,culverted crossing wash-out upstream(Jan. 2020)
As ow ki.,,,Iiii
,ii
.. y .
,rya. lk..".' __,:. �. a.. _
s
"'
�'CmA„# .E ' ` . rx7 , �
UT1-R4,culverted crossing wash-out downstream UTl R4,cattle impacts(Jan. 2020)
(Jan. 2020)
1%� _
fi
..
, .. - . - . ' . .;,' _--,v4,--;t7,--- .5.;•coli,'---:=1;ir.s:
c am >�'` -,
. N,
�:, _` .,::. �Via .. , � _.. .:N'' : 0 `it �,a "_ m lAki .x: # . ..: .m=, b�`"., ..r.�"k :..: '' s �.
UT1-R4,upstream incised(Jan. 2020) UT1-R3,cattle crossing(Jan.2020)

UT to Rush Fork: Existing Conditions Photographs
717111111111.111111rot: ,,,, ,
lit
. . .,.:_i.7 . . ,-,,w,..,4:, r:47.' ''`,.-,z_s,i,,%.,14Z--4,4-- -.,..„„.,.„.,_:
6 t
i R x r 3 -+r`' i••*:'ie,s,. I, vi 1/4,,,-.,- 3 ,6r -_.,,..*..r;,.-,,,.,,,-,-'- ,a ,0 & -
ii--*..-.4-,c=-. ,.,..,‘._:x,:.
..,:..-.:,.-N,..,1'4,7:,--
rt....fr
^ 4 �/R p 9�`.�' fit i.,--;-;."- .ft>_ '`' y ^ma's. .._::,,,..,,,,,-:-I..,.:,,,..,._,... rf
0,4$- lit- 'k••••,--k`',,,<„.• .t
a� S �� .,fie ` �. ec �1_,
UT1-R3,old culvert(Jan.2020) UT1-R2,top of R2 downstream n. 2020)
l , ' .tom '�
.
.4...c.-.1 ar,::i..,...,.,,:i,
.,,t•...."ii,.*•4,7!..-,,-.:'.-,',.:Ail '.--, ,:"-AT,'`V #41,
'1�
,..:41.,.,,,.7,;...:,,:,'7::1::.1.4;,;::::::f it,.4:74,74:77:_k*.i,i,e:1,11,4,'.P.:,,,.:,1,0'f ic...i r,t_'-;,,''4,.ar,,,..,,._4_,:4
UT1-R1,upstream(Jan. 2020) UT2,downstream(Aug. 2020)
3^ " y, ly`,k n` -abe 4'Y '5., S :%1.'Z..'i.'*'-.'.tR1,1'".,,,'•'4)A''4'1.M''1:,4• i
j1
+ate •rt : ,-- s1'
k
I.
= 1
Milt.?b,!.'4.-..:- .S4, , ' '.-..
r _
1,IF
a' '� S 7 ,r 1 ,.5j dam ,�' ` i.
- zo, -i _ 4 ry.
- �,
UT2,upstream(Aug. 2020) UT2,mid reach(Aug. 2020)

UT to Rush Fork: Existing Conditions Photographs
:1,
-.ems _ ..,:i:,. l. ''
LI _
N
lr it I : - Yf 1t ,p,
ww
•
Upper UT3,downstream(Nov. 2017) Upper UT3,upstream(Nov. 2017)
,A,-4, . , _.� 4.. ,,,- .
y a. .
a-"r
. - - - L ' M,-!. iRSy - a }r, F' l
fC9'.. )d :s� 4., e6-0,-z4 :''ems- L�. -.0,1 §+o--t' 3s: ... :A� A'=i. .:.5.. .'ir.. '�i
Upper UT3,crossing above confluence(Nov. 2017) Upper UT3, straight channel in field(Dec. 2019)
I.
r ,
. Y`tAre+ i� ��Aepy}p ' w w,
�-... r F d a✓ `F
. ,� ° c m '' e : ' .# Ta yi
41
UT3,mid-reach downstream(June 2020) UT3,mid-reach upstream(June 2020)

UT to Rush Fork: Existing Conditions Photographs
Y .
,,,,,...--royf,.--,5.--,t.,,,-
R x
;cv yy
,_:"'':',,-,,..-t"-,1.'2'-.:-i,,.,'*4\A-
g
-- ' ram .&" e u,4,.':-Al F,a
aco,,., .t r 9 dai
':,i'-!tr..-,''
'::4-.
�. 0 a," fie° ‘ � ) 1 ., r
UT4,upstream(Aug. 2020) UT4,upstream(Aug. 2020)

XS-1 on Reach UT3 (Middle)
0 Ground Points •Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points
105— Wbkf = 6.58 Dbkf = .82 Abkf = 5. 4
104
103—
0
102 e
0
101
C
O
N 100
L.T.
0
99
98
0 0
97
96
95
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance(ft)

XS-4 on Reach UT1 (Upper)
0 Ground Points •Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 12.2 Dbkf = .27 Abkf = 3.33
95
94
93
92 • •
•
91— •
C
0
•
90
W •
89
88
•
87 • •
•
86
85
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

XS-5 on Reach UT1 (Lower)
0 Ground Points •Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 8.73 Dbkf = 1.28 Abkf = 11.1
95.0
94.1
•
93.2— •
•
•
92.3
•
91.4 •
O
90.5
W
•
89.6
•
•
88.7—
• •
•
87.8
86.9
86.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

XS-11 on Reach UT1 (Middle)
O Ground Points •Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 7.1 Dbkf = .89 Abkf = 6.36
95
O
W
Q
0
85
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (ft)

XS-12 on Reach UT1 (Lower)
0 Ground Points •Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 13.4 Dbkf = .73 Abkf = 9.86
95
•
i
94
93
C
O O.O
4)
W
0
92—
40
Y
91
90
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Pebble Count UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
SITE OR PROJECT: UT to Rush Fork 100°/a 1
REACH/LOCATION: Reach UT1(Upper) 90% tUT to Rush Fork
FEATURE: 05-Sep-19
DATE: JY,VH 80%
UT to Rush Fork Distribution 70%
VIATERIAIPARTICLE SIZE(mm) Total Class% %Cum Plot Size(mm)
60%
Silt/Clay Silt/Clay <.063 0% 0.063 y
Very Fine .063-.125 0% 0.125 a�`i 50%
Fine .125-.25 0% 0.25 tl
Sand Medium .25-.50 0% 0.50 >7.
40%
Coarse .50-1.0 0% 1.0 • 30%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 7 7% 7% 2.0 E
Very Fine 2.0-4.75 8 8% 15% 4.75 U 20%
Fine 4.75-6.3 5 5% 20% 6.3 10%
Medium 6.3-12.5 8 8% 28% 12.5
Medium 12.5-16.0 4 4% 32% 16.0 0% ~ • t E--
Gravel 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Coarse 16-22.6 7 7% 39% 22.6 Particle Size(mm)
Coarse 22.6-32 1 1% 40% 32
Very Coarse 32-45 6 6% 46% 45
Very Coarse 45-64 19 19% 65% 64 UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project
Small 64-90 17 17% 82% 90 Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
Small 90-128 9 9% 91% 128
Cobble Large 128-180 5 5% 96% 180 100%
Large 180-256 3 3% 99% 256 90% ■UT to Rush Fork
Small 256-362 1 1% 100% 362
Small 362-512 100% 512 80%
Boulder
Medium 512-1024 100% 1024 70%
rge-Very La 1024-2048 100% 2048
Bedrock I Bedrock I >2048 I I I 100% I 5000 5 60%
Total%of whole count 100 100% I
6- 50%
a
Summary Data R 40%
Channel materials U 30%
D16= 5.03 D84= 97.33
D35= 18.55 D95= 168.14 20%
D50= 48.46 D100= 256-362 10%
0% 1 I I I I 11111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1

Cross-Section Pebble Count UT to Rush Fork MitigationProject
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
SITE OR PROJECT: UT to Rush Fork 100°/a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
REACH/LOCATION: Reach UT1(Lower)at XS-12 90% -0-UT to Rush Fork
FEATURE: 08-Sep-20
DATE: JY,MC 80%
UT to Rush Fork Distribution 70%
VIATERIAIPARTICLE SIZE(mm) Total Class% %Cum Plot Size(mm)
Silt/Clay Silt/Clay <.063 12 12% 12% 0.063 a) 60%
Very Fine .063-.125 0 0% 12% 0.125 a�`i 50%
Fine .125-.25 12 12% 24% 0.25 tl
d 40%
Sand Medium .25-.50 0 0% 24% 0.50 >_
Coarse 50-1.0 0 0% 24% 1.0 ea
30%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 0 0% 24% 2.0 mE • ■
Very Fine 2.0-2.8 3 3% 26% 2.80 20%
m_./
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 10 10% 36% 4.0 10%
Fine 4.0-5.6 10 10% 46% 5.6
Medium 5.6-8.0 10 10% 56% 80 0% ,
Medium 8.0-11.0 9 9% 65% 11.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Gravel Particle Size(mm)
Medium 11.0-16.0 5 5% 70% 16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 3 3% 73% 22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 2 2% 75% 32 UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project
Very Coarse 32-45 6 6% 80% 45 Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
Very Coarse 45-64 5 5% 85% 64
Small 64-90 1 1% 86% 90 100%
Small 90-128 10 10% 96% 128 90% •UT to Rush Fork
Cobble
Large 128-180 3 3% 99% 180
Large 180-256 1 1% 100% 256 80%
Small 256-362 0 0% 100% 362 70%
Small 362-512 0 0% 100% 512
Boulder °
Medium 512-1024 0 0% 100% 1024 '5 60/°
a)
rge-Very La 1024-2048 0 0% 100% 2048 50%
Bedrock I Bedrock I >2048 I 0 I 0% I 100% I 5000 tl
Total%of whole count 102 100% I R 40%
U 30%
Summary Data
Channel materials 20%
D16= 0.16 D84= 58.98 10%
D35= 3.28 D95= 123.35
D50= 6.57 D100= 180-256 0% I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0, 0., �50 ,O �9O ,k0 �b �O ��l ��O r.-b ,5'L DJ b'k q0 titi� e ��b ,o, �,^r��,tib��„���,0

Pebble Count UT to Rush Fork Mitgiaton Project
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
SITE OR PROJECT: UT to Rush Fork 100°/a ■U . ■ ■ ■
REACH/LOCATION: Reach UT1(Lower)at XS-5 90% -0-UT to Rush Fork
FEATURE: 08-Sep-20
DATE: JY,MC 80%
UT to Rush Fork Distribution 70%
VIATERIAIPARTICLE SIZE(mm) Total Class% %Cum Plot Size(mm)
60%
Silt/Clay Silt/Clay <.063 3 3% 3% 0.063 y
Very Fine .063-.125 1 1% 4% 0.125 a�`i 50%
Fine .125-.25 2 2% 6% 0.25 tl
d 40%
Sand Medium .25-.50 0 0% 6% 0.50 >_
Coarse 50-1.0 0 0% 6% 1.0 in
30%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 2 2% 8% 2.0 E
Very Fine 2.0-2.8 3 3% 1 1% 2.80 U 20%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 4 4% 15% 4.0 10%
Fine 4.0-5.6 8 8% 23% 5.6 ■
Medium 5.6-8.0 6 6% 28% 80 0%
Medium 8.0-11.0 9 9% 37% no0.01 0.1 1 10 100 moo 10000
Gravel Particle Size(mm)
Medium 11.0-16.0 6 6% 43% 16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 9 9% 52% 22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 5 5% 57% 32
UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project
Very Coarse 32-45 7 7% 64% 45 Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
Very Coarse 45-64 12 12% 75% 64
Small 64-90 10 10% 85% 90 100%
Small 90-128 7 7% 92% 128 90% ■UT to Rush Fork
Cobble
Large 128-180 5 5% 97% 180
Large 180-256 3 3% 100% 256 80%
Small 256-362 0 0% 100% 362 70%
Small 362-512 0 0% 100% 512
Boulder °
Medium 512-1024 0 0% 100% 1024 '5 60/°
a)
rge-Very La 1024-2048 0 0% 100% 2048 50%
Bedrock I Bedrock I >2048 I 0 I 0% I 100% I 5000 tl
Total%of whole count 102 100% I R 40%
U 30%
Summary Data
Channel materials 20%
D16= 4.13 D84= 86.04 10%
D35= 10.14 D95= 155.99
D50= 19.02 D100= 180-256 0% 1 . I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0�(j�1,� �50 ,O �9O ,k0 �b �O \O �6O rL ,5'L kt b'k q0 titi� �,�0 ��b ,oti t,,^r��,tib��tt��,0

WETS Table
WETS Station:WAYNESVILLE
1 E,NC
Requested years:1989-2019
Month Avg Max Avg Min Avg Avg 30% 30% Avg number Avg
Temp Temp Mean Precip chance chance days precip Snowfall
Temp precip less precip 0.10 or more
than more than
Jan 48.9 24.0 36.5 4.67 3.39 5.50 8 3.4
Feb 52.4 26.6 39.5 4.36 3.10 5.17 7 2.3
Mar 58.7 32.1 45.4 4.55 3.42 5.31 8 2.9
Apr 67.6 39.5 53.5 4.34 3.23 5.08 8 0.6
May 74.7 48.1 61.4 4.19 3.09 4.92 8 0.3
Jun 80.3 56.1 68.2 4.28 3.14 5.03 9 0.0
Jul 83.0 59.9 71.4 4.12 2.89 4.90 9 0.0
Aug 82.1 58.8 70.5 4.20 2.92 4.99 8 0.0
Sep 77.3 52.7 65.0 4.22 2.56 5.11 7 0.0
Oct 68.8 40.6 54.7 2.95 1.46 3.60 5 0.0
Nov 59.2 30.5 44.9 3.63 2.52 4.32 6 0.5
Dec 51.7 26.3 39.0 4.74 3.52 5.55 8 2.4
Annual: 45.09 54.59
Average 67.1 41.3 54.2 - - - - -
Total - - - 50.24 91 12.2
GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
0 0 0
Years with no occurrence: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
0 0 0
Data years used: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
31 31 31
Probability 24 F or 28 F or 32 F or
higher higher higher
50 percent* 4/3 to 4/15 to 5/3 to
10/31: 10/22: 10/10:
211 days 190 days 160 days
70 percent* 3/31 to 4/11 to 4/30 to
11/4:218 10/26: 10/14:
days 198days 167days
*Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.
STATS TABLE-total
precipitation(inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl
1894 M3.60 M2.53 3.84 4.35 1. 2. 0.29 5.29 24.
88 63 41
1895 6.97 1.86 5.92 3.09 5.97 4.46 4.15 7.05 0. 2. 2.30 3.30 47.
64 02 73
1896 M1.91 M4.31 M2.83 1.81 6.11 5.14 M12.08 0.79 4. 0. M5. 0.79 46.
14 71 90 52
1897 M2.93 5.70 9.23 5.08 0.99 5.89 4.89 2.73 0. 1. 1.33 M3. 44.
19 67 67 30
1898 4.36 M0.50 5.48 3.95 1.96 M2.85 5.02 7.35 3. 5. M2. 2.26 45.
66 45 42 26
1899 3.52 M 10.73 13.01 3.00 3.01 2.11 2.66 3.27 2. 2. 1.19 3.51 51.
60 89 50
1900 M2.38 M6.97 6.00 6.41 1.01 7.64 3.55 2.25 2. 2. 3.57 4.08 48.
49 12 47
1901 4.83 1.40 7.07 6.12 9.63 4.05 2.94 M8.76 2. 0. 0.61 9.56 57.
31 52 80
1902 2.12 7.99 4.57 2.40 2.81 3.62 3.00 1.43 5. 1. 3.36 2.52 40.

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL Memo
Subject: Rush Fork BMP Design Summary
Author(s): Victoria Hoyland,P.E.
Date: August 10, 2020
A stormwater best management practice (BMP) is proposed at the top of UT3. This BMP will receive
stormwater runoff from 4.25 acres of drainage area, including 0.12 acres of impervious area. Sizing of the
BMP was completed using a 1-inch design storm rainfall depth, and runoff was calculation using the
discrete SCS curve number method. This BMP was designed to meet the stormwater design criteria of a
constructed wetland following the North Carolina Stormwater Design Guidance Manual. Most of the
minimum design criteria(MDC)were able to be accommodated;however, a few could not be met as
outlined below. Even with these limitations,the design will be able to provide water quality improvement
benefits.
The BMP meets the temporary ponding depth (MDC-1), surface area(MDC-3), and percentage of deep
pool, shallow water and temporary inundation zones (MDC7, 8, and 9). Construction will ensure that any
need soil amendments (MDC-4)are accommodated. Peak attenuation is not proposed for this BMP,
therefore MDC-2 is met. Similarly,the BMP is collected runoff that is currently conveyed to the receiving
channel UT3 at this location due to the old roadbed berm, allowing the design to meet the requirement for
protection of the receiving stream by minimizing hydrologic impacts (MDC-11).
The BMP collects surface runoff along the southern and western side of the proposed wetland, and then
discharges runoff through an overflow weir along the northern side. The topography of the site does not
allow the inlet and outlet configuration to completely prevent short-circuiting (MDC-5), and a forebay
cannot be reasonably accommodated for all inflow (MDC-6). Preventing short-circuiting is not feasible in
a BMP of this size and configuration, and the site topography precludes alternative orientations or
designs. Forebays are typically required to provide an opportunity for sediment and debris to fall out
before reaching the BMP treatment area. Since the BMP does not receive concentrated discharges from
stormwater conveyance outfalls and the runoff passes through vegetated area prior to entering the BMP, a
lack of a forebay should not impact treatment efficacy.
The BMP is unable to meet MDC-10,which requires a 2-5 day drawdown time between the temporary
and permanent pool elevations. For a BMP of this size,meeting this criterion would require an orifice that
would likely be subject to frequent clogging in the propose application. As such,the BMP was designed
to accommodate the treatment volume in the permanent pool, instead of in the temporary pool. This
design criteria is consistent with the constructed wetland design requirements of other jurisdictions, such
as the State of Virginia. A low maintenance stone weir structure is proposed for the wetland outlet,which
also eliminates the need for a trash rack(MDC-17).

The revegetation plan meets the requirements of a landscaping plan (MDC-12), shallow water plantings
(MDC-13),temporary inundation zone plantings (MDC-14) and plantings on the perimeter fill slopes
(MDC-15).

UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project Calcs by: VWH
Checked by:
BMP Stage/Storage,Volume, and Surface Area Calculations
Avg. Area
Elevation Area (sf) (sf) Height (ft) Inc vol (cf) Acc vol (ft3) Notes
3084.50 14
3085.00 70 42 0.5 21 21
3085.50 162 116 0.5 58 79
3086.00 449 306 1 306 385
3087.00 799 624 1 624 1009
Deep Water Surface Area 116 sf
% Deep Pool 14.5%
Shallow Water Surface Area 333 sf
% Shallow Water 41.7%
Temporary Ponding Surface Area 350 sf
% Temporary Ponding 43.8%
Stage/Storage
3087.50 -
3087.00 -
3086.50 -
41 3086.00 -
a)
a)
2 3085.50 -
3085.00 -
3084.50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Storage[sf]

UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project Calcs by: VWH
Checked by:
Stormwater BMP Sizing Calculations
Pervious Area 4.25 (ac)
Impervious Area 0.12 (ac)
Discrete SCS Curve Number Method
Q*= (P-0.2S)^2/(P+0.8S)
Q*(From Impervious) 0.79 Runoff depth (in)
P 1.0 Rainfall depth (in)(Typically 1.0"or 1.5")
S 0.20 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins(in)
S is related to the soil and surface characteristics
S= (1000/CN)-10 0.20 through the curve number(CN)
Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover.
(Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables and
CN (Impervious) 98 explanation)
S= (1000/CN)- 10 4.49
CN (Pervious) 69.00
Q*(From Pervious) 0.00224
P 1.00
S 4.49
Q*total 0.793 (in)
SdD Saunook loam, basin, 15
Soil Type to 30 percent slopes, stony http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986) B area of interest is identified
BMP Sizing
SCS Method Volume of Runoff(ac-in) Required
V=A(Q*) 0.1060 Storage Volume
SCS Method Volume of Runoff(cubic feet) Required
DV 385 Storage Volume
Wetland Parameters
Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation
Required Ponding Depth 6.00 time. Usually 6-12" (in)
Required BMP Surface Area 0.018 (ac)SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 769 (ft^2)SCS Method
Actual Wetland Surface Area 0.023 (ac)Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
Actual Wetland Surface Area 1001 (ftA2)
Actual Wetland Storage Volume 481 (ftA3)

Historic Soil Survey Maps Showing Presence of Project Reaches
(in particular for Reach UT3)

( /
‘,....1.10, •
R tfRiz x. t � Cf�tl
shri m
.� -b.,
-N Hs2.•_ Hm '
Oa
k ntrib— b _ _.
•-
/ �___
),,,_7/
Hdt -13
Hm ---- --,
r
ScT _ L
mx • t1 H sz
�� �--=�
G
__ // t
(LHSZ
• Ttr ' H d t
. S C
.......
-- _ / .......
—_. - Fork Ga
r9 N led ....,..
Imp. 1". 41.."'.- H m t _
tilhAill;a4.---. 4/I....-.
- -_ /1":„... -
s
9,;-___ \
Ai Hsz Hsz
. II\ ?f --
_� Hdt Hdt ---
......... : ---, A i , ,,,,, _.......... .....„",...„
..........._
,..-- .........._
__........... _........___
______ sc,-1- -r -. ____.....
R ,/ c____ ____„---__________------
,r r -to 1 cT
/ :.--1.'
r:.DL'
i .
zi .,.
4
,Q i i si
s
�-�..
Hdt _ _PP /"'.-
_ -__ s.urce: 1954 Soil Survey data -'
\ ti
Hmh` Hdt
(showing UT3)

--:r.'Rom: n r+ -?'ti ..
•
-. :+tip::.'•► - :.r
.� &-' i -�. itio a - �f y .■u
, •- 44. ci g •-r%.46:-. . 6
t.
7 '1 �' • .
•
1 ,,0016::,..ir _La.
-011.f.. • - f ',ak
V' ,_. 'H ..
•
•
r •, ' _ -+rxf 11,1
rait
er33- .
.0.01, 'P214•IF 0 ra225W -
.ti 4.,• ,y` .. 3e ems~ * t i f 0_ .�--7 f' _;
r.
4,,, , .• .. -"i..,i-11',M:-... .-. . . .---:1.1.. -'.T.'or`r--•'0r. i'-,... -. -.•
-........_\
-.7' ' Zae•". ...' - -4 '--..,• ' - It
c.
...-- tr 6
.Y.4041111142tho :" li
.1, i. itsell11.11 0.1 Coe '4
. 114 _..01,,.:. , i Pl. t . ' -
\1/4: '
-i'y
diss4r00.-----71.&. ...400,- • ..... ... A- . -..ii,
• . ..st , viii.j.;„ - . .... . . •.,. , . .0 ..i...-."4 ' • -z,LA!.... .., ,ip.- ",..t7-,• 0
i illf . • : •
- as. -''''.--..4 4-- ' 7 - -.r:4;O:-'•.-4•VF'''-
•
•
• ` � ' w , ..'maL/ {.,y iF `l% , IV { ' . .♦ i , l _
y � •%'
ram'* J. y _ `f.f.+ .* t, ••#-
• i
1. "� �J^�y,l+.+ ; .� l e a ..}. ■
irk ;t,r �. ,
•
•
N'hiL. - . r• ,t- . 1 , F., _�•„ , ir,�-�+ 'tir_ •�''t
Wil
It
n.
: : .31'••'.'• • .' .. 1' •..• . •' ' ' t.•, I'dif:'•: . •. '•:771.'•.1'
r ♦-?+ q.rq •
• _.; L 1_ ,.f.44.,l ' .II • 4 - r ,_.., ' •• ga rC..t r r :,J. t *• `.. t r
, I *id)I. ..g. tO....
111.10.
•
a 4 • . w ,Source: 1964 Soil Survey data
.' . ' ` ,';. (Showing UT3)

CI
`°, Pwrf EdE -,
( A / ChF i PwF Sd0
SsE�
ChF Sd0 SeE
SeE EdE
! PwFRLJShuofl� 0
C#�F \\., Gap C
Elisa
EdE Edf • CNI
cD �,
, SeE Gap _ . w
~\EdF
hF EdE - S .~� 0
of _ �-. O
-_ _-4 EdF EdF SeE EdF
0E i _ „are'
- - EdF ,# •
-IF •fQ EdE SdD UT3 — SdL
_ EdF
EdF \____Sdp V
,- _ .
EdE - ;y
3sD in
EdF Edr EdE
r
_ Ertl 2,,--/a 'UT1
_.. EdF `-, EvE
E PwF ' ,,,
EdE __ - i 1
t r
w�
EdE d
1 LL w
: ° (dif
Gillett EdF EdF i
o dC _ o
Gap Eir o W
ASdC1 dC EdF .. . ILLJ
EdE EdF co r
Nut SdD
EdF EdE ELF r c
SeE EvE SdD
Sd[ SdC 4 '
EdF S(da - ,. EvE EvO
-- _- EvE / SeR /,
fr
!J-;-... -L-< Ili - g3[3CIttrr::1 '
Source: Haywood County Soil Survey Manual map (1997)

APPENDIX B: SI I'L PRO ILCTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed below in Table B.1. The conservation easement boundaries are shown in Figure
B.1, and a copy of the recorded survey plat is provided below.
Table B.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
CE Parcel Site Deed Book Total
Areas in Landowner Number County Protection and Page Acreage
Parcel Instrument Numbers Protected
A, B, C, Anne Palmer Family Conservation Book 489,
and D Properties,L.P. 8721-72-6837 Haywood Easement Page 1683 7 66
E, F, G, WE Kirk Farms Conservation Book 838,
andH North,LLC 8731-33-5998 Haywood Easement Page400 0.60
A conservation easement has been obtained and recorded from the current landowners for the entire project.
The easement and survey plat documents were reviewed and approved by NCDMS and State Property Office
(SPO) and is now held by the State of North Carolina. The easement and survey plat(Deed Book: RB 1006,
Pages 2031-2044,and Deed Book:RB 1006,Pages 2018-2030)was recorded at the Haywood County Register
of Deeds on September 8, 2020. The secured conservation easement allows Baker to proceed with the
restoration project and restricts the land use in perpetuity.

N Conservation Easement Parcel Boundaries
A • , ,
CE-B Parcel Boundaries
' 2.64 ac
% .. _ ,
a•�
CE-F
0.01 ac "
�:
rr
1,4211,1//ir.Hik111111111. ....: - ,,.t:' .
CE-C
0.61 ac - .
_ 0.23 ac
S If
•..r: 0.25 ac -r..L• ;
CE-A
1010
2.98 ac —
CE-E
/ 0.11 ac
t f.r �.:,
4111
CE-D
111
_� 1.43ac z
la
a
re
r
i
[01.1
9Aerial Photograph Source:.NC OneMap,M@GgiGuiteGeogra I Altirajlp MI;
North Carolina Figure B-1. Site Protection
Michael Baker Division of 0 125 250 500 Instrument Map
Mitigation Services Feet UT to Rush Fork Project
INTERNATIONAL DMS Proj.No.100068 Haywood County

Instrument# 2020008788 B '' '
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY: VICINITY MAP
NCGS MONUMENT"WALKER" GRID NORTH (NOT TO SCALE)
I, HAMPTON JAMES LARK , CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN STATE PLANE COORDINATES GRID TIE INFORMATION 11.
UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY NAD 83(2011)
SUPERVISION FROM DEED DESCRIPTION(S) RECORDED IN DB: N:714960.21' KRO
489 CONTROL POINT CONTROL POINT �� t•-' A ql.
E:829018.24'
PG: 1683 & DB:_B3$_ PG:_AQQ_; THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT 5/8"RBCC(500) 5/8"RBCC(502) p�N '9TCy
SURVEYED ARE INDICATED AS DRAWN FROM INFORMATION AS REFERENCED; CF:0.99974389 p qa
THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN (LOCATED N 15"39'49"W A GRID DISTANCE STATE PLANE COORDINATES STATE PLANE COORDINATES
1:10.000 ;THAT THE GPS PORTION OF THIS PROJECT WAS TO l I N.712855.04' N.712296.84' e
� OF 2186.36'FROM CONTROL POINT#500) E:829608.53' E:829522.61' e °cv
PERFORM A GRID TIE TO THE NC STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM AND I�i
INFORMATION USED IS SHOWN & NOTED HEREON; THAT THIS PLAT WAS I I CF:0.99975765 CF:0.99975891 at o
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED. I ; `�� r SUBJECT
o 'POINT 500 BEING LOCATED spurPIN
I ALSO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT IS OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: / o o PINE CV PROPERTY
GS 47-30 F(11) D; THAT THE SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH I I TATER PATCH& N 08°44'59"E A GRID '' poi � cI Y
AS THE RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING PARCELS, A COURT-ORDEREDCLYDE PROPERTIES,L.L.C. / DISTANCE OF 564.78'FROM ♦NN
SURVEY, OR OTHER EXEMPTION OR EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF I.I: ; I PIN.8721-95-1349 POINT#502 Y4P"C°k = r
SUBDIVISION. o DB:734 PG:581 /�
JAMES C.OAKLEY&WIFE
cr ,4,�0 U CO 411
41
JULIE D.OAKLEY I. I PC:A SL: 125A TRACT 1 / �� PALMER `'�oJ� i
GPS METADATA PIN:8721-84-1681 PANTHER POND RD O A me
CLASS OF SURVEY: HORIZONTAL:A {I. I / CREEKRD
DB:672 PG:2421
FIELD PROCEDURE: STATIC NETWORK '�
DATES: 10/04/18-10/05/18 PC:A SL: 125A TRACT 2 o I /
DATUM: NAD83(2011)
EPOCH: 2010 II I / ep
GEOID: 12B vcR V-
AVERAGE COMBINED FACTOR:0.99975704
POSITIONAL ACCURACY: HORIZONTAL: 0.03' o
UNITS: USFT
CORS USED: NQMA, ncSW, NcSY. 11113 I I CONSERVATION EASEMENT CORNER
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, & 1. TOTAL CONSERVATION # NORTHING EASTING
SEAL THIS _MK__ DAY OF _ AUGUST __, 2020. o EASEMENT AREA 1 712929.29 830072.21
```���I11I11////77 I , 8.26 ACRES 2 712869.62 830029.43
CA // AREA A:2.98 3 712765.55 829879.70
4 712746.79 829825.39
•(H R�� AREA B:2.64 5 712655.25 829698.66
`�� "*.i..e8S%py7.� o ` AREA C:0.61
6 712223.75 829489.27
AREA D:1.43
- - , 8 712462.11 829482.95
7 712294.81 829455.95
" SEAL ter: AREA E:0 11
• L-2 8 8 5 _ ` , AREA F:0.01
9 712591.10 829561.42
,y_ o AREA G:0.23
• %s R���• �� AREA H:0.25 10 712667.50 829568.49
�-'/*je•'.•••-•••*•'••0474: 11 712790.03 829651.39
12 713135.22 829593.72
' i'ON I I ► , ` --- , 13 713178.40 829579.39
HAMP N JAME LARK PL. L-2865 ' o I 14 714039.61 829336.70
15 714169.49 829166.79
16 714247.14 829091.92
17 714296.12 829153.85
0 18 714212.21 829288.36
SHEET 2 \\\ 19 714056.17 829451.11
20 713811.62 829490.34
I 21 713162.12 829670.68
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA o W` 9J SOIL ROADBED IN GENERAL LOCATION OF 22 713117.76 829691.60
<W OLD CRABTREE ROAD(NOT OPEN) 23 712829.32 829728.93
i 24 712877.08 829896.98
THIS PLAT DOES NOT CREATE A SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY IN I I p� i i i �j (SEE NOTE#10) 25 713050.80 830053.16
HAYWOOD COUNTY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO IDENTIFY I o I `i i i i i\ 26 713088.45 830069.42
THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS ONLY. NO TRANSFER OF \ 27 713411.60 830411.09
PROPERTY IS TAKING PLACE. I I �F * i i i ' 28 713425.43 830425.63
\i i i i i ` 29 713503.12 830455.10
q� I_ o I. �� i i i 30 713521.03 830505.87
I,�'11� /• .S• Ark: � REVIEW OFFICER FOR HAYWOOD I i 31 713433.98 830534.14
COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP OR PLAT TO WHICH THIS I i i i i 32 713370.30 830487.37
CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED MEETS AlL STATUTORY I. cF i i i i �J 33 713353.67 830475.97
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING FOR WHICH THE REVIEW 35 713069.16 830172.54
OFFICER HAS RESPONSIBILITY AS PROVIDED BY LAW. \__ o \ `i i i i 36 713033.28 830146.80
\ cF i i i WE KIRK 37 711634.712 829119.16
LC \.\ i i FARMS NORTH, LLC 38 711571.81 829074.76
-..il _ 1 9'� \ ; \ PIN: 8731-33-5998 39 711520.90 829082.80
RE EW OFFICER DATE I �. o \ �� i * ta
i, DB: 838 PG: 400(TRACT IV) 40 711472.11 828993.60
* REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286(TRACT II) 41 711740.76 828990.01
\ \ i iu 42 711873.52 829087.91
i i AND DB: 158 PG: 305 43 712073.77 829290.26
\_ ;o \ i i i PC: C SL: 6260 44 712041.01 829337.76
REGISTERED THIS THE __ DAY OF , i 1
\\ c i ! 444453
5 711983.06 829329.91
20___ AT AND RECORDED IN \'''
i 46 711718.72 829074.81 -
\.. ao \ i cwi
i
PLAT BOOK PAGE BY: I \: \ c�i i i '
\_ \ m i
DEPUTY ;o \ `i i v`
i
HAYWOOD E.M.C. UTILITY LINE \ \ m i i i \
REGISTER OF DEEDS (SEE NOTE#8) \. Aso \ i i ay
1 \ .
\ i i i 1
\ mi i r SHEET 3
\- \ i ii 1
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION: `�\ c)\ (7i i
\.t \ fi i :\ 1
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE All
PROPERTY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON. WE ALSO I `� Z \.\\ * i i U AREA G
HEREBY ACCEPT AND ADOPT THIS RECORD PLAT AND �z \ ; \ m\,, i 0.23 ACRE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH OUR FREE CONSENT AND 'O��N y
DEDICATE ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAYS, AND yNt��0 \. o \ i iy I \ C6Y
ACCESS ROADS TO PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE USE AS o y S 0 '
NOTED ON SAID PLAT. y O��. \ \ i
nn _ � � /n� o' 'L \ \ AREA B m W i 0.01 ACRE V * m
(f -`7"Q�- 1h1 (?ge - - ZD2 I mot, eJOcp \'\ \ 2.64 ACRES i SOIL ROAD i i//1 1
ANNE PALMER FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. DATE 2..., \. ; \ i ANNE PALMER , i�0
RUSSEL P. LOVE, REGISTERED AGENTo to i FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. • -X
\ \\ i L. i iliU PIN: 8721-72-6837 o4i i �i�F
___ _ - -?a 2 \ i DB: 488792
89 PG: 1683 AREA C i i
�h� 96r'� _ - __ ;oc� i REFERENCE:UNRECORDED SURVEY ENTITLED 0.61 ACRE /
\ fi i
KIRK FARMS NORTH, LLC. ATE \ "PROPERTY OF ANNE PALMER FAMILY PROPERTIES, �i i i�� �i�O AREA H
ES WEAVER KIRKPATRICK, JR., MANAGER I \. \ :i ', L.P.",DATED 01/26/2010,DWG.NO.01-B-11-10-68,BY i 0.25 ACRE I
\ i i i - X.
\ ROBERT H.MOORE,L-1168
fi i i
_ _ `� i HAYWOOD E.M.C. UTILITY LINE i i
W i (SEE NOTE#8) ---- A/ */
G`� i i oi`�
- - \ 1\\
SURVEYOR'S NOTES: _ - - 'ow ow_�-ow=` �e� /i y i/�i/ 1
1 ' 'QW ' / _ O Yak Ow G� i i i 2
1. ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES ARE GROUND MEASUREMENTS IN US _/oW _ \::. CE�ow�- - i
SURVEY FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. owl /� i i
2. AREAS CALCULATED BY THE COORDINATE METHOD. - \''' \ i i i� - _ _ ow_ow _ _ O i * * .y'�
i _Ow _4` CABIN IS TO BE REMOVED
3. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS AND \ \ * m _ mow Apr RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE RECORDED, UNRECORDED, WRITTEN AND i -
UNWRITTEN. J�'iCE
AREA A I I
4. HAYWOOD COUNTY GIS WEBSITE USED TO IDENTIFY ADJOINING I \ I
.
i 2.98 ACRES '- i
PROPERTY OWNERS. W i m *
i v°`ROPD
\...
5. THE PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR HAS MADE NO INVESTIGATION OR SILO I ° Ti i o o�
INDEPENDENT SEARCH FOR EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, \ \ RUINS c,� i ``� ` WE KIRK
ENCUMBRANCES, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, CORRECT OWNERSHIP OR 0 \li i, i i i FARMS NORTH, LLC
ANY OTHER FACTS THAT AN ACCURATE AND CURRENT TITLE SEARCH -; . ' i c> / i i PIN: 8731-33-5998
MAY DISCLOSE. A NC LICENSED ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED. CONTROL POINT m o`er i /� DB: 838 PG: 400(TRACT IV)
I
6. BY GRAPHIC DETERMINATION, NO PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY I RBCC"KEE"#500 i /i i 12"CMP REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286(TRACT II)
APPEARS TO LIE WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA) AS ----- I ' ,i / CEi i i 0 AND DB: 158 PG: 305
DETERMINED BY THE F.E.M.A. MAP#'s 3700873100J & 3700872100J I. .• I i in CE i vs. �i PC: C SL: 6260
DATED 4/3/2012. 1ii m// iii � �7. UTILITIES WERE LOCATED BASED ON VISIBLE ABOVE GROUND ANNE PALMER I I A i i r
STRUCTURES, THEREFORE THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. r AREA E
I '� � i i 0.11 ACRE I
ARE APPROXIMATE OR MAY BE PRESENT AND NOT SHOWN HEREON. PIN: 8721-72-6837 _
CALL 1-800-632-4949 BEFORE DIGGING. I DB: 489 PG: 1683 I i W i i i *W i �✓� �/
8. THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH REQUIRED FOR OVERHEAD REFERENCE:UNRECORDED SURVEY ENTITLED i * /� `I`
DISTRIBUTION POWER LINES OF ANY VOLTAGE IS "PROPERTY OF ANNE PALMER FAMILY PROPERTIES, ; i i i i i , �
NORMALLY A 40-FOOT CORRIDOR (20 FEET ON EACH L.P.", DATED 01/26/2010,DWG.NO.01-B-11-10-68,BY I:: o i i i i / .,
SIDE) PER HAYWOOD E.M.C. (FORMERLY CRUSO E.M.C.). ROBERT H.MOORE,L-1168 I i i i +
SEE DB: 110 PG: 100 AND DB: 110 PG: 135, IN WHICH % i i i i
NO WIDTH IS GIVEN. I I 24"RCP i/ /
i i i
9. NO DEED WAS FOUND GRANTING A RIGHT OF WAY FOR I I a i�; i i i i� + I
N.C. HIGHWAY 209, A PRIMARY ROUTE, TO THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. IT IS / / ./ i k/ *
} }
ADVISABLE, HOWEVER, TO PLAN FOR NO IMPROVEMENTS /: * i 7*
/
CLOSER THAN THIRTY FEET FROM THE PRESENT ROAD - o i i i�
CENTERLINE. / // i k WE KIRK
FARMS SOUTH,LLC
10. THE SURVEYOR HAS MADE NO DETERMINATION TO THE RIGHTS ici *
i i PIN:8730-09-3258 \ 1
OR INTEREST OTHERS MAY HAVE IN THE OLD CRABTREE ROAD i i i DB:838 PG:404
AND WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY EASEMENTS OR RIGHT OF 1 x t i i REFERENCE:DB:562 PG:286(TRACT II) I
WAYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. A NC LICENSED ATTORNEY i i I AND DB:158 PG:305
SHOULD BE CONSULTED. / / , i PC:C SL:6260&PC:C SL:7314
/ i i i i i SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
11. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, o /: HIGHLANDS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, RECEIVE A PERPETUAL RIGHT OF ACCESS / W W (CONSERVATIOND CONSERVANCYARVMY)
TO THE EASEMENT AREA OVER THE PROPERTY AT REASONABLE TIMES 14 i i / DB: AS
TO UNDERTAKE ANY ACTIVITIES TO RESTORE, CONSTRUCT, MANAGE, / / 978
MAINTAIN, ENHANCE, AND MONITOR THE STREAM, WETLAND AND ANY h PC:C SL:7314
OTHER RIPARIAN RESOURCES IN THE EASEMENT AREA, IN I - / • ' r * / I
ACCORDANCE WITH RESTORATION ACTIVITIES OR A LONG-TERM * i
i I
MANAGEMENT PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION II OF THE I , ri •
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT. 1 . a � _
12. ALL EXISTING FENCES WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ' - i
AREAS ARE TO BE REMOVED. so'CMPI •. I'x i
13. FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE DATES OF 10/04/18 �X CONTROL POINT
AND 08/17/20. I / RBCC"KEE"#502 I
I I
.18"CPP I.
"C 4MP j /
AREA D
LEGEND: I
1.43 ACRES '" it l
\ ../ /
SET 5/8" REBAR W/ "KEE" CONTROLLak....(..
*
POINT CAP IN CONCRETE G`, * l I
i * I.....`. •• _.
❑ NCGS CONTROL MONUMENTi i I
I
(BRASS DISC IN ROCK OUTCROP) G� i/* i Rio I
• UNMARKED POINT I i
• EXISTING IRON PIN (AS NOTED) c.oi i i i /
O SET 5/8" BY 30" REBAR W/ 3-1/4" i --
/: ��o� ,
DIAMETER ALUMINUM CE CAP
QO SET 5/8" REBAR W/ "KEE" CAP v�i ri •• - 1
0 UTILITY POLE i fiti
/i DIGUY ANCHOR ��`/i ice'i
Q TELEPHONE PEDESTAL . i i i
CONSERVATION EASEMENT o* i i O\�Q� 21-
(XX) CORNER NUMBER U i i i< .7 jI ,
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (CE) I li i i i ioF � 1:2RIHEIIIIIII1IIIIII'IIIIIIIII'll'IIIIIIIIISOIL ROAD wi i / I t020008788U` i HAYWOOD CO,NC FEE$63.00 A CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR:
ASPHALTi i �Jii }/ II - -08&2020 02:16:43 PM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAli
IERRI C.ROGERS DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
---= STREAM/WATER w i �+
REGISTER OF DEEDS
,_ r„ V I l. BY:TARA E.REINHOLD
i DEPUTY "UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT"
CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (CE) i --- I I
BOUNDARY LINE I 1 i ' BK: MAP CABD SPO FILE NO'S. 44-AV &44-AW DMS SITE ID NO. 100068
BOUNDARY LINE NOT SURVEYED \ us i
�� I I PG: 874-876 PARCEL IDENTIFICATION #: 8721-72-6837 & 8731-33-5998
- - - - ADJOINING DEED LINES 1 0 i I o'_:I' CURRENT OWNERS LISTED AS:
- - UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY (AS NOTED) ANNE PALMER FAMILY PROPERT/ES, L.P. & WE KIRK FARMS NORTH, LLC
X FENCE y�� I SITE ADDRESS: 9299 RUSH FORK ROAD (NC HWY 209), CLYDE, NC 28721
OW OVERHEAD WIRE I � I
i
� `� - � - - � - � - � - � - � - � DEED REFERENCES: DB: 489 PG: 1683, DB: 838 PG: 400
- - - - - - TIE LINE ONLY �x � I -
PC: PLAT CABINET CRABTREE TOWNSHIP, HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DB: DEED BOOK I SURVEY BY: JB,CB,JJ,KP,CG DRAWN BY: NH CHECKED BY: HJL
PG: PAGE SOIL ROADBED IN GENERAL LOCATION OF I o SURVEY DATE: 08/27/20 JOB /180788-CE
SL: SLOT OLD CRABTREE ROAD(NOT OPEN) o R T REVISION: DATE:
RBR REBAR (SEE NOTE#10) I O N
F C4q
o
RBC REBAR WITH ID CAP I a SHEET SIZE. 24'X36" SHEET : 1 OF 3
RBCC REBAR WITH ID CAP SET IN CONCRETE `1. 0' 120' 240' 360'
POB POINT OF BEGINNING j o I Ell �
MEM
IP IRON PIPE � '
NCGS NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY y .. ONE INCH = ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET
N.A.D. NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 HAYWOOD E.M.C.UTILITY LINE 4.
SPC STATE PLANE COORDINATES SEE NOTE#s SFR E.i T i G" E'', N P.O. Box 2566
CF COMBINED FACTOR I .- Asheville, NC 28802
RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONSERVATION EASEMENT �� �.�
CPP CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE CORNER-NC DMS CAP(TYPICAL) (828) 575-9021
NTS NOT TO SCALE ��'�� iik
'LU2U2U.keema�n.CO�rt
M/�I'I'I!�(, & SIiKVE YI'V(, License # C-3039
L 77Y

:nstrument# 2020008788 B
JAMES C.OAKLEY&WIFE
JULIE D.OAKLEY SO
PIN:8721-84-1681 s -
TATER PATCH& GRID TIE INFORMATION N GRID NORTH WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, Sc
DB:672 PG:2421 Pli7ACLYDE PROPERTIES,L.L.C.
- PIN:8721-95-1349 /' NAD 83 (2011) SEAL THIS _..271tL_ DAY OF ___ASIQT-__, .2QZ.Q.
PC:A SL: 125A TRACT 2 q In
- • N�,ti,• DB:734 PG:581 CONTROL POINT CONTROL POINT
PC:A SL: 125A TRACT 1 5/8" RBCC(500) 5/8" RBCC(502) ���NN�H CAR��77/i,
3/8" RBC"MOORE" .•.•.. .� STATE PLANE COORDINATES STATE PLANE COORDINATES �`� ��•• Off/
STATE PLANE COORDINATES •.'•'I• 1 • N, N: 712855.04' N: 712296.84' • ... *O,O�ES3%�ytif :-
N:714733.58' :•:•:{• 1 . •
P E: 829608.53' E: 829522.61' = :a SEAL
E:829007.13' 0 • (,q L15 CF: 0.99975765 CF: 0.99975891 �j� -
CF:0.99974389 �` :�L-2885
LOCATED S 02°48'22"W A GRID O 16 S 7g,51 z.
ii if'. z)Si(�K!T•" •��� �Q
DISTANCE OF 226.90'FROM 58 E *POINT 500 BEING LOCATED ` C�''R.____
3/8 RBR�. so.�. sea°as'o3"E N 08°44'59"E A GRID ��,ArON•••• s���`
\NCGS MONUMENT"WALKER" 0 -- -
O 7j DISTANCE OF 564.78'FROM //77//+iI!I` O�� HAMPT N JAM S LARK PLS L-2865
1 \ 3/8" RBR \( POINT#502
.\ 0 1 '8
1 \ <
4 THIS PLAT DOES NOT CREATE A SUBDIVISION OF
1 PROPERTY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO
1 0 1 ��0 IDENTIFY THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS
1 N ONLY. NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IS TAKING PLACE.
1 1 ,_. -3/8" RBR
0 O
1 ' ' L23 TOTAL CONSERVATION
1 \ • SOIL ROADBED IN GENERAL LOCATION OF EASEMENT AREA
1 i \� OLD CRABTREE ROAD (NOT OPEN) 7.66 ACRES
0 Otis (17) `c� SEE NOTE#10
1 1 y'.o$46 0 Ste° s` AREA A:2.98
p AREA B:2.64
HAYWOOD E.M.C. UTILITY LINE , ��� W `��3p"F �`Is) AREA C:0.61
y W ' 7 AREA D: 1.43
SEE NOTE#8 11 0 11 (16)!� �)�• \''
1 1 ti41.' y _ " � W (1s)
1
0 1 • � ' * * �`s, WE KIRK CONSERVATION EASEMENT CORNER
` w * Q�'° .�� L29 # NORTHING EASTING
1 \ (15) 0F • L W 4' w, '2� L30 FARMS NORTH, LLC 1 712929.29 830072.21
W •
L . W '�s, L31 PIN: 8731-33-5998
c<` 4 712746.79 829825.39
0 1 4'S? W W y �4 ?ems ,01 L333 L35 DB: 838 PG: 400(TRACT IV) 5 712655.25 829698.66
y . �A� 3/8 RBR 1 �3q 3/8" RBR REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286(TRACT II) 6 712223.75 829489.27
c 'S O� 7 712294.81 829455.95
1 s•�F
�� y L �
w y W L36 AND DB: 158 PG: 305 8 712462.11 829482.95
':1:.. ` d cF PC: C SL: 6260
o \ y *, �'0 19 : 9 712591.10 829561.42
' `C m ( ) j 10 712667.50 829568.49
r
: ::•\ \ (14) :g 11 712790.03 829651.39
"0 .1 12 713135.22 829593.72
m ' c.) 13 713178.40 829579.39
•:•\'• \ ` "' `, 14 714039.61 829336.70
\ \ 0 o • 15 714169.49 829166.79
O. '' ' `� > 16 714247.14 829091.92
\':. 'so \ m •
‘I VD. 0 17 714296.12 829153.85
a
\ y di u°: 4- 18 714212.21 829288.36
\.\ \ " W W 19 714056.17 829451.11
1,..
s \ 20 713811.62 829490.34
\.. ;o \ • W. c 21 713162.12 829670.68
\,_, \ m W 22 713117.76 829691.60
\ \ 23 712829.32 829728.93
•;• y W r. 24 712877.08 829896.98
o \ m * * o 25 713050.80 830053.16
.E. \ y�(20) 26 713088.45 830069.42
...
:.\ \* 35 713069.16 830172.54
•.\..• a \ m W •W O • 0 36 713033.28 830146.80
• o \ t 37 711634.72 829119.16
\ w i� 38 711571.79 829074.76
:�:. W ° w 39 711520.90 829082.80
\::. ;o \ W W W A m 40 711472.11 828993.60
_::• \ W W u ' 41 711740.76 828990.01
\ y c, 42 711873.52 829087.91
:\. o 43 712073.77 829290.26
\ ` W y t o 0 44 712041.01 829337.76
•••' o y `° `t`'�-, 45 711983.06 829329.91
..\\\ o'd\ W y W ` m 46 711718.72 829074.81
� W JV
\, 'fo \ Vim* : ` .rD
L W , D
:.. \ Z •t
\:: ; \ U O 3/84 RBR
t. m`, y 1{j e•
.::: :•. \\ al
\ `t)4. cn L47 3/8" RBR
W 4, w 1
cE _
LINE BEARING DISTANCE \ 'fo \\ V y - skO, <L48
L1 S 35°12'16"W 32.99' .•.:\.-.
L2 S 08°58'39"E 51.52' • :\ \ m W + W Am A9 / __4-0,,
L3 S 11°51'57"W 56.64' .." 'SO L51 AREA F
L4 S 39°04'47"W 55.75' • \,•• ; \ `W * W w a O�•, (SEE SHEET 3)
L5 S 53°15'10"W 88.82' o AREA B "' y co
W \-4
• S?�C53 3/:" RBR ^
L6 N 48°16'40"E 74.84' : \ L54 -L55
L7 S 09°00.13"W 133.90' ::�.:.\ \ `2.64 ACRES `y ut��-_ L58 L59 L63
L8 N 35°37 35"E 55.32 W .15‘
AREA G
L9 N 35°3T35"E 48.34' •:\:•.;o \ •.� ANNE PALMER SOIL ROAD L57 O '. 60--L6'�• 2 �� �tss �--'
L10 N 77°24'56"E 42.03' •..:N::-.
x / (SEE SHEET 3)
\:•. \ \. - 4, FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. 6,. �� �,
L11 S 61°34'37"E 42.03' •' ::\ \ W * PIN: 8721-72-6837 cF
L12 S 34°30'37"E 39.83' \.. -
L13 S 39°29'45"E 34.25' .�.: o \ \ ,--- DB: 489 PG: 1683 AREA C /`'4 o,
L14 S 48°29'25"E 39.66' • 5/8" RBC (13)POB * W u REFERENCE:UNRECORDED SURVEY W /
L15 S 57°54'10"E 15.50' •:: \ \ n w 0.61 ACRE
�:. N:713178.40' m ENTITLED"PROPERTY OF ANNE PALMER • 04 AREA H
L16 S 66°27'12"E 34.10' E:829579.39' ` FAMILY •
PROPERTIES,L.P",DATED * W /.,�h / (SEE SHEET 3)
L17 S 53°40'39"E 36.04' ; • 9 y h'
o (LOCATED N 05°08'53"W u 01/26/2010,DWG.NO.01-B-11-10-68,BY 0 nO
L18 S 40°26'37"E 45.75' \'' \ 324.6T FROM CONTROL " W y W` ROBERT H.MOORE,L-1168 �+��% y of• /
L19 S 31°48'03"E 45.09' \:. POINT
L20 S 44°49'04"E 53.16' #500) W
L21 S 53°52'26"E 38.41' ':\::• so \ m W * ,V 6`5�/y + ati WE KIRK
L22 S 30°58'42"E 15.97' R o co /
L23 S 30°58'42"E 20.87 \. ` . y` y �° FARMS NORTH, LLC
L24 S 18°37'33"E 30.40' I -- - - _=ow- - � n y w o, • W' / PIN: 8731-33-5998
L25 S 26°59'23"E 42.83'
L26 S 20°49'24"E 39.58' '°w ;o -ow a (21) W W
L27 s 24°14'51"E 67.84' , - - °w ow I -- , - _ - <� t�° - - - G�� O �/ DB: 838 PG: 400 (TRACT IV)
Lee s 29°os'2o"E 31.2r - - - -' <� - - _ _ / W W REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286 (TRACT II)
L29 S 32°56'06"E 22.31' °w - - \.:.:-. \ L69 - „
�� (12) E - /�3/8 RBR AND DB: 158 PG: 305
L30 S 38°41'32"E 9.51' \ W _ �ow_ - - - - - 4' I '
L31 S 47°08'52"E 12.99' wW + (22) - - - ow_ - - (26) �/ W y PC: C SL: 6260
L32 S 71 05'32"E 23.21' \:•:•:•. \ • - ow °
L33 S 85°45'33"E 32.56' \•:•:•: \ ym - - - - -_mow_ 0,-Q�30 ' \ CABIN IS TO BE REMOVED
L34 S 74°04'57"E 24.30' HAYWOOD E.M.C. UTILITY LINE y W - - - v�t72 •
L35 S 63°43'18"E 11.80' (SEE NOTE#8) • • \ y 1 CE L7p ,\
L36 S 29°08'07"E 16.82' ` .•\•:• : \ (25 �O �s N:713069.16'
POB
L37 S 15°59'26"E 27.64' , r m N c, y e • N.
L38 S 00°06'34"E 29.62' \ Z , + o * (36) /. '/ E:830172.54'
m • . / (LOCATED N 69°12'41"E
L39 S 03°17'53"E 42.45' �:::::, \ o v'• N O� y 4' /;
L40 S 05°56'05"E 37.23' n) m Na `L�' y * ,, O� , . •y kOP`0 603.29'FROM CONTROL
L41 S 13°42'36"E 37.93' (O 4. ? 4i/ y * o, ✓ CIE
L42 S 21°10'12"E 44.78' \ \ SILO RUINS o r0 Wlilt), AREA A °,,'l4'`0 • -- •4(�O W n40^�L^. 3� POINT#500)
L43 S 17°53'54"E 41.51' '\...- ; \ �.L44 S 14°24'15"E 56.75' .. 0 ,W '" 2.98 ACRES a' W O/�
L45 S 14°24'15"E 20.87' ,.. t 1 `i , i * 'c°Di_+ \ 04 , y y y
L46 S 20°03'22"E 42.15' io U , ,
L47 S 39°50'24"E 19.69' ANNE PALMER CONTROL POINT 3/8" RBC"MOORE"(1)POB
L48 S 39°50'24"E 12.59' FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. RBCC"KEE"#500 W m {24) `� '�2 N:712929.29'
L49 S 51°03'08"E 29.56' 0 1�Q ce �1.�/� , 12"CMP E:830072.21'
L50 S 59°51'45"E 40.88' PIN: 8721-72-6837 {.. I W * W ' ,4 _,,n w,E GE.
W W h O ` . / (LOCATED N 80°54'10"E 469.59'
L51 S 73°25'05"E 18.97' DB: 489 PG: 1683 , * • y 23 N c•a* * + g / ,FROM CONTROL POINT#500)
L52 S64°19'01"E 34.01' �.::: 1 i* • VGE� * 4, 4, " - - `
REFERENCE:UNRECORDED SURVEY w AREA E
L53 S 76°54'37"E 47.80' ENTITLED"PROPERTY OF ANNE PALMER I•.•.'.• I O + • l ,i (SEE SHEET 3)
L54 S 89 40'14"E 51.12' ! + _ 2' _O 5/8" RBR
FAMILY PROPERTIES,L.P.",DATED
L55 S 82°18'19"E 63.95' 1 1 d4
L56 S 77°54'02"E 66.46' 01/26/2010,DWG.N0.01-B 11-10 68,BY (11) , �` N�9"
ROBERT H.MOORE,L-1168 i 1 W 5 N +.• •
L57 S 82°56'14"E 36.10' / J O
� •' O
L58 S 86°38'58"E 15.23' 1•:•:•:•• 1 • W * W * y W L10 4 477 0
L59 N 89°01'19"E 19.66' Al'..1:
L60 N 84°25'05"E 44.21' :1:.:.:. 1 °��/ 4, 4, 4, /(4)��
L61 S 88°00'28"E 24.88' : ::.: 1 2'`� 3 �46 r
L62 N 79°53'49"E 40.52' ; •W • 4. W 33 '
•L63 S 86°11'14"E 14.77' : 1 •W 4, W �y,/.� + .�� 5/8" RBC
L64 S 73°20'13"E 23.08' (10) W 3/8" RBC 47
4/ + • Apo "ENSLEY"
L65 S 73°20'13"E 50.25' :.; . 1 W • W "MOORE" �` / 4)
• 5 /
•L66 S 35°39'04"W 109.42' 24"RCP O�� + .'
L67 S 35°39'04"W 44.16' ••• o I a J . y •
L68 N 25°07'22"W 78.48' `O N. _ (5) / 0 5/8" RBC
L69 S 79°53'17"E 99.43' N.C. HIGHWAY 209 o `�° •. W W y W y } \'''*•%.L70 S 79°24'17"E 95.27' (SEE NOTE#9) •:../ / z �/• • h� "ENSLEY"
L71 N79°53'17"W 92.73' 3/ • W / hot
L72 N 79°24'17"W 104.91' 21'WIDE ASPHALT PAVEMENT /. o / {9).. • O
° / 01, * r y ,c , . I'.
L73 S 61°19'22"W 101.67' •-;/-;- ii •
L74 S 55°24'26"E 57.71' k • •• * O
L75 S 07°43'15"W 58.48' :/•:•: / ;y 5/8" RBC
" 41""\
L76 S 27°50'00"E 94.99' / • .40 , "ENSLEY"
L77 N 18°21'02"W 45.50' /
L78 S 25°14'54"E 49.05' I. '' W W - N
L79 N 23°21'17"E 41.01' / •:... /. W W
� _
ir 2
.(8) 4. cOV c l Y••• 1 - S) \
�/ _ ' 4. W $
°j • ' a� _ 4,,
/ 4co
r * h, ..-. / WE KIRK
w W 4. b •• O FARMS SOUTH,LLC
LEGEND: / / , I • 5/8" RBC
y + PIN:8731-00-7203
/ • ::: i J "ENSLEY"
o y � � DB:838 PG:404
/ 4 a REFERENCE:DB:562 PG:286(TRACT II)
e SET 5/8" REBAR W/ "KEE" CONTROL © .::::4 x Z' /.. ,y^ AND DB:158 PG:305
POINT CAP IN CONCRETE ::•::r' }/. �4, PC:C SL:6260&PC:C SL:7330
• UNMARKED POINT '•(7) * a� ^O SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
0 EXISTING IRON PIN (AS NOTED) 60"CMP { , /•_ ;� HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
�;,I!' + } ti� (CONSERVATION EASEMENT)
SET 5/8" BY 30" REBAR W/ 3-1/4" x <c�°� •* 2 DB:917 PG:978
DIAMETER ALUMINUM CE CAP
4004 { ( ' PC:C SL:7314
QO SET 5/8" REBAR W/ "KEE" CAP '•:.., ' x_(6) 0 / CONTROL POINT
UTILITY POLE ' (5.00) �•� RBCC "KEE"#502
-9GUY ANCHOR 1 I - • O 5/8" RBC
Q TELEPHONE /} -:::1 I /. ..../ "ENSLEY"
CONSERVATION EASEMENT + ::::1 �` .:i
( ) CORNER NUMBER / 18"CPP ".:::::1' ' ///.• y` • CONSERVATION EASEMENT (CE) ' 24"CMP j � ` iu
SOIL ROAD + (43.• !y .' I } v4
• GRAVEL 4 F 4• I•• / -** / • ti
° •• 2
ASPHALT /• W �(44 m°j
. STREAM/WATER 4.'3' 6' * °
to I: •• /JO5C
LEY"
CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (CE) �y�' C, • W(45)• h / `• '
BOUNDARY LINE ph�1�/ * �, /
BOUNDARY LINE NOT SURVEYED '
co
- - - - ADJOINING DEED LINES AREA D /.. W .
- - - - - UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY (AS NOTED) `1.43 ACRES / W * /a� :1 '
X FENCE * W O�y a0 JJ {' 2
OW OVERHEAD WIRE (42) . '< O`'' :.::t. 05/8"
- - - - - - TIE LINE ONLY h c*� `'' ' ' f ENSLEBC
PB: PLAT BOOK * W / A.
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR:
�� W .a A THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
DB: DEED BOOK (�, ' °'e . DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
.v �J W W
PG: PAGE ry�o / y �e`5 1,,, ::- [:
' 6* 1 ��^�.
SL: SLOTrycT/` . ��' `' �, / 5 8" RBC
RBR REBAR . :.• "UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT"
RBC REBAR WITH ID CAP /� + f' p0 a.• "°' "ENSLEY" SPO FILE NO. 44-AV DMS SITE ID NO. 100068
RBCC REBAR WITH ID CAP SET IN CONCRETE (41)T-
POB °� 4' ��C0 1ti /•••• : O 5/8" RBC PARCEL IDENTIFICATION if: 8721-72-6837
POINT OF BEGINNING 4'', c'O `, 1 • i• O "ENSLEY" CURRENT OWNER LISTED AS:
IP IRON PIPE wy * 41 (46) O�� I .' . `' ANNE PALMER FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
NCGS NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY `N-413,
3 . •
N.A.D. NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 I * 5'` SITE ADDRESS: 9299 RUSH FORK ROAD (NC HWY 209), CLYDE, NC 28721
•
SPC STATE PLANE COORDINATES W W ` ",+' 1 .::::1. DEED REFERENCE.: DB: 489 PG: 1683
CF COMBINED FACTOR Z U y yo�, O 5/8" RBC N o R T„
$ W d, of �� CRABTREE TOWNSHIP, HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE I ° p......1/4.N, "ENSLEY" 1 03 ::•1CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE �' / 1 -•- ' , aOSURVEY BY. JQCB,JJ,KP,CG DRAWN BY. NH CHECKED BY. HJL
m y • �5/8" RBC (37)POB ' SURVEY DATE. 08/27/20 JOB 180788-CE
CPP CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE . Z
NTS NOT TO SCALE IW N:711634.72'rn W38
E:829119.16' y REVISION: DATE:
I. 39 (LOCATED S 21°51'05"W
�� o = SHEET SIZE: 24"X36" SHEET : 2 OF 3
0D , G 1314.79'FROM CONTROL s •
5/8" RBC POINT#500) 0' 100' 200' 300'
w. 'J �H e�`
1 -(39).O��"ENSLEY" ` �'� r ION e '
W W -13 ONE INCH = ONE HUNDRED FEET
� .:�.� CONSERVATION EASEMENT
(40)• O 1 3 •
. ' CORNER-NC DMS CAP(TYPICAL) N P.O. Box 2566
SOIL ROADBED IN GENERAL LOCATION OF /� r
OLD CRABTREE ROAD(NOT OPEN) /� J .° 5/8" RBC 1 HAYWOOD E.M.C. UTILITY LINE -=�- Asheville, NC 28802
{SEE NOTE#10} O "ENSLEY" /-.
SEE NOTE#8 �� (828) 575-9021
5 3/8" RBR t � ' �� k ee w2uw.keemacP.com
• �� "MOORE" > 1 ti k License # C-3039
GD/,49"7 5

Instrument# 2020008788 B
GRID TIE INFORMATION GRID NORTH WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, &
ANAD 83 (2011) SEAL THIS 27TH DAY OF ___A��I��T --, 20z0 .
CONTROL POINT CONTROL POINT
5/8" RBCC(500) 5/8" RBCC(502) \\ •�1k CAROB 1/i,�
STATE PLANE COORDINATES STATE PLANE COORDINATES �� O�•••ESS%•.*y '''
N: 712855.04' N: 712296.84' �� �•0� �y•', %
E: 829608.53' E: 829522.61' ��\\ :4 SEAL r
CF: 0.99975765 CF: 0.99975891 �`� - L-2 8 6 5 -
w *POINT 500 BEING LOCATED ' SIIJRY�:•'•
• A N 08°44'59"E A GRID / ��2,'�I,prON...•• S`! -��- ilAi
-
J HAMPT�
m DISTANCE OF 564.78' FROM ///ii111ii10� JAMES RK PLS L-2865
S POINT#502
THIS PLAT DOES NOT CREATE A SUBDIVISION OF
••
1` PROPERTY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO
IDENTIFY THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS
:N ONLY. NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IS TAKING PLACE.
N
(T
m
.01
• 3/8" RBR
O
•
• SOIL ROADBED IN GENERAL LOCATION OF
OLD CRABTREE ROAD(NOT OPEN)
• N SEE NOTE#10
o WE KIRK i
NN FARMS NORTH, LLC 5/8" RBC (28)POB
ON PIN: 8731-33-5998 N:713425.43'
m'
DB: 838 PG: 400(TRACT IV) E:830425.63'
' O.I"E (30)
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286(TRACT II) (LOCATED N 55°04'58"E N10° CE
!� cz. AND DB: 158 PG: 305 996.49'FROM CONTROL 53/
CFcl ,1,
3/8" RBR PC: C SL: 6260 POINT#500) (29)opt n _.
SS'p0 U� -
D9 09+ t `�
F
5/8" RBC (27)POB 8' pk�
`s`'9° N:713411.60' ch
rn
4ps74s+ E:830411.09' w. �' 3/8" RBR (LOCATED N 55°15'35"E �o '' '� co`N
DS ° 976.66'FROM CONTROL o v w 0
64 ., POINT#500) ti/ �-
• �S 76°54 37"E_
. 7.80' S 89°40'14"E v t (31)
. O
51.12 S 82°18'19" \/
E 63.95' 3/8" RBR•
- '
•
S>>° .53'49 E. �'� / AREA G
• 02+ _N 7 40.52" L8 •
�9.J
CAB" ,,>°y� 0.23 ACRE I
SOIL ROAD • E 66.46' S 82°5614"E N 84°25'05"E
36.10' 44.21' L7 y ! 1A �___ 4
LSO .L6• .` r L 10 O� ie �J 4 X �X� ` ems, �05
AREA G� Aft�� !� ' )
0.01 ACRE / 2)
6/ \ /,r,
' .� -(33)
G� Ni
/\t/
ANNE PALMER AREA C G(<'
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. (SEE SHEET 2) / )1/3)1/3AREA H
PIN: 8721-72-6837 G`� /* 0.25 ACRE 1
DB: 489 PG: 1683 /
REFERENCE:UNRECORDED SURVEY G� +
ENTITLED"PROPERTY OF ANNE PALMER ,
FAMILY PROPERTIES,L.P.",DATED / by +/�' .41/
01/26/2010,DWG.NO.01-B-11-10-68,BY G� /•$h. / �4
ROBERT H.MOORE,L-1168 / Ak * 4
•
ti�j+ '5
/ ., ,____/ co zi- ,i, /
V-7 �O
G ' 9
/ / , /
/
/ /
0
y
/ /. / + 443°
/
62 / ,47 ,),0 CO
/ / / / /
62 'O
�/
HAYWOOD E.M.C. UTILITY LINE 3/8" RBR
(SEE NOTE#8) / O
G 00 WE KIRK
-
/ y/
/ FARMS NORTH, LLC
PIN: 8731-33-5998
_ G ° DB: 838 PG: 400(TRACT IV)
��Ow_ - _ _ / �ry I REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286(TRACT II)
�w_ - - - _ _ G� ..° ' AND DB: 158 PG: 305
Ow_Of� - - _ / PC: C SL: 6260
C5 4
�Ow_Ow _ o`er �h
_ CABIN
_ _ _ Ow_OW 30 •' / / \\\A CABIN IS TO
_ _ _��OW 30 . 0 �` Cti BE REMOVED
_ _ OW
3G \\/
_O •
_ _ - Ow •
CE / ,°3 co--) 5/8" RBC (35)POB
G`� cE g pp`' N:713069.16'
/ •( )_ E:830172.54'
(LOCATED N 69°12'41"E
G4. / 603.29'FROM CONTROL
/ POINT#500)
d/ 4
AREA A /G ,:‘frr/
OW�lC�' .�� Gc-•
(SEE SHEET 2) LEGEND:
�,�'� } SET 5/8" REBAR W/ "KEE" CONTROL
0 g •
/ POINT CAP IN CONCRETE
/ 0 UNMARKED POINT
Gc +/ 0 EXISTING IRON PIN (AS NOTED)
/ +/ O SET 5/8" BY 30" REBAR W/ 3-1/4"
/ /o`� O DIAMETER ALUMINUM CE CAP
/ ' / 3/8" RBC "MOORE"(1)POB 0 SET 5/8" REBAR W/ "KEE" CAP
N:712929.29' 0 UTILITY POLE
G }/- 1 E:830072.21'
/ 4/ ,
' (LOCATED N 80°54'10"E GUY ANCHOR
o� 469.59'FROM CONTROL (XX) CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Gc<' ' ' ' / • ` •
��'_�� POINT#500) CORNER NUMBER
`L'p •
12"CMP CONSERVATION EASEMENT (CE)
cE / CE / ��•,11 +� • �� SOIL ROAD
GE. / �/ d e GRAVEL
GGE. / y� -4- .. • �, • r r
4/+/ 4, -
CE / •/ , _ r- STREAM/WATER
CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (CE)
y`/ / . . AREA E - - - BOUNDARY LINE NOT SURVEYED
5/8" RBR �• , �`�� �� 0.11 ACRE - - - . - - UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY (AS NOTED)
�- -- • ,��tkl" + X FENCE
_ , �_ g�b •/� • •
• OW OVERHEAD WIRE
Sao` • , /� - - - - - - TIE LINE ONLY
• i`, • PB: PLAT BOOK
+7 • DB: DEED BOOK
PG: PAGE
`'�`9 y �/ O SL: SLOT
E RBR REBAR
+/'� C �3) + N17424�" S6? 6 RBC REBAR WITH ID CAP
4 d +
STo 564 /+ p3. 0
RBCC REBAR WITH ID CAP SET IN CONCRETE
�� �d). 51. .1, 5/8" RBC POB POINT OF BEGINNING
/+ • • X/ • "ENSLEY" IP IRON PIPE
N.A.D. NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983
/+ �/ SPC STATE PLANE COORDINATES
p� ` CF COMBINED FACTOR
+/+ o��Q`D /yam NTS NOT TO SCALE
0
/ • •
/ /+ ADO
Nk
co
. / ... . \
/ WE KIRK
FARMS SOUTH,LLC
/+ •
PIN:8731-00-7203
+ DB:838 PG:404
/ • REFERENCE:DB:562 PG:286(TRACT II)
AND DB: 158 PG:305
✓ + PC:C SL:6260&PC:C SL:7330
•
0 SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
HIGHLA(CNS RN
CONSERVANCY
OEVATIONDSON
•
EASER MENT)
5/8" RBC DB:917 PG:978
"ENSLEY"
PC:C SL:7314 ` A CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR:
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
"UT TO RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT"
SPO FILE NO. 44-AW DMS SITE ID NO. 100068
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION #: 8731-33-5998
CURRENT OWNER LISTED AS:
WE KIRK FARMS NORTH, LLC
SITE ADDRESS: 9299 RUSH FORK ROAD (NC HWY 209), CLYDE, NC 28721
DEED REFERENCE: DB: 838 PG: 400
CRABTREE TOWNSHIP, HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LINE BEARING DISTANCE CONSERVATION EASEMENT CORNER SURVEY BY: JB,CB,JJ,KP,CG DRAWN BY: NH CHECKED BY: HJL
L1 S 14°24'15"E 20.87' # NORTHING EASTING H O R T H SURVEY DATE: 08/27/20 JOB /180788-CE
L2 S 39 50 24 E 19.69 1 712929.29 830072.21 �� °e c' o REVISION: DATE:
L3 S 39°50'24"E 12.59' 2 712869.62 830029.43 TOTAL CONSERVATION q
L4 S 73°25'05"E 18.97� 3 712765.55 829879.70 SHEET SIZE: 24"X36" SHEET 3 OF 3
L5 S 86 3858E 15.23 EASEMENT AREA _ `
L6 N 89°01'19"E 19.66' 4 712746.79 829825.39 0.60 ACRE 0' 40' 80' 120'
L7 S 88°00'28"E 24.88' 27 713411.60 830411.09 AREA E:0.11 0 i
28 713425.43 830425.63 � � MI IIMII
L8 S 86°11'14"° E 14.77'' AREA F:0.01 ys ONE INCH = FORTY FEET
AREA G:023
L9 S 73°20'13"
E 23.08' 713503.12 830455.10 .
L10 S 73°20'13"E 50.25' 30 713521.03 830505.87 �� T ,O N v-1'
L11 N 46°35'47"E 21.39' 31 713433.98 830534.14 AREA H:0.25 N
L12 S 48°14'18"E 43.70' 32 713370.30 830487.37 CONSERVATION EASEMENT I P.O. Box 2566
L13 S 48°14'18"E 43.27' 33 713353.67 830475.97 CORNER-NC DMS CAP(TYPICAL) -- - Asheville, NC 28802
L14 N 46°25'53"E 20.07' 35 713069.16 830172.54 I'
L15 S 34°25'49"W 20.16' =� (828) 575-9021
A� , www.keemap.corn
> > • License # C-3039

APPENDIX C: CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credits 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 NCIRT, 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 C.1 as follows:
Table C.1 Stream Credit Release Schedule
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Credit ILF/NCDMS
Release Release Activity Interim Total
11ilestone Release Released
1 Site Establishment 0% 0%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological 30% 30%
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are o °
3 stable and interim performance standards have been met 10/° 40/°
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are o °
4 stable and interim performance standards have been met 10/° 50/°
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are o °
5 stable and interim performance standards have been met 10/° 60/°
* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are ° 65%
6 stable and interim performance standards have been met 5/0 (75%**)
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are ° 75%
7 stable and interim performance standards have been met 10/° (85%**)
* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are ° 80%
8 stable and interim performance standards have been met 5/0 (90%**)
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are 90%
9 stable, and performance standards have been met and 10% **
project has been approved for closeout (100% )
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
**10%reserve of credits to beheld back until the bankfull eventperformance standard has been met.

The following conditions apply to all the credit release schedules:
a. A reserve of 10%of a site's total stream credits will be released after four 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 four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits is at the
discretion of the NCIRT.
b. After the second milestone,the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis, assuming that the
annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with Section IV(General Monitoring
Requirements) of the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, and
that the monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other
concerns have been identified on-site during the visual monitoring.All credit releases require written approval
from the USACE.
c. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a determination by
the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in the Mitigation Plan.

APPENDIX D: FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NC Division of Mitigation Services' In-Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has provided the USACE-
Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by
NCDMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the
program.

APPENDIX E: MAIN PENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be performed at least
once a year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These
site inspections may identify issues that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance is most likely to
be expected in the first two years following site construction and may include the following components as
described below in Table E.1:
Table E.1 Routine Maintenance Components
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—NCDMS Project No. 100068
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channelm aintenance and repair activities may include modifying in-stream
structures to preventpiping,securing loose coirmatting,and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation a long the projectreaches.Areas of concentrated
storm water and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent streambank failures and head-cutting until vegetation becomes established.
Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health andvigor of the targeted plant
community.Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
planting,pruning,and fertilizing.Exotic invasive plant species will be treated 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 shall 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.
Farm Road Crossing The farm road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowedby the recorded
Conservation Easement,deed restrictions,rights of way,or corridor a greements. Culverts
and fords located atcrossings outside the easement will be maintainedfor stability and flow
whenever possible with respect to these restrictions.
Beaver Management Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplementalplanting,pruning,and dam breeching,dewatering,and/or removal.Beaver
management will be performed in accordance with US Department of Agriculture(USDA)
rules and regulations using accepted trapping and rem ovaltechniques only within the project
boundary.

APPENDIX F: DWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS

( J
Top of UT1 at property line
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Reach UT1 (Upper)
Date: 11 !;DI i/ Project/Site: r7\A C f k Latitude: 35.64632
Evaluator: 1.13
County: Haywood Longitude: -82.93776
Total Points: �� Stream Determination(cir _ - Other Fines Creek
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent 431= e.g. Quad Name:
if a 13 or perennial if z 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = .\ ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 7 3
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 3
ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 ( )
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 CD 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No Yes=3
eartificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Basetlow 0 1 2 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 W 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 0 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 Q 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 (yes
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 l 3J
21.Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.58 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
25.Algae 4 0.5 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 her=
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

0 Trib on right bank below house from across the old road
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 UT2 Reach UT2
Date: 1301\� Project/Site: - 4 . .orE4 Latitude: 35.64498
Evaluator: 13 County: U.
^yJ 00G Longitude: -82.93912
Total Points: �} ,l Stream Dete ' ' circle one) Other Fines Creek
Stream is at leas L"4 5Ephemer Intermitten Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if a •
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 11 .5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0 1 2 3
ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 2 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 C 1) 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 C 2) 3
8. Headcuts 0 O 2 3
9, Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley OD 0.5 1 1,5
11. Second or greater order channel = Yes=3
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual J
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= 1 )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 () 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 CD /2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 C V) 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 6). �1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 y - 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 (S'es=__,.;
C. Biology (Subtotal= G
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 (9 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish tc 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0,5 1.5
25.Algae () 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5(Otheer 0)
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual.
Notes: 5na;)S hiCky c ,e c
Sketch:

NC Division of Water Quality-Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11 Reach UT2-1
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 UT Z - Form H
Date: I P 04, I e Project/Site: t r , Latitude: 35.64514
Evaluator: County 4--layoocciLongitude: -82.93886
Total Points: Stream Deter••' '.1 (circle one) Other Fines Creek
Stream is at least intermittent g a a5 Ephemera Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if>_19 or perennial if>_30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 2 3
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg /0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 3
ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 C"12 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches e'`'- 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 r-� 1.5
10. Natural valley 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel ro"'hlo=0 Yes=3
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = g.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 6.-.-5_„)
2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 E ..5i 0.5 0 •
15. Sediment on plants or debris oT 0.5 1 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles c 1_f 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0
C. Biology (Subtotal = '4 i 2-5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed e 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 c°'1D 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks j ®--? 1 2 3
22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 %i 1 1.5
24.Amphibians #,:' 0.5 1 1.5
25.Algae ' ! 0.5 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW 75: OBL= 1.5 Other=0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Q fir;)inr. `a v v me..--k l.L .0 k r-
Sketch: 2j� of �L
j (94
5� wot-
r
leirokl- 10
for 61' 4- VVPA
41

dillUT3 at lower end of trees near top
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Reach UT3 (Upper)
Date: rti i 30J I-r Project/Site: Te,V,, A . 0i.(,c Latitude: 35.64783
Evaluator: �3 County: IrFD vJWCart Longitude: -82.94115
Total Points: Stream Determination( ' Other Fines Creek
Stream is at least intermittent OEphemeralermtte Perennial e.3 inti Quad Name:
if 2 19 or perennial if a 30* 9•
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 3
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 f 2] 3
3. In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 ti21 3
ripple-pool sequence
4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 - 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 © 3
9.Grade control 063 1 1 5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 l
11. Second or greater order channel I _� Yes=3
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual G
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= _ _ )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 081
2 3
14_Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 0
15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 t ) 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles C9 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes-3
C. Biology (Subtotal= (,),.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 a 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 (9.
1 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish 0 0.5 ''
1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
25.Algae 0 1 1.5
_26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 ,Other=0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. ..----7."-,
Notes: 500s 1 grju&-'r pelmets S
Sketch:

Reach UT4
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Form F
Date: 12/19/17 Project/Site: c-rLi Latitude: 35.64473
Evaluator: RM County: Haywood Longitude: -82.94064
Total Points: Fines Creek
Stream is at least intermittent 2 LA:1- Stream Deter.'" circle one) Other Ephemeral . Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if a 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= iq ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 (2, 3
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 -1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 3
ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 a 2 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 q) 3
6. Depositional bars or benches _ 0 ( 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 n 3
8. Headcuts 0 05 2 3
9.Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 (IP
11. Second or greater order channel Co= Yes=3
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = (,,5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3
14.Leaf litter 4 MI 1 0.5 0
15.Sediment on plants or debris E. 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 es=3
C. Biology (Subtotal = •75 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed L 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) O°5,�4,1. Q oki 1 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 _
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Algae 0 I 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed ACW=0.75' OBL= 1.5 Other=0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.Seep.35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

elLowest trib just above prop line
Reach UT1 (Lower)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1 13 p 1 l 7 Project/Site: T? fi-i` Latitude:
Evaluator: -33 County: Niaocioci Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination(circle one) Other
3 O
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if z 30* I
-
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = U ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a_Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 `J
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 �1,) 2 3
3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 3
ripple-pool sequence
l
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches l� 1 2 3
7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 2 3
9.Grade control 0 0.5 1 §
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 L l,
11. Second or greater order channel kiro=9) Yes =3
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6,s _)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 0 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria : p) 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 (V, 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0 5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 _ 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 es=3
C. Biology (Subtotal = q.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 L Y 0
_19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 14) 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 q3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 41 1 2 3
22. Fish filli 0.5 1.5
23.Crayfish 0 0.5 al 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Algae CA) 0.5 1 _ 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL=1_ Other=0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Catdr331 µ0. -c(1ec, 5A1/4.46(S
Sketch:

1)�f 1�2l v i 7� r Ai f-r,[)� 1 r-O `Ll )�i{; \CrCij
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
G'�� 4 `� r { C J ,JReach UT 1 (Mid)
Date: r Project/Site: Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination(circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent 15 Ephemeral Intermittent(Perennial, e.g.Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if a 30`
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent ' Weak Moderate Strong
1 a'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 4 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 . 3
ripple-pool sequence _ .
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3.
5.Active/relict floodpiain 0 1_ 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 ( 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 r 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 C' 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.'`
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 (.1,.
11. Second or greater order channel No=0 iYes=J..
&artificial ditches are not rated:see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = f )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0. 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter1�5 1 0.5 0
15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.J 1 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 L1 _ 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 �es=
C. Biology (Subtotal = f,? )
18.Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 . 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed (3) 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 (3_)
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish CO 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 (g 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 (1 1.5
25.Algae ( 0) 0.5 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed °: FACW=0:75; OBL= 1.5 Other=0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

9 Reach UT1 (Lower)
Second trib from bottom by lower pasture
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
li J 301 1/ Project/Site: �USlik. .1{ k_ Latitude:
Evaluator: �D County: t31~1Cod Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination(circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent j3• Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if z 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = U 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 - 2 49
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 (3.) 3
3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 O 3
ripple-poolsequence
4. Particleiclesize of stream substrate 0 1 2
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 « 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 1 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 _____ 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel (o-0` Yes=3
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6) i
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 ()
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria (� 1 2 _ 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 (3) 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 (1) 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Ces=3)
C. Biology (Subtotal = Z __)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 (1) 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 (2) 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 '
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 7 _ 1.5
25.AlgaeOjj 0.5 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 then=
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual.
Notes: M6t1-ct,e�i Cad; S-F l,t.5
Sketch:

APPENDIX G:NC-SAM AND NC-WAM ASSESSMENT FORMS

Reaches UT1 and UT3
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA(do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1.Project name(if any): UT to Rush Fork 2.Date of evaluation: 8/14-8/15/2018
3.Applicant/owner name: Michael Baker 4.Assessor name/organization: KS&RM
5.County: Haywood 6.Nearest named water body
7.River Basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Rush Fork
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): See Stream ID Forms
STREAM INFORMATION:(depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): UT1,UT3 10.Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 3,471
11.Channel depth from bed(in riffle,if present)to top of bank(feet): 1.5-2.5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank(feet): 5-10 feet(varies) 13.Is assessment reach a swamp stream? f Yes f No
14.Feature type: !i Perennial flow C Intermittent flow C Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15.NC SAM Zone: !i Mountains(M) C Piedmont(P) C Inner Coastal Plain(I) C Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16.Estimated geomorphic l 1
valley shape(skip for C a ��� €b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size:(skip ['Size 1 (<0.1 mi`) (i}Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi`) C)Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi`) C Size 4(>_5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C Yes No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
✓Section 10 water C Classified Trout Waters E Water Supply Watershed ( f I f II f III C IV C V)
✓Essential Fish Habitat C Primary Nursery Area E High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
✓Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
✓Anadromous fish r 303(d)List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
✓Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
✓Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? Yes C No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
!i A Water throughout assessment reach.
f B No flow,water in pools only.
C C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
C A At least 10%of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach(examples:undersized or perched culverts,causeways that constrict the channel,tidal gates).
fi B Not A
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
!i A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern(examples:straightening,modification above or below culvert).
f B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile-assessment reach metric
!i A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile(examples:channel down-cutting,existing damming,
over widening,active aggradation,dredging,and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
f B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability-assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability,not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure,active channel down-cutting(head-cut),active widening,and artificial hardening(such as concrete,gabion,rip-rap).
f A <10%of channel unstable
B 10 to 25%of channel unstable
!i C >25%of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction—streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB).
LB RB
f A f A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
!i B fi B Moderate evidence of conditions(examples:berms,levees,down-cutting,aggradation,dredging)that adversely affect
reference interaction(examples:limited streamside area access,disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads,causeways with floodplain constriction,minor ditching[including mosquito ditching])
C C C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction(little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples:causeways with floodplain and channel constriction,bulkheads,retaining walls,fill,stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area]or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access[examples:
impoundments,intensive mosquito ditching])or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors—assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
I-A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the"Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone(removal,burning,regular mowing,destruction,etc.)
C I Other: (explain in"Notes/Sketch"section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather—watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams,D1 drought or higher is considered a drought;for Size 3 or 4 streams,D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
f A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
!i C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream—assessment reach metric
f Yes fi No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes,skip to Metric 13(Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types—assessment reach metric
10a.fi Yes f No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach(examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation,mining,excavation,in-stream hardening[for example,rip-rap],recent dredging,and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only,then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur(occurs if>5%coverage of assessment reach)(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
E A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w r F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) F m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
E B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o r H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation r ° 71 Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) r `m r J 5%vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate—assessment reach metric(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.f Yes fi No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream?(skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle-run section(evaluate 11c)
F B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
C C Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffles sections,check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach—whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present(NP)=
absent,Rare(R)=present but<10%,Common(C)_>10-40%,Abundant(A)=>40-70%,Predominant(P)=>70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100%for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
C fi C C f Bedrock/saprolite
C fi Cr C Boulder(256—4096 mm)
C C fi C C Cobble(64—256 mm)
C C fi C C Gravel(2—64 mm)
C C C fi f Sand(.062—2 mm)
C C C fi f Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
C Detritus
Q. C C C C Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11 d.0 Yes f No Are pools filled with sediment?(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life—assessment reach metric(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.!i Yes C No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No,select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. f No Water f Other:
12b.!i Yes C No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach(look in riffles,pools,then snags)? If Yes,check
all that apply. If No,skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to"individuals"for size 1 and 2 streams and"taxa"for size 3 and 4 streams.
✓ r Adult frogs
✓ r Aquatic reptiles
✓ r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats)
▪ r Beetles(including water pennies)
✓ F Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
▪ r Asian clam(Corbicula)
✓ r Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans(true flies)
▪ r Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
✓ r Megaloptera(alderfly,fishfly,dobsonfly larvae)
▪ r Midges/mosquito larvae
✓ r Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
▪ r Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
▪ r Other fish
▪ r Salamanders/tadpoles
▪ F Snails
✓ r Stonefly larvae(Plecoptera[P])
✓ r Tipulid larvae
✓ r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
f A f A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
n B f B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
!i C [i C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area(examples include: ditches,fill,
soil,compaction,livestock disturbance,buildings,man-made levees,drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage—streamside area metric(skip for Size 1 streams,Tidal Marsh Streams,and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB)of the streamside area.
LB RB
C A C A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
Q B f B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
Q C €C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
!i Y €Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N �'N
16. Baseflow Contributors—assessment reach metric(skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F A Streams and/or springs(jurisdictional discharges)
✓B Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
✓C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area(beaver dam,bottom-release dam)
F D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating(iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
F E Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
✓F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors—assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
✓A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
✓C Urban stream( 24%impervious surface for watershed)
F D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
✓F None of the above
18. Shading—assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
f A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category(may include gaps associated with natural processes)
f B Degraded(example:scattered trees)
!i C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider"vegetated buffer"and"wooded buffer"separately for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
C A C A C A A >-100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
f B f B From 50 to<100-feet wide
cc cc cc cc From 30 to<50-feet wide
Q D C D C D C D From 10 to<30-feet wide
Q E C E !i E !i E <10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated"Buffer Width).
LB RB
CA C A Mature forest
f B f B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
!i C !i C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees<10 feet wide
C D C D Maintained shrubs
C E C E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet),or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22: fl
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
CA CA CA CA CA f A Row crops
B �'B C B �'B Q B �'B Maintained turf
f C f C f C f C Q C f C Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
!i D !i D !i D !i D D !i D Pasture(active livestock use)
22. Stem Density-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Wooded"Buffer Width).
LB RB
f A f A Medium to high stem density
f B f B Low stem density
!i C !i C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation>10-feet wide.
LB RB
!i A !i A The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
f B f B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
cc cc The total length of buffer breaks is>50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition-First 100 feet of streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed(whichever comes first)as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
f A f A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species,with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
f B f B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions,but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
!i C fi C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity-assessment reach metric(skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.f Yes fi No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. C No Water !i Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement(units of microsiemens per centimeter).
f A <46 f B 46 to<67 f C 67 to<79 Q D 79 to<230 Q E >- 230
Notes/Sketch:

Rating: LOW
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name UT to Rush Fork Date of Evaluation 8/14-8/15/2018
Stream Category Mb2 Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1)Hydrology LOW
(2)Baseflow HIGH
(2)Flood Flow LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4)Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4)Microtopography NA
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(4)Channel Stability LOW
(4)Sediment Transport LOW
(4)Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2)Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1)Water Quality LOW
(2)Baseflow HIGH
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3)Thermoregulation LOW
(2)Indicators of Stressors YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1)Habitat LOW
(2)In-stream Habitat LOW
(3)Baseflow HIGH
(3)Substrate LOW
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat LOW
(2)Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3)Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3)Thermoregulation LOW
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

Reaches UT2, UT2-1, and UT4
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA(do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1.Project name(if any): UT to Rush Fork 2.Date of evaluation: 8/14-8/15/2018
3.Applicant/owner name: Michael Baker 4.Assessor name/organization: KS&RM
5.County: Haywood 6.Nearest named water body
7.River Basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Rush Fork
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): See Stream ID Forms
STREAM INFORMATION:(depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): UT2,UT2-1,UT4 10.Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 413.6
11.Channel depth from bed(in riffle,if present)to top of bank(feet): 1-1.5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank(feet): 3-5 feet(varies) 13.Is assessment reach a swamp stream? f Yes f No
14.Feature type: f Perennial flow t Intermittent flow Q Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15.NC SAM Zone: a Mountains(M) f'Piedmont(P) f Inner Coastal Plain(I) f Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16.Estimated geomorphic l 1
valley shape(skip for ['a ��� t b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size:(skip [:Size 1 (<0.1 mi`) ()Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi`) C)Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi`) C Size 4(>_5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? f Yes a No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
✓Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( f I f II f'III Q IV Q V)
✓Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
✓Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
✓Anadromous fish r 303(d)List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
✓Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
✓Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? Ci Yes Q No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
t A Water throughout assessment reach.
f B No flow,water in pools only.
f C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
f A At least 10%of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach(examples:undersized or perched culverts,causeways that constrict the channel,tidal gates).
fiB NotA
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
a A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern(examples:straightening,modification above or below culvert).
f B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile-assessment reach metric
t A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile(examples:channel down-cutting,existing damming,
over widening,active aggradation,dredging,and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
f B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability-assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability,not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure,active channel down-cutting(head-cut),active widening,and artificial hardening(such as concrete,gabion,rip-rap).
f A <10%of channel unstable
fi B 10 to 25%of channel unstable
f C >25%of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction—streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB).
LB RB
f A f A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B f.B Moderate evidence of conditions(examples:berms,levees,down-cutting,aggradation,dredging)that adversely affect
reference interaction(examples:limited streamside area access,disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads,causeways with floodplain constriction,minor ditching[including mosquito ditching])
Q C f C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction(little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples:causeways with floodplain and channel constriction,bulkheads,retaining walls,fill,stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area]or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access[examples:
impoundments,intensive mosquito ditching])or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors—assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
✓A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
F B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
✓C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
✓D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
✓E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the"Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
▪G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
✓H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone(removal,burning,regular mowing,destruction,etc.)
✓I Other: (explain in"Notes/Sketch"section)
✓J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather—watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams,D1 drought or higher is considered a drought;for Size 3 or 4 streams,D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
f A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
f B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream—assessment reach metric
f Yes Ci No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes,skip to Metric 13(Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types—assessment reach metric
10a.Ci Yes f No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach(examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation,mining,excavation,in-stream hardening[for example,rip-rap],recent dredging,and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only,then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur(occurs if>5%coverage of assessment reach)(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
F A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w r F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) F m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
▪B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent '563, fl H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation r c n I Sand bottom
✓C Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) r r J 5%vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O E K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate—assessment reach metric(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.C Yes Ci No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream?(skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F A Riffle-run section(evaluate 11c)
F B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
▪C Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffles sections,check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach—whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present(NP)=
absent,Rare(R)=present but<10%,Common(C)_>10-40%,Abundant(A)=>40-70%,Predominant(P)=>70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100%for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder(256—4096 mm)
Cobble(64—256 mm)
!' !' t C C Gravel(2—64 mm)
f f f fi f Sand(.062—2 mm)
ti f Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
Detritus
Q C C C C Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11 d.0 Yes f No Are pools filled with sediment?(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life—assessment reach metric(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Q Yes a No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No,select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. f No Water f Other:
12b.Q Yes a No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach(look in riffles,pools,then snags)? If Yes,check
all that apply. If No,skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to"individuals"for size 1 and 2 streams and"taxa"for size 3 and 4 streams.
✓ r Adult frogs
✓ r Aquatic reptiles
✓ F Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats)
▪ r Beetles(including water pennies)
▪ r Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
▪ r Asian clam(Corbicula)
✓ r Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
✓ r Dipterans(true flies)
▪ r Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
✓ r Megaloptera(alderfly,fishfly,dobsonfly larvae)
▪ r Midges/mosquito larvae
▪ r Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
▪ r Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
✓ r Other fish
▪ r Salamanders/tadpoles
▪ r Snails
✓ rj Stonefly larvae(Plecoptera[P])
✓ rJ Tipulid larvae
▪ r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
f A f A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
f 3 B f B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
R C a C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area(examples include: ditches,fill,
soil,compaction,livestock disturbance,buildings,man-made levees,drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage—streamside area metric(skip for Size 1 streams,Tidal Marsh Streams,and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB)of the streamside area.
LB RB
C A f A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
Q B fi B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
CC CC Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
[�]Y Q Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
f N N
16. Baseflow Contributors—assessment reach metric(skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F A Streams and/or springs(jurisdictional discharges)
✓B Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
✓C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area(beaver dam,bottom-release dam)
F D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating(iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
✓F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors—assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
✓A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
✓C Urban stream( 24%impervious surface for watershed)
F D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
✓F None of the above
18. Shading—assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
f A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category(may include gaps associated with natural processes)
f B Degraded(example:scattered trees)
fi C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider"vegetated buffer"and"wooded buffer"separately for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
f A f A f'A f A >-100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
[ B f B C B f B From 50 to<100-feet wide
Q C f C f C f C From 30 to<50-feet wide
Q D R D Q D f D From 10 to<30-feet wide
OE f E a-E a-E <10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated"Buffer Width).
LB RB
Q A CA Mature forest
C B f B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C t C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees<10 feet wide
f D C D Maintained shrubs
f E f E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet),or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22: fl
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
CA CA f A CA f A CA Row crops
Q B f B f B f B f B f B Maintained turf
Q C f C C C f C Q C f C Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
Q D t D t D t D Q D t D Pasture(active livestock use)
22. Stem Density-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Wooded"Buffer Width).
LB RB
f A f A Medium to high stem density
f B C B Low stem density
t C t C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation>10-feet wide.
LB RB
t A a-A The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
f B C B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
f C f C The total length of buffer breaks is>50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition-First 100 feet of streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed(whichever comes first)as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
f A C A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species,with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
f B C B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions,but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
R C Ci C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity-assessment reach metric(skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.C Yes Ci No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. C No Water R Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement(units of microsiemens per centimeter).
f A <46 f B 46 to<67 f C 67 to<79 Q D 79 to<230 Q E >- 230
Notes/Sketch:

Rating: LOW
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name UT to Rush Fork Date of Evaluation 8/14-8/15/2018
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1)Hydrology LOW LOW
(2)Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4)Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4)Microtopography NA NA
(3)Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4)Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4)Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2)Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1)Water Quality LOW LOW
(2)Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2)Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1)Habitat LOW LOW
(2)In-stream Habitat LOW MEDIUM
(3)Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Substrate LOW LOW
(3)Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)In-stream Habitat LOW HIGH
(2)Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM WA, WB, WC
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
Project Name UT to Rush Fork Date of Evaluation 8/15/18
Applicant/Owner Name Baker Wetland Site Name WA,WB,WC
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Level Ill Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body Rush Fork
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 06010106
County Haywood NCDWR Region Asheville
re Yes ( No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) See Wetland data forms
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference,if
appropriate,in recent past(for instance,approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include,but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches,dams,beaver dams,dikes,berms,ponds,etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby
septic tanks,underground storage tanks(USTs),hog lagoons,etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality,insect damage,disease,storm damage,salt intrusion,etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration(examples: mowing,clear-cutting,exotics,etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ti Yes r No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C Yes Co No If Yes,check all that apply to the assessment area.
✓ Anadromous fish
✓ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
✓ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
✓ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
In Publicly owned property
✓ N.C.Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
✓ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW,ORW,or Trout
✓ Designated NCNHP reference community
✓ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
C Blackwater
Brownwater
✓ Tidal(if tidal,check one of the following boxes) C Lunar C Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C Yes Cl No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes Cl No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes Cl No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS)in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
CA CA Not severely altered
Cl B Cl B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks,excessive
sedimentation,fire-plow lanes,skidder tracks,bedding,fill,soil compaction,obvious pollutants)(vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance,herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate],exotic species,grazing,
less diversity[if appropriate],hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch<_1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch >1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water.Consider tidal flooding regime,if applicable.
Surf Sub
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
Cl B Cl B Water storage capacity or duration are altered,but not substantially(typically,not sufficient to change vegetation).
CC CC Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically,alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change)(examples:draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling,excessive sedimentation,underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland
type(WT).
AA \NT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water>1 foot deep
B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• D f D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
• C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations,depletions,or rhizospheres)
C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. a A Soil ribbon<1 inch
C B Soil ribbon>_1 inch
4c. G A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank,underground storage tank(UST),etc.
Surf Sub
(I A (:A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
CB CB Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing,but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
CC CC Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen,particulate,or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration,dead vegetation,excessive
sedimentation,odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area(5M),and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
FA FA FA >_10%impervious surfaces
✓B r B r B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants)
fl C fl C fl C >_20%coverage of pasture
r D r D E D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
F E F E F E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
r F r F r F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
F G F G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
f:Yes C No If Yes,continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
f A >_50 feet
C B From 30 to<50 feet
C From 15 to<30 feet
C D From 5 to<15 feet
C E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed,combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
<_15-feet wide f>15-feet wide C Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C:Yes f No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
f:Sheltered—adjacent open water with width<2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C Exposed—adjacent open water with width>_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only;evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest,Headwater Forest,and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area(WC). See User Manual for\NT and WC boundaries.
\NT WC
( A f A >_100 feet
f B C B From 80 to<100 feet
f C CC From 50 to<80 feet
f D f D From 40 to<50 feet
f E f E From 30 to<40 feet
f F (I F From 15 to<30 feet
▪G f G From 5 to<15 feet
f H f H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C A Evidence of short-duration inundation(<7 consecutive days)
C B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
f:A Sediment deposition is not excessive,but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive,but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area:the
size of the wetland type(WT),the size of the wetland complex(WC),and the size of the forested wetland(FW)(if applicable,see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut,select"K"for the FW column.
\NT WC FW(if applicable)
C A C A C A >_500 acres
CB CB CB From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
CD CD CD From 25 to<50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to<25 acres
CF CF CF From 5 to<10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to<5 acres
CH CH CH From 0.5 to<1 acre
C I (i I C I From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
J C J C J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
C K C K (I K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
C A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es)(a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected(Well)and/or loosely connected(Loosely)to the landscape patch,the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads,regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider,urban landscapes,fields(pasture open and agriculture),or water>300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_500 acres
C B C'B From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
{ D (I D From 10 to<50 acres
CE CE <10 acres
F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas >_40 feet wide such as fields,development,roads,regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option"C."
C A 0
C'B 1to4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
C B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions,but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition,or expected species are unnaturally absent(planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species),or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(<10%cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has>10%to 50%cover of exotics.
C C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes C No If Yes,continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
C A >_25%coverage of vegetation
C B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
oC A • A Canopy closed,or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
as
C B C B Canopy present,but opened more than natural gaps
0 (i C C'C Canopy sparse or absent
oC A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(/) C B • B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
2 (i C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
C A C A Dense shrub layer
C B r B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
n
a` CA CA Dense herb layer
) a B r B Moderate density herb layer
= C C • C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Large snags(more than one)are visible(>12-inches DBH,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH);many large trees(>12 inches DBH)are
present.
C B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are>12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
C A Large logs(more than one)are visible(>12 inches in diameter,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
C`A C` B C C
�� lr . -
pi Ira) \r 11 \
Arty, -dr
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,
diversion,man-made berms,beaver dams,and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B,C,or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Rating: LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA,WB,WC Date 8/15/18
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed(Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver(Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM WD, WE, WL, WM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
Project Name UT to Rush Fork Date of Evaluation 8/15/18
Applicant/Owner Name Baker Wetland Site Name WD,WE,WL,WM
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body Rush Fork
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 06010106
County Haywood NCDWR Region Asheville
re Yes ( No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) See Wetland data forms
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference,if
appropriate,in recent past(for instance,approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include,but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches,dams,beaver dams,dikes,berms,ponds,etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby
septic tanks,underground storage tanks(USTs),hog lagoons,etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality,insect damage,disease,storm damage,salt intrusion,etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration(examples: mowing,clear-cutting,exotics,etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ti Yes r No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C Yes Co No If Yes,check all that apply to the assessment area.
✓ Anadromous fish
✓ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
✓ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
✓ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
In Publicly owned property
✓ N.C.Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
✓ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW,ORW,or Trout
✓ Designated NCNHP reference community
✓ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
C Blackwater
Brownwater
✓ Tidal(if tidal,check one of the following boxes) C Lunar C Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C Yes Cl No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes Cl No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes Cl No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS)in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
CA CA Not severely altered
Cl B Cl B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks,excessive
sedimentation,fire-plow lanes,skidder tracks,bedding,fill,soil compaction,obvious pollutants)(vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance,herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate],exotic species,grazing,
less diversity[if appropriate],hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch<_1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch >1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water.Consider tidal flooding regime,if applicable.
Surf Sub
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
Cl B Cl B Water storage capacity or duration are altered,but not substantially(typically,not sufficient to change vegetation).
CC CC Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically,alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change)(examples:draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling,excessive sedimentation,underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland
type(WT).
AA \NT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water>1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C , C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• D t:D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
• C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
▪ B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations,depletions,or rhizospheres)
C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. C A Soil ribbon<1 inch
C B Soil ribbon>_1 inch
4c. C A No peat or muck presence
▪B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank,underground storage tank(UST),etc.
Surf Sub
(I A (:A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
CB CB Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing,but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
CC CC Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen,particulate,or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration,dead vegetation,excessive
sedimentation,odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area(5M),and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
FA FA FA >_10%impervious surfaces
✓B r B r B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants)
▪C fl C fl C >_20%coverage of pasture
r D r D E D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
F E F E F E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
r F r F E F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
r G F G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
f:Yes C No If Yes,continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
CA >_50 feet
C B From 30 to<50 feet
f C From 15 to<30 feet
• D From 5 to<15 feet
C E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed,combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
<_15-feet wide f>15-feet wide C Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C:Yes f No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
f:Sheltered—adjacent open water with width<2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C Exposed—adjacent open water with width>_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only;evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest,Headwater Forest,and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area(WC). See User Manual for\NT and WC boundaries.
\NT WC
( A f A >_100 feet
f B C B From 80 to<100 feet
f C CC From 50 to<80 feet
f D f D From 40 to<50 feet
f E CE From 30 to<40 feet
f F CF From 15 to<30 feet
G (I G From 5 to<15 feet
f H CH <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C A Evidence of short-duration inundation(<7 consecutive days)
C B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
f:A Sediment deposition is not excessive,but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive,but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area:the
size of the wetland type(WT),the size of the wetland complex(WC),and the size of the forested wetland(FW)(if applicable,see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut,select"K"for the FW column.
\NT WC FW(if applicable)
C A C A C A >_500 acres
CB CB CB From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
CD CD CD From 25 to<50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to<25 acres
CF CF CF From 5 to<10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to<5 acres
CH CH CH From 0.5 to<1 acre
C I C I C I From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
C J C J C J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
K (I K (I K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
C A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es)(a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected(Well)and/or loosely connected(Loosely)to the landscape patch,the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads,regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider,urban landscapes,fields(pasture open and agriculture),or water>300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_500 acres
C B C'B From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
{ D C'D From 10 to<50 acres
CE CE <10 acres
F (I F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas >_40 feet wide such as fields,development,roads,regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option"C."
C A 0
C'B 1to4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
C B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions,but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition,or expected species are unnaturally absent(planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species),or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(<10%cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has>10%to 50%cover of exotics.
C C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes C No If Yes,continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
C A >_25%coverage of vegetation
C B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
oC A • A Canopy closed,or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
as
C B C B Canopy present,but opened more than natural gaps
0 (i C C'C Canopy sparse or absent
oC A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(/) C B • B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
2 (i C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
C A C A Dense shrub layer
C B r B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
n
a` CA CA Dense herb layer
) a B r B Moderate density herb layer
= C C • C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Large snags(more than one)are visible(>12-inches DBH,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH);many large trees(>12 inches DBH)are
present.
C B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are>12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
C A Large logs(more than one)are visible(>12 inches in diameter,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
C`A C` B C C
�� lr . -
pi Ira) \r 11 \
Arty, -dr
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,
diversion,man-made berms,beaver dams,and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B,C,or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet Rating: LOW
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Date of Assessment
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM WF, INK
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
Project Name UT to Rush Fork Date of Evaluation 8/15/18
Applicant/Owner Name Baker Wetland Site Name WF,WK
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body Rush Fork
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 06010106
County Haywood NCDWR Region Asheville
re Yes ( No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) See Wetland data forms
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference,if
appropriate,in recent past(for instance,approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include,but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches,dams,beaver dams,dikes,berms,ponds,etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby
septic tanks,underground storage tanks(USTs),hog lagoons,etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality,insect damage,disease,storm damage,salt intrusion,etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration(examples: mowing,clear-cutting,exotics,etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ti Yes r No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C Yes Co No If Yes,check all that apply to the assessment area.
✓ Anadromous fish
✓ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
✓ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
✓ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
In Publicly owned property
✓ N.C.Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
✓ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW,ORW,or Trout
✓ Designated NCNHP reference community
✓ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
C Blackwater
Brownwater
✓ Tidal(if tidal,check one of the following boxes) C Lunar C Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C Yes Cl No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes Cl No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes Cl No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS)in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
CA CA Not severely altered
Cl B Cl B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks,excessive
sedimentation,fire-plow lanes,skidder tracks,bedding,fill,soil compaction,obvious pollutants)(vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance,herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate],exotic species,grazing,
less diversity[if appropriate],hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch<_1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch >1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water.Consider tidal flooding regime,if applicable.
Surf Sub
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C B Cl B Water storage capacity or duration are altered,but not substantially(typically,not sufficient to change vegetation).
Cl C C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically,alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change)(examples:draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling,excessive sedimentation,underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland
type(WT).
AA \NT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water>1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C , C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• D t:D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
• C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
▪ B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations,depletions,or rhizospheres)
C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. a A Soil ribbon<1 inch
C B Soil ribbon>_1 inch
4c. C A No peat or muck presence
▪B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank,underground storage tank(UST),etc.
Surf Sub
(I A (:A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
CB CB Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing,but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
CC CC Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen,particulate,or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration,dead vegetation,excessive
sedimentation,odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area(5M),and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
FA FA FA >_10%impervious surfaces
✓B r B r B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants)
▪C fl C fl C >_20%coverage of pasture
r D r D E D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
F E F E F E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
r F r F r F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
F G F G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
f:Yes C No If Yes,continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
f A >_50 feet
C B From 30 to<50 feet
f C From 15 to<30 feet
• D From 5 to<15 feet
C E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed,combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
<_15-feet wide f>15-feet wide C Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C:Yes f No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
f:Sheltered—adjacent open water with width<2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C Exposed—adjacent open water with width>_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only;evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest,Headwater Forest,and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area(WC). See User Manual for\NT and WC boundaries.
\NT WC
( A f A >_100 feet
f B C B From 80 to<100 feet
f C CC From 50 to<80 feet
f D f D From 40 to<50 feet
f E f E From 30 to<40 feet
f F f F From 15 to<30 feet
G (I G From 5 to<15 feet
f H C H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C A Evidence of short-duration inundation(<7 consecutive days)
C B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
f:A Sediment deposition is not excessive,but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive,but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area:the
size of the wetland type(WT),the size of the wetland complex(WC),and the size of the forested wetland(FW)(if applicable,see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut,select"K"for the FW column.
\NT WC FW(if applicable)
C A C A C A >_500 acres
CB CB CB From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
CD CD CD From 25 to<50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to<25 acres
CF CF CF From 5 to<10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to<5 acres
CH CH CH From 0.5 to<1 acre
C I (i I C I From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
J C J C J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
C K C K (I K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
C A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es)(a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected(Well)and/or loosely connected(Loosely)to the landscape patch,the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads,regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider,urban landscapes,fields(pasture open and agriculture),or water>300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_500 acres
C B C'B From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
{ D (I D From 10 to<50 acres
CE CE <10 acres
F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas >_40 feet wide such as fields,development,roads,regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option"C."
C A 0
C'B 1to4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
C B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions,but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition,or expected species are unnaturally absent(planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species),or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(<10%cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has>10%to 50%cover of exotics.
C C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes C No If Yes,continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
C A >_25%coverage of vegetation
C B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
oC A • A Canopy closed,or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
as
C B C B Canopy present,but opened more than natural gaps
0 (i C C'C Canopy sparse or absent
oC A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(/) C B • B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
2 (i C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
C A C A Dense shrub layer
C B r B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
n
a` CA CA Dense herb layer
) a B r B Moderate density herb layer
= C C • C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Large snags(more than one)are visible(>12-inches DBH,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH);many large trees(>12 inches DBH)are
present.
C B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are>12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
C A Large logs(more than one)are visible(>12 inches in diameter,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
C`A C` B C C
�� lr . -
pi Ira) \r 11 \
Arty, -dr
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,
diversion,man-made berms,beaver dams,and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B,C,or D.
C A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Rating: LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WF,WK Date 8/15/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed(Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver(Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Particulate Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Physical Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM IMF"
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
Project Name UT to Rush Fork Date of Evaluation 8/15/18
Applicant/Owner Name Baker Wetland Site Name WG
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body Rush Fork
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 06010106
County Haywood NCDWR Region Asheville
re Yes ( No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) See Wetland data forms
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference,if
appropriate,in recent past(for instance,approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include,but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches,dams,beaver dams,dikes,berms,ponds,etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby
septic tanks,underground storage tanks(USTs),hog lagoons,etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality,insect damage,disease,storm damage,salt intrusion,etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration(examples: mowing,clear-cutting,exotics,etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ti Yes r No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C Yes a No If Yes,check all that apply to the assessment area.
✓ Anadromous fish
✓ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
✓ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
✓ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
In Publicly owned property
✓ N.C.Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
✓ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW,ORW,or Trout
✓ Designated NCNHP reference community
✓ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
C Blackwater
Brownwater
✓ Tidal(if tidal,check one of the following boxes) C Lunar C Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C Yes Cl No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes Cl No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes Cl No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS)in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
CA CA Not severely altered
Cl B Cl B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks,excessive
sedimentation,fire-plow lanes,skidder tracks,bedding,fill,soil compaction,obvious pollutants)(vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance,herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate],exotic species,grazing,
less diversity[if appropriate],hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch<_1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch >1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water.Consider tidal flooding regime,if applicable.
Surf Sub
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C B C B Water storage capacity or duration are altered,but not substantially(typically,not sufficient to change vegetation).
Cl C Cl C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically,alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change)(examples:draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling,excessive sedimentation,underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland
type(WT).
AA \NT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water>1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C , C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• D t:D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
• C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
▪ B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations,depletions,or rhizospheres)
▪C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. C A Soil ribbon<1 inch
C B Soil ribbon>_1 inch
4c. C A No peat or muck presence
▪B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank,underground storage tank(UST),etc.
Surf Sub
(I A (:A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
CB CB Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing,but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
CC CC Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen,particulate,or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration,dead vegetation,excessive
sedimentation,odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area(5M),and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
FA FA FA >_10%impervious surfaces
✓B r B r B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants)
▪C fl C fl C >_20%coverage of pasture
r D r D E D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
F E F E F E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
r F r F E F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
r G F G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
f:Yes C No If Yes,continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
CA >_50 feet
C B From 30 to<50 feet
f C From 15 to<30 feet
• D From 5 to<15 feet
C E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed,combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
<_15-feet wide f>15-feet wide C Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C:Yes f No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
f:Sheltered—adjacent open water with width<2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C Exposed—adjacent open water with width>_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only;evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest,Headwater Forest,and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area(WC). See User Manual for\NT and WC boundaries.
\NT WC
( A f A >_100 feet
f B C B From 80 to<100 feet
f C CC From 50 to<80 feet
f D f D From 40 to<50 feet
f E CE From 30 to<40 feet
f F CF From 15 to<30 feet
G (I G From 5 to<15 feet
f H CH <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C A Evidence of short-duration inundation(<7 consecutive days)
C B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
f:A Sediment deposition is not excessive,but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive,but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area:the
size of the wetland type(WT),the size of the wetland complex(WC),and the size of the forested wetland(FW)(if applicable,see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut,select"K"for the FW column.
\NT WC FW(if applicable)
C A C A C A >_500 acres
CB CB CB From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
CD CD CD From 25 to<50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to<25 acres
CF CF CF From 5 to<10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to<5 acres
CH CH CH From 0.5 to<1 acre
C I C I C I From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
J (I J C J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
C K C K (I K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
C A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es)(a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected(Well)and/or loosely connected(Loosely)to the landscape patch,the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads,regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider,urban landscapes,fields(pasture open and agriculture),or water>300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_500 acres
C B C B From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
C D (I D From 10 to<50 acres
E C E <10 acres
C F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas >_40 feet wide such as fields,development,roads,regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option"C."
C A 0
C B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
C B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions,but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition,or expected species are unnaturally absent(planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species),or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(<10%cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has>10%to 50%cover of exotics.
C C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes C No If Yes,continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
C A >_25%coverage of vegetation
C B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
oC A A Canopy closed,or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
• C B • B Canopy present,but opened more than natural gaps
0 C C C Canopy sparse or absent
oC A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
C B • B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
2 C C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
C A C A Dense shrub layer
ct C B C B Moderate density shrub layer
• C C C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
n CA CA Dense herb layer
• B (I B Moderate density herb layer
= C C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Large snags(more than one)are visible(>12-inches DBH,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH);many large trees(>12 inches DBH)are
present.
C B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are>12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
C A Large logs(more than one)are visible(>12 inches in diameter,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
C`A C` B C C
�� lr . -
pi Ira) \r 11 \
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,
diversion,man-made berms,beaver dams,and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B,C,or D.
C A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Rating: LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WG Date 8/15/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed(Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver(Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Particulate Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Physical Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM WH, WI, WJ
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
Project Name UT to Rush Fork Date of Evaluation 8/15/18
Applicant/Owner Name Baker Wetland Site Name WI,WJ,WH
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body Rush Fork
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 06010106
County Haywood NCDWR Region Asheville
re Yes ( No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) See Wetland data forms
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference,if
appropriate,in recent past(for instance,approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include,but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches,dams,beaver dams,dikes,berms,ponds,etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby
septic tanks,underground storage tanks(USTs),hog lagoons,etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality,insect damage,disease,storm damage,salt intrusion,etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration(examples: mowing,clear-cutting,exotics,etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ti Yes r No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C Yes Co No If Yes,check all that apply to the assessment area.
✓ Anadromous fish
✓ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
✓ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
✓ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
In Publicly owned property
✓ N.C.Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
✓ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW,ORW,or Trout
✓ Designated NCNHP reference community
✓ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
C Blackwater
Brownwater
✓ Tidal(if tidal,check one of the following boxes) C Lunar C Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C Yes Cl No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C Yes Cl No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes Cl No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS)in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
CA CA Not severely altered
Cl B Cl B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks,excessive
sedimentation,fire-plow lanes,skidder tracks,bedding,fill,soil compaction,obvious pollutants)(vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance,herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate],exotic species,grazing,
less diversity[if appropriate],hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch<_1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch >1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water.Consider tidal flooding regime,if applicable.
Surf Sub
C A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C B Cl B Water storage capacity or duration are altered,but not substantially(typically,not sufficient to change vegetation).
Cl C C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically,alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change)(examples:draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling,excessive sedimentation,underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland
type(WT).
AA \NT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water>1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C , C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• D t:D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
• C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations,depletions,or rhizospheres)
C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. a A Soil ribbon<1 inch
C B Soil ribbon>_1 inch
4c. G A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank,underground storage tank(UST),etc.
Surf Sub
(I A (:A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
CB CB Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing,but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
CC CC Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen,particulate,or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration,dead vegetation,excessive
sedimentation,odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area(5M),and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
FA FA FA >_10%impervious surfaces
r B r B r B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants)
fl C fl C fl C >_20%coverage of pasture
r D r D E D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
F E F E F E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
r F r F r F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
F G F G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
f:Yes C No If Yes,continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
f A >_50 feet
C B From 30 to<50 feet
f C From 15 to<30 feet
• D From 5 to<15 feet
C E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed,combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
<_15-feet wide f>15-feet wide C Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C:Yes f No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
f:Sheltered—adjacent open water with width<2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C Exposed—adjacent open water with width>_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only;evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest,Headwater Forest,and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area(WC). See User Manual for\NT and WC boundaries.
\NT WC
( A f A >_100 feet
f B C B From 80 to<100 feet
f C CC From 50 to<80 feet
f D f D From 40 to<50 feet
f E f E From 30 to<40 feet
f F f F From 15 to<30 feet
G (I G From 5 to<15 feet
f H C H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C A Evidence of short-duration inundation(<7 consecutive days)
C B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
f:A Sediment deposition is not excessive,but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive,but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area:the
size of the wetland type(WT),the size of the wetland complex(WC),and the size of the forested wetland(FW)(if applicable,see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut,select"K"for the FW column.
\NT WC FW(if applicable)
C A C A C A >_500 acres
CB CB CB From 100 to<500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to<100 acres
CD CD CD From 25 to<50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to<25 acres
CF CF CF From 5 to<10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to<5 acres
CH CH CH From 0.5 to<1 acre
C I (i I C I From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
J C J C J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
C K C K (I K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
C A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es)(a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected(Well)and/or loosely connected(Loosely)to the landscape patch,the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads,regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider,urban landscapes,fields(pasture open and agriculture),or water>300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_500 acres
C B C'B From 100 to<500 acres
C C (I C From 50 to<100 acres
{ D C'D From 10 to<50 acres
CE CE <10 acres
F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas >_40 feet wide such as fields,development,roads,regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option"C."
C A 0
C'B 1to4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
C B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions,but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition,or expected species are unnaturally absent(planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species),or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(<10%cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has>10%to 50%cover of exotics.
C C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes C No If Yes,continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
C A >_25%coverage of vegetation
C B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
oC A • A Canopy closed,or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
as
C B C B Canopy present,but opened more than natural gaps
0 (i C C'C Canopy sparse or absent
oC A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(/) C B • B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
2 (i C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
C A C A Dense shrub layer
C B r B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
n
a` CA CA Dense herb layer
) a B r B Moderate density herb layer
= C C • C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Large snags(more than one)are visible(>12-inches DBH,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH);many large trees(>12 inches DBH)are
present.
C B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are>12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
C A Large logs(more than one)are visible(>12 inches in diameter,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
C`A C` B C C
�� lr . -
pi Ira) \r 11 \
Arty, -dr
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,
diversion,man-made berms,beaver dams,and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B,C,or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Rating: LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WI,WJ,WH Date 8/15/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization KS&RM
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed(Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver(Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence?(Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

APPENDIX H: APPROVED JD AND WETLAND FORMS

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action 1D: SAW-2018-01171 County: Haywood U.S.G.S. Quad: Fines Creek
NOTIFICATION OF .JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Michael Baker International!Attn.; Micky Clemmons
Address: 797 Haywood Road,Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
'Telephone Number: 828-412-610{}
Size(acres); 7-01 acre portion of lamer tract Nearest Town: Crabtree Community
Nearest Waterway: UTs Rush Fork Coordinates: 35.64454 N.82.94008 W
River Basin/[ C- Pigeon(06010106
Location description;Thep r eject site is located on a tract of land(PINS 8721-72-6837 and 8731-33-59910 at 9503
Rush Fork Rued in this Crabtree community of Haywood County,North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Follow in Anply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act(CWA)(33 USC § 1344)and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)(33 USC §403).The
waters,including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable.Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation cf impacts,compensatory mitigation
requirements,and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD wilt treat
all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S, This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Adm niistrativc Appeal Process(Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However,you may request an approved JD,which is an
appealable action,by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
_ There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344)and/or Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)(33 USC §403). However, since the
waters,including wetlands, have not been properly delineated,this preliminary jurisdiction determitxadon may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely
an effective presumption of CWAfRHAjurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area,
which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have
the waters of the U.S. en your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner,you may wish to obtain aconsultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the
Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(REA)(33 USC § 403)and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)(33
USC§ 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for
a perLod not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)(33 USC§ 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner,you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation
that can be verified by the Corps.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed,the Corps can review and verify the survey upon
completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RIBA

jurisdiction on your property which.provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
lie waters of the U.S.including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations,this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S.,to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act(33 USC§ 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Array permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(33 USC §401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David Brown at
8V8-27.1-+980,ext. 4232 or [e-mail].
C. Basis for Determination;
See attached preliminary jurisdictional determination form.
D. Remarks:
The potential waters of the U.S.,at this site,were verified en-site by the Corps on April 1 1, 2019, and are as
approximately depicted on the attached Hydrologic Features (lap (Figures 8, 8rt.1, 88, 8C, HD.1, arr,18E) submitted by
Michael Baker International.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, ar anticipate
participation in USDA programs,you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals information (This Information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B.above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. if you object to
this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 33 I. Enclosed you
will find a Notification of Appeal Process(NAP)fact sheet and request for appeal(RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele,Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW,Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA.to be accepted by the Corps,the Corps must determine that it is complete,that it meets the criteria
for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5,and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the
NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by, N/A(Preliminary-JD).
2

"Ft:s not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official, I - --`
David Brown
Issue Date o1TD: May 1,2019 Expiration Date: NM. Preliminary JD
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue
to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http:flcorosma p u.us ac e.armv.m i Iiem_apexlf?p=13 6:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Anne Palmer Family Properties,L.P.,6624 Yacht Club Road,Flowery Branch,GA 30542
WE Kirk Farms North,LLC,448 Little Mountain Road, Waynesville,NC 28786
3

Blank Page
1
I
1
4

re
~ 4 * .
.! - I/Skil 1.04:411140.:' A
!. . , k •iii1.•=401. - ..
•
•
tre . y- • f� --
I4'ti "
e 1 ti p '
;7' _ a i IN •
ti fr: ,4,_
r►,f- . _
,r ,
. 3.•-. ___ .
... . el/ .ilir. + . r
h._ .;..40), ti L ,
0' ' IMEZ1112k ::',,. cr::..y. ..-7,.... • IMMIEEM
.:;....,.. .
I fr ...01-a..\e,....\v/Iir
f
\\I'''...k.-..
;1< /`
i
INSETE 'IC :if INSETD
• EEL
f
.
' • Stream Features .
4
f T; •:' Stream Typ
' Intermittent
5 •
Perennial
Wetland Channel
f % RushFOrk_UpdatedWellands
........Additional Fencing
Pro osed Cnerat on Esemnt
. it:CialkVkiG 33 tetra -it fw
Figure S-Updated as of 4111119 Site Visit
Michael Baker 0 100 20f0 40Feet Hydrologic Features Chrnrvh3wMap
i
UT to Rush Fork
INTERNATIONAL i Inch=260 feet Stream Mitigation Project

Div-] = a.161
acres
•
•
•
Ate
•
4
W—I 0.313
acres
UT3- 1,664.9 LF
111
04
4 0 Pmpetcd Cent rmhpn Encmcnt
�i#i P?i Weuau�
tifirtc32p, 5V.G t.Ne Purl n CO,w1 , _ 1xcMMT.I,}riN,-07ni1 14:1Rw rPir r
Additional Figure 8A.1
Michael Baker Feet Hydrologic Features Map - Past Field
030 0 120 Verification 4/11/19
U
NTERNATI H A L T to Rush Fork -Stream Mitigation Project

1NS 8 r �; . . '
h
A
I. II ' -y ',.. Fikt
it �' r r r
, it 14 ; •-
1. 4
_- fit
E it r • �•�.
' ., t tip. is _
'611071
• •
i , F, 1 •14 .�a
_sFA` 1
1 l }' 1 #i .
i .• `, _. ••' • ti ' `' •!Stir e
r + ..i r f. is 14
•
} t -:
�l r a •� _ y 7, ti
lit,
:, , t ,\. '' . l
r h
r1 t ti
tillr 'II k `
,,:' 1 k '\
A Stream Form Data Point r'� I `
' Y
Upland/Non-welland Data Point r -
un s . •
A Wetland Data Point f : _ _ •
Project Review Area -;, .. f x .
•
Intermittent Stream • ••. 1
Perennial Stream p' f
— Wetland Channel f �t,
Floodplain Ditches . 't
— Edge of Channel '`•P - '5
Wetland d•
`ti
Project Parcel Pcundary t - }
Additional Fencing
.
• 5
0 Proposed Conservation Easement
aki.
. I. 5
•
Le
y• '+ ,.`
;, _ { r 'x �//��/ Wf=i.o6c ours
r AhY
- • .:I.:T3i'El)'+,
.3C.18�AbrM ISFh��raphySauc e;yNCLOneMapa N. •ente,ri}ord.G0.4•rA. ic;n arm a o An• '•n: 3
Figure 88 •
Michael Baker a 30 60 itl7 Hydrologic Features Map-INSET a
Feet UT to Rush Fork
NTERNATIONAL1 -I Inch=$0 toot Stream Mitigation Project

4' ��__ iw .:• - wry • {.:
,ram
A. Stream Form Pate Point •
- i
.Jy • t•
. Upland t Non-wetland Data Point ! . = -. :. .. ,
•Wetland Data Pofnk s 4
11"4- Project Review Area •a • 1 I
I. _ _ I
Intermittent Stream ` .. '
,
4 Perennial Stream )1
• . . :-
0 ' — Wetland Channel I' - •
t '°� Froodplaln Ditches • -
. L
�. - — Edge aft channel r
1 •
l!'._ r _
; : Wetland 1•
mi.. Project Parcel Boundary ) {�" - ':t
Additfona!Fencing I o-n.-•]G21 dr-a
•
ti, � Proposed Conservation Easement • � t
r + - f $
; r { ,‘, i-
f+ .I I 1.'1•I
IZEIZIZIN
.,
1
..
r I
r
ii
•A.
•
411711.
r• 4 f
•
/ • 1 •.a. saLI.. ••'.
r
r ' • r
r
,, ,..�r
.4,
„A
01P- ,
I r
I i ViR-1.79.1 LF
II .I
Il ,
r
7 !
r
yyeLa -`- T�i •
� Php rgraph - fie :..yiih�° P4g-ra rl lithrialbaI 41td l4-
Figure 8G
Michael Baker 0 30 60 120 Hydrologic Features Map.INSET C
Feel_ UT to Rush Fork
INTERNATIONAL 1 Inch.60 Feet Etrearn Mitigation Project

40
di
I1'C3- 1,664.4 LF 11
41
•
OP
W-F = 0,051 0 0 W-D = 0.012.
• L, d ii acres jracres
.41
fr
UT4-210.3LF UT!-2 {4LF
ill iti
-IP / kalra °VW '
11
•
' f ,
ef , _
-E = 0.313 acres
• , d/ . . -
tiell
r2
i
s _Ty
Intermittent
J
i.,/ *Wm Pcrcnnisl
0 Proposed Conservation basement
We[]EZ anc_3
,Pali',Ntor t50 1 iolit5,0154/ 115 lI ti t ULr ffin!r,1r Vat-awl+hi?Citj:.},-yni 1:::infiiim4 it ,
Additional Figure 80,1
MichaelBaker37.E 75 150 Hydrologic Features Map-Post Field
Feet Verification 4/1 1/19
U
N T E R N A T I Q N A L T to Rush Fork-Stream Mitigation Project

=ice {
I IF
A „, .0 , _ ,..
r•et.. ,:--.1,.. ., ...4,40 _ •
fi4._. • . • • _. • 4 • I-' 11 1
•
• i1' ' l a
�- • � : It
S
lin. ii : -..... .
ov . . 10011r*-‘41_ -4 1 ... -
, r , .- -—'1. .1PP el . \
f r
^. -_ .,. i. fl
- .,� .. r i r f
'y r J
�7 + pit 11
i. i. ;tr.'.' I +r
.e
..--
. .- ...41 v1:-_,,.. re4,, • '--__2r -- .' - / . , ./••Jo. ii. :-. , i;‘,.. i
4 ;y r • `, 7. .i 1 i y.
- . 4, /
I iT r . - - .'f
'/� /r l,,' 1'
F1 4'
! •
i+r
F - 4..
r ti -�
/
r .
F f J +Ff
Z . .
?I
Yir1�:Y:YLiOLf.F r if
I ��+
!f
;, , i Stream Form Data Point
• / .•. Upland!Non-wetland Data Point
+r :Pi
* ' 1 A Wetland Data Point
F
litil
r . 7. .. Project Review Area
Intermittent Stream
Pfill eerennial Stream
+ i Wetland Channel
fr /
,f / • II Floodplain Ditches
II — Edge of Channel
i
`, +' I n Wetland
�, i i{
••-I Project Parcel Boundary
rt
: Additional Fencing
r`
• 1 0 Proposed Conservation Easement
i
INSFT t= ,.f „
s
. ' 6 •.1e•h ur-e:N', .ap NiGrrlier4ar,(GCii rartiit iniurJ„rti❑n�o3 nary is '
Figure BE
Michael Baker 6 39 64 120 Hydrologic Features Map-INSET E
Feet UT to Rush Fork
INTERNATIONAL 1 inch=ea Feet Stream tL'iitigatian Project

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OVI IONS AND PROCESS AN
13.EQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Michael Baker International 1 Attn.: Micky File Number: SAW-201E-01171 Date:May I, 2019
Clemmans _
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT(Standard Permit or Letter of perm fission) A
El PROFFERED PERMIT(Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
O PERMIT DENIAL _ C
© APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONI J D
i, PRELIMINARY JURfSDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal(lithe above decision.
Additional information may be found at htto:,JJwww,usace,arreiv.ritt lissionslC'ivit' WorkslRegulatoryPrograrnandPermits.asp' of
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A. INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive ail rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. •
• OBJECT: if you object to the permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly.You must complete Section Ii of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter,the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a).modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b)modify the permit to address some afyour objections,or(c)not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections,the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below,
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may except or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT; If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms etyd conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL' If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 1I of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial ofa permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept Or appeal the approved JD or provide new information,
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved ID.
▪ APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the divisior engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
5

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD.
The Preliminary JD is not appealable. [f you wish, you may request an approved JD(which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction, Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II-FEWEST FOR APPEAL.or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAI.PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons For appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL.INFORMATION:The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record,the Corps memorandum for the record
of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the
administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record, However,you may
provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR [FORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact; also contact:
District Engineer.Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele,Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David Brown CESAD-PDO
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville,North Carolina 28801-5006 60 Eorsyth Street,Room 10M15
828-271-7980,ext. 4232 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8501
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,and any government
consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and wi[1 have the opportunity to_participate in all site investi ations.
Date: Telephone number;
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer,Wilmington Regulatory Division,Attn.: David Brown,69 Darlington Avenue,Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials,Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer,Commander, U.S.Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic,Attn: Mr.Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO,60 Forsyth Street, Room 1011+I15,Atlanta,Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
6

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) FORM
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMA.T[UN
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JD; May 1,2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIM[NARY JD:
Michael Baker International!Attn.: Micky Clcrnmons
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME,AND NUMBER;
CESAW-RG-A, SAW-2018-01171, NCDMS ILF- UTs Rush Fork Mitigation Site
I). PROJECT LOCATION(S)AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The project site is located on a tract of land(PINs 8721-72-6837 and 8731-33-5998)at 9503 Rush Fork Road in the
Crabtree commimnity of Haywood County,North Carolina.
State NC County/parishUborough: Haywood City: Crabtree Community
Center coordinates of site Oat/long in degree decimal format); 35.64454 N,82.94008 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: N/A
Name of nearestwaterbody: UTs Rush Fork
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: May t,2019
E Field Determination. Date(s): April 11,2119
Use the table below to document aquatic resources and/or aquatic resources at different sites
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY DE"SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
Centered Coordinates Estimated ArnowIt of Geographic
Site plumber (decimal degrees) Aquatic Resource in Type of Aquatic Authority to Which
Review Area Resources Aquatic Resource
Latitude Leingitudc (linear feet or acre) "May Be"Subject
UTi ❑ Wetland ❑ Section 404
35,ta463 -82.9378 2,854 If
(UT musk Fork) 21 Non-wetland Waters Q Section 10/404
UT2 35,6450 82.9391 107 If ❑ Wetland VI Section 404
(UT Rusk Fork) El Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 101404 '
UT2-1 35.5451 -82.9389 9b IF El Wetland El Section 404
(UT RuAk Fork) ❑NM-wetland Waters ❑ Section 101404
UT3 35.b478 -82,9412 1,665 ]f ❑Wetland Section 404
(UT Rusk Fork) Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 101404
UT4 35.6447 -82,9406 2101E El Wetland El Section 404
(UT Rusk Fork) _ _ 1 Non-wetland Waters ElSection 10/404
A 35,6462 -82,9378 0.021 ac ® Wetland IA Section 404
❑ Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
-B 35.6457 -82.9385 0.009 ac ® Wetland 1 Section 404
❑Non-wetland Water ❑ Section 10/404
7

W-C 35,6455 -32.9336 0.235 ac Wetland ® Seetkin 404
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
W-O 35,6447 -82.4397 0.012 ac LE Wetland FA Section 404
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
El
W-E 35.6443 -82.9406 0,313 ac Wetland ® Scotian 404
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10,404
El-F 35,6443 -82_9406 0.051 ac Wetland Section 404
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10 404
W-G35.6457 -[32.9404 I 0.397 ac ® Wetland 1�� Section 404
— I --
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
- —
El
W-H 35.6457 -82,9402 0.008 ac Wetiand ® Section 404
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
L�4'•[ I 35.fi482 -8 .94]4 4,D23 act Wetland El Section 404
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
W-1 35,6482 fi .9d 1:1 0.1b 1 ac ® Wetland �41 Section 404
n Non-wetland Waters El Section 10/404
W-K 35,6424 -52.941 I 0.033 ac Wetland section 404
❑Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
W-L 35,6425 8 .4413 0.071 ac LE Wetland — ® Section 404
0 Non-wetland Waters ❑Section 10/404
vv-1,Q 35.6419 -82.9419 o.04fi ac
m El Wetland ®Section 404
0 Non-wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requester dFthis ND is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AID) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
varions types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit(NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre-construction notification" (PEN),
or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant
has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (l)the
permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PSI),which does not make
an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2)the applicant has the option to
request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that
basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation
being required or different special conditions; (3)the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit
authori7tion; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with
all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps
has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit
authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
FM; (6)accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or
undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a I'JG
constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that
activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any
administrative orjudicia: compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in
any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will
be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AID, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions container therein), or individual permit denial can he administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. [f, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
*Note:W-J is erroneously reported here as 0.161 acres. This was actually the originally submitted area,which was
subsequently reduced during the field visit with COE regulatory staff. However,the submitted revised maps(included
here with this PJD),while showing the wetland boundary adjultment,did not recalculate the new wetland area,which
should be 0.075 acres.

tnakc an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the
review arca, or to provide an official delineation ofjurisdicrional aquatic resources in the review
area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD
Finds that there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be„navigable waters of the U.S,
on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could he
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA
Data reviewed for preliminary JD(cheek all that apply) - Checked items should be included in subject file,
Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items_
® Maps,plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of preliminary ID requester: Michael Baker International
Eg Data sheets preparedlsubraitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester. Michael Baker International
Office concurs with data sheets{delineation report
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rational:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters'study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NH1.)data.
❑ USGS R and 12 digit HUC maps,
El USGS map(s). Cite scale&quad name: Fines Creek.
®Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS)Soil Survey,
Citation: Haywood County,NC
❑ National wetlands inventory(NM)map(s), Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® Federal Emergency ivianagernent Agency(FEMA)/Flood insurance Rate Map(FIRM)maps: Map Nos,37110872100J
and 370087310OJ,effective date Apr. 3,2012
❑ l 00-year Flood lain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
tEl Photographs: J Aerial (Name&Date): Google Earth Pro, Nov.2017,Oct.2015,Mar.2013,Jun.2008,Jun.2006,
Apr. 1998,and Apr, 1995
or❑Other(Name&Date);
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other=nformation (please specify): The site contains wetlands as determined by the .1987 Carps of Engineers Weiland
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manuarl.Eastern
Mountain and Piedmont Region(Version 2.0).These wetlands are abutting to stream channels located at the site and
flow into the channels.Wetland hydrology is enhanced with the abutting stream channels via normal down gradient
flows and periods of high water
The streams on the property are UTs Rush Fork which all exhibit physical ordinary high water mark(OHWM)
indicators including, break in slope; developed bed and bank; changes in sediment texture and soil character; natural
line impressed on the bank; shelving; absence of vegetation; leaf litter washed away; sediment deposition and sorting;
presence of aquatic life; water staining; presence of debris; and scour.Some of the streams are depicted as solid blue
lines on the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map Fines Creek and the most current Natural Resource Conservation
Service Soil Survey for Haywood County. Solid blue line features on these mapping conventions typically represent
peren nisi streams.
The UTs Rush Fork flow into Rush Fork,which flows into Crabtree Creek, and then into the Pigeon River,a
traditional navigable water and Section 10 waters below Waterville Dam.The Pigeon River flows into the French
Broad River and merges with the Holston River to form the Tennessee River. The Tennessee River drains into the
Mississippi River before entering the Gulf of Mexico.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Carps and
should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
9

- A
David Browns,May 1,2019 Michael Baker international/Micky Clcramons
Signature and date of Regulatory (per Agent Authorization)
staff member completing Signature and date of person requesting
preliminary JD preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)
Two copies of llths Preliminary 11) Farm have been provided, Please sign both copies. Keep orre signed copy for your record
and reran a signed copy to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office by mail or e-mail.
CIS Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District
Asheville Reguletmy Field Office
151 Parton Avenue, Room 20a
Asheville, ow 28801-5 G
Districts ir_ay establish timefrarnes for requester to return signed HD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time
frame, the ilstrict may preurne concurrence and co additional fallow up is necessary prior ti finalising an action,
I{1

APPENDIX I: APPROVED FHWA CA I'LGORICAL EXCLUSION FORMS
(Complete Categorical Exclusion included in electronic submittal)

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.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County Name: Haywood
EEP Number: DMS# 100068, Contract#00735
Project Sponsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Micky Clemmons
Project Contact Address: 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201. Asheville, NC
Project Contact E-mail: Mclemmons mbakerintf.com
EEP Project Mane•er: Paul Wiesner ■aul_wiesner• ncden r.•ov
Project Description
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project is located in the Crabtree Community of Haywood County, NC.
The project site is located in the French Broad River Basin (06010106) and the NC DM5 Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) 06010106020010. The project site is bisected by Rush Fork Road approximately 1.8 miles
north of its intersection with Silvers Coves Road.
The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and removal of
riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches have cleared banks with a mix of small scattered trees and stands
of invasive species located at the top of bank. Currently,the project reaches are unstable, incised, and exhibit
active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,300 LE of existing stream. A Best
Management Practice (BMP) will also be implemented at the head of one of the tributaries to treat nutrient
and sediment laden run-off from the surrounding pasture area. Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored
and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion, and native
riparian buffer plantings. At this time, no wetland credit is being sought for the project. A conservation
easement will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 30 feet from the top of bank and will
incorporate existing functional wetlands. The conservation easement will protect the entire project area in
perpetuity. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with permanent fencing.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Vit/ig
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/16/05

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

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ® Yes
Cherokee Indians? ❑ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? ❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic ❑ Yes
Places? ❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Antiquities Act(AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? ❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects ❑ Yes
of antiquity? ❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act(ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? ❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat ® Yes
listed for the county? ❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? ® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical ❑ Yes
Habitat? ® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project"likely to adversely affect"the specie and/or"likely to adversely modify" ❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? ❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy"determination? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
8 Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" ❑ Yes
by the EBCI? ® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ❑ Yes
project? ❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred ❑ Yes
sites? ❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act(FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? ® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally ® Yes
important farmland? ❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? ® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any ® Yes
water body? ❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? ® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act(Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, ❑ Yes
outdoor recreation? ® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? ❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the ❑ Yes
project on EFH? ❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? ❑ Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? ❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining ❑ Yes
federal agency? ❑ No
® N/A
9 Version 1.4, 8/16/05

UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A/Categorical Exclusion—Summary
French Broad River Basin—CU# 06010106—Haywood County,NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 100068;NCDEQ Contract No. 007535
Project Background
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation project is proposing to restore and enhance approximately 5,300
linear feet (LF)jurisdictional stream within the Pigeon River Basin for the purpose of obtaining stream
mitigation credit for the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Project reaches have been
significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and removal of riparian buffers. Stream banks
consist of heavily grazed pasture grass with some small scattered trees, mixed with pockets of invasive
species. Project reaches are unstable, incised and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows and
livestock access. Livestock will be permanently excluded from all project areas. Buffers in excess of 30
feet will be established along all proposed reaches. In addition, most of the existing functional wetlands
will be incorporated inside the conservation easement to protect them in perpetuity.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies to use an interdisciplinary
approach in planning and decision-making for actions that will have an impact on the environment. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have
determined that DMS projects will not involve significant impacts and therefore a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) is the appropriate type of environmental document for this project. FHWA has also determined that
stream restoration projects are considered land disturbing activities; therefore, Parts 2 and 3 of the DMS
CE checklist and a summary of the findings applicable to the environmental regulations associated for this
project are included. Supporting documentation is included in the Appendix.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA)
A preliminary review of the project and adjacent parcels zoning/land use status was conducted on June 1,
2018 using the Haywood County, NC GIS mapping application
(http://maps.haywoodnc.net/gisweb/default.htm). Results from the online review showed that there are no
commercial or industrial designated parcels within the project area, nor are there any commercial or
industrial designated parcels abutting,adjacent to,or within one mile of the project area. All properties are
zoned either as open land, wooded, or homesite. A search of environmental records for the project area
was conducted on August 13,2018 by Environmental Data Resources,Inc(EDR). Results from the EDR's
Radius Map Report did not find any current nor historic hazardous waste records for any properties within
or adjacent to the project review area. See the Appendix for full EDR report. Based on these results, no
additional documentation is required to meet regulatory compliance for CERCLA.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) requested a review and comment from the State Historic
Preservation Office(SHPO)and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' Tribal Historic Preservation Office
(EBCI THPO)on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to architectural,archaeological,and/or
cultural resources from the restoration project on June 1, 2018. On June 28, 2018, Baker received a letter
from EBCI THPO with the finding that no cultural resources important to the Cherokee people should be
adversely impacted by the proposed project. On July 3,2018,Baker received a response letter from SHPO
finding that no historic resources would be affected by the project. All correspondence on this issue is
included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act
Prior to signing the Option Agreement for the Conservation Easement, each property owner of the land
involved in the restoration project was notified that Baker does not have condemnation authority and as to
the fair market value of the land involved. Copies of each Option Agreement is included in the Appendix.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) conducted an on-line review of the project area with the use of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)IPAC website(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/),on May
21, 2018. This review generated an Official Species List(OSL),which identifies threatened, endangered,
proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur
within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by proposed project. Results from
review, found the following nine federally listed species. No USFWS designated critical habitats were
located within the project boundaries.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological Conclusion
Status Present
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina Northern Flying E No No Effect
coloratus Squirrel
Myotis grisescens Gray Bat E No No Effect
Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat E No No Effect
Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat T No No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian Elktoe E No No Effect
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir Moss Spider E No No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia T Yes No Effect
Geum radiatum Spreading Avens E No No Effect
Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen E No No Effect
Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018. Results from this search found no known occurrences
of any of the above referenced species within two miles of the project site.
Based on our review, field surveys, USFWS and FHWA consultation, Baker has developed the following
determinations for the above referenced species.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus(Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel) —Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May-October
The endangered Carolina northern flying squirrel is a subspecies of the northern flying squirrel. The
northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal gliding mammal usually 10 to 12 inches in length and 3-5
ounces in weight. It possesses a long, broad, flattened tail which encompasses approximate 80 percent of
head and body length, prominent eyes, and dense, silky fur. The broad tail and folds of skin between the
wrist and ankle form the aerodynamic surface used for gliding. Adults are gray with a brownish, tan, or
reddish wash on the back, and their fur fades to a buff white on the belly.
There are several isolated populations of the Carolina northern flying squirrel in the mountains of North
Carolina. These populations are typically found in areas where northern hardwoods, such as yellow birch,
beech, maple, hemlock, red oak, and buckeye, are adjacent to the higher-elevation red spruce-Fraser fir
forests, typically at elevations greater than 4,500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). In some instances,
the squirrels may be found on narrow, north-facing valleys greater than 4,000 feet AMSL. Both forest
types are used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. Mature forests with a
thick evergreen understory and numerous snags are most preferable. In winter,squirrels inhabit tree cavities
in older hardwoods,particularly yellow birch.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

The study area does not occur at the proper elevation to support habitat for the Carolina northern flying
squirrel. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 2,900 to 3,100 feet AMSL. A review
of NCNHP records conducted on May 22, 2018 does not indicate known Carolina northern flying squirrel
occurrence within 2.0 miles of the study area. Therefore, since no habitat is present,the proposed project
is anticipated to have "No Effect"on the Carolina northern flying squirrel.
Myotis grisescens(Gray Bat)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May15-August 15 (summer); January 15-February 15 (winter)
The gray bat is the largest member of its genus in the eastern United States, and is easily distinguishable
from all other bats within its range by its mono-colored fur. Following molt in July or August, gray bats
are dark gray, but they often bleach to chestnut brown or russet between molts (especially apparent in
reproductive females during May and June). The wing membrane connects to the foot at the ankle rather
than at the base of the first toe, as in other species of Myotis.
Gray bats roost predominantly in caves year-round. Most winter caves are deep and vertical, while cave
types vary during the spring and fall transient periods. In summer,maternity colonies prefer caves that act
as warm air traps or that provide restricted rooms or domed ceilings that are capable of trapping the
combined body heat from thousands of clustered individuals and are located within one half mile of a river
or reservoir,which provides foraging habitat.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project site is not located within a 0.5 mile of a river or reservoir nor have any caves,that would provide
roosting habitat,been found within the study area.Additionally,a review of NCNHP records conducted on
May 22, 2018 did not indicate known gray bat occurrence within 2.0 miles of the study area. Therefore,
since no roosting habitat nor foraging habitat will be impacted,the proposed project is anticipated to have
No Effect on the gray bat.
Myotis sodalist(Indiana Bat)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May15 -August 15 (summer)
The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat,with a head and body length ranging from 1.6— 1.9 in. The species
closely resembles the little brown bat (Myotis lucgus) and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). Its hind feet tend to be small and delicate with fewer, shorter hairs than other bats of the
Myotis genus.The fur lacks luster.The ears and wing membranes have a dull appearance and flat coloration
that does not contrast with the fur. The fur of the chest and belly is lighter than the pinkish-brown fur on
the back,but does not contrast as strongly as does that of the little brown or northern long-eared bats.
Indiana bats winter in caves or mines with stable, but not freezing, cold temperatures. In summer they
generally roost in the loose bark of trees,either dead trees with peeling bark,or live trees with shaggy bark,
such as white oak and some hickories.
Critical Habitat for the Indiana Bat was designated on September 24, 1976. Based on the IPAC Official
Species List generated,the project lies outside the critical habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The IPAC Official Species List generated on May 21, 2018, stated that the presence of the species may be
affected by the proposed project; therefore, Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural
Heritage Program's Data Explorer(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/)on May 22,2018 and found no known
occurrences of the Indiana bat within two miles of the Project site,nor are there any caves within the project
area that would provide hibernation habitat. Because the project will include the removal/clearing of trees,
Baker conducted a field review on May 23, 2018 to determine the presence or absence of roosting habitat
for the species within the project area. Results of the field review found that there were no shagbark hickory
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

or similar type trees within the project area that would provide roosting habitat for the Indian bat;therefore,
no suitable habitat will be removed nor cleared as result of the project. Based on these findings, the
biological opinion criteria outlined in the Range-wide Programmatic Consultation for Indiana Bat and
Northern Long-eared Bat (Version 5.0, February 2018) deems that the project will meet Section 7(a)(2)
requirements of the ESA with the use of the 2018 programmatic biological opinion of"No Effect" for the
Indiana bat. A copy of the Consistency letter(TAILS O4EN1000-2018-R-0426)associated with the project
determination is included in the Appendix.
Myotis septentrionalis(Northern Long-Eared Bat)—Threatened
USFWS optimal survey window: June 1-August 15
In North Carolina,the NLEB occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal
plain. In western North Carolina,NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is
not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern
North Carolina,it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC.During the summer,NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically
>3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves
of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Pregnant females give birth from late
May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings,
over water, and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The IPAC Official Species List generated on May 21, 2018, stated that the presence of the species may be
affected by the proposed project; therefore, Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural
Heritage Program's Data Explorer(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22,2018 and found no known
occurrences of the NLEB within two miles of the Project site, nor are there any caves within the project
area that would provide hibernation habitat. Because the project will include the removal/clearing of trees,
Baker conducted a field review on May 23, 2018 to determine the presence or absence of roosting habitat
for the species within the project area. Results of the field review found that there were no shagbark hickory
or similar type trees within the project area that would provide roosting habitat for the NLEB;therefore,no
suitable habitat will be removed nor cleared as result of the project. Based on these findings,the biological
opinion criteria outlined in the Range-wide Programmatic Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern
Long-eared Bat(Version 5.0,February 2018)deems that the project will meet Section 7(a)(2)requirements
of the ESA with the use of the 2018 programmatic biological opinion of"No Effect"for the NLEB. A copy
of the Consistency letter (TAILS O4EN1000-2018-R-0426) associated with the project determination is
included in the Appendix.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian Elktoe)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: year round
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, kidney-shaped shell, extending to about 4 inches. Juveniles generally
have a yellowish-brown outer shell surface,while the adults outer shell is usually dark brown to greenish-
black. Although rays are prominent on some shells,particularly in the posterior portion of the shell,many
individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The inside shell surface is shiny, often white to bluish-white,
changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell; some
specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches.
The species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, clean,
well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and
shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with
cobble,boulders, and/or bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe,
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

and the species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or
cobble. Additional factors known to have contributed to the decline and loss of populations of the
Appalachian elktoe and threaten the remaining populations include habitat loss and alteration associated
with impoundments, channelization,and dredging operations; and the run-off of silt, fertilizers,pesticides,
and other pollutants from poorly implemented land-use/farm activities.
Known current Appalachian elktoe distributions occur in Haywood County as well as in portions of the
Pigeon River system. Critical Habitat for the Appalachian elktoe was designated on September 27,2002.
Based on the IPAC Official Species List generated,the project lies outside the critical habitat.Additionally,
a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018 found no known occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe
within two miles of the Project site.
Biological Conclusion:No Effect
Project streams are located within active agricultural pastures and receives drainage from Rush Fork Road.
As stated previously, stream bank conditions and/riparian conditions along the project reach and
downstream of the project are poor. Areas of active erosion, cattle access, and historical ditching have
caused most of the project reaches and downstream receiving waters to become overwide,to lose continuity
of bed and bank in areas of low slope, and to exhibit erosive features in areas where slopes are steeper.
These conditions have allowed riffles to become embedded with silts and fines and flow velocities to widely
vary within streams; therefore, providing no suitable habitat for the species. Since suitable habitat is not
present,the project will have "No Effect"of the Appalachian elktoe.
Microhexura montivaga (Spruce-fir Moss Spider)—Endangered
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May -August
The spruce-fir moss spider is one of the smallest members of the primitive suborder of spiders popularly
referred to as "tarantulas." Adults of this species measure only 0.10 to 0.15 inch (about the size of a BB).
Coloration of the spruce-fir moss spider ranges from light brown to yellow-brown to a darker reddish
brown, and there are no markings on its abdomen. This species lives on the highest mountain peaks in
spruce-fir forests of the Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and
southwest Virginia.The spruce-fir moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders.These mats are found in well-shaded areas in mature,high elevation(>5,000 feet AMSL)
Fraser fir and red spruce forests. The spruce-fir moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and requires
environments of high and constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss mats,which cannot
become too parched or else the mats become dry and loose. Likewise, the moss mats cannot be too wet
because large drops of water can also pose a threat to the spider.The spider constructs its tube-shaped webs
in the interface between the moss mat and the rock surface. Some webs have been found to extend into the
interior of the moss mat.
Critical Habitat for the Spruce-fir Moss Spider was designated on July 6,2001. Based on the IPAC Official
Species List generated,the project lies outside the critical habitat.
Biological Conclusion:No Effect
The study area does not occur at the proper elevation to support habitat for spruce-fir moss spider.
Elevations within the study area range from approximately 2,900 to 3,100 feet AMSL and does not contain
the high elevation Fraser fir and red spruce forest habitat preferred by spruce-fir moss spider. A review of
NCNHP records on May 22, 2018 found no known occurrences of the spruce-fir moss spider within 2.0
miles of the study area. Therefore, since habitat is not present there should be "No Effect"to the spruce-
fir moss spider a result of the proposed project.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia)—Threatened
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: mid-May—early July
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

Small whorled pogonia is a member of the orchid family and blooms from Mid-May through Early-July.
It is named for the whorl of five or six leaves near the top of a single stem and beneath the small greenish-
yellow flower. The plant occurs in predominantly mature (2nd or 3rd successional growth) mixed-
deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests with minimal ground cover and long persistent breaks in
the forest canopy. The species prefers moist,acidic soils that lack nutrient diversity. Primary threats to the
small whorled pogonia include habitat loss and degradation from commercial and residential development,
forestry practices, recreational activities, and trampling.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion:No Effect
A review of NCNHP records conducted on May 22, 2018 did not indicate any known occurrences of the
small whorled pogonia within 2.0 miles of the study area. However, small areas of acidic soils and a few
small pockets of open wooded area occur along the top of the stream bank within the project site. Since
these conditions may provide marginal habitat for the species, a project site review was conducted on May
23, 2018. No populations or individuals of the species were identified during the site review. The project
will have "No Effect"on the species.
Geum radiatum (Spreading Avens) - Endangered
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June - September
Spreading avens is a tall perennial herb (eight to 20 inches) in the rose family. Its distinctive bright yellow
flowers(generally up to 1 inch across)appear from June through September,and fruits form and ripen from
August through October. Spreading avens is known to occur only on high mountain peaks in Western
North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee. This species grows in full sun on the shallow acidic soils of high-
elevation cliffs (above 4,200 feet),rocky outcrops, steep slopes, and on gravelly talus. This perennial herb
also occurs in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops. The species prefers a northwest
aspect, but can be found on west-southwest through north-northeast aspects. Forests surrounding known
occurrences are generally dominated by either red spruce-Fraser fir, northern hardwoods with scattered
spruce, or high-elevation red oaks. Spreading avens typically occurs in shallow, acidic soil (such as the
Burton series) in cracks and crevices of igneous, metamorphic, or metasedimentary rocks. Soils may be
well drained but almost continuously wet, with soils at some known occurrences subject to drying out in
summer due to exposure to sun and shallow depths. Known populations occur at elevations ranging from
4,296 to 6,268 feet AMSL.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion:No Effect
The high elevation cliff,outcrop, and talus habitats preferred by spreading avens are not present within the
study area. A review of NCNHP records conducted on May 22, 2018 did not indicate any known
occurrences of the spreading avens within 2.0 miles of the study area. Therefore, since suitable habitat is
not present within the study area,the proposed project will have "No Effect"on species.
Gymnoderma lineare(Rock Gnome Lichen)—Endangered
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year round
The rock gnome lichen occurs in dense colonies of narrow strap-like lobes that are about 1 millimeter across
and generally one to two centimeters long. These lobes are blue gray on the terminal upper surface, and
generally shiny white on the lower surface, grading to black near the base. Fruiting bodies are black and
have been found from July through September on the tips of these lobes; however, the primary means of
propagation appears to be asexual,with colonies spreading clonally. The rock gnome lichen occurs in high
elevation coniferous forests (particularly those dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir) usually on rocky
outcrop or cliff habitats. This squamulose lichen only grows in areas with a great deal of humidity, such as
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

high elevations greater than 5,000 feet AMSL where there is often fog, or on boulders and large outcrops
in deep river gorges at lower elevations. Habitat is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where seepage
water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The species requires a moderate amount of
sunlight, but cannot tolerate high-intensity solar radiation. The lichen does well on moist, generally open
sites with northern exposures, but requires at least partial canopy coverage on southern or western aspects
because of its intolerance to high solar radiation.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion:No Effect
The study area does not occur at the proper elevation to support habitat for rock gnome lichen. Elevations
within the study area are approximately 2,900 to 3,100 feet AMSL and does not contain the high elevation
rock face habitat preferred by rock gnome lichen. A review of NCNHP records, conducted on May 22,
2018,did not indicate a known rock gnome lichen occurrence within 2.0 mile of the study area. Therefore,
since habitat is not present, "No Effect" to rock gnome lichen is anticipated to occur as a result of the
proposed project.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
On June 5, 2018, Baker submitted the AD-1006 form for the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
to the North Carolina State Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Office. The NRCS responded
on June 28, 2018 with the determination that implementation of this restoration project would result in the
conversion of 7.0 acres of prime farmland soils. Baker submitted the completed AD-1006 form to the
NRCS Assistant State Soil Scientist July 16, 2018. The completed AD-1006 form and all correspondence
on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC) and the USFWS on June
5, 2018 requesting their comment and review on the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project. On June
14,2018,Baker received a response letter from the NCWRC stating that they"do not anticipate any impacts
to wild trout"as a result of the proposed project and that"a moratorium will likely not need to be observed".
As of July 11,2018,Baker has not received any comments from the USFWS. Copies of all correspondence
are included in the Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the USFWS on June 5,2018 requesting their comment and review on the UT
to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project in relation to migratory birds. As of July 11, 2018, Baker has not
received any comments from the USFWS on this issue. All correspondence with the USFWS is included
in the Appendix.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

APPENDIX
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project—Option A;DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
CE Summary

UT To Rush Fork Mitigation Project
Rush Fork Road
Clyde, NC 28721
Inquiry Number: 5390710.2s
August 13, 2018
The EDR Radius Map TM Report
6 Armstrong Road,4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
CEDRo Toll Free:800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBF-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary _ ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary_ 9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
GeoCheck - Not Requested
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer-Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources.NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES,INC.SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES,INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE.ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER.IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC.BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS,NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE,FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE,INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION,SPECIAL,INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL,OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC.IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT.Purchaser accepts this Report"AS IS".Any analyses,estimates,ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only,and are not intended to provide,nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding,or prediction or forecast of,any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property.Additionally,the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2018 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format,in whole
or in part,of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.,or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos(including Sanborn and Sanborn Map)are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.or its affiliates.All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5390710.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc(EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence:Transaction Screen Process(E 1528-14)or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
RUSH FORK ROAD
CLYDE, NC 28721
COORDINATES
Latitude(North): 35.6446000-35° 38' 40.56"
Longitude(West): 82.9402000-82° 56' 24.72"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X(Meters): 324338.2
UTM Y(Meters): 3946064.8
Elevation: 2970 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5948484 FINES CREEK, NC
Version Date: 2013
South Map: 5948476 CLYDE, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20141019
Source: USDA
TC5390710.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
RUSH FORK ROAD
CLYDE, NC 28721
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST(ft. &mi.)
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTION
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
5390710.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA-Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA-Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG RCRA-Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA-Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls/engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5390710.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State-and tribal-equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State-and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
LUST Regional UST Database
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY Recycling Center Listing
TC5390710.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste/Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS Spills Incident Listing
IMD Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen/NLR RCRA-Non Generators/No Longer Regulated
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_ Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA_ Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA)Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites
TC5390710.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines
FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO Enforcement&Compliance History Information
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS ASBESTOS
COAL ASH Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP .Animal Operation Permits Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt.Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES:SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable(orphan)sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC5390710.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5390710.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 5390710.2S
lir
afirdilb
iir
4
Ilk,
,.
. 7
•
0 . a, )
1 .
,.
_ __ ,
Target Property 0 1i4 1/2 1 naves
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property Indian Reservations BIA Upgradient Area
• Sites at elevations lower than Power transmission lines Hazardous Substance
the target property Disposal Sites
A Manufactured Gas Plants National Wetland Inventory
National Priority List Sites State Wetlands
Dept.Defense Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide mapinformation.The
p Y
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: UT To Rush Fork Mitigation Project CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: Rush Fork Road CONTACT: Kristi Suggs
Clyde NC 28721 INQUIRY#: 5390710.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.6446/82.9402 DATE: August 13,2018 5:13 pm
Copyright g 2018 EDR,Inc(g,2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5390710.2S
I /
47/
Target Property o 1(8 Zia 1/2Miles
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property - Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than /\,7 Power transmission lines Disposal Sites
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept.Defense Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information.The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: UT To Rush Fork Mitigation Project CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: Rush Fork Road CONTACT: Kristi Suggs
Clyde NC 28721 INQUIRY#: 5390710.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.6446/82.9402 DATE: August 13,2018 5:16 pm
Copyright g 2018 EDR,Inc(g,2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NPL LIENS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
SEMS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA-SQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
Federal institutional controls/
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
State-and tribal-equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State-and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TC5390710.2s Page 4

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
State and tribal institutional
control/engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Local Lists of Landfill/Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
HIST LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
IHS OPEN DUMPS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Local Lists of Hazardous waste/
Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
US CDL 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
SPILLS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
IMD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
SPILLS 90 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
SPILLS 80 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen/NLR 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
TC5390710.2s Page 5

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US FIN ASSUR 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EPA WATCH LIST 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
2020 COR ACTION 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
TSCA 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
TRIS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RMP 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
PRP 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
PADS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ICIS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
COAL ASH DOE 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
COAL ASH EPA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
PCB TRANSFORMER 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RADINFO 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
HIST FTTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
DOT OPS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN RESERV 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
FUSRAP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LEAD SMELTERS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
US AIRS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
US MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ABANDONED MINES 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
FINDS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ECHO 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
DOCKET HWC 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
UXO 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FUELS PROGRAM 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
AIRS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ASBESTOS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
COAL ASH 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
Financial Assurance 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
NPDES 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
UIC 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
AOP 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
TC5390710.2s Page 6

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt.Archives
RGA HWS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LF 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LUST 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
-Totals-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES:
TP=Target Property
NR= Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC5390710.2s Page 7

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
NO SITES FOUND
TC5390710.2s Page 8

Count:0 records. ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
NO SITES FOUND
TC5390710.2s Page 9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis,as required.
Number of Days to Update:Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days
from the date the government agency made the information available to the public.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL: National Priority List
National Priorities List(Superfund).The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program.NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas.As such,EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC)and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version:05/13/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
NPL Site Boundaries
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center(EPIC)
Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 1 EPA Region 6
Telephone [phone] Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 3 EPA Region 7
Telephone [phone] Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 4 EPA Region 8
Telephone [phone] Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 5 EPA Region 9
Telephone [phone] Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 10
Telephone [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule
in the Federal Register.EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments,and places on
the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing.
Date of Government Version:05/13/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Superfund Liens.Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980,the USEPA has the authority
to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner
received notification of potential liability.USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/02/1994 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:03/30/1994 Last EDR Contact:08/15/2011
Number of Days to Update:56 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/28/2011
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL: National Priority List Deletions
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP)establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e),sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version:05/13/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing
A listing of National Priority List(NPL)and Base Realignment and Closure(BRAG)sites found in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Information System(CERCLIS)Database where EPA Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 11/07/2016 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:01/05/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/07/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/06/2018
Number of Days to Update:92 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
SEMS: Superfund Enterprise Management System
SEMS(Superfund Enterprise Management System)tracks hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites,
and remedial activities performed in support of EPA's Superfund Program across the United States.The list was
formerly know as CERCLIS,renamed to SEMS by the EPA in 2015.The list contains data on potentially hazardous
waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states,municipalities,private companies and private persons,
pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA).
This dataset also contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List(NPL)and the
sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version:05/18/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/29/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE: Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
TC5390710.2s Page GR-2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SEMS-ARCHIVE(Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive)tracks sites that have no further interest under
the Federal Superfund Program based on available information.The list was formerly known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP,
renamed to SEMS ARCHIVE by the EPA in 2015.EPA may perform a minimal level of assessment work at a site while
it is archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes available.Archived sites have been removed
and archived from the inventory of SEMS sites.Archived status indicates that,to the best of EPA's knowledge,
assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list the
site on the National Priorities List(NPL),unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or
other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time.The decision does not necessarily mean
that there is no hazard associated with a given site;it only means that.based upon available information,the
location is not judged to be potential NPL site.
Date of Government Version:05/18/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/29/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
Date of Government Version:03/01/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/28/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/28/2018
Number of Days to Update:86 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF: RCRA-Treatment,Storage and Disposal
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system,providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA)of 1984.The database
includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA).Transporters are individuals or entities that
move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle,treat,store,or dispose of the
waste.TSDFs treat,store,or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version:03/01/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/28/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/28/2018
Number of Days to Update:86 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG: RCRA-Large Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system,providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA)of 1984.The database
includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA).Large quantity generators(LQGs)generate
over 1,000 kilograms(kg)of hazardous waste,or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version:03/01/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/28/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/28/2018
Number of Days to Update:86 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
TC5390710.2s Page GR-3

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RCRA-SQG: RCRA-Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system,providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA)of 1984.The database
includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA).Small quantity generators(SQGs)generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version:03/01/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/28/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/28/2018
Number of Days to Update:86 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
RCRA-CESQG: RCRA-Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system,providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA)of 1984.The database
includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA).Conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs)generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste,or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version:03/01/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/28/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/28/2018
Number of Days to Update:86 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Federal institutional controls/engineering controls registries
LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System
LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Date of Government Version:05/14/2018 Source: Department of the Navy
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/16/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/26/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List
A listing of sites with engineering controls in place.Engineering controls include various forms of caps,building
foundations,liners,and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version:02/13/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/27/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/29/2018
Number of Days to Update:73 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls
A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures,
such as groundwater use restrictions,construction restrictions,property use restrictions,and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site.Deed restrictions are generally
required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version:02/13/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/27/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/29/2018
Number of Days to Update:73 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
TC5390710.2s Page GR-4

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal ERNS list
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency Response Notification System.ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version:03/19/2018 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/27/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/08/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:73 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
State-and tribal-equivalent NPL
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites.The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version:08/09/2011 Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Date Data Arrived at EDR:11/08/2011 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/05/2011 Last EDR Contact:07/18/2018
Number of Days to Update:27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Biennially
State-and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State Hazardous Waste Sites.State hazardous waste site records are the states'equivalent to CERCLIS.These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list.Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund)are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties.Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version:05/01/2018 Source: Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/14/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/14/2018
Number of Days to Update:41 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites.SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state.Depending on the state,these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version:04/18/2018 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/27/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:28 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Old landfill inventory location information.(Does not include no further action sites and other agency lead
sites).
Date of Government Version:08/15/2017 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/11/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/14/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/13/2018
Number of Days to Update:64 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
TC5390710.2s Page GR-5

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST: Regional UST Database
This database contains information obtained from the Regional Offices. It provides a more detailed explanation
of current and historic activity for individual sites,as well as what was previously found in the Incident Management
Database.Sites in this database with Incident Numbers are considered LUSTs.
Date of Government Version:05/04/2018 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/08/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/07/2018
Number of Days to Update:34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
LAST: Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
A listing of leaking aboveground storage tank site locations.
Date of Government Version:05/04/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/08/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/07/2018
Number of Days to Update:34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona,California, New Mexico and Nevada
Date of Government Version:04/10/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho,Oregon and Washington.
Date of Government Version:04/12/2018 Source: EPA Region 10
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,South Dakota,Utah and Wyoming.
Date of Government Version:04/25/2018 Source: EPA Region 8
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Date of Government Version:04/01/2018 Source: EPA Region 6
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Florida,Mississippi and North Carolina.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-6

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version:05/08/2018 Source: EPA Region 4
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
Date of Government Version:04/13/2018 Source: EPA Region 1
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Leaking underground storage tanks located on Indian Land in Michigan,Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version:04/12/2018 Source: EPA, Region 5
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa,Kansas,and Nebraska
Date of Government Version:04/24/2018 Source: EPA Region 7
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
Date of Government Version:04/06/2018 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:04/11/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/12/2018
Number of Days to Update:61 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing
A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Date of Government Version:05/15/2017 Source: FEMA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/11/2018
Number of Days to Update:136 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Registered Underground Storage Tanks.UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act(RCRA)and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program.Available
information varies by state program.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-7

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version:05/04/2018 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/08/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/07/2018
Number of Days to Update:34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
AST: AST Database
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
Date of Government Version:05/30/2018 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/19/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/14/2018
Number of Days to Update:36 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/01/2018
Data Release Frequency:Semi-Annually
INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 6(Louisiana,Arkansas,Oklahoma,New Mexico,Texas and 65 Tribes).
Date of Government Version:04/01/2018 Source: EPA Region 6
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Rhode Island,Vermont and ten Tribal
Nations).
Date of Government Version:04/13/2018 Source: EPA, Region 1
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 4(Alabama,Florida,Georgia, Kentucky,Mississippi, North Carolina,South Carolina,Tennessee
and Tribal Nations)
Date of Government Version:05/08/2018 Source: EPA Region 4
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 5(Michigan,Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version:04/12/2018 Source: EPA Region 5
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 10(Alaska,Idaho,Oregon,Washington,and Tribal Nations).
TC5390710.2s Page GR-8

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version:04/12/2018 Source: EPA Region 10
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 7(Iowa,Kansas, Missouri,Nebraska,and 9 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version:04/24/2018 Source: EPA Region 7
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 8(Colorado,Montana,North Dakota,South Dakota, Utah,Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version:04/25/2018 Source: EPA Region 8
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank(UST)database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 9(Arizona,California,Hawaii,Nevada,the Pacific Islands,and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version:04/10/2018 Source: EPA Region 9
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/18/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
A land use restricted site is a property where there are limits or requirements on future use of the property
due to varying levels of cleanup possible, practical,or necessary at the site.
Date of Government Version:05/01/2018 Source: Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/14/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/14/2018
Number of Days to Update:41 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7.
Date of Government Version:03/20/2008 Source: EPA, Region 7
Date Data Arrived at EDR:04/22/2008 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/19/2008 Last EDR Contact:04/20/2009
Number of Days to Update:27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:07/20/2009
Data Release Frequency:Varies
TC5390710.2s Page GR-9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1.
Date of Government Version:07/27/2015 Source: EPA, Region 1
Date Data Arrived at EDR:09/29/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:02/18/2016 Last EDR Contact:06/22/2018
Number of Days to Update:142 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Responsible Party Voluntary Action site locations.
Date of Government Version:05/01/2018 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/14/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/14/2018
Number of Days to Update:41 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Projects Inventory
A brownfield site is an abandoned,idled,or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has hindered its redevelopment.All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
Date of Government Version:06/01/2018 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/05/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/05/2018
Number of Days to Update:20 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Brownfields are real property,the expansion, redevelopment,or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence
or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant,or contaminant.Cleaning up and reinvesting in these
properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped,open land,and both improves and protects the environment.
Assessment,Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System(ACRES)stores information reported by EPA Brownfields
grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on
Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions.A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from
Cleanups in My Community.Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information
is reported back to EPA,as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs.
Date of Government Version:03/19/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/21/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/08/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/20/2018
Number of Days to Update:79 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/01/2018
Data Release Frequency:Semi-Annually
Local Lists of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF: Solid Waste Facility Listing
A listing of solid waste facilities.
Date of Government Version: 11/06/2006 Source: Department of Environment& Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/13/2007 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:03/02/2007 Last EDR Contact:01/19/2009
Number of Days to Update:17 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
TC5390710.2s Page GR-10

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SWRCY: Recycling Center Listing
A listing of recycling center locations.
Date of Government Version:05/03/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/03/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/10/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/25/2018
Number of Days to Update:7 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/12/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Location of open dumps on Indian land.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:12/03/2007 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/24/2008 Last EDR Contact:07/30/2018
Number of Days to Update:52 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/12/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version:06/30/1985 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:08/09/2004 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:09/17/2004 Last EDR Contact:06/09/2004
Number of Days to Update:39 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside
County and northern Imperial County,California.
Date of Government Version:01/12/2009 Source: EPA, Region 9
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/07/2009 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:09/21/2009 Last EDR Contact:07/17/2018
Number of Days to Update:137 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
IHS OPEN DUMPS: Open Dumps on Indian Land
A listing of all open dumps located on Indian Land in the United States.
Date of Government Version:04/01/2014 Source: Department of Health&Human Serivces, Indian Health Service
Date Data Arrived at EDR:08/06/2014 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/29/2015 Last EDR Contact:08/03/2018
Number of Days to Update:176 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/12/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
Local Lists of Hazardous waste/Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations that have been removed from the DEAs National Clandestine Laboratory
Register.
Date of Government Version:02/22/2018 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/01/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/30/2018
Number of Days to Update:71 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
TC5390710.2s Page GR-11

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations.The U.S.Department of Justice("the Department")provides this
web site as a public service.It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases,the source of the entries is not the Department,and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy.Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by,for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.
Date of Government Version:02/22/2018 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/01/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/30/2018
Number of Days to Update:71 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Local Land Records
LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information
A Federal CERCLA('Superfund')lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies.These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination.
CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties.
Date of Government Version:05/13/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/29/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:30 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Semi-Annually
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System.HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version:03/26/2018 Source: U.S.Department of Transportation
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/27/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/08/2018 Last EDR Contact:03/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:73 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:07/09/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
SPILLS: Spills Incident Listing
A listing spills,hazardous material releases,sanitary sewer overflows,wastewater treatment plant bypasses and
upsets,citizen complaints,and any other environmental emergency calls reported to the agency.
Date of Government Version:06/12/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/15/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/07/2018
Number of Days to Update:40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
IMD: Incident Management Database
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version:07/21/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:08/01/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:08/23/2006 Last EDR Contact:07/01/2011
Number of Days to Update:22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/17/2011
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
SPILLS 90: SPILLS90 data from FirstSearch
Spills 90 includes those spill and release records available exclusively from FirstSearch databases.Typically,
they may include chemical,oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded after 1990.Duplicate records that are
already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 90.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version:09/27/2012 Source: FirstSearch
Date Data Arrived at EDR:01/03/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:03/06/2013 Last EDR Contact:01/03/2013
Number of Days to Update:62 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
SPILLS 80: SPILLS80 data from FirstSearch
Spills 80 includes those spill and release records available from FirstSearch databases prior to 1990.Typically,
they may include chemical,oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded before 1990.Duplicate records that
are already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 80.
Date of Government Version:06/14/2001 Source: FirstSearch
Date Data Arrived at EDR:01/03/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:03/06/2013 Last EDR Contact:01/03/2013
Number of Days to Update:62 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen/NLR: RCRA-Non Generators/No Longer Regulated
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system,providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA)of 1984.The database
includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA).Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous
waste.
Date of Government Version:03/01/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/28/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/28/2018
Number of Days to Update:86 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version:01/31/2015 Source: U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/08/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2015 Last EDR Contact:05/25/2018
Number of Days to Update:97 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/03/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands,administered by the Department of Defense,that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States,Puerto Rico,and the U.S.Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: USGS
Date Data Arrived at EDR:11/10/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/11/2007 Last EDR Contact:07/11/2018
Number of Days to Update:62 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Semi-Annually
FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands
Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States.Lands included are administrated by:Army Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,National Wild and Scenic River,National Wildlife Refuge,Public Domain Land,
Wilderness,Wilderness Study Area,Wildlife Management Area,Bureau of Indian Affairs,Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Justice, Forest Service,Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: U.S.Geological Survey
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/06/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/11/2007 Last EDR Contact:07/13/2018
Number of Days to Update:339 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:N/A
TC5390710.2s Page GR-13

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998,with support from the U.S.EPA Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.It is comprised of representatives of states with established
drycleaner remediation programs.Currently the member states are Alabama,Connecticut,Florida, Illinois,Kansas,
Minnesota,Missouri, North Carolina,Oregon,South Carolina,Tennessee,Texas,and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version:01/01/2017 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/03/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/07/2017 Last EDR Contact:05/15/2018
Number of Days to Update:63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:08/27/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
US FIN ASSUR: Financial Assurance Information
All owners and operators of facilities that treat,store,or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide
proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up,closure,and post-closure care of their facilities.
Date of Government Version:03/01/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/27/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:87 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
EPA WATCH LIST: EPA WATCH LIST
EPA maintains a"Watch List'to facilitate dialogue between EPA,state and local environmental agencies on enforcement
matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority.Being
on the Watch List does not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an investigation by
EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation
has in fact occurred.Being on the Watch List does not represent a higher level of concern regarding the alleged
violations that were detected, but instead indicates cases requiring additional dialogue between EPA,state and
local agencies-primarily because of the length of time the alleged violation has gone unaddressed or unresolved.
Date of Government Version:08/30/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/21/2014 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/17/2014 Last EDR Contact:08/03/2018
Number of Days to Update:88 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
2020 COR ACTION: 2020 Corrective Action Program List
The EPA has set ambitious goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program by creating the 2020 Corrective Action
Universe.This RCRA cleanup baseline includes facilities expected to need corrective action.The 2020 universe
contains a wide variety of sites.Some properties are heavily contaminated while others were contaminated but
have since been cleaned up.Still others have not been fully investigated yet,and may require little or no remediation.
Inclusion in the 2020 Universe does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA obligations.
Date of Government Version:09/30/2017 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/08/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/20/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/10/2018
Number of Days to Update:73 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act.TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/21/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/05/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/22/2018
Number of Days to Update:198 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/01/2018
Data Release Frequency:Every 4 Years
TC5390710.2s Page GR-14

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Release Inventory System.TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air,water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:01/10/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/12/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/25/2018
Number of Days to Update:2 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/03/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,as amended(92 Stat.829)requires all
registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1st each year.Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides,active ingredients and devices
being produced,and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:12/10/2010 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:02/25/2011 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:77 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision.ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL(Superfund)site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version:05/13/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/29/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:30 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
RMP: Risk Management Plans
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances.The Risk Management Program
Rule(RMP Rule)was written to implement Section 112(r)of these amendments.The rule,which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program,which includes a(n):Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release,an accident history of the last five years,and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative
accidental releases;Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance,monitoring,and employee
training measures;and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care,employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies(e.g the fire department)should an accident occur.
Date of Government Version: 11/02/2017 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:11/17/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/08/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/20/2018
Number of Days to Update:21 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System.RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA.For administration
actions after September 30, 1995,data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued.EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version:04/17/1995 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/03/1995 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:08/07/1995 Last EDR Contact:06/02/2008
Number of Days to Update:35 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/01/2008
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
TC5390710.2s Page GR-15

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/17/2014 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:3 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
PCB Activity Database.PADS Identifies generators,transporters,commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version:06/01/2017 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/09/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/13/2018
Number of Days to Update:126 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System
The Integrated Compliance Information System(ICIS)supports the information needs of the national enforcement
and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)
program.
Date of Government Version: 11/18/2016 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:11/23/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:02/10/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:79 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,&Rodenticide Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act)
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA(Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act).To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version:04/09/2009 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Date Data Arrived at EDR:04/16/2009 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/11/2009 Last EDR Contact:08/18/2017
Number of Days to Update:25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,&Rodenticide Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act)
A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System(FTTS)inspections and enforcements.
Date of Government Version:04/09/2009 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:04/16/2009 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/11/2009 Last EDR Contact:08/18/2017
Number of Days to Update:25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements.To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version:08/30/2016 Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Date Data Arrived at EDR:09/08/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/21/2016 Last EDR Contact:07/23/2018
Number of Days to Update:43 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
TC5390710.2s Page GR-16

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
COAL ASH DOE: Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: Department of Energy
Date Data Arrived at EDR:08/07/2009 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009 Last EDR Contact:06/07/2018
Number of Days to Update:76 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/17/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings.
Date of Government Version:07/01/2014 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:09/10/2014 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014 Last EDR Contact:06/04/2018
Number of Days to Update:40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/17/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database
The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals.
Date of Government Version:05/24/2017 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:11/30/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/15/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/27/2018
Number of Days to Update:15 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
RADINFO: Radiation Information Database
The Radiation Information Database(RADINFO)contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)regulations for radiation and radioactivity.
Date of Government Version:04/03/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:04/05/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/29/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/05/2018
Number of Days to Update:85 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System(FTTS)for all ten EPA regions.The
information was obtained from the National Compliance Database(NCDB).NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA
(Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act)and TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act).Some EPA regions
are now closing out records.Because of that,and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters
with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included
in the newer FTTS database updates.This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/01/2007 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/10/2007 Last EDR Contact:12/17/2007
Number of Days to Update:40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection&Enforcement Case Listing
A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System(FTTS)for all ten EPA
regions.The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database(NCDB).NCDB supports the implementation
of FIFRA(Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act)and TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act).Some
EPA regions are now closing out records.Because of that,and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing
EPA Headquarters with updated records,it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that
may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates.This database is no longer updated.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-17

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/01/2007 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/10/2007 Last EDR Contact:12/17/2008
Number of Days to Update:40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data
Department of Transporation,Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
Date of Government Version:07/31/2012 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety
Date Data Arrived at EDR:08/07/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:09/18/2012 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/12/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
CONSENT: Superfund(CERCLA)Consent Decrees
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL(Superfund)sites.Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version:03/31/2018 Source: Department of Justice,Consent Decree Library
Date Data Arrived at EDR:04/16/2018 Telephone: Varies
Date Made Active in Reports:06/29/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:74 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/01/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste.BRS captures detailed data from two groups:Large Quantity Generators(LQG)
and Treatment,Storage,and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2015 Source: EPA/NTIS
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/22/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:09/28/2017 Last EDR Contact:06/28/2018
Number of Days to Update:218 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/03/2018
Data Release Frequency:Biennially
INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014 Source: USGS
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/14/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/10/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/11/2018
Number of Days to Update:546 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Semi-Annually
FUSRAP: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
DOE established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program(FUSRAP)in 1974 to remediate sites where
radioactive contamination remained from Manhattan Project and early U.S.Atomic Energy Commission(AEC)operations.
Date of Government Version: 12/23/2016 Source: Department of Energy
Date Data Arrived at EDR:12/27/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:02/17/2017 Last EDR Contact:08/01/2018
Number of Days to Update:52 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs.When the mills
shut down,large piles of the sand-like material(mill tailings)remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low;however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-18

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version:06/23/2017 Source: Department of Energy
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/11/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2017 Last EDR Contact:05/18/2018
Number of Days to Update:23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/03/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
LEAD SMELTER 1: Lead Smelter Sites
A listing of former lead smelter site locations.
Date of Government Version:05/13/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/30/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/29/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:30 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/15/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
LEAD SMELTER 2: Lead Smelter Sites
A list of several hundred sites in the U.S.where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931and 1964.These sites
may pose a threat to public health through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust
Date of Government Version:04/05/2001 Source: American Journal of Public Health
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/27/2010 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010 Last EDR Contact:12/02/2009
Number of Days to Update:36 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
US AIRS(AFS): Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem(AFS)
The database is a sub-system of Aerometric Information Retrieval System(AIRS).AFS contains compliance data
on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S.EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies.This
information comes from source reports by various stationary sources of air pollution,such as electric power plants,
steel mills,factories,and universities,and provides information about the air pollutants they produce.Action,
air program,air program pollutant,and general level plant data.It is used to track emissions and compliance
data from industrial plants.
Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/26/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:02/03/2017 Last EDR Contact:09/26/2017
Number of Days to Update:100 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:01/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data
A listing of minor source facilities.
Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/26/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:02/03/2017 Last EDR Contact:09/26/2017
Number of Days to Update:100 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:01/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
US MINES: Mines Master Index File
Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971.The data also includes
violation information.
Date of Government Version:05/03/2018 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/31/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/29/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/31/2018
Number of Days to Update:29 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:Semi-Annually
US MINES 2: Ferrous and Nonferrous Metal Mines Database Listing
This map layer includes ferrous(ferrous metal mines are facilities that extract ferrous metals,such as iron
ore or molybdenum)and nonferrous(Nonferrous metal mines are facilities that extract nonferrous metals,such
as gold,silver,copper,zinc,and lead)metal mines in the United States.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-19

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/05/2005 Source: USGS
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/29/2008 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/18/2008 Last EDR Contact:05/30/2018
Number of Days to Update:49 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
US MINES 3: Active Mines&Mineral Plants Database Listing
Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plant operations for commodities monitored by the Minerals Information Team
of the USGS.
Date of Government Version:04/14/2011 Source: USGS
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/08/2011 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:09/13/2011 Last EDR Contact:05/30/2018
Number of Days to Update:97 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
ABANDONED MINES: Abandoned Mines
An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining(primarily coal mining)is maintained by OSMRE to provide
information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977(SMCRA).The inventory
contains information on the location,type,and extent of AML impacts,as well as,information on the cost associated
with the reclamation of those problems.The inventory is based upon field surveys by State,Tribal,and OSMRE
program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing
problems are reclaimed.
Date of Government Version:03/08/2018 Source: Department of Interior
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/13/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/08/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/20/2018
Number of Days to Update:87 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
Facility Index System.FINDS contains both facility information and'pointers'to other sources that contain more
detail.EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report:PCS(Permit Compliance System),AIRS(Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET(Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes),FURS(Federal Underground Injection Control),C-DOCKET(Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes),FFIS(Federal Facilities
Information System),STATE(State Environmental Laws and Statutes),and PADS(PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version:02/21/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/23/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:03/23/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/06/2018
Number of Days to Update:28 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/17/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
ECHO: Enforcement&Compliance History Information
ECHO provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for about 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide.
Date of Government Version:02/25/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/17/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/08/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/06/2018
Number of Days to Update:83 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/17/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
UXO: Unexploded Ordnance Sites
A listing of unexploded ordnance site locations
Date of Government Version:09/30/2016 Source: Department of Defense
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/31/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:01/12/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/13/2018
Number of Days to Update:73 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/29/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
TC5390710.2s Page GR-20

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
DOCKET HWC: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
A complete list of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Facilities.
Date of Government Version:01/04/2018 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR:01/19/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/13/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/01/2018
Number of Days to Update:84 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/10/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
FUELS PROGRAM: EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
This listing includes facilities that are registered under the Part 80(Code of Federal Regulations)EPA Fuels
Programs.All companies now are required to submit new and updated registrations.
Date of Government Version:02/20/2018 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/21/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:03/23/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/23/2018
Number of Days to Update:30 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/03/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
AIRS: Air Quality Permit Listing
A listing of facilities with air quality permits.
Date of Government Version:06/11/2018 Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/14/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/14/2018
Number of Days to Update:41 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
ASBESTOS: ASBESTOS
Asbestos notification sites
Date of Government Version: 10/15/2016 Source: Department of Health&Human Services
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/01/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/18/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/02/2018
Number of Days to Update:48 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/05/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
COAL ASH: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
A listing of coal combustion products distribution permits issued by the Division for the treatment,storage,
transportation,use and disposal of coal combustion products.
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2015 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/23/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:05/18/2016 Last EDR Contact:07/30/2018
Number of Days to Update:85 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/12/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Sites
Potential and known drycleaning sites,active and abandoned,that the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program has
knowledge of and entered into this database.
Date of Government Version:04/23/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/20/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/20/2018
Number of Days to Update:35 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/01/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
Financial Assurance 1: Financial Assurance Information Listing
A listing of financial assurance information for underground storage tank facilities.Financial assurance is intended
to ensure that resources are available to pay for the cost of closure,post-closure care,and corrective measures
if the owner or operator of a regulated facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-21

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version:05/04/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/08/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/07/2018
Number of Days to Update:34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/19/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
Financial Assurance 2: Financial Assurance Information Listing
Information for solid waste facilities.Financial assurance is intended to ensure that resources are available
to pay for the cost of closure,post-closure care,and corrective measures if the owner or operator of a regulated
facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 10/02/2012 Source: Department of Environmental&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:10/03/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/26/2012 Last EDR Contact:06/22/2018
Number of Days to Update:23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/08/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
Financial Assurance 3: Financial Assurance Information
Hazardous waste financial assurance information.
Date of Government Version:06/11/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/12/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/07/2018
Number of Days to Update:43 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
NPDES: NPDES Facility Location Listing
General information regarding NPDES(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)permits.
Date of Government Version:04/02/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/04/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/11/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/01/2018
Number of Days to Update:38 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/12/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
UIC: Underground Injection Wells Listing
A listing of uncerground injection wells locations.
Date of Government Version:06/01/2018 Source: Department of Environment&Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/05/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:07/25/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/01/2018
Number of Days to Update:50 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/17/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
AOP: Animal Operation Permits Listing
This listing includes animal operations that are required to be permitted by the state.
Date of Government Version:01/26/2018 Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Date Data Arrived at EDR:03/09/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/07/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/15/2018
Number of Days to Update:90 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Varies
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants(manufactured gas plants)
compiled by EDR's researchers.Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800's to 1950's
to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel.These plants used whale oil, rosin,coal,or a mixture
of coal,oil,and water that also produced a significant amount of waste.Many of the byproducts of the gas production,
such as coal tar(oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals),sludges,oils and other compounds
are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment.The byproduct from this process was frequently
disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly,serving as a continuous source of soil
and groundwater contamination.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-22

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version:N/A Source: EDR,Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR:N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update:N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
EDR Hist Auto: EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers.EDR's review was limited
to those categories of sources that might,in EDR's opinion,include gas station/filling station/service station
establishments.The categories reviewed included,but were not limited to gas,gas station,gasoline station,
filling station,auto,automobile repair,auto service station,service station,etc.This database falls within
a category of information EDR classifies as"High Risk Historical Records",or HRHR.EDR's HRHR effort presents
unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns,
but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version:N/A Source: EDR,Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR:N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:N/A Last EDR Contact:N/A
Number of Days to Update:N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:Varies
EDR Hist Cleaner: EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers.EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources
that might,in EDR's opinion,include dry cleaning establishments.The categories reviewed included,but were
not limited to dry cleaners,cleaners, laundry,laundromat,cleaning/laundry,wash&dry etc.This database falls
within a category of information EDR classifies as"High Risk Historical Records",or HRHR.EDR's HRHR effort
presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental
concerns,but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version:N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR:N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:N/A Last EDR Contact:N/A
Number of Days to Update:N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:Varies
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt.Archives
RGA HWS: Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste database provides a list of SHWS incidents derived
from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.Compiled
from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version:N/A Source: Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/24/2013 Last EDR Contact:06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update:176 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:Varies
RGA LF: Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Landfill database provides a list of landfills derived from historical databases
and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.Compiled from Records formerly available
from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version:N/A Source: Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:01/13/2014 Last EDR Contact:06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update:196 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:Varies
TC5390710.2s Page GR-23

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RGA LUST: Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank database provides a list of LUST incidents
derived from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.
Compiled from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North
Carolina.
Date of Government Version:N/A Source: Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/20/2013 Last EDR Contact:06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update:172 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A
Data Release Frequency:Varies
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report,the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example,the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover,the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data.Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through
transporters to a tsd facility.
Date of Government Version:01/03/2018 Source: Department of Energy&Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/14/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:03/22/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/09/2018
Number of Days to Update:36 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/26/2018
Data Release Frequency:No Update Planned
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2017 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/13/2018 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:08/01/2018 Last EDR Contact:07/13/2018
Number of Days to Update:19 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/22/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD
facility.
Date of Government Version:04/30/2018 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Date Data Arrived at EDR:05/03/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:06/07/2018 Last EDR Contact:08/01/2018
Number of Days to Update:35 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/12/2018
Data Release Frequency:Quarterly
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR:07/25/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:09/25/2017 Last EDR Contact:07/12/2018
Number of Days to Update:62 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/29/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
TC5390710.2s Page GR-24

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2017 Source: Department of Environmental Management
Date Data Arrived at EDR:02/23/2018 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports:04/09/2018 Last EDR Contact:05/21/2018
Number of Days to Update:45 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/03/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2017 Source: Department of Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR:06/15/2018 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports:07/09/2018 Last EDR Contact:06/11/2018
Number of Days to Update:24 Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/24/2018
Data Release Frequency:Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines
Source: PennWell Corporation
Petroleum Bundle(Crude Oil, Refined Products, Petrochemicals,Gas Liquids(LPG/NGL),and Specialty
Gases(Miscellaneous))N=Natural Gas Bundle(Natural Gas,Gas Liquids(LPG/NGL),and Specialty Gases
(Miscellaneous)).This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation.This information
is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant
its fitness for any particular purpose.Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: PennWell Corporation
This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation.This information is provided on a best
effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any
particular purpose.Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly,the sick,and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined,EDR indicates those buildings and facilities-schools,daycares,hospitals,medical centers,
and nursing homes-where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source:American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone:[phone]
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers:Provider of Services Listing
Source:Centers for Medicare&Medicaid Services
Telephone:[phone]
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number,produced by Centers of Medicare&Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.
Nursing Homes
Source:National Institutes of Health
Telephone:[phone]
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source:National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone:[phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics'primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive,annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts,which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
Private Schools
Source:National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone:[phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics'primary database on private school locations in the United States.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-25

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Daycare Centers:Child Care Facility List
Source:Department of Health&Human Services
Telephone:[phone]
Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). It depicts 100-year and
500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer(NFHL)which incorporates Flood
Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL.
Source:FEMA
Telephone:[phone]
Date of Government Version:2003,2015
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data,available in select counties across the country,was obtained by EDR
in 2002,2005 and 2010 from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data:Wetland Inventory
Source:US Fish& Wildlife Service
Telephone:[phone]
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source:U.S.Geological Survey
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
©2015 TomTom North America, Inc.All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC5390710.2s Page GR-26

Michael Baker We Make a Difference
ference
INTERNATIONAL
June 1, 2018
Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-4617
Email: [e-mail]
RE: Project Review Request
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Haywood County,North Carolina
French Broad River Basin (Catalog Unit- 06010106)
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) to conduct stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement activities for the above-
referenced project. We are requesting an office review of the attached documentation and comment on any
possible issues that may emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the
proposed stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement project.
The project area is located in the Crabtree Community in Haywood County,North Carolina approximately
3 miles south of the Township of Fines Creek. The project is located on the United States Geological
Survey's(USGS)Fines Creek Topographic Quadrangle. The center of the project area is located at 35.6446
N and-82.9402 W. The project site flows southwesterly and is bisected by Rush Fork Road approximately
1.8 miles north of its intersection with Silvers Coves Road. Please see the enclosed Vicinity and USGS
Topographic Maps for a depiction of the project site location.
The UT to Rush Fork site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and/or
wetland impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock
access and the removal of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches have cleared banks with a mix of
small scattered trees and stands of invasive species located at the top of bank in non-grazed areas. Currently,
the project reaches are unstable,incised,and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock
access.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,300 LF of existing stream. A
Best Management Practice (BMP) will also be implemented at the head of one of the tributaries to treat
nutrient and sediment laden run-off from the surrounding pasture area. Degraded riparian wetlands will be
restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion, and
native riparian buffer plantings. At this time, no wetland credit is being sought for the project. A
conservation easement will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 30 feet from the top
of bank and will incorporate existing functional wetlands. The conservation easement will protect the entire
project area in perpetuity. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with permanent
fencing.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
M B A K E R I N T L.C O M Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Ave.,Suite 300,Office 318
Charlotte,NC 282771 Office:704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
ference
An on-line search was conducted on June 1, 2018 using the HPOWEB GIS Map Service to identify any
historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places that lie within a one-mile radius of the
project site. Results from the search identified the two places: Walker Log House (Site ID HW0515) and
a surveyed log house (Site ID HW0477). Please refer to the enclosed SHPO Map for a depiction of the
project area's location relative to the historic properties.
On-site investigations and discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential cultural resources
within the proposed easement areas. No archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes, and no existing structures are located within the
areas proposed for restoration or enhancement. The majority of the site has historically been disturbed due
to past and current management for pasture grazing and livestock production.
Baker appreciates your timely attention to this matter. If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will
assume that there are no comments with regard to the project area and archaeological and cultural resources.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this project or the extent of proposed
disturbance. I can be reached at(704) 579-4828 or via my email address at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
40e20,
Kristi Suggs
Enclosures: Vicinity Map
USGS Topographic Map
SHPO Map
Cc: File

Michael Baker We Make a Difference
ference
INTERNATIONAL
June 1, 2018
Holly Austin
Section 106 Assistant
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee,NC 28719
Email: [e-mail]
RE: Project Review Request
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Haywood County,North Carolina
French Broad River Basin (Catalog Unit- 06010106)
Dear Ms. Austin:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) to conduct stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement activities for the above-
referenced project. We are requesting an office review of the attached documentation and comment on any
possible issues that may emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the
proposed stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement project.
The project area is located in the Crabtree Community in Haywood County,North Carolina approximately
3 miles south of the Township of Fines Creek. The project is located on the United States Geological
Survey's(USGS)Fines Creek Topographic Quadrangle. The center of the project area is located at 35.6446
N and-82.9402 W. The project site flows southwesterly and is bisected by Rush Fork Road approximately
1.8 miles north of its intersection with Silvers Coves Road. Please see the enclosed Vicinity and USGS
Topographic Maps for a depiction of the project site location.
The UT to Rush Fork site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and/or
wetland impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock
access and the removal of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches have cleared banks with a mix of
small scattered trees and stands of invasive species located at the top of bank in non-grazed areas. Currently,
the project reaches are unstable,incised,and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock
access.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,300 LF of existing stream. A
Best Management Practice (BMP) will also be implemented at the head of one of the tributaries to treat
nutrient and sediment laden run-off from the surrounding pasture area. Degraded riparian wetlands will be
restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion, and
native riparian buffer plantings. At this time, no wetland credit is being sought for the project. A
conservation easement will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 30 feet from the top
of bank and will incorporate existing functional wetlands. The conservation easement will protect the entire
project area in perpetuity. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with permanent
fencing.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
M B A K E R I N T L.C O M Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Ave.,Suite 300,Office 318
Charlotte,NC 282771 Office:704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
ference
On-site investigations and discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential cultural resources
within the proposed easement areas. No archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes, and no existing structures are located within the
areas proposed for restoration or enhancement. The majority of the site has historically been disturbed due
to past and current management for pasture grazing and livestock production.
Baker appreciates your timely attention to this matter. If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will
assume that there are no comments with regard to the project area or archaeological or cultural resources.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this project or the extent of proposed
disturbance. I can be reached at(704) 579-4828 or via my email address at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
4fol
„So,
Kristi Suggs
Enclosures: Vicinity Map
USGS Topographic Map
Project Area Map
Cc: NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
File

\--- ''''..--....4f li
1111111411111111111111
/ 4,-
20010A
O' it
,, A1 , 7
I
.____ ----„,,,,, / 1
i / 4,
' './. Ilk I( irf ',/ ' fr I
I/ OM eilliONO
sliv „„/ / Site Location he
40� �f A. / A. I /I
l / f ;
ilk/ r 1
-,---4•/ . ' r
;N
-4 4 ' 01.-- .
ite t'A / /'' A
-# /r4- ( is A / ,44' ,/
_ ,,
„ 44, N‘. / 11#64 / 7 ,
f *0 #*,,
At / // , i 7 li. I ;
�I�'/,, 411
ami i,J _ram-'' ,
4/
oj. rvoomLiv,
I / ,,,.."
At‘ _(._
�i �� �� �,7
Note: Site is located within Tar eted Local
�� �� f►�'i Watershed 06010106020010
Haywood County f Figure 1
Haywood County '-,.- Site. project Vicinity Map
Locaton
~��rn��� (f��ge , 40
�, UT to Rush Fork
����` �����I�� ���'� �f Stream Mitigation Project
•_iaoraiaigir alit-�� ,' FF 3� :� Michael Baker
*At 1 lt . r ( j INTERNATIONAL
r 111$ 3
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
A ,.

--- r4 �r-' a':` U -an
-� N
1 � t•� ''i '' i "-
Proposed Conservation Easement 'a -� 1f'.
t 1 Li t,`z , ,-,,
i ��jj�� v `
r �� r
S c....4)..,.1/4 (.-r Oakes • ',�!'jp
� L � .:
I (r.--..(:....-7: .- -. )W- ' .1.5..;
rr
/ - "�
,-- .:-=__ i ,- . - - ' i .. ,...00 ,..,-, .,
N.
lir . --, r --- ,.., ' . - 4,. i yi it (1-171••'-'•;.- 1.--- I - -,_.1. C"
,...*_'' --.. .\„:„,:z..-. ,..-.,..,;._, _. ,..-i,+-1.-,,t6LNI'Rir( ' 1-} .
zt
'*4 ___,..tr iz1=1_......:104. .s..„..7...
r. '�. 1„.: ............ : .. .__ it c' vr t
.i. . if
i.o. _,.
` r- .\ / I� /- c ,
I.
A L_ _„,€....,,,, ,-, ,, , ._ _.., r,.----- i ,-4.--___-_-----„: ..= 11
,•-•-_ \_--•-•`; , .. ‘, :7----- , - - ,e. (.... IFV
- ,-._ ., _ % ii_Vf-
- .. r , mac f L
= ' C_._. FPS` r Aim
, .
- • k , *
____ - •.-- ...-.1.,, ._.L '-,, ,<,,,,,,....:.e _,..'./- -....\\ ,
Allie4c' : -g - 1-1:
, ...___.„...„...._ - i) r) A. (77-., . j
--_-_,.,_--_--•\._ -_,7 I ) (s cr°''. tr."--.,4".%-%'; .w1-)--\,1).'...e• , ,- . •:- '-• ..---:) .
k- __,,.., , - __ NN.„ A i
, 1 __, ----T .- lii'. ii L Vtilir/,J . ' -I fr, -Th:'"
1 -1'_,'7 e ' 0 - f'- _))_":‹ • L;' \ \l f 1 , ----'- l , - • .r-P r /liv‘,r/ 7K/d
Fines Creek Quadrangle `7' on c.< •Copy'right:©k2o�.Jatibhal Geographic S�cety;i-cub d 0 1,600 3,200 Figure 2
Michael Baker Feet USGS Topographic Map
UT to Rush Fork
INTERNATIONAL 1 inch = 1,600 feet Stream Mitigation Project

a".:. :
ri HW051,1 o o House
HWO477 L'g`House '
r 41 '
11 .: . i
S-) l/,2'---- .
'
Rush Fork=
t-\ . .Tioll
/414
/pit
Q .
t — •
VJ �
• -\c2 'I . — '' ' '
�7ll: ) r; ,
07
LEGEND ,� r„,..----/-
Surveyed Only • =f " ay 1
,- ` . i. 7
Surveyed, Gone
1 Mile Buffer Area I .,.
kailiV
Q UT to Rush Fork Project Area c ,�` u
m
i
; NGHPO GIS•.Data - -2018A
Figure 3
Michael Baker 0 0.334 0.668 SHPO Map
Miles UT to Rush Fork
INTERNATIONAL 1" = 1/3 Miles Stream Mitigation Project

,
N
.._
1. r' A
`- ...
I
.. ,
_ .,
, .. . _ .
.. . .
., .
., ,
,. „,
.,
,, .,
, ,.
_'i, \.,
1 \\,,,,,
" , ,
Tf, � '• ''i` - - 'fie
. ., 4-h
cd . 5� • r }
4",. :r. ! 02.4 ,4; ‘ .c,„
at
A •6
- *Mt
l
f Nuipott..7 _ ._
- . 44(1: '
sop
�. Proposed BMP
r• Proposed Conservation Easement
u.
Project Reaches
q,. I
Existing Streams
--' � y" Parcel Boundaries
1 elZA c Photograph Source: MOneMap,Mi&GatiaKiteGeographic InformationInformation ffijajAnalysis
Michael Baker 0 350 700eet Fig.3 Project Area Map
UT to Rush Fork
INTERNATIONAL 1 inch = 350 feet Mitigation Project

11 ti , i�i '3 1.; ' °
Z,,1
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H.Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
July 3, 2018
Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One
15720 Brixham Avenue, Suite 300, Office 318
Charlotte,NC 28277
Re: UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project, Crabtree,Haywood County,ER 18-1299
Dear Ms. Suggs:
Thank you for your letter of June 1,2018, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore,we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project,please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(2C.,L124_, 6, o
✓Ramona M. Bartos
Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6599

as°°f"`e-E's`e'°$�
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
5<yb
�� y�=+ � Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1/ ' ! �, ,
P.O. Box 455
Fo Cherokee, NC 28719
c•-:\Or
Ph: 828-359-6854 Fax [phone]
.1%alY'O•Da-(2,1. Y
DATE: 28 —June—2018
TO: Michael Baker International
ATTN: Kristi Suggs
Ballantyne One
15720 Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 300, Office 318
Charlotte, NC 28277
PROJECT: UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project, Haywood County, North
Carolina.
Ms. Suggs:
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI THPO)
accepts the invitation to comment on these proposed section 106 activities under §36CFR800.
It is the opinion of the EBCI THPO that no cultural resources important to the Cherokee people
should be adversely impacted by these proposed federal undertakings. As such, these proposed
undertakings may proceed as planned. In the event that project design plans change, or cultural
resources or human remains are inadvertently discovered during site prep and construction
phase, the EBCI THPO requests that all work cease and be notified so we may continue the
nation-to-nation consultation process as stipulated under §36CFR800.
If we can be of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to
contact me at(828) 359-6854.
Sincerely,
44°Q-9)6
Holly Austin
Tribal Historical Preservation Office
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT(the"Option")is made and
entered into this 11"lay of January, 2018 (the "Effective Date"), by and among
WE KIRK FARMS NORTH, LLC (the"Grantor"), and MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.,
a corporation organized in the State of New York with offices at 797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201,Asheville,
North Carolina 28806("Baker").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Haywood County, North
Carolina, containing 594.6 acres (PIN 8731-33-5998), more or less, as more particularly described
on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,together with the improvements thereon
and all appurtenances thereto belonging and appertaining, and all creeks, streams, rights-of-way, roads,
streets and ways bounding said real property(collectively the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to Baker, an exclusive right and option to acquire a
conservation easement,as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B(the"Easement"),over the
Property in accordance with the terms of this Option;and
WHEREAS, Baker is interested in acquiring the Easement in order to develop and construct a full
delivery wetland, stream, and/or buffer restoration project over the lands covered by the Easement (the
"Work") in conjunction with requests for proposals issued under the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly the Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and Baker has agreed to undertake such Work
with respect to the Easement in accordance with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, Baker hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) Baker believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the Purchase Price, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a), together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by Baker in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii)
Baker does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of
1111=11the "Signing Date Option Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of Option. Grantor hereby grants unto Baker,its successors and assigns,which shall
be limited to a third-party designated by Baker qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement under
N.C.G.S. §121-35(2), the exclusive right and option to purchase the Easement in accordance with and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Option.
2. Term. The term of this Option shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire
THIRTY-SIX(36)months after the Effective Date(the"Term"),unless extended by the parties, in writing.
A Memorandum of Option to Purchase Easement in the form attached as Exhibit D shall be executed by
both parties simultaneously with this Option and recorded at Baker's sole discretion and expense in the
county where the Property is located to provide record notice of this Option. In no event shall this Option
be recorded or filed in the public records.
1

materialmen's liens; and (iv) any other documents and papers necessary or appropriate in
connection with the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Option.
At Closing, Baker shall deliver(i)a Settlement Statement setting forth each party's costs,
expenses,prorations and other financial analysis of the purchase and sale of the Easement
as contemplated hereby; (ii) the Note as defined in item 4(e), below; and (iii) any other
documents necessary to consummate the transaction contemplated by the Option.
e. Payment. It is understood that funding for the purchase of the Easement shall be
provided by the State of North Carolina pursuant to the Division of Mitigation Services of
DEQ and that such funding is made subsequent to recording of the Easement and
subsequent to Closing. Therefore,at Closing, Baker shall deliver to Grantor a promissory
note in the amount of the Purchase Price, less the Option Deposit and closing costs,
mortgage pay-offs, expenses, and prorations applicable to Grantor, which promissory note
shall bear interest at Zero Percent(0%)per annum on the unpaid balance until paid or until
default and which promissory note shall be due and payable in full on the date ninety(90)
days after the Closing(the"Note"). At the time of Closing, Baker shall record the Deed
and any plat referenced in the Deed and deliver copies of the recorded documents to the
State Property Office for review and funding. The Note shall contain an express provision
that if the DEQ fails to fund the purchase of the Easement in the amount of the Purchase
Price thereby causing Baker to fail to pay the Note in full on or before the maturity date,
then Baker,as Grantor's sole remedy,shall be liable to Grantor for all reasonable costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, required to have the Easement removed and
the title to the Property returned to the condition it was prior to the imposition of the
Easement,at which point the Note,this Option,and all duties,responsibilities and liabilities
with respect thereto shall be null and void. Otherwise, Baker shall pay the Note in full
upon receipt of funding by the State of North Carolina,
f: Condition of Property; Intended Use. Prior to Closing, Grantor shall remove all
rubbish and trash,including any hazardous waste or harmful chemical substances, from the
Easement but shall otherwise keep the Property in the same condition as of the Effective
Date, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Grantor shall prevent and refrain from any use
of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would diminish the value of the
Easement or adversely affect Baker's intended use of the land for the Easement,which use
is to provide the Division of Mitigation Services within DEQ with wetland,stream, and/or
buffer mitigation credits. Grantor acknowledges that Baker will enter into an agreement
with DEQ to provide these credits, and Grantor agrees not to undertake or permit any
activities on the Property that would diminish Baker's ability to obtain such credits. If any
adverse change occurs in the condition of the Easement prior to Closing, whether such
change is caused by Grantor or by forces beyond Grantor's reasonable control,Baker may
elect to(i)refuse to accept the Easement at Closing; (ii)accept the Property at Closing, or
a portion thereof with a corresponding adjustment of the Purchase Price; or(iii)terminate
this Option and the transaction itself and declare this Option null and void.
g. Warranty of Title. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that, as of the
Effective Date and Closing: (i) Grantor is the sole owner(s) of the Property and is seized
of the Property in fee simple absolute; (ii) Grantor has the right and authority to convey
this Option and the Easement and Grantor will hold the grantee of the Easement harmless
from any failure in Grantor's right and authority to convey the Easement, including issues
of title; (iii)there is legal access to the Property and to the Easement; (iv)the Easement is
free from any and all encumbrances,except those accepted by Baker in writing;(v)Grantor
3

If to Baker: Jake Byers
Michael Baker Engineering
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 20I
Asheville, NC 28806
If to the Grantor: WE KIRK FARMS NORTH,LLC
448 Little Mountain Road
Waynesville,NC 28786
9. Miscellaneous.
a. This Option, together with the exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated
herein by reference, contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to
the subject matter contained herein. No amendment, modification, or discharge of this
Option, and no waiver hereunder, shall be valid or binding unless set forth in writing and
duly executed by the parties hereto.
b. Any provision of this Option that shall be found to be contrary to applicable law
or otherwise unenforceable shall not affect the remaining terms of this Option,which shall
be construed as if the unenforceable provision or clause were absent from this Option.
c. This Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs,personal representatives, successors, and assigns.
d. This Option shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina without application of its conflicts of laws provisions.
e. No act or failure to act by either party shall be deemed a waiver of its rights
hereunder,and no waiver in any one circumstance or of any one provision shall be deemed
a waiver in other circumstances or of other provisions.
f. Grantor agrees to not mow or otherwise damage vegetation within Easement area
after Baker plants or replants the same. If Grantor or Grantor's agents or invitees damage
vegetation within the Easement,Grantor will replace the lost or damaged vegetation at their
expense.
g. Baker shall ensure that access to portions of the Grantor's property shall not be
impeded by the proposed.
This Option shall not be assignable by Baker, except to another entity acquiring at
least fifty-one percent(51%)interest in Baker or Baker's business or to an entity qualified
to be the grantee of a conservation easement under N.C.G.S § 121-35
I, Vrdy}.r •� pru�fiat' acLai� 1d� gf &tart ,' 1orm1��i— c
.14 r d� hho- I64..p r-�'&t. b b�r+C d► l'lti t- •/�4`wc..� T -
Poir,,Cr Tra,l- p-NC A4+.- G re.A.1 s �-rok.
5

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have duly executed this Option as of the date first above written.
GRANTOR:
By:
Print Name: WE KIRK FARM NORTH,LLC;
James Weaver Kirkpatrick, Jr.
Title: General Partner
MICH BAKER EN+GI ERING,INC.:
By:
Print Name: Dwain Hathaway
Title: Vice President/NC Office Executive
6

J1J ill 11111111 il111i1 II1 I I11
201 8000542
HAYWOOD CO,NC FEE$26,00
PRESENTEOB RECORDED
01-22-2018 03:57:12 PM
SHERRI C.ROGERS
RE GrsTEA OF DEEDS
BY HAVEN MUSE
DEPUTY
BK: RB 944
EXHIBIT D PG: 1754-1757
Prepared by and Return:
Jake Byers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 18th day of January, 2018, by and between
WE KIRK FARMS NORTH, LLC, private landowner ("Grantor") and MICHAEL BAKER
ENGINEERING, INC., a corporation organized in the state of New York with offices at 797 Haywood
Rd., Suite 201,Asheville,NC 28806 ("Baker").
WHEREAS, Grantor and Baker have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated January 18, 2017, pursuant to which Grantor granted to Baker, its
successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the"Easement") over certain real
property located in Haywood County,North Carolina,which property is more particularly described on the
attached Exhibit DI (the"Property")and
WHEREAS,The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions of the Option and to provide constructive notice of the Option;
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
l. The term of the Option commenced on January 18, 2018 and shall expire
on January 18,2021.
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRANTEE:
By:
Print Name: Dwain Hathaway
Title: Vice President&NC Office Executive
STATE OF Itpg7-1-44 ( AmMINiZik
COUNTY OF W A -e
1, KIcm 1,6e N M MGI ITNAhI , a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid,do hereby
certify that pWAI Iy “AT}ttoWA 1' personally came before me this day and acknowledged
that he/she is rtuE rfacsibro4T4 144. DO( Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. a North Carolina professional
corporation, and that he acknowledged to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the
purposes therein expressed and in the representative capacity so stated. I have received satisfactory
evidence of the person's identity in the form of persons,' 1Lin4w!l<Ave
to
Witness my hand and official seal,this the [1 day of J av+v".*ry , 2018.
Official Signature of Notary
Printed Name: .Iet(nktt N N11NIeVe Notary Public
My Commission Expires: Z• ZG • 1'[ ttuutp,npl
S:n M M%4.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP-SEALI � e- fr.41,
NOTAR)., 43%
=Y MY t
s COMMISSION EXPIRES
Z • u• ,
Ny„littr PUBLIC +0/
1 m un `
El

GRANTOR:
<`
By: ,1J P�rur.
Printvslame: J V4t,e,apY, 14Ls1(),?42�,^ �14 Sr.
Title: 4' l A r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY Or
�,, -x �
I, C ! 441;/1 12 qn , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid,cer?ti�fy that LLVTive vK,r- i jl JY personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he/she voluntarily signed and executed the foregoing document. I have
received satisfactory evidence of the person's identity in the form of 'iypy ,��Ceais .
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp or seal, this Q day of' , 2a10 g
0.
14-1.;
.4e .
Offi 1 Signature of Notary d
Printed Name: r ,Notary Public
My Commission Expires:[7 i pin 0011
1511141111r111r!/
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP-SEAL] �.\\,0\F K. R&'9@r•,��
Notary Pudic
Haywood County
My Commission Expires E
01/26/2019
\\`//j rCl4�� `
1 ZZ

Parcel Boundaries
'3,r,
r, .
•
44.- •• 4 " r?-".' ^- - 4' ,:-.;. ..t.. Al
�, .
1
•
--)i
t.
1 WE Kirk Farms North LLC
r if PIN 8731-33-5998
� ` ;�-• Rush Fork Road
. Crabtree.NC 28721
1 .
ii _ ,
ill. r
t
I
F
ire, �yM, ,• µ1`tw r , ►. f
r ryti,. p :r- .'� .? t''� y ,, ' w /
+'aC J>>^ 1 i r 1 i
�..71 ;. y, Y..,
' , .. • ` wL ;k' , Note:This map may not be a certified survey and has not been
6, '� ,.i '! ,,. • reviewed by a local government agency for compliance with any
kR:r, + ..:•:a_ l;' - applicable land development regulations and has not been
French Broad 06010106 P. • 1 ., •F t.- • reviewed for compliance with recording requirments for plats.
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 2,000 Exhibit D1
L Feet Landowner(s):
INTERNATIONAL WE Kirk Farms North LLC

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT(the"Option")is made and
entered into this 266 day of October, 2017 (the "Effective Date"), by and among
Anne Palmer Family Properties,LP (the"Grantor"),and MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.,
a corporation organized in the State of New York with offices at 797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201, Asheville.
North Carolina 28806("Baker").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Haywood County, North
Carolina,containing 235.3 acres (PIN 8721-72-6837), more or less, as more particularly described
on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,together with the improvements thereon
and all appurtenances thereto belonging and appertaining, and all creeks, streams, rights-of-way, roads,
streets and ways bounding said real property(collectively the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to Baker, an exclusive right and option to acquire a
conservation easement,as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B(the"Easement"),over the
Property in accordance with the terms of this Option; and
WHEREAS, Baker is interested in acquiring the Easement in order to develop and construct a full
delivery wetland, stream, and/or buffer restoration project over the lands covered by the Easement (the
"Work") in conjunction with requests for proposals issued under the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly the Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and Baker has agreed to undertake such Work
with respect to the Easement in accordance with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, Baker hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) Baker believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the Purchase Price, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a), together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by Baker in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii)
Baker does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of
IIMII(the"Signing Date Option Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of Option. Grantor hereby grants unto Baker,its successors and assigns,which shall
be limited to a third-party designated by Baker qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement under
N.C.G.S. §121-35(2), the exclusive right and option to purchase the Easement in accordance with and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Option.
2. Term. The term of this Option shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire
THIRTY-SIX(36)months after the Effective Date(the"Term"),unless extended by the parties, in writing.
A Memorandum of Option to Purchase Easement in the form attached as Exhibit D shall be executed by
both parties simultaneously with this Option and recorded at Baker's sole discretion and expense in the
county where the Property is located to provide record notice of this Option. In no event shall this Option
be recorded or filed in the public records.
1

3. Exclusivity of Option. Grantor covenants and agrees that it will take no action to sell or
transfer the Easement during the Term, and that Grantor will not encumber the Property in a manner that
would impair the intended use of the Easement hereunder, it being intended and agreed that the Option is
exclusive to Baker and Baker's successors and assigns.
4. Exercise of Oration. At any time prior to the expiration of the Term, Baker may exercise
this Option by giving Grantor no less than thirty(30)days prior written notice of the date Baker desires to
consummate the purchase of the Easement under this Option(the"Closing"). Closing shall take place at a
time and place reasonably acceptable to both parties. The terms of the purchase and sale of the Easement
at Closing shall be as follows:
a. Purchase Price. The
per acre (the
"Purchase Price")included in the Easement as determined by the Survey prepared pursuant
to Paragraph 4(b),below. The Option Deposit shall be credited towards the Purchase Price
at Closing.
b. Survey. Prior to Closing,Baker shall obtain,at Baker's expense,a survey prepared
by a registered land surveyor duly licensed in the State of North Carolina showing the
boundary of the Easement as well as all easements, rights-of-way, encroachments and
improvements located thereon, and the exact acreage of the Easement (the"Survey"), and
that Baker shall have consulted with Grantor and taken in to account Grantor's concerns as
to the exact delineation of boundaries of the Easement. Following consultation with
Grantor and the completion of the Survey, a new legal description of the Easement shall
be prepared from the Survey. The new legal description shall be substituted for the
description currently attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all references contained herein to
the"Easement"shall be deemed to refer to the new description prepared from the Survey.
c. Proration, Costs and Expenses of Closing. At Closing, ad valorem taxes for the
current year for the Easement area shall be prorated, and Grantor shall remain responsible
for all other ad valorem taxes applicable to the remainder of the Property subsequent to
Closing. At Closing, Grantor shall pay any outstanding ad valorem taxes for prior years
on Grantor's real or personal property, any late list penalties, revenue stamps or transfer
taxes applicable to the Easement, and any mortgages or liens with respect to the Property.
At Closing,Baker shall pay any costs related to the Survey,any title examination expenses,
title insurance premiums, recording costs for the deed conveying the Easement, costs of
recordation of any recorded plats showing the Easement,as well as any engineering or site
plan costs. Each party shall bear its own accounting and attorney fees.
d. Closing Documents and Title. At Closing, Grantor shall deliver (i) a deed
substantially in the form of the attached Exhibit E (the"Deed") conveying the Easement
to Baker or to a legally qualified non-profit organization or government agency as
contained in N.C.G.S. §121-35(2)designated by Baker,provided,that the final form of the
Deed shall be in form mutually acceptable to Baker and Grantor so long as such form is
consistent with the provisions of Article 4, The Conservation and Historic Preservation
Agreements Act as contained in N.C.G.S. §121-34 through 42. The Deed shall convey
good, marketable and insurable title to the Easement, free and clear from all mortgages,
liens, easements, covenants, restrictions and other encumbrances, except those previously
accepted by Baker in writing; (ii) lien affidavits warranting and holding harmless any title
insurance company insuring title to the Easement, from and against unpaid mechanics and
2

materialmen's liens; and (iv) any other documents and papers necessary or appropriate in
connection with the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Option.
At Closing, Baker shall deliver(i) a Settlement Statement setting forth each party's costs,
expenses,prorations and other financial analysis of the purchase and sale of the Easement
as contemplated hereby; (ii) the Note as defined in item 4(e), below; and (iii) any other
documents necessary to consummate the transaction contemplated by the Option.
e. Payment. It is understood that funding for the purchase of the Easement shall be
provided by the State of North Carolina pursuant to the Division of Mitigation Services of
DEQ and that such funding is made subsequent to recording of the Easement and
subsequent to Closing. Therefore,at Closing, Baker shall deliver to Grantor a promissory
note in the amount of the Purchase Price, less the Option Deposit and closing costs,
mortgage pay-offs,expenses,and prorations applicable to Grantor, which promissory note
shall bear interest at Zero Percent(0%)per annum on the unpaid balance until paid or until
default and which promissory note shall be due and payable in full on the date ninety(90)
days after the Closing (the"Note"). At the time of Closing, Baker shall record the Deed
and any plat referenced in the Deed and deliver copies of the recorded documents to the
State Property Office for review and funding. The Note shall contain an express provision
that if the DEQ fails to fund the purchase of the Easement in the amount of the Purchase
Price thereby causing Baker to fail to pay the Note in full on or before the maturity date,
then Baker,as Grantor's sole remedy,shall be Iiable to Grantor for all reasonable costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, required to have the Easement removed and
the title to the Property returned to the condition it was prior to the imposition of the
Easement,at which point the Note,this Option,and all duties,responsibilities and liabilities
with respect thereto shall be null and void. Otherwise, Baker shall pay the Note in full
upon receipt of funding by the State of North Carolina.
f. Condition of Property; Intended Use. Prior to Closing, Grantor shall remove all
rubbish and trash,including any hazardous waste or harmful chemical substances, from the
Easement but shall otherwise keep the Property in the same condition as of the Effective
Date, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Grantor shall prevent and refrain from any use
of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would diminish the value of the
Easement or adversely affect Baker's intended use of the land for the Easement, which use
is to provide the Division of Mitigation Services within DEQ with wetland, stream, and/or
buffer mitigation credits. Grantor acknowledges that Baker will enter into an agreement
with DEQ to provide these credits, and Grantor agrees not to undertake or permit any
activities on the Property that would diminish Baker's ability to obtain such credits. If any
adverse change occurs in the condition of the Easement prior to Closing, whether such
change is caused by Grantor or by forces beyond Grantor's reasonable control, Baker may
elect to(i)refuse to accept the Easement at Closing; (ii)accept the Property at Closing, or
a portion thereof with a corresponding adjustment of the Purchase Price; or(iii)terminate
this Option and the transaction itself and declare this Option null and void.
g. Warranty of Title. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that, as of the
Effective Date and Closing: (i) Grantor is the sole owner(s) of the Property and is seized
of the Property in fee simple absolute; (ii) Grantor has the right and authority to convey
this Option and the Easement and Grantor will hold the grantee of the Easement harmless
from any failure in Grantor's right and authority to convey the Easement, including issues
of title; (iii)there is legal access to the Property and to the Easement; (iv) the Easement is
free from any and all encumbrances,except those accepted by Baker in writing;(v)Grantor
3

will defend title to the Easement against all lawful claims of other parties; (vi) that the
Property is free of any hazardous wastes.
5. Right of Entry and Inspections. Baker, and its agents and employees or other authorized
representatives, may enter upon the Property during the Term for the purpose of making surveys,
conducting soil,engineering,geological and other subsoil or environmental tests to determine the suitability
of the Property for the Easement. Baker shall repair or pay for any damage done to the Property caused
while such tests are being made. Baker shall advise Grantor at least twenty-four hours in advance of any
entry upon the Property for the purposes of surveying, testing or inspecting as set forth herein. Baker shall
be permitted during the Term to obtain land use permits or other approvals relating to any part of the
Easement, and Grantor agrees to execute such documents, petitions, and authorizations as may be
appropriate or required in order to obtain such land use permits and approvals. Grantor shall join with
Baker in applications and any non judicial or non-administrative proceedings to obtain such approvals if
necessary.After Closing,Baker reserves the right to perform periodic inspections of the Easement to ensure
compliance with easement restrictions contained in the Deed. If Baker does not duly exercise this Option
and purchase the Easement,Baker shall return the Property to the condition in which it existed prior to any
investigations undertaken by Baker, its agents, employees or contractors pursuant to this Option.
6. Permanent Access and Construction Easements. In connection with this Option and
delivery of the Easement, Grantor shall also:
(a) convey and grant to Baker, its successors,assigns,contractors and agents, a non-
exclusive temporary construction easement, the location of which shall be determined in
the sole discretion of Grantor, for ingress, egress and regress on, over and upon Grantor's
Property, sufficient to allow Baker, its agents and contractors to construct and restore the
Easement area to stream and/or wetland conditions required by DEQ, said temporary
construction easement to include sufficient access to allow heavy equipment to access the
Property and the Easement,as necessary; and
(b) convey and grant to Baker, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive permanent
easement for ingress and egress to the Easement,the location of which shall be determined
in the sole discretion of Grantor, in order that Baker, its successors and assigns, may have
a permanent means of adequately accessing the area covered by the Easement. The
permanent access easement referred to herein shall be set forth in an accurate survey, the
legal description of which shall be included in a recorded permanent access easement
which shall run with the land.
7. Indemnification. Baker agrees to indemnify and save harmless Grantor from and against
any loss, claim, damage, cost or expense (including reasonable attorney's fees) suffered or incurred by
Grantor by reason of any injury to person or damage to property on or about the Property to the extent
caused by Baker, its officers, employees, agents, invitees, contractors, or subcontractors entering or
conducting work upon the Property,except for any loss,claim,damage,cost or expense suffered or incurred
as a result of the negligence or intentional misconduct of Grantor or Grantor's employees, agents or
invitees.
8. Notices. Unless otherwise set forth, any notice or other communication required or
permitted hereunder shall be in writing and (a) delivered by overnight courier; (b) sent by facsimile
transmission, or (c) mailed by Registered or Certified Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows (or to
such other address for a party as shall be specified by like notice;provided that notice of change of address
shall be effective only upon receipt thereof);
4

If to Baker: Jake Byers
Michael Baker Engineering
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
If to the Grantor: Anne Palmer Family Properties, LP
6624 Yacht Club Road
Flowery Branch, GA 30542
9. Miscellaneous.
a. This Option, together with the exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated
herein by reference, contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to
the subject matter contained herein. No amendment, modification, or discharge of this
Option, and no waiver hereunder, shall be valid or binding unless set forth in writing and
duly executed by the parties hereto.
b. Any provision of this Option that shall be found to be contrary to applicable law
or otherwise unenforceable shall not affect the remaining terms of this Option,which shall
be construed as if the unenforceable provision or clause were absent from this Option.
c. This Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs,personal representatives, successors,and assigns.
d. This Option shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina without application of its conflicts of laws provisions.
e. No act or failure to act by either party shall be deemed a waiver of its rights
hereunder,and no waiver in any one circumstance or of any one provision shall be deemed
a waiver in other circumstances or of other provisions.
f. Grantor agrees to not mow or otherwise damage vegetation within Easement area
after Baker plants or replants the same. If Grantor or Grantor's agents or invitees damage
vegetation within the Easement,Grantor will replace the lost or damaged vegetation at their
expense.
g. Baker shall ensure that access to portions of the Grantor's property shall not be
impeded by the proposed.
j. This Option shall not be assignable by Baker,except to another entity acquiring at
least fifty-one percent(51%) interest in Baker or Baker's business or to an entity qualified
to be the grantee of a conservation easement under N.C.G.S § 121-35
5

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have duly executed this Option as of the date first above written.
GRANTOR:
By:
Print Name: Anne Palmer Family Properties, LP;
Anne P Collier,
Title: General Partner
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.:
By:
Print Name: Dwain Hathaway
Title: Vice President/NC Office Executive
6

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have duly executed this Option as of the date first above written.
GRANTOR:
By:
Print Name: Anne Palmer Family Properties,LP;
Anne P Collier,
Title: General Partner
MICHAE KER ENGI NG,INC.:
Print Name: Dwain Hathaway
Title: Vice President/NC Office Executive
6

III Ill 11111111111111111111111
2018000151
HAYWOOD CO, NC FEE$26 00
RRESEmEo8 RECORDED
01-08-2018 09:06:32 AM
SHERRI C.ROGERS
REGISTER OF DEEDS
OY'TARA E REINHOLD
DEPUTY
BK: RB 943
PG: 2338-2341
Prepared by and Return:
Jake Byers
Michael Baker Engineering, htc.
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville,NC 28806
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 26"' day of October, 2017, by and between
Anne Palmer Family Properties, LP, private landowner ("Grantor") and MICHAEL BAKER
ENGINEERING, INC., a corporation organized in the state of New York with offices at 797 Haywood
Rd.. Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806("Baker").
WHEREAS, Grantor and Baker have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option-) dated October 26. 2017, pursuant to which Grantor granted to Baker, its
successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the"Easement") over certain real
property located in Haywood County,North Carolina,which property is more particularly described on the
attached Exhibit D1 (the"Property")and
WHEREAS,The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions of the Option and to provide constructive notice of the Option;
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
1. The term of the Option commenced on October 26.2017 and shall expire
on October 26, 2020.
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs,successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRANTEE:
By:
Print Name: Dwain Hathaway
Title: Vice President& NC Office Executive
STATE OF N G
COUNTY OF WA t G
I, IL et+ti ke 1 IM Cr?(tin Rvl , a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid,do hereby
certify that Dwa: rt .ctt„a personally came before me this day and acknowledged
that he/she isVk( eSt.c{r + NC 0` of Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. a North Carolina professional
corporation,and that he acknowledged to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the
purposes therein expressed and in the representative capacity so stated. I have received satisfactory
evidence of the person's identity in the form of drf)S (tcat .-
�aa`''`��NS��IIM ti} •,ess my hand and official seal, this the -46 day of 1 " cr
0 NoTAR Y 'ck% u�r--Wl iMC1 3SL
MY Official Signature of Notary
COMMISSION EXPIRES
= Printed Name: 41eo k MGY- fotary Public
4 �y PUBLcI +
9t ,b. on Expires: 2 ' 247' l41
H
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP-SEAL]
I1

GRANTOR: nt
//j� vv
BY: t-41 `� blifed iC .
Print Name: Anne Palmer Family Properties LP;
Anne P Collier,
Title: General Partner
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF i4 Elmwood
1, vi ; T. S rn'-il-N , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid,certify that fl v\mer Cal\i e we personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he/she voluntarily signed and executed the foregoing document. I have
received satisfactory evidence of the person's identity in the form of GH�L
aoi
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp or seal,this a(nay of 0 Lib bte -
\ft CkA: .
Official Signature of Notary
Printed Name: \i►'c.IC ; I . 5 : ,Notary Public
My Commission Expires:l lo. a
[AFFIX NOTARIAL SLAAM SEAL]
iff
+OTAR
r
;y PUMA'
.ek ��
Ob CO' `•
12

THIS MAP MAY NOT BE A CERTIFIED SURVEY AND N
Parcel Boundaries , f HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ANY
APPLICABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS t
AND HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE {
WITH RECORDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS.
f . 'A 1 -
t'i
.,.. i
�4� 3 '• `-• r�k.' ."I 4.4II Anne Palmer Family r' - r. � , �: -
- Properties L P
PIN 8721-83-8875 •
Rush Fork Road
f-< ;A: Crabtree,NC 28721
- •L •!' . .
•
E -
t. }
IEd
amily - '
P. . .
8625• k Road •
8721
t
Anne Palmer Family ' t �,- '
o Properties L-P ,. - = � t
PIN 8721-72-6837
' Rush Fork Road
Crabtree,NC 28721
o i
•. �
v ,.e.
ter.
aoomriftc,_.;
TL
1y
r ,
- - r
French Broad 06010106 - lligi.f 4:
Exhibit D1
Michael Baker
, 250 500 1,000
Feet Landowner(s):
INTERNATIONAL Anne Palmer Family Properties L.P.

-� ' United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville,NC 28801-1082
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
http://wwwfws.govinc-es/es/countyfr.html
In Reply Refer To: May 21, 2018
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2018-SLI-0426
Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237
Project Name: UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and fmal designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project.Although not required by
section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin
their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service)Asheville Field Office's (AFO)website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/
cntylist/nccounties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" species that could
potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future.Also
available are:
Design and Construction Recommendations
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project review/Recommendations.html
Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants
https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant survey.html
Northern long-eared bat Guidance
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project reviewNLEB in WNC.html
Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/Maxent/Maxent.html

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 2
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists.
Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act,
the accuracy of the species lists should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website or the AFO website (the AFO website dates each
county list with the day of the most recent update/change) at regular intervals during project
planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information.An updated list may be
requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the
enclosed list or by going to the AFO website.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological
Evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12 and on our office's website
at https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/assessment_guidance.html.
If a Federal agency (or their non-federal representative) determines, based on the Biological
Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be
affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to
50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and
proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the
regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license
applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://
www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.
Though the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, please be aware
that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require additional consultation(see
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/). Wind energy projects should follow
the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to
migratory birds (including bald and golden eagles) and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 3
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• Migratory Birds
• Wetlands

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville,NC 28801-1082
[phone]

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2018-SLI-0426
Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237
Project Name: UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Project Type: STREAM/WATERBODY/ CANALS/LEVEES/DIKES
Project Description: The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation project is proposing to restore
and enhance approximately 5,300 linear feet(LF)jurisdictional stream
within the Pigeon River Basin for the purpose of obtaining stream
mitigation credit for the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).
Project reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock
access and removal of riparian buffers. Stream banks consist of heavily
grazed pasture grass with some small scattered trees, mixed with pockets
of invasive species (mostly in non-grazed areas). Project reaches are
unstable, incised and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows
and livestock access. Project reaches are unstable, incised and exhibit
active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access. Livestock
will be permanently excluded from all project areas. Buffers in excess of
30 feet will be established along all proposed reaches. In addition,
existing functional wetlands will be incorporated inside the conservation
easement to protect them in perpetuity.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/35.64671696194294N82.93734090693435W
•
_1
Counties: Haywood,NC

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries', as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Depaitiuent of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2657
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Clams
NAME STATUS
Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5039

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 4
Arachnids
NAME STATUS
Spruce-fir Moss Spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4801
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1890
Spreading Avens Geum radiatum Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6854
Lichens
NAME STATUS
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3933
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 1
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 2
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.)A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated?The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 =0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 3
•probability of presence breeding season I survey effort —no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bobolink
---- ---- ---- ---- — ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- —
BCC Rangewide(CON) • mmiN MEM
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s)which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 4
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the E-bird Explore Data Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network(AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If"Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA(including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC -Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or(for non-eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 5
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the"probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s)that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort(indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator(a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

05/21/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01237 1
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
THERE ARE NO WETLANDS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

tr"... s.f,:,.\
\,,,,,_
%..i
.a. ..-,,, 1,.....53
, 2.,..: . _.,0 . ..__J,..., •
4i....,..00.,i
O
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Governor Roy Cooper Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
NCNHDE-6091
May 22, 2018
Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One - 15720 Brixham Hill Ave.
Charlotte, NC 28277
RE: UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project; 166680
Dear Kristi Suggs:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists. Tables of
natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile radius of the project area, if any, are also
included in this report.
If a Federally-listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one-mile radius of the
project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for guidance.
Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund easement, or an
occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS: Telephone: (919)7D7-8107 LOCATION:
1651 Mail Service Center www.ncnhp.org 121 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 Raleigh, NC 276D3

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Project No. 166680
May 22, 2018
NCNHDE-6091
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Natural 17387 Low Elevation Basic --- 1995-06-28 A? 3-Medium --- --- G2 S2
Community Glade (Montane Subtype)
Natural 7457 Montane Cliff(Mafic --- 1995-06-28 A? 3-Medium --- --- G3 S3
Community Subtype)
Natural 2892 Montane Oak--Hickory --- 2010 BC 3-Medium --- --- G3 S3
Community Forest (Basic Subtype)
Natural Areas Documented Within Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating
Raven Cliff R3 (High) C4 (Moderate)
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy Easement Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy Private
NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation NC Department of Agriculture State
Trust Fund Easement
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve(DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area(RHA),or Federally-listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on May 22,2018;source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2018. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Project No. 166680
May 22, 2018
NCNHDE-6091
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name El Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Natural 10854 High Elevation Rocky --- 1991-07-16 C? 3-Medium --- --- G2 S2
Community Summit (Typic Subtype)
Natural 17387 Low Elevation Basic --- 1995-06-28 A? 3-Medium --- --- G2 S2
Community Glade (Montane Subtype)
Natural 7457 Montane Cliff(Mafic --- 1995-06-28 A? 3-Medium --- --- G3 S3
Community Subtype)
Natural 2892 Montane Oak--Hickory --- 2010 BC 3-Medium --- --- G3 S3
Community Forest (Basic Subtype)
Vascular Plant 23933 Hackelia virginiana Virginia Stickseed 1968-Pre H 5-Very --- Significantly G5 S2
Low Rare Peripheral
Vascular Plant 23969 Orbexilum onobrychis Lanceleaf Scurfpea 1891-07-17 H 5-Very --- Special G5 SH
Low Concern
Historical
Natural Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating
Raven Cliff R3 (High) C4 (Moderate)
Crabtree Bald R5 (General) C5 (General)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy Easement Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy Private
NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation NC Department of Agriculture State
Trust Fund Easement
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on May 22,2018;source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2018. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-6091 : UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
r
f, -
0. '.
d
s
ra
Air
5'°• �6c..curn cn pp „ ti
-.,.... .
0+ ©: _ R:H f'k thaw,a•... Y�_ �r g%
., .
L
A FA 2 ,
1 TO ..,_ "Vt:
s o r
; 4ma
\\ x>. # • I.....51t/Llirp. • 0,, a ±:A v I
n
r,
\ 4. ,
o- a+a—coil
Imo, F. ' Le• l- rp+ c Y Cal
. :\,,X0. f
-. ' ae y i
-'-'' \\ 1
r. .; i
WE . .. � i*Irl . f
OP: PIP:tp<
May 22,2018 1:47,210
❑ Project Boundary I 0.4 y 0.8 1.6 mi.
❑ Buffered Project Boundary 0 0.5 1 2 km
NHP Natural Area(NHNA) Sources:Esri.HERE,Garmin,Inlermap,Inuemenl P Corp..GERCO,USGS,
FAO.NPS,NRCAN,Geo8ase,IGN,Kadas[er NL,Ordnance Survey.Esri.Japan,
METI-Esri China Hong Korg),svdsslopo.®OpenSlreelMap contributors.and
Managed Area(MAREA) mrGIS User Conimunity
Page 4 of 4

-� ' United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville,NC 28801-1082
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
http://wwwfws.govinc-es/es/countyfr.html
IPaC Record Locator: 856-13335214 July 23, 2018
Subject: Consistency letter for the 'UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project' project(TAILS
04EN1000-2018-R-0426)under the revised February 5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA
Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the
Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat.
To whom it may concern:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received your request dated to verify that the
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (Proposed Action) may rely on the revised
February 5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation
Projects within the Range of the Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat(PBO)to satisfy
requirements under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.).
Based on the information you provided (Project Description shown below), you have determined
that the Proposed Action will have no effect on the endangered Indiana bat(Myotis sodalis) or
the threatened Northern long-eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis). If the Proposed Action is not
modified, no consultation is required for these two species.
For Proposed Actions that include bridge/structure removal, replacement, and/or
maintenance activities: If your initial bridge/structure assessments failed to detect Indiana bats,
but you later detect bats during construction, please submit the Post Assessment Discovery of
Bats at Bridge/Structure Form(User Guide Appendix E) to this Service Office. In these
instances, potential incidental take of Indiana bats may be exempted provided that the take is
reported to the Service.
If the Proposed Action may affect any other federally-listed or proposed species and/or
designated critical habitat, additional consultation between the lead Federal action agency and
this Service Office is required. If the proposed action has the potential to take bald or golden
eagles, additional coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
may also be required. In either of these circumstances, please advise the lead Federal action
agency for the Proposed Action accordingly.

07/23/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 856-13335214 2
The following species may occur in your project area and are not covered by this determination:
• Appalachian Elktoe,Alasmidonta raveneliana (Endangered)
• Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel, Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Endangered)
• Gray Bat, Myotis grisescens (Endangered)
• Rock Gnome Lichen, Gymnoderma lineare (Endangered)
• Small Whorled Pogonia,Isotria medeoloides (Threatened)
• Spreading Avens, Geum radiatum (Endangered)
• Spruce-fir Moss Spider, Microhexura montivaga (Endangered)

07/23/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 856-13335214 3
Project Description
The following project name and description was collected in IPaC as part of the endangered
species review process.
Name
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Description
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation project is proposing to restore and enhance
approximately 5,300 linear feet(LF)jurisdictional stream within the Pigeon River Basin for
the purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit for the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS). Project reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
removal of riparian buffers. Stream banks consist of heavily grazed pasture grass with some
small scattered trees, mixed with pockets of invasive species (mostly in non-grazed areas).
Project reaches are unstable, incised and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows
and livestock access. Project reaches are unstable, incised and exhibit active bank erosion
from both high flows and livestock access. Livestock will be permanently excluded from all
project areas. Buffers in excess of 30 feet will be established along all proposed reaches. In
addition, existing functional wetlands will be incorporated inside the conservation easement
to protect them in perpetuity.

07/23/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 856-13335214 4
Determination Key Result
Based on the information you provided, you have determined that the Proposed Action will have
no effect on the endangered Indiana bat and/or the threatened Northern long-eared bat. Therefore,
no consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is
required for these two species.
Qualification Interview
1. Is the project within the range of the Indiana bat[1]?
[1] See Indiana bat species profile
Automatically answered
Yes
2. Is the project within the range of the Northern long-eared bat[1]?
[1] See Northern long-eared bat species profile
Automatically answered
Yes
3. Which Federal Agency is the lead for the action?
A)Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
4. Are all project activities limited to non-construction[1] activities only? (examples of non-
construction activities include: bridge/abandoned structure assessments, surveys, planning
and technical studies, property inspections, and property sales)
[1] Construction refers to activities involving ground disturbance,percussive noise,and/or lighting.
No
5. Does the project include any activities that are greater than 300 feet from existing road/
rail surfaces[1]?
[1]Road surface is defined as the actively used[e.g.motorized vehicles]driving surface and shoulders[may be
pavement,gravel,etc.]and rail surface is defined as the edge of the actively used rail ballast.
Yes

07/23/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 856-13335214 5
6. Are all project activities greater than 300 feet from existing road/rail surfaces[1]?
[1]Road surface is defined as the actively used[e.g.motorized vehicles]driving surface and shoulders [may be
pavement,gravel,etc.]and rail surface is defined as the edge of the actively used rail ballast.
No
7. Does the project include any activities within 0.5 miles of an Indiana bat and/or NLEB
hibernaculum[1]?
[1]For the purpose of this consultation,a hibernaculum is a site,most often a cave or mine,where bats hibernate
during the winter(see suitable habitat),but could also include bridges and structures if bats are found to be
hibernating there during the winter.
No
8. Is the project located within a karst area?
No
9. Is there any suitable[1] summer habitat for Indiana Bat or NLEB within the project action
area[2]? (includes any trees suitable for maternity, roosting, foraging, or travelling habitat)
[1] See the Service's summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat.
[2]The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely
the immediate area involved in the action(50 CFR Section 402.02).Further clarification is provided by the
national consultation FAQs.
No
10. Does the project include maintenance of the surrounding landscape at existing facilities
(e.g., rest areas, stormwater detention basins)?
No
11. Does the project include wetland or stream protection activities associated with
compensatory wetland mitigation?
Yes
12. Does the project include slash pile burning?
No
13. Does the project include any bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities
(e.g., any bridge repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work)?
No

07/23/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 856-13335214 6
14. Does the project include the removal, replacement, and/or maintenance of any structure
other than a bridge? (e.g., rest areas, offices, sheds, outbuildings, barns, parking garages,
etc.)
No
15. Will the project involve the use of temporary lighting during the active season?
No
16. Will the project install new or replace existing permanent lighting?
No
17. Will the project raise the road profile above the tree canopy?
No
18. Is the location of this project consistent with a No Effect determination in this key?
Automatically answered
Yes, because the project action area is outside of suitable Indiana bat and/or NLEB
summer habitat

07/23/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 856-13335214
Determination Key Description: FHWA, FRA, FTA
Programmatic Consultation For Transportation Projects
Affecting NLEB Or Indiana Bat
This key was last updated in IPaC on March 16, 2018. Keys are subject to periodic revision.
This decision key is intended for projects/activities funded or authorized by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and/or Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), which require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act(ESA) for the endangered Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis) and the threatened Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis).
This decision key should only be used to verify project applicability with the Service's February
5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects. The
programmatic biological opinion covers limited transportation activities that may affect either bat
species, and addresses situations that are both likely and not likely to adversely affect either bat
species. This decision key will assist in identifying the effect of a specific project/activity and
applicability of the programmatic consultation. The programmatic biological opinion is not
intended to cover all types of transportation actions.Activities outside the scope of the
programmatic biological opinion, or that may affect ESA-listed species other than the Indiana bat
or NLEB, or any designated critical habitat, may require additional ESA Section 7 consultation.

Michael Baker We Make a Difference
ference
INTERNATIONAL
June 5, 2018
Milton Cortes,Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh,NC 27609
RE: Prime and Important Farmland Soils
NCDMS,UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Haywood County,NC
Dear Mr. Cortes:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS)to conduct stream restoration/enhancement activities for the above-referenced project.
The project area is located in the Crabtree Community in Haywood County,North Carolina approximately
3 miles south of the Township of Fines Creek. The project is located on the United States Geological
Survey's(USGS)Fines Creek Topographic Quadrangle. The center of the project area is located at 35.6446
N and-82.9402 W. The project site flows southwesterly and is bisected by Rush Fork Road approximately
1.8 miles north of its intersection with Silvers Coves Road. Please see the enclosed USGS Topographic
Map for a depiction of the project site location.
The UT to Rush Fork site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches have cleared banks with a mix of small scattered
trees and stands of invasive species located at the top of bank in non-grazed areas. Currently, the project
reaches are unstable, incised, and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access.
Baker conducted a review of the project area using the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (USDA NRCS) Web Soil Survey. The following Farmland Classification Report
and Map outlines the soils that are present within the proposed conservation easement. Based on the data
determined from this review,there are a total of 7.0 acres of Prime Farmland within the project area.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this project or need any additional
information. I can be reached at(704) 579-4828 or via my email address at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
//9"i"
/
Kristi Suggs
Enclosures: USGS Topographic Map
NRCS Farmland Classification Report&Map
FFPA Form AD-1006
Cc: File
MBAKERINTL.COM Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Hill Avenue
Suite 300,Room 318
Charlotte,NC 282771 Office:704.665.2200

Farmland Classification—Haywood County Area, North Carolina
P, (UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project) co
324100 324200 324300 324400 324500 324600 324700
35°38'57"N - - -, I 35°38'57"N
701......itit\
.i 9-, '. 7s02...-411tyltill— - _. ....,
.r
-7.- '7 -jit,- .kil'7, ' '• '..:af- . ‘
J.
6
4,.....*.4-- •r_. ' 1, r .
_ -. . .. -r , SdC a ,<SdD.
�� 1 •
SdD
I,.. r• , Cre-7.1" "..-41.-1,0* r.. side
I r _ • -i$ ' _ r
;TP 4
Aroilipt
•
SdC
• r_ - •
f91
'.
- SdC �l
3
._ _ ,i
ir..
...
. ,.• -j.k..::„l...it....,...3.ip:o
F.S.
r
r,
Oon0 Nap may 'licit[bm wand at ithilo amOQ°
•
35°38'25"N o 35°38'25"N
324000 324100 324200 324300 324400 324500 324600 324700
Map Scale:1:4,930 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet.
Meters oO
m N 0 50 100 200 330
AFe�
0 Z00 400 �0 1200
Map projection:Web Mercator Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USon Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2018
001.1 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4

Farmland Classification—Haywood County Area, North Carolina
(UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest(AOI) 0 Prime farmland if r . Prime farmland if ,..w Prime farmland if irrigated . Prime farmland if
0 Area of Interest(AOI) subsoiled,completely protected from flooding or and reclaimed of excess irrigated and drained
removing the root not frequently flooded salts and sodium . Prime farmland if
Soils inhibiting soil layer during the growing Farmland of statewide irrigated and either
Soil Rating Polygons M Prime farmland if irrigated season importance protected from flooding
Not prime farmland and the product of I(soil N . Prime farmland if irrigated Farmland of local or not frequently flooded
0 erodibility)x C(climate during the growing
factor)does not exceed .�_r Prime farmland if drained importance
0 All areas are prime Farmland of uni ue season
Y q
60 and either protected from r
farmland flooding or not frequently importance 0 Prime farmland if
Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if irrigated flooded duringthe subsoiled,completely
0 and reclaimed of excess r Not rated or not available removing the root
0 Prime farmland if salts and sodium growing season
protected from flooding or 0 Farmland of statewide .. Prime farmland if irrigated Soil Rating Points
inhibiting soil layer
and drained Not prime farmland Prime farmland if
not frequently flooded importance irrigated and the product
during the growing Farmland of local +'✓ Prime farmland if irrigated ■ All areas are prime of I(soil erodibility)x C
season and either protected from (climate factor)does not
importance farmland
Prime farmland if irrigated flooding or not frequently exceed 60
0 Farmland of unique flooded during the • Prime farmland if drained
0 Prime farmland if drained importance growing season . Prime farmland if
� Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed
and either protected from 0 Not rated or not available r Prime farmland if protected from flooding or of excess salts and
flooding or not frequently subsoiled,completely sodium
flooded during the Soil Rating Lines removing the root not frequently flooded
growing season ,.y Not prime farmland inhibiting soil layer seasg the growing Farmlan of statewide
season importance
- Prime farmland if irrigated ,.y Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained rV All areas are prime 0 Prime farmland if irrigated Farmland of local
farmland and the product of I(soil importance
0 Prime farmland if irrigated erodibility)x C(climate 0 Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from 0.6.0 Prime farmland if drained factor)does not exceed and either protected from . Farmland of unique
flooding or not frequently 60 flooding or not frequently importance
flooded during the flooded during the 0 Not rated or not
growing season growing season available
Water Features
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2018
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4

Farmland Classification—Haywood County Area, North Carolina
(UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project)
MAP INFORMATION
Streams and Canals The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:12,000.
Transportation
-.-f Rails Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
owl Interstate Highways Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
US Routes misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
Major Roads contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
• Local Roads scale.
Background Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Aerial Photography measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s)listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Haywood County Area, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Oct 3,2017
Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Nov 23,2011—Nov
28,2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
uson Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2018
140 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4

Farmland Classification—Haywood County Area, North Carolina UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation
Project
Farmland Classification
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
EdF Edneyville-Chestnut Not prime farmland 0.0 0.0%
complex,50 to 95
percent slopes,stony
SdC Saunook loam,8 to 15 Farmland of statewide 6.0 85.1%
percent slopes,stony importance
SdD Saunook loam, 15 to 30 Farmland of local 1.0 14.9%
percent slopes,stony importance
Totals for Area of Interest 7.0 100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It
identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed,
fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and
unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21,
January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie-break Rule: Lower
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2018
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 6/5/2018
Name of Project UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Projec Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Mitigation County and State Haywood CO, NC
PART II(To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By Pe,on Completing F r
NRCS 6/5/2018 Milton ortes NC NRCS
Does the site contain Prime, Unique,Statewide or Local Important Farmland? YES NO Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no,the FPPA does not apply-do not complete additional parts of this form) n n none 82 acres
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt.Jurisdiction Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
CORN Acres: 41.3% % 89,523 acres Acres: 28.1%pro 74,865 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used Name of State or Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
Haywood Co. NC LESA N/A June 28, 2018 by eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A.Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 7.0
B.Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0
C.Total Acres In Site 7.0
PART IV(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 0
B.Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland 7
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.0094
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 6.3%
PART V(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 83
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted(Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria Maximum Site A Site B Site C Site D
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b.For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106) Points
1. Area In Non-urban Use (15) 15
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10) 10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20) 20
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20) 20
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15) 15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15) 15
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10) 5
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10) 0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5) 4
10.On-Farm Investments (20) 10
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10) 0
12.Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10) 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 114 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 83 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment(From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160 114 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 197 0 0 0
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected:A Date Of Selection 7/16/2018 YESr1 NO n
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: FHWA Date:7/16/2018
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006(03-02)

Michael Baker We Make a Difference
ference
INTERNATIONAL
June 5, 2018
NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Attn: Andrea Leslie,Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator
645 Fish Hatchery Rd., Building B
Marion,NC 28752
Email: [e-mail]
RE: Categorical Exclusion Project Review Request
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project,Haywood County,NC
NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID #100068
French Broad River Basin(06010106)
Dear Ms. Leslie:
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc. (Baker) respectfully requests review and comment from the NC Wildlife
Resource Commission (WRC) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the
implementation of the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is in support
of the development of the Categorical Exclusion(CE)for the referenced project.
The project area is located in the Crabtree Community in Haywood County,North Carolina approximately
3 miles south of the Township of Fines Creek. The project is located on the United States Geological
Survey's(USGS)Fines Creek Topographic Quadrangle. The center of the project area is located at 35.6446
N and-82.9402 W. The project site flows southwesterly and is bisected by Rush Fork Road approximately
1.8 miles north of its intersection with Silvers Coves Road.
The UT to Rush Fork site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches have cleared banks with a mix of small scattered
trees and stands of invasive species located at the top of bank in non-grazed areas. Currently, the project
reaches are unstable, incised, and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,300 LF of existing stream.
A Best Management Practice (BMP)will also be implemented at the head of one of the tributaries to treat
nutrient and sediment laden run-off from the surrounding pasture area. Degraded riparian wetlands will
be restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion,
and native riparian buffer plantings. At this time, no wetland credit is being sought for the project. A
conservation easement will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 30 feet from the top
of bank and will incorporate existing functional wetlands. The conservation easement will protect the
entire project area in perpetuity. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with
permanent fencing.
Data Review and Analysis
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) conducted an on-line review of the project area with the use of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)IPAC website(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/),on May
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
M B A K E R I N T L.C O M Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Hill Ave.,Ste.300 Office 318
Charlotte,NC 282771 Office:704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
ference
21, 2018. This review generated an Official Species List(OSL),which identifies threatened, endangered,
proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur
within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by proposed project. Results from
review, found the following nine federally listed species. No USFWS designated critical habitats were
located within the project boundaries.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Endangered
Myotis grisescens Gray Bat Endangered
Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Endangered
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat Threatened
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian Elktoe Endangered
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir Moss Spider Endangered
Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia Threatened
Geum radiatum Spreading Avens Endangered
Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen Endangered
On May 22,2018,Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP)
Data Explorer(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/). Results from this search and found no known occurrences
of any of the above referenced species within two miles of the project site.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May-October
The endangered Carolina northern flying squirrel is a subspecies of the northern flying squirrel. The
northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal gliding mammal usually 10 to 12 inches in length and 3-5
ounces in weight. It possesses a long, broad, flattened tail which encompasses approximate 80 percent of
head and body length, prominent eyes, and dense, silky fur. The broad tail and folds of skin between the
wrist and ankle form the aerodynamic surface used for gliding. Adults are gray with a brownish, tan, or
reddish wash on the back, and their fur fades to a buff white on the belly.
There are several isolated populations of the Carolina northern flying squirrel in the mountains of North
Carolina and are typically found in areas where northern hardwoods, such as yellow birch, beech, maple,
hemlock, red oak, and buckeye, are adjacent to the higher-elevation, typically at elevations greater than
4,500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), red spruce-Fraser fir forests. In some instances, the squirrels
may be found on narrow,north-facing valleys greater than 4,000 feet AMSL. Both forest types are used to
search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. Mature forests with a thick evergreen
understory and numerous snags are most preferable. In winter, squirrels inhabit tree cavities in older
hardwoods,particularly yellow birch.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Myotis grisescens(Gray Bat)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May15-August 15 (summer); January 15-February 15 (winter)
The gray bat is the largest member of its genus in the eastern United States, and is easily distinguishable
from all other bats within its range by its mono-colored fur. Following molt in July or August, gray bats
are dark gray, but they often bleach to chestnut brown or russet between molts (especially apparent in
reproductive females during May and June). The wing membrane connects to the foot at the ankle rather
than at the base of the first toe, as in other species of Myotis.

We Make a Difference
ference
Gray bats roost predominantly in caves year-round. Most winter caves are deep and vertical, while cave
types vary during the spring and fall transient periods. In summer,maternity colonies prefer caves that act
as warm air traps or that provide restricted rooms or domed ceilings that are capable of trapping the
combined body heat from thousands of clustered individuals,and are located within one half mile of a river
or reservoir,which provides foraging habitat.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Myotis sodalist(Indiana Bat)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May15 -August 15 (summer)
The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat,with a head and body length ranging from 1.6— 1.9 in. The species
closely resembles the little brown bat (Myotis lucgus) and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). Its hind feet tend to be small and delicate with fewer, shorter hairs than other bats of the
Myotis genus.The fur lacks luster.The ears and wing membranes have a dull appearance and flat coloration
that does not contrast with the fur. The fur of the chest and belly is lighter than the pinkish-brown fur on
the back,but does not contrast as strongly as does that of the little brown or northern long-eared bats.
Indiana bats winter in caves or mines with stable, but not freezing, cold temperatures. In summer they
generally roost in the loose bark of trees,either dead trees with peeling bark,or live trees with shaggy bark,
such as white oak and some hickories.
Known current Indiana bat distributions occur in Haywood County. Critical Habitat for the Indiana Bat
was designated on September 24, 1976. Based on the IPAC Official Species List generated,the project lies
outside the critical habitat. Additionally, a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's
Data Explorer (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018 found no known occurrences of the
Indiana bat within two miles of the Project site.
Myotis septentrionalis(Northern long-eared bat)—Threatened
In North Carolina,the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in
the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and
mines. Since this species is not known to be a long-distance migrant,and caves and subterranean mines are
extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC.
During the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both
live and dead trees (typically>3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like
barns and sheds,under eaves of buildings,behind window shutters, in bridges,and in bat houses. Pregnant
females give birth from late May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and
occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an
important habitat type for foraging.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species and the project site is located outside of a watershed
where NLEB maternity trees or hibernation sites are known to occur. Additionally,a two-mile radius search
using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018
found no known occurrences of the NLEB within two miles of the Project site.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian Elktoe)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: year round
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, kidney-shaped shell, extending to about 4 inches. Juveniles generally
have a yellowish-brown outer shell surface,while the adults outer shell is usually dark brown to greenish-

We Make a Difference
ference
black. Although rays are prominent on some shells,particularly in the posterior portion of the shell,many
individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The inside shell surface is shiny, often white to bluish-white,
changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell; some
specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches.
The species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, clean,
well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and
shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with
cobble,boulders, and/or bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe,
and the species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or
cobble. Additional factors known to have contributed to the decline and loss of populations of the
Appalachian elktoe and threaten the remaining populations include habitat loss and alteration associated
with impoundments, channelization, and dredging operations; and the run-off of silt, fertilizers,pesticides,
and other pollutants from poorly implemented land-use/farm related activities.
Known current Appalachian elktoe distributions occur in Haywood County as well as in portions of the
Pigeon River system. Critical Habitat for the Appalachian elktoe was designated on September 27,2002.
Based on the IPAC Official Species List generated,the project lies outside the critical habitat.Additionally,
a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018 found no known occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe
within two miles of the Project site.
Microhexura montivaga (Spruce-fir Moss Spider)—Endangered
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May -August
The spruce-fir moss spider is one of the smallest members of the primitive suborder of spiders popularly
referred to as "tarantulas." Adults of this species measure only 0.10 to 0.15 inch (about the size of a BB).
Coloration of the spruce-fir moss spider ranges from light brown to yellow-brown to a darker reddish
brown, and there are no markings on its abdomen. This species is lives on the highest mountain peaks in
spruce-fir forests of the Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and
southwest Virginia. The spruce-fir moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders.These mats are found in well-shaded areas in mature,high elevation(>5,000 feet AMSL)
Fraser fir and red spruce forests. The spruce-fir moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and requires
environments of high and constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss mats,which cannot
become too parched or else the mats become dry and loose. Likewise, the moss mats cannot be too wet
because large drops of water can also pose a threat to the spider.The spider constructs its tube-shaped webs
in the interface between the moss mat and the rock surface. Some webs have been found to extend into the
interior of the moss mat.
Critical Habitat for the Spruce-fir Moss Spider was designated on July 6,2001. Based on the IPAC Official
Species List generated,the project lies outside the critical habitat.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia)—Threatened
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: mid-May—early July
Small whorled pogonia is a member of the orchid family and blooms from Mid-May through Early-July.
It is named for the whorl of five or six leaves near the top of a single stem and beneath the small greenish-
yellow flower. The plant occurs in predominantly mature (2nd or 3rd successional growth) mixed-
deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests with minimal ground cover and long persistent breaks in
the forest canopy. The species prefers moist, acidic soils that lack nutrient diversity. Primary threats to

We Make a Difference
ference
the small whorled pogonia include habitat loss and degradation from commercial and residential
development, forestry practices, recreational activities,and trampling.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Geum radiatum (Spreading Avens) - Endangered
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June - September
Spreading avens is a tall perennial herb(eight to 20 inches)in the rose family. Its distinctive bright yellow
flowers (generally up to 1 inch across) appear from June through September, and fruits form and ripen
from August through October. Spreading avens is known to occur only on high mountain peaks in Western
North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee. This species grows in full sun on the shallow acidic soils of high-
elevation cliffs(above 4,200 feet),rocky outcrops, steep slopes,and on gravelly talus. This perennial herb
also occurs in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops. The species prefers a northwest
aspect, but can be found on west-southwest through north-northeast aspects. Forests surrounding known
occurrences are generally dominated by either red spruce-Fraser fir, northern hardwoods with scattered
spruce, or high-elevation red oaks. Spreading avens typically occurs in shallow, acidic soil (such as the
Burton series) in cracks and crevices of igneous, metamorphic, or metasedimentary rocks. Soils may be
well drained but almost continuously wet, with soils at some known occurrences subject to drying out in
summer due to exposure to sun and shallow depths. Known populations occur at elevations ranging from
4,296 to 6,268 feet AMSL.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Gymnoderma lineare(Rock Gnome Lichen)—Endangered
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year round
The rock gnome lichen occurs in dense colonies of narrow strap-like lobes that are about 1 millimeter
across and generally one to two centimeters long. These lobes are blue gray on the terminal upper surface,
and generally shiny white on the lower surface, grading to black near the base. Fruiting bodies are black
and have been found from July through September on the tips of these lobes;however,the primary means
of propagation appears to be asexual,with colonies spreading clonally. The rock gnome lichen occurs in
high elevation coniferous forests (particularly those dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir) usually on
rocky outcrop or cliff habitats. This squamulose lichen only grows in areas with a great deal of humidity,
such as high elevations greater than 5,000 feet AMSL where there is often fog, or on boulders and large
outcrops in deep river gorges at lower elevations. Habitat is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times.The species requires a moderate amount
of sunlight,but cannot tolerate high-intensity solar radiation.The lichen does well on moist,generally open
sites with northern exposures,but requires at least partial canopy coverage on southern or western aspects
because of its intolerance to high solar radiation.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that may arise with respect to the endangered species,
migratory birds or other natural resources from the construction of the proposed project. The following
additional supporting documentation has been included for reference: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic
Map, and Project Site Map. If Baker has not received response from you within 30 days,we will assume
that the NCWRC does not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project
at the current time.

We Make a Difference
We thank you in advance for your timely response,input, and cooperation. Please contact me if you have
any further questions or comments. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
% S,1-/
Kristi Suggs
Cc: File
Enclosures

Michael Baker We Make a Difference
ference
INTERNATIONAL
June 4, 2018
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
Attn: Marella Buncick, Endangered Species Biologist
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville,NC 28801
RE: Categorical Exclusion for UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project,Haywood County,NC
NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID #100068,French Broad River Basin(06010106)
IPAC Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2018-SLI-0426
Dear Ms. Buncick:
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc. (Baker) respectfully requests review and comment from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the implementation
of the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is in support of the
development of the Categorical Exclusion(CE)for the referenced project.
The project area is located in the Crabtree Community in Haywood County,North Carolina approximately
3 miles south of the Township of Fines Creek. The project is located on the United States Geological
Survey's(USGS)Fines Creek Topographic Quadrangle. The center of the project area is located at 35.6446
N and-82.9402 W. The project site flows southwesterly and is bisected by Rush Fork Road approximately
1.8 miles north of its intersection with Silvers Coves Road.
The UT to Rush Fork site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches have cleared banks with a mix of small scattered
trees and stands of invasive species located at the top of bank in non-grazed areas. Currently, the project
reaches are unstable, incised, and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,300 LF of existing stream.
A Best Management Practice (BMP)will also be implemented at the head of one of the tributaries to treat
nutrient and sediment laden run-off from the surrounding pasture area. Degraded riparian wetlands will
be restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion,
and native riparian buffer plantings. At this time, no wetland credit is being sought for the project. A
conservation easement will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 30 feet from the top
of bank and will incorporate existing functional wetlands. The conservation easement will protect the
entire project area in perpetuity. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with
permanent fencing.
Data Review and Analysis
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) conducted an on-line review of the project area with the use of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)IPAC website(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/),on May
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
M B A K E R I N T L.C O M Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Hill Ave.,Ste.300 Office 318
Charlotte,NC 282771 Office:704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
ference
21, 2018. This review generated an Official Species List(OSL),which identifies threatened, endangered,
proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur
within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by proposed project. Results from
review, found the following nine federally listed species. No USFWS designated critical habitats were
located within the project boundaries.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Endangered
Myotis grisescens Gray Bat Endangered
Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Endangered
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat Threatened
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian Elktoe Endangered
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir Moss Spider Endangered
Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia Threatened
Geum radiatum Spreading Avens Endangered
Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen Endangered
On May 22,2018,Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP)
Data Explorer(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/). Results from this search and found no known occurrences
of any of the above referenced species within two miles of the project site.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus(Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May-October
The endangered Carolina northern flying squirrel is a subspecies of the northern flying squirrel. The
northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal gliding mammal usually 10 to 12 inches in length and 3-5
ounces in weight. It possesses a long, broad, flattened tail which encompasses approximate 80 percent of
head and body length, prominent eyes, and dense, silky fur. The broad tail and folds of skin between the
wrist and ankle form the aerodynamic surface used for gliding. Adults are gray with a brownish, tan, or
reddish wash on the back, and their fur fades to a buff white on the belly.
There are several isolated populations of the Carolina northern flying squirrel in the mountains of North
Carolina and are typically found in areas where northern hardwoods, such as yellow birch, beech, maple,
hemlock, red oak, and buckeye, are adjacent to the higher-elevation, typically at elevations greater than
4,500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), red spruce-Fraser fir forests. In some instances, the squirrels
may be found on narrow,north-facing valleys greater than 4,000 feet AMSL. Both forest types are used to
search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. Mature forests with a thick evergreen
understory and numerous snags are most preferable. In winter, squirrels inhabit tree cavities in older
hardwoods,particularly yellow birch.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Myotis grisescens(Gray Bat)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May15-August 15 (summer); January 15-February 15 (winter)
The gray bat is the largest member of its genus in the eastern United States, and is easily distinguishable
from all other bats within its range by its mono-colored fur. Following molt in July or August, gray bats
are dark gray, but they often bleach to chestnut brown or russet between molts (especially apparent in
reproductive females during May and June). The wing membrane connects to the foot at the ankle rather
than at the base of the first toe, as in other species of Myotis.

We Make a Difference
ference
Gray bats roost predominantly in caves year-round. Most winter caves are deep and vertical, while cave
types vary during the spring and fall transient periods. In summer,maternity colonies prefer caves that act
as warm air traps or that provide restricted rooms or domed ceilings that are capable of trapping the
combined body heat from thousands of clustered individuals,and are located within one half mile of a river
or reservoir,which provides foraging habitat.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Myotis sodalist(Indiana Bat)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: May15 -August 15 (summer)
The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat,with a head and body length ranging from 1.6— 1.9 in. The species
closely resembles the little brown bat (Myotis lucgus) and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). Its hind feet tend to be small and delicate with fewer, shorter hairs than other bats of the
Myotis genus.The fur lacks luster.The ears and wing membranes have a dull appearance and flat coloration
that does not contrast with the fur. The fur of the chest and belly is lighter than the pinkish-brown fur on
the back,but does not contrast as strongly as does that of the little brown or northern long-eared bats.
Indiana bats winter in caves or mines with stable, but not freezing, cold temperatures. In summer they
generally roost in the loose bark of trees,either dead trees with peeling bark,or live trees with shaggy bark,
such as white oak and some hickories.
Known current Indiana bat distributions occur in Haywood County. Critical Habitat for the Indiana Bat
was designated on September 24, 1976. Based on the IPAC Official Species List generated,the project lies
outside the critical habitat. Additionally, a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's
Data Explorer (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018 found no known occurrences of the
Indiana bat within two miles of the Project site.
Myotis septentrionalis(Northern long-eared bat)—Threatened
In North Carolina,the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in
the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and
mines. Since this species is not known to be a long-distance migrant,and caves and subterranean mines are
extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC.
During the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both
live and dead trees (typically>3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like
barns and sheds,under eaves of buildings,behind window shutters, in bridges,and in bat houses. Pregnant
females give birth from late May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and
occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an
important habitat type for foraging.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species and the project site is located outside of a watershed
where NLEB maternity trees or hibernation sites are known to occur. Additionally,a two-mile radius search
using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018
found no known occurrences of the NLEB within two miles of the Project site.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian Elktoe)—Endangered
USFWS optimal survey window: year round
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, kidney-shaped shell, extending to about 4 inches. Juveniles generally
have a yellowish-brown outer shell surface,while the adults outer shell is usually dark brown to greenish-

We Make a Difference
ference
black. Although rays are prominent on some shells,particularly in the posterior portion of the shell,many
individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The inside shell surface is shiny, often white to bluish-white,
changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell; some
specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches.
The species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, clean,
well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and
shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with
cobble,boulders, and/or bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe,
and the species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or
cobble. Additional factors known to have contributed to the decline and loss of populations of the
Appalachian elktoe and threaten the remaining populations include habitat loss and alteration associated
with impoundments, channelization,and dredging operations; and the run-off of silt, fertilizers,pesticides,
and other pollutants from poorly implemented land-use/farm related activities.
Known current Appalachian elktoe distributions occur in Haywood County as well as in portions of the
Pigeon River system. Critical Habitat for the Appalachian elktoe was designated on September 27,2002.
Based on the IPAC Official Species List generated,the project lies outside the critical habitat.Additionally,
a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on May 22, 2018 found no known occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe
within two miles of the Project site.
Microhexura montivaga (Spruce-fir Moss Spider)—Endangered
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May -August
The spruce-fir moss spider is one of the smallest members of the primitive suborder of spiders popularly
referred to as "tarantulas." Adults of this species measure only 0.10 to 0.15 inch (about the size of a BB).
Coloration of the spruce-fir moss spider ranges from light brown to yellow-brown to a darker reddish
brown, and there are no markings on its abdomen. This species is lives on the highest mountain peaks in
spruce-fir forests of the Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and
southwest Virginia. The spruce-fir moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders.These mats are found in well-shaded areas in mature,high elevation(>5,000 feet AMSL)
Fraser fir and red spruce forests. The spruce-fir moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and requires
environments of high and constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss mats,which cannot
become too parched or else the mats become dry and loose. Likewise, the moss mats cannot be too wet
because large drops of water can also pose a threat to the spider.The spider constructs its tube-shaped webs
in the interface between the moss mat and the rock surface. Some webs have been found to extend into the
interior of the moss mat.
Critical Habitat for the Spruce-fir Moss Spider was designated on July 6,2001. Based on the IPAC Official
Species List generated,the project lies outside the critical habitat.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia)—Threatened
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: mid-May—early July
Small whorled pogonia is a member of the orchid family and blooms from Mid-May through Early-July.
It is named for the whorl of five or six leaves near the top of a single stem and beneath the small greenish-
yellow flower. The plant occurs in predominantly mature (2nd or 3rd successional growth) mixed-
deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests with minimal ground cover and long persistent breaks in
the forest canopy. The species prefers moist, acidic soils that lack nutrient diversity. Primary threats to

We Make a Difference
ference
the small whorled pogonia include habitat loss and degradation from commercial and residential
development, forestry practices, recreational activities,and trampling.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Geum radiatum (Spreading Avens) - Endangered
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June - September
Spreading avens is a tall perennial herb(eight to 20 inches)in the rose family. Its distinctive bright yellow
flowers (generally up to 1 inch across) appear from June through September, and fruits form and ripen
from August through October. Spreading avens is known to occur only on high mountain peaks in Western
North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee. This species grows in full sun on the shallow acidic soils of high-
elevation cliffs(above 4,200 feet),rocky outcrops, steep slopes,and on gravelly talus. This perennial herb
also occurs in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops. The species prefers a northwest
aspect, but can be found on west-southwest through north-northeast aspects. Forests surrounding known
occurrences are generally dominated by either red spruce-Fraser fir, northern hardwoods with scattered
spruce, or high-elevation red oaks. Spreading avens typically occurs in shallow, acidic soil (such as the
Burton series) in cracks and crevices of igneous, metamorphic, or metasedimentary rocks. Soils may be
well drained but almost continuously wet, with soils at some known occurrences subject to drying out in
summer due to exposure to sun and shallow depths. Known populations occur at elevations ranging from
4,296 to 6,268 feet AMSL.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Gymnoderma lineare(Rock Gnome Lichen)—Endangered
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year round
The rock gnome lichen occurs in dense colonies of narrow strap-like lobes that are about 1 millimeter
across and generally one to two centimeters long. These lobes are blue gray on the terminal upper surface,
and generally shiny white on the lower surface, grading to black near the base. Fruiting bodies are black
and have been found from July through September on the tips of these lobes;however,the primary means
of propagation appears to be asexual,with colonies spreading clonally. The rock gnome lichen occurs in
high elevation coniferous forests (particularly those dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir) usually on
rocky outcrop or cliff habitats. This squamulose lichen only grows in areas with a great deal of humidity,
such as high elevations greater than 5,000 feet AMSL where there is often fog, or on boulders and large
outcrops in deep river gorges at lower elevations. Habitat is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times.The species requires a moderate amount
of sunlight,but cannot tolerate high-intensity solar radiation.The lichen does well on moist,generally open
sites with northern exposures,but requires at least partial canopy coverage on southern or western aspects
because of its intolerance to high solar radiation.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that may arise with respect to the endangered species,
migratory birds or other natural resources from the construction of the proposed project. The following
additional supporting documentation has been included for reference: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic
Map, and Project Site Map. If Baker has not received response from you within 30 days,we will assume
that the USFWS does not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project
at the current time.

We Make a Difference
We thank you in advance for your timely response,input, and cooperation. Please contact me if you have
any further questions or comments. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
% S,1-/
Kristi Suggs
Cc: File
Enclosures

3 ,,,•� " - �
i • - r- ■ _
R t• _
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K>
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
June 14, 2018
Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker International
15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Suite 300, Office 318
Charlotte,NC 28277
SUBJECT: UT Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
UTs to Rush Fork,Haywood County
Dear Ms. Suggs:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC)received your June 5,
2018 letter regarding plans for a stream restoration project on unnamed tributaries (UTs)to Rush Fork in
Haywood County.You requested review and comment on the project. Our comments on this project are
offered for your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.)
and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat. 401,as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The project will involve restoration and enhancement on 5,300 ft of stream. It is anticipated that
degraded riparian wetlands will be restored or enhanced with the Priority 1 stream restoration strategy.
Cattle will be fenced from the easement.
We do not anticipate impacts to wild trout, and a moratorium will likely not need to be observed.
We recommend that riparian buffers that are to be reestablished be as wide as possible,given site
constraints and landowner needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on
perennial streams in order to maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading,
treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at(828) 803-
6054 if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh,NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

APPENDIX J: CORRESPONDENCE MEMOS

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Memo Regarding UT to Rush Fork Creek Post Contract IRT Field Meeting
Memo Date: 8/9/18
Meeting Held: 8/1/18 from 1:30 to 4:00 P.M.
Attendees:
David Brown (Corps of Engineers), Periann Russell (DMS),
Todd Tugwell (Corps of Engineers), Tim Bumgarner(DMS),
Mac Haupt (DWR) Micky Clemmons (Michael Baker),
Paul Wiesner(DMS), Katie McKeithan (Michael Baker), and
Matthew Reid (DMS), Russell Myers (Michael Baker).
Meeting Minutes:
This memo and all responses will be included in the Mitigation Plan to serve as a record of field
discussions including crediting ratios and approaches.
The following provides a summary of procedures, discussions, and conclusions reached by the group.
The group met at a pull-off on Highway 209 (Rush Fork Road), near the gate into the northern reach. A
general site overview and map orientation was provided by Micky.The group walked through the gate
into the northern section and moved from the confluence of UT4 upstream along UT1. There was an
explanation that UT4 has a few SMUs associated with restoring the confluence of this stream to UT1
after it is restored. The rest of UT4 will have livestock fenced out but will not be included in the
easement. The group continued up UT1. We stopped and looked at a section where the stream had
meandered against a steep bank and Mac made the observation that substrate was in a good condition
at that point. He also asked what Baker's thoughts were relative to restoration there and Micky
responded that our thoughts were to move the channel away from the steep bank to the extent that we
could construct a bankfull bench.
We continued upstream stopping at the confluence of UT2. Todd asked about the location of UT2
relative to the road and if the water flowing along the fence below the road on the Collier property was
part of it. Micky explained that UT2 flows down the Kirkpatrick side of the old road and then enters the
Collier property through a culvert under the road. It then flows along and in a patch of Multiflora rose,
to a confluence with UT1. Micky also pointed out that the easement on the left bank of UT1 would be
wider than 30' since it would run from the channel to the existing fence on the property line. The group
continued upstream to the fence below the old road crossing. Micky pointed out the break locations
between the proposed Ell, El and restoration sections. Mac and Todd indicated that they were having a
difficult time seeing a difference between the restoration area above the confluence with UT3 and the
enhancement areas. Micky pointed out the incised channel and indicated that the vegetation present at
the time of the visit was masking the instability along the banks. He indicated that DMS staff had seen it
when it was much worse. The group did not feel that they needed to proceed across the fence into the

El area at the top of the project reach on UT1 and were satisfied with the plan for this area. Todd asked
about the possibility of removing the road so that the stream bed and banks would be continuous and
Micky explained that the landowner required that a culvert be placed at that location to maintain access
to his property. The group proceeded back down UT1 and across the pasture to walk up UT3.
The group continued up UT3 observing channel conditions and stopped above the proposed restoration
reach and along the stream bank at the lower end of the proposed El reach. Mac asked what was
planned for this El reach. Micky explained that in this area there would be grade control structures
installed, the channel would be brought up in elevation,the crabapples would be removed and native
vegetation planted. Mac indicated, and Todd agreed, that this area appeared to need restoration more
than the area on the upper reach of UT1. We then walked to the upper end of UT3 where Micky
pointed out the point that the reach was considered to be perennial and that there were indicators of
flow above this point but that it was most likely intermittent. Mac and others walked up above the
indicated perennial point and suggested that Baker may want to reconsider where the reach ended or at
least where the easement and fence might end to capture any areas that could contribute significant
sediment and nutrients to the reach. Micky pointed out the location of a planned BMP at the lower end
of a swale (abandoned roadbed) that runs along the toe of the Hwy 209 slope. The group then walked
back down UT3 noting the location of possible wetland areas along the banks of the reach. It was
suggested that as much of the wetland areas as possible be included in the conservation easement. At
the lower end of the reach Micky pointed out the changes in slope along this reach and how the stream
flow appeared to be moving to the left bank in one area where the valley was slightly lower. The group
then continued down UT1. Micky pointed out to Mac areas that he considered unstable and incised in
the area around the confluence of UT3 and UT1. Mac indicated that he could see a need for restoration
in this area. Todd indicated that he was concerned that this same area may not rise to the level of need
for restoration. We looked at UT1 down to below the entrance gate along the wetland areas noting
erosion and headcuts in that area.
The group then walked down Hwy 209 to the southern parcel where UT1 continued. Micky asked Todd
to look at the upper area of this reach from Hwy 209 to consider what would be impacted by the utility
right-of-way. Micky acknowledged that this area would not have the full buffer width and said that we
had accounted for that in our 5% calculation. Micky's question to him was, "would it be better to
include this area in the easement, even though it would not generate credit, or leave it out and seek to
exclude livestock by a fence". Todd indicated that he would prefer to see it not included in the
conservation easement since he was seeing issues arise in locations where NCDOT was expanding
roadway widths and taking areas where mitigation work had been done. Micky indicated Baker would
utilize his advice at this location. The group continued down this lower reach noting incision, erosion
and lack of buffer vegetation. At the lower end of the reach the group stopped to summarize thoughts
on what they had seen and recommendations on how Baker should proceed. These ideas are
summarized in the bullets below:
• The IRT accepted the proposed approach on UT1-R1, UT1-R2, UT1-R3 (above utility crossing), UT2
and UT4.
• The IRT does not agree with the proposed approach for the upper part of UT1-R4 (from the lower
end of the utility right-of-way to the confluence with UT3) and feels this should not be restoration.
They would like for Baker to pursue an El approach for this reach. Baker accepts this assessment
and will plan accordingly. This reach is now shown as an extension of UT1-R3 on the map from the

lower end of the utility Right of Way to the confluence with UT3. The previous location of the end
point of this reach is shown on the attached map.
• The IRT accepted the proposed restoration approach from the confluence of UT1 and UT3
downstream to the end of the project. It was noted that separating UT1-R4 as indicated above was
a compromise among IRT members regarding the best approach for this reach.
• The IRT accepted the proposed restoration approach on UT3-R2 with the following additional
comments on this reach:
➢ The reach will receive no credit if it becomes a wetland and compensation for credits may be
withheld.They need to see in the monitoring reports that the channel is remaining stable.The
restored stream will need to have a defined bed and bank and will need to be a considered
jurisdictional stream to receive mitigation stream credit.
➢ Baker is encouraged to include as many of the wetland areas as possible within the
conservation easement.
➢ Baker needs to look at the potential impact of restoring the stream channel on existing
wetlands. These impacts can be quantified as the total wetland area minus the stream channel
area that would be planned within the jurisdictional area. Work with David Brown on the PJD.
➢ The IRT stated that anticipated wetland impacts would need to be identified in the PCN. This
was a point of discussion on UT3 due to the linear wetland/s observed on this reach. The final
PJD submittal will need to identify all jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The PCN will need to
be submitted accordingly after the final mitigation plan is approved.
• The IRT recommended that Baker pursue a restoration approach on UT3-R1 rather than an El
approach. Baker accepts this assessment and will plan accordingly. Because UT3-R2 and UT3-R1
are both now restoration reaches (see previous break on the attached map) they have been
combined on the attached map and considered one reach called UT3.
• Baker will look at the upstream terminus of UT3 and place the end of the reach and fence in a
location that balances the best protection of the downstream resources with other considerations
such as cost. If the reach is extended to take in areas of intermittent flow this area will be treated
as Ell. We will consider a flow gauge if this area is added.
• There were no recommendations on the proposed BMP and it was acceptable as proposed.
The proposed approaches and ratios for each reach are provided in the following Table 1 and in the
attached map (Attachment A). These are the approaches and ratios agreed upon at this IRT field visit
and will be utilized in the mitigation plan and throughout the life of the project. Baker and DMS
understand that the final design approach and crediting rationale must be justified in the mitigation
plan.

Reach Name Approach Approximate Length (LF) Ratio Credits
UT1-R1 El 160 1.5:1 107
UT1-R2 Ell 275 2.5:1 110
UT1-R3 El 621 1.5:1 414
UT1-R4 R 1319 1:1 1319
UT2 Ell 90 2.5:1 36
UT3 R 1556 1:1 1556
UT4 R 12 1:1 12
Total 4,033* 3,554
*Actual stream footage will likely change when a survey is completed.
Please let me know if you feel any of the above information is not presented as discussed in the field.
Sincerely,
Micky Clemmons, PM

Proposed Mitigation Features Option A - N
Mitigation •'.'*
Reach Approach Length (ft.) Credits L_.
f.
UT1 R1 El 160 107 Proposed BMP •
UT1 R2 ElI 275 110 `.,.. c*:
UT1 R3 El 621 414 '
-\,N
UT1 R4 R 1319 1319 ti
)\.,
UT2 ElI 90 36 R '
UT3 R 1556 1556 s'' r �,.. ...
UT4 R 12 12 `.' ,
Total Footage for Credit 4033III
,•,,..,
Restoration 1331 2887 . *•-' '
Previous EI/R break between
Enhancement I 2337 521 "06 UT3-R1 and UT3-R2
Enhancement II 365 146 " '
Total Credits 3554
Notes: 't -
After the Post-Contract IRT Site Visit, '
reaches UT3-1 and UT3-2 were combined into one
reach, UT3. This entire reach is now Restoration. /17 ` `• \ rrEn
i •
The section of UT1-R4 between UT1-R3 and the ,!, i.-
confluence with UT3 was changed from R to El.This • •
section was combined into one reach with UT1-R3.
v ' .
Additional fencing will be constructed upstream of UT4 . , SW' ..... •
and the lower section of UT1-R4. Cattle will be excluded �,'" 4, 4• , a. .T1, '
from these areas but they will not be contained within the " w ! ' Previous EI/R break between
conservation easement. +•i '..y- • „}; UT1-R4 and UT1-R3 i
+ ,. • am /' t h` 16 _ X'- •F T/ , }'r,',.. y.;P ,r
��iii (Previously UT1 R4)
r •
r a' • .i i
' '� �,I:m • M Proposed BMP
. . z' Additional Fencing
t•..
# II Proposed CE
T Mitigation Approach
e' 1". °1_ •' Restoration
f J�• .
* ce Enhancement I
g. Enhancement II
`I.% — No Credit
4:=' a:: c s
�. i Parcel Boundaries
North Carolina Attachment A
Michael Baker Division of 0 175 350 700 Proposed Mitigation Features
Mitigation Services Feet Post-Contract IRT Site Visit
INTERNATIONAL DMS Proj.No.100068 1 inch = 350 feet UT to Rush Fork-Option A
Mitigation Project

APPENDIX K: PLAN SHEETS

�r� e.
STATE NC BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET TOTAL ��
LV r NORTH CAROLINA166680 NO.1 SHEETS
37
z F\NeSGRR° AqT�R DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
�` BETSEYS
ogi124
40E O GAP RD
e-
�� ozT
r�
A 6
n�ti'\ etc
�IP)r. v. ii �y�PSI if
A: V
1Q
2 :01:\I_G:ilzoip°
S� IT PINE CV PROJECT
HAYWOOD COUNTY
�oAREA
mfti :RPN40E ��N
0
LOCATION: FROM EXIT 24 ON INTERSTATE 40, TRAVEL NORTH FOR
Sc"°°`ti° 5. 75 MILES ON NC HWY 209 RUSH FORK ROAD
PANTHER Gqp Cs O
CREEK RD RO F� co' Q- Y
r Ali4 i
GOlu
Lu
PALMER �
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
I POND RD 8
VrHie
44
co
i PP
11%) N.T.S. °�P°�� END UT1 REACH 1
BEGIN UT1 REACH 2
STA. 13+25.00
124 VICINITY MAPdi,_
J , ,
,';` END UT1 REACH 2
BEGIN UT1 REACH 3
BEGIN UT1 REACH 1 STA. 16+00.00
STA. 10+98.02
0
4
INDEX OF SHEETS /
‘il4 , 11 --1
// '� BEGIN UT2 _
1 TITLE SHEET STA. 10+00.00�
I
i
,� END UT2 STA. 10+86.24
1-A STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS i TOB UT1 REACH 3
GENERAL NOTES
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS i f i''
VEGETATION SELECTION c-- / /
i
1 ' ` TOB REACHUT 1REACH 3 & 4
1 B NCDOT CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS _' /
2-2F DETAILS �......
/ �
A A'
' 4
3 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE i 1 / 'Vq
9 1 0 A . END UT4 STA. 10+41.51 b $
4- 11 PLAN VIEW i 11 / I ,/ TOB UT1 REACH 4 3
BEGIN UT3
12- 16 PROFILES ,
STA. 10+00.00 /
i •\
17 BMP DETAIL /7 -- ; \ 61
18-20 RE-VEGEGATION PLAN
EC-1 - EC-4 EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN ai i / f ry \ lk,,\\•\
::..T. zz.z_______ _____.:--- :.-_--------- _ _ _ ... '-- _ -,- \
--.-- ---------- ---- - --1- - --- ----- - '‘**.\ \ ///
----- _ __ -_-_`_ __- __--____ _r- ------l- -----_r I ��� �`
I �-
___------ END UT1 REACH 3
-i -- --------------------------- I BEGIN UT1 REACH 4 ��``.` :;.,, \ v�
I I STA. 22+61.78 /ram � ` N•
II I
II
I I LI •
,.
CC I BEGIN UT4
"`
STA. 10+00.00 ~'�,
\C) - ' ''' k"Z.,1/4, \
III "
�� END UT1 REACH 4
\O i�\ ����".���. STA. 37+91.37
\C) ss, , �� OHO
ilil
a\s'.. **,.,,
\�O
•
•
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
ciii) J
Y MITIGATION SUMMARY Y PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF: Y Y
GRAPHIC SCALES Michael Baker Engineering Inc. PROJECT ENGINEER
Michael Baker 8Cary,RNORTH CArkway, 2756800
111111114 STREAM STREAM STREAM Phone:[phone]
20 0 20 40 REACH RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT I ENHANCEMENT II RATIO CREDITS I N T E R N A T I 0 N A L FLcense#:F-10 40
IiIIL. I NCDEQ
UT] Rl 0 206.20 0 1.5:1 137.467 NC DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
PLANS UT1 R2 0 0 275.00 2.5:1 110.00 217 WEST JONES STREET, SUTIE 3000a PROGRESS DRAWING
C) 20 0 20 40 UT1 R3 0 612.10 0 1.5:1 408.067 RALEIGH, NC 27603 FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
I_i_ti_i I UT1 R4 1216.33 0 0 1:1 1216.330 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTIONPROFILE (HORIZONTAL) UT2 0 0 86.24 2.5:1 34.496 KATHLEEN M. MCKEITHAN, PE
e sl 2 4
LETTING DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER
5 0 10 20 UT3 1584.45 0 0 1:1 1584.450
IIII
itill
UT4 42.80 0 0 1:1 42.800 CONTACT: PAUL WI ES N E R
PROFILE (VERTICAL) TOTAL 2843.58 818.30 361.24 3533.610 .iL PROJECT MANAGER P.E.
`` J ` J` SIGNATURE: ♦,

F r PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. %
cn
ST I'� E .' M CONVENTION II ., SY JI OLS ST N l RD SPECIFICATIONS 166680 1-A
Lo
N SUP ARC �,D 4S SH A AV1 h� I � NORTH CAROLINA
0
° ROCK J-HOOK 0 SAFETY FENCE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
00
MARCH 2009 REV 20 13
•,,� GRADE CONTROL ROCK J-HOOK TF TAPE FENCE FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
ROCK VANE FP 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
OUTLET PROTECTION m CONSERVATION EASEMENT
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
, •��•. ROCK CROSS VANE
• ---- 435---- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR 6.62 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker Carry, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
Mk ROCK DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM Phone:[phone]
• • EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR INTERNATIONALLicense#4F1084
I'' % SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR 6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING d
-------------- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE NCDMS ID NO. 100068
d
•%Aicio•� DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR �
01:*fre PROPERTY LINE GENE I' L NOTES
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK N eFOOT BRIDGE 1 . THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES USING A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF
ROOT WAD SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE BOULDERS (3' (2'x2'), LOGS AND ROOTWADS.
r__� TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING 2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE
�0., LOG J-HOOK I I EFFORTS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
o-i PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
o GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK 3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED FOR THE SPRING OF 2020.
AI TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
L il LOG VANE 4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE-CALL" BEFORE EXCAVATION STARTS. (1-800-632-4949)
It TREE REMOVAL
-- LOG DROP 5. BOULDER SIZES FOR IN-STREAM STRUCTURES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3'x2'x1' AND CAN BE CHANGED PER STRUCTURE OR THE
'{ ` TREE PROTECTION DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
/ \ LOG CROSS VANE 6. ALL ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHALL BE HARVESTED AND STOCKPILED PRIOR TO FILLING ABANDONED CHANNELS.
CHANNEL PLUG
f/ \ I LOG AND ROCK STEP POOL 7. TOPSOIL SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH OF 8" AND STOCKPILED SEPARATELY FROM UNDERCUT SOIL. 8" OF TOPSOIL SHALL
CHANNEL FILL BE PLACED ON ALL BANKFULL BENCHES AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
BOULDER STEP
�'
////� BRUSH TOE WITH LIVE STAKES 8. ALL DISTURBED EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE MATTED WITH COIR FIBER MATTING OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
golinCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
9. ALL STREAM BANKS SHALL BE LIVE STAKED.
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
BOULDER CLUSTER 10. UNLESS THE ALIGNMENT IS BEING ALTERED, THE EXISTING CHANNEL DIMENSIONS ARE TO REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
V PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
='y`='8'-'gu 11 . CONTRACTOR WILL ENSURE THAT FENCING IS INSTALLED ON OR OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE
:'; ROCK STEP POOL
_�.':e f v PROPOSED WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PLANS BUT NO MORE THAN 1 OUTSIDE.
- -WEB- - JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BOUNDARY 12. WHERE PROPOSED FENCE CROSSES EXISTING STREAMS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE A SECTION OF BREAK AWAY FENCE,
A FLOOD GATE, OR ELECTRIFIED CHAINS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
**NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
GET A TI 0 N SELECTION
Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
% Planted by Wetland Zone - Overstory/Canopy Species
Botanical Name Common Name Wetland Tolerance Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Species Betula nigra River Birch 15% FACW UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
All Buffer Plantings at 680 stems/acre using 8' X 8' spacing Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 15% FACW
General Riparian Zone - Overstory/Canopy Species Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 10% FAC Botanical Name Common Name % Planted Density Wetland
c Betula nigra River Birch 10% FACW Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak 5% FAC by Species (lbs/ac) Tolerance
0-1
-0 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 10% FACW Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 5% FAC Agrostis perennans Autumn Bent ass 10% 1.5 FACU
E; Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 10% FACU Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 5% FAC El mus vi ginicus Virginia Wildrye 15% 2.25 FACW
n Betula lenta Sweet Birch 10% FAC Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5% FACW
Panicurn virgaturn Switchgrass 15% 2.25 FAC
' Quercus alba White Oak 10% FACU Ulmus americana American Elm 5% FACW Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern Gamma Grass 5% 0.75 FACW
co
Tilia americana American Basswood 5% FACU Wetland Zone - Understory/Shrub Species Polygonum pennsylvanicum Pennsylvania Smartweed 5% 0.75 FACW
up
Aesculus flava Yellow Buckeye 5% FACU Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 15% OBL Schizachyrium scoparium Little Blue Stem 5% 0.75 FACU
in
c Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 5% FAC Ilex verticillata Winterberry 5% FACW Juncus effusus Soft Rush 5% 0.75 FACW
Oi'
Fraxinus americana White Ash 5% FACU Acer negundo Box Elder 5% FAC Bidens frondosa (or aristosa) Beggars Tick 5% 0.75 FACW
0-1 Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 5% FAC Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 2.50% OBL Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-Leaved Tick Seed 10% 1.5 FACU
a) Ulmus americana American Elm 5% FACW Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 2.50% FACW
O Dichanthelium clandestinum Tioga Deer Tongue 15% 2.25 FAC
General Riparian Zone - Understory/Shrub Species Xanthorhiza simplicissima Yellow-root 2.50% FACW
o Aronia arbuti olia Red Chokeberry2.50% FACW Andropogon gerardii Big Blue Stem 5% 0.75 FAC
LL Rhododendron maximum Rosebay 5% FAC f
in Linden' benzoin Spicebush 2.50% FAC Streambank Live Stake Plantings Sorghastrurn nutans Indian Grass 5% 0.75 FACU
Total 100% 15
cc
Ilex verticillata Winterberry 2.50% FACW Salix sericea Silky Willow 25% OBL
co Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam 2.50% FAC Sarnbucus canadensis Elderberry 20% FACW Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement of site conditions or to availability at the time
co
up Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 2.50% FAC Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 10% OBL of planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to
Magnolia tripetala Umbrella Tree 2.50% FACU Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 25% FACW Baker for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
o°�_ Halesia caroling Carolina Silverbell 2.50% FAC Salix nigra Black Willow 20% OBL
CVOQ
Lnj R

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
cn 1
166680 1-B
Lo
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
N STSTA ' r II N $ i' TH CAlsOLIN
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER ID IVIS _ • N • I ' I I _ ( i IHt \V A YS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
WATER:
Water Manhole O
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY:
State Line —.... ...._ RAILROADS: Water Meter o
Standard Gauge Water Valve 0
County Line --- ---- CSX TRANSPORTATION
Township Line
__ __ RR Signal Milepost MILEPO0
ST 35 EXISTING STRUCTURES: Water Hydrant DO
Switch MAJOR: Recorded U/G Water Line w
City Line - - SWITCH
RR Abandoned Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert CONC Designated U/G Water Line (S.U.E.*)
Reservation Line - - - -w- - - -
RR Dismantled Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - ) CONC WW ( Above Ground Water Line A/G Water
Property Line
Existing E Iron Pin RIGHT OF WAY: MINOR:
Baseline Control Point • Head and End Wall coNc Hw TV:
Property Corner
El
Existing Right of Way Marker A Pipe Culvert TV Satellite Dish
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Right of Way Line _ Footbridge >- -< TV Pedestal
Existing Fence Line
-x x x- Proposed Right of Way Line (4 Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB ❑cB TV Tower
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
o Proposed Right of Way Line with Paved Ditch Gutter U/G TV Cable Hand Hole HH
Iron Pin and Cap Marker0 Storm Sewer Manhole 0Recorded U/G TV Cable TV
Proposed Chain Link Fence ° Proposed Right of WayLine with _ _ _ -
p g Storm Sewer S Designated U/G TV Cable (S.U.E.*) - —Tv— —
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence 0 Concrete or Granite Marker ---10!)---41--
Recorded U/G Fiber Optic Cable TV FO
Existing Wetland Boundary - - - -MICR- - - - Existing Control of Access r,A
UTILITIES: Designated U/G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.*)— - - - -TV FO— — -
Proposed Wetland Boundary MILB Proposed Control of Access ______e______
POWER:
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary EAB Existing Easement Line E
Existing Power Pole i GAS:
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary EPB Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - E
Proposed Power Pole 6 Gas Valve O
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.' Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement TDE
Existing Joint Use Pole AV Gas Meter
Gas Pump Vent or U/G Tank Cap O Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement PDE
Proposed Joint Use Pole 6 Recorded U/G Gas Line
0 Proposed Permanent Utility Easement PUE
Sign s Power Manhole ® Designated U/G Gas Line (S.U.E.*) — — — — — -
Well o Proposed Temporary Utility Easement TUE A/G Gas
Proposed Permanent Easement with Power Line Tower N Above Ground Gas Line
Small Mine Iron Pin and Cap Marker 0 Power Transformer E
Foundation ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES: U/G Power Cable Hand Hole El SANITARY SEWER:
Area Outline Existing Edge of Pavement ----- H-Frame Pole •• Sanitary Sewer Manhole O
Cemetery t Existing Curb ----- Recorded U/G Power Line P Sanitary Sewer Cleanout 0
Building F I Proposed Slope Stakes Cut C Designated U/G Power Line (S.U.E.*) - - - -P- - - - U/G Sanitary Sewer Line SS
School II Proposed Slope Stakes Fill F Above Ground Sanitary Sewer A/G Sanitary Sewer
Church rh Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp OD TELEPHONE:
Recorded SS Forced Main Line F$$
C
Dam Existing Metal Guardrail T T T Existing Telephone Pole -IF- Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.*) — — — — —FSS— — — -
m
HYDROLOGY.' Proposed Guardrail T T T T Proposed Telephone Pole
Existing Cable Guiderail " " " Telephone Manhole O MISCELLANEOUS:
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir ====' Proposed Cable Guiderail 03
" " " " Telephone Booth El Utility Pole •
in Equality Symbol Telephone Pedestal ❑p Utility Pole with Base ❑
c Jurisdictional Stream JS — y p
c
Buffer Zone 1 BZ 1 Pavement Removal ����������A Telephone Cell Tower A Utility Located Object 0
01
Buffer Zone 2 BZ 2 VEGETATION: U/G Telephone Cable Hand Hole El Utility Traffic Signal Box ❑s
Utilit Unknown U/G Line
0
Flow Arrow Single Tree C3 Recorded U/G Telephone Cable T y Arm
0
0 Designated U/G Telephone Cable S.U.E.* - - - —T— — — — U/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Disappearing Stream Single Shrub g p ( ) —
CC Spring Hedge Recorded U/G Telephone Conduit Tc A/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
03 Wetland DesignatedTelephone ( *� - - - -TE- - - - U/G Test Hole (S.U.E.*)Line U/G Conduit S.U.E. ( )
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch > > > > Orchard € € € €1 Recorded U/G Fiber Optics Cable T FO Abandoned According to Utility Records AATUR
P <— FLOI►
False SumpVineyard - - -T Fo- - End of Information
Vineyard Designated U/G Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.*� - - E.O.I.
O -
N 0 Q
� i
\ 0_R
\� C
r,n Est
revised vziazi

e ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
cn
TYPICAL RIFFLE, POOL, AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS SECTIONS 166680 2
N
(N
PROGRESS DRAWING
Wbkf ► TOP OF TERRACE FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
VARIES ► 4111 Wbkf ► VARIES DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
/\W'//\//\/ 17 : / / / / /\ /\/\ but Z 30' but z 30' / /
p 1
F�FS7 D-Max 5 �7 3�.
O�SOAF I �\����� �/FF<� # ��OQ�.
S7O� D-Max p, BENCH LIMITS Michael Baker Engineering soOF i ��F��p Michael Baker C8aryy NORTH CAROLINA 27500 Regency Parkway,Suite 680
JWbL Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
WbL Inc:1<
RIFFLE or PLUNGE POOL RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH NCDMS ID NO. 100068
Wbkf TOP OF TERRACE
I
O /\�\�\�\ \/\/\ VARIES Wbkf ► VARIES
//\///\//\\�,G� OpE /\//\//\//\//� /\�/\�/\ but z 30' but z 30' 1 /��%/��\
O�i� D-Max g\OES� �r 3
O
s��A i E P OL O(i
O��O� \\`\S\� 6>6% A D-Max �s\pESVOP UT1 R1,R2,& UT1 R3 UT1 R4 UT1 R4 UT3 UPPER UT3 LOWER
SRO OD �p00 BENCH LIMITS R3 UPPER LOWER UPPER LOWER UT2 UT4
cJ\Q 11+50 16+50 16+50 26+45
\\`\ 10+00-19+50 19+50-22+61 22+61-28+00 28+00-37+95
WbLig- RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL
WIDTH OF BANKFULL(Wbkf) 9.00 11.50 10.00 12.50 12.50 16.50 13.00 17.50 4.50 6.60 7.50 10.00 8.50 12.00 5.80 7.50
Wb AVERAGE DEPTH 0.65 1.11 0.70 1.40 0.90 1.70 0.95 1.80 0.45 0.70 0.57 1.10 0.65 1.30 0.45 0.70
POOL (MEANDER) MAXIMUM DEPTH(Dmax) 0.80 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.20 2.50 1.30 2.50 0.60 1.00 0.70 1.70 0.85 1.80 0.50 1.00
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH W/D(Wbkf/Dbkf) 13.80 10.40 14.30 9.20 13.90 9.50 13.70 9.80 13.00 9.50 13.10 8.90 13.10 9.50 12.90 10.30
BANKFULL AREA(Abkf) 5.90 12.80 7.00 17.00 11.30 28.80 12.10 31.30 2.20 4.60 4.30 11.20 6.00 15.10 2.60 5.50
BOTTOM WIDTH(Wb) 5.80 5.50 5.00 4.50 8.10 6.50 8.50 7.50 4.00 2.60 4.70 3.20 4.90 4.80 3.60 3.50
RIFFLE SIDE SLOPE(X:1) 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A
INSIDE POOL SIDE SLOPE N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00
OUTSIDE POOL SIDE SLOPE N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00 N/A 2.00
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT ROCK CROSS VANE
FLOW
1/3 BOTTOM WIDTH FLOW --IN-
ROOT
WADS w
FILTER FABRIC 2'
-1.-:,, C 7MIN-1.1
COVER LOGS B GRADE
Y CHANNEL BED NNELBED
GRADE CONTROL POINT CHq
LOG J-HOOK VANE z Y .,f 4� Ua°°
(SEE SHEET 2-D) m . b ;t ;w•• Y roQ�•°Oa1M \�\
LLm •� �•�')� •. •..�� S• �. z \,/ao / OT°Wee O. •Oo CIA-74•• / / \//\/
.t•+Oci- w 'moo,,•. �,.o ..,, O :1-Lelz
/ //
O •moo o�� w TOE OF BANK \.
// ��� N A "0. `� .�(le;• { WELL GRADED MIX
„ai
/ ��p110/ft. N/ CV r
pk‘ Ii
a �:. \ �2 -� 6' MINIMUM 1o, ,k �x A cy
// i �. ''e , Nam° 7� 0 SECTION A - A'
- - - � � A` ` 5��'i' ;i� SCOUR I • ,;`. s
i.
i ! POOL • ;.
��:Ye I �i::
41 , // `GPI'4\2- \ / A4.0.1'`:
° ::i,�t ��V .r.:
pe
\ ,___)00,„ 0 ,
:.....
4
•::s A '\, ,/
/ b0 00 0�0 El^ °may VANE Ale BANKFULL STAGE
\A OO ARM HEADER ROCK°o vwi�`l STREAM BANK
// 0 �000 �°0 HI-//4 / 0 •0 0000N 0
0� O !� O 0 0 0 al= SILL NO GAPS SILL
ZB'
BETWEEN
O�O 000 i / •4OOOOo Qwo,Lij BOULDERS - . FLOW 4% TO 7% VANE ARM SLOPE
O,( 000 •,
(\0-1 O O O eI 0 O° 0000 \ >- /. B VANE ANGLE STREAM BED °yam°� a°°
0 0° OO� O O �p HI 20° TO 30° ELEVATION °v�\ � / / / //�
= AO
O�o OOP ° O N / i \ \\ \\/\\/\\/\�/ /�/ FOOTER ROCK
cn 0006000 0 0 / i C 6' MIN. W-
I `//\�//�� /
I 0� 0 0 • 1 \ �` \ - - //
co Lo i/ 0�0°0- ' 4� `N� // / PLAN VIEW PROFILE VIEW
B B
Lo o o • /
•
e. MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING \ //
' , , � -I_
in 4 / i /
/
0-1 CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
rn (SEE SHEET 2-D) , ir /
a) NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
TOP OF BANK 1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS. FLOW
o (SEE SHEET 2-D) 2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK. ��' CROSS VANE INVERT/GRADE POINT
L0 3. CONSTRUCT ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS AS SHOWN.
1 4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. RIFFLE
in STRUCTURE NOTES: 5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
D 6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND \ �O °O RUN
1. GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES, ROOT WADS, LOG VANES AND COIR FIBER DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A / °°
MATTING WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN. MINIMUM OF SIX FEET. ��° O° �p ' RIFFLE
o /� � C,\' / /�//
c9 7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE SCOUR
Co 2. ANY CHANGES TO NUMBER OR LOCATION OF STRUCTURES DURING WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE �� \\/�� �� ��/�� POOL /�/�/�/�/�
Lo CONSTRUCTION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER. THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE / / //\ ////, /\//\//\// / //\//%//j// / /
- CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW. !\��\��\ / /\ /\ /\ \�/\�/\�/ \ �\ /�'
3. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS, 8. ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE STONE BACKFILL WHERE
o FLOODPLAIN BENCHING, AND TERRACE SLOPES AS DESCRIBED IN THE PROFILE VIEW C - C
c� _ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. AVAILABLE. FILTER FABIC
0 0 - 9. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
cNi
0_L 4. ROOTWADS MAY BE REPLACED WITH GEOLIFT. 10. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2'x 3' TO 2'x 2' x 4'.
. 1-_,..-
.. C J
r✓1 Elko

me ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
ci
ROCK VANE BOULDER STEP 166680 2A
Lo
(V
(V
1/3
BOTTOM TOP A
WIDTH
OF BANK oyl 7 TOE PROGRESS DRAWING
OCHANNEL FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
FLOW °°o --nn DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
vi
20° TO 30° °° 0 0°c2 °0 ° B
co o Bt ooO�o��O°-$0
' )°•8( AOo'0;,° 08�7
N o , r''.,o
A O°0.. �°`5� ° ��
�O°• �g o 0 g� .0 0 Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
• °0 � � °"�o Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
°O°� �oeJ o °�o+-�� 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
•
`T'� 8 0 0'.'°°8:",."� Phone:[phone]
•O•`� °® 0O 80..�°8 , Fax:[phone]
STONE BACKFILL °/' A NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS 6�� 04° °°• INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
0/1
1/• °° 0000!0®�8° ao
HEADER ROCK :�, o pOp °o oO.°®m•O
,�-• 080 0 0° 8
° °Li o°o°$°„o� NCDMS ID O. 100068°O1' STREAM BED ELEVATION °® :•�° '°°°
•� jSCOUR POOL: BANKFULL
••• 00° ���
.` '•
ji
HEADER ROCK BOULDERS 11� IIIMI,
,•�'---- milk.. _o HEAD OF RIFFLE
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED) FLOW - N.- 4%TO 7% SLOPE
FOOTER ROCK PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER �o O°O `
. �O°Q° Qo°Q° I D BOULDER
BOTTOM WIDTH STONE BACKFILL t-,n^�� 0 ° A►• GOD •° �� • °.,. /�/
FOOTER ROCKPt
�•!Oa&po2S°OCp°o°oo°.00eo
°°�� .So.
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (EXCAVATED) PLAN VIEW °°°° ° ° °°�°°a� o.�°'$-.•� 0
SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
PLAN VIEW PROFILE VIEW POOL
PROFILE A - A' 110
BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX
STREAMBED
HEADER ROCK NOTES:
STONE BACKFILL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
1. HEADER AND FOOTER BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 1' X 2'X 3'.
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES: 2. FOOTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT 1/4 TO 1/3 OF THE LENGTH IS DOWNSTREAM OF
0 ofl THE HEADER.
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS. °0800°°0800C)°080° 3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTERS WITH THE BUCKET
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK. gooQ,oo0oODoo002° OF EXCAVATOR.
3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS. QoCaO°°QoCaO°°Qo 000Q0 4. INSTALL NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH FOOTER BOULDERS.
4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. 00 00 00 5. UNDERCUT THE RIFFLE ELEVATION 12 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR A LAYER OF STONE.
5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS. 6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND GEOTEXTILE FABRIC CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A FOOTER ROCK 7. FILL TRENCH WITH GRADED MIX OF CLASS A, CLASS B, AND#57 STONE TO THE BED ELEVATION
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET. OF THE CHANNEL.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE 10' MINIMUM 8. BOULDER STEPS MUST BE EXTENDED TO A MINIMUM OF 2' INTO THE BANK. USE SILL BOULDERS
WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE IF NECESSARY.
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE 9. THALWEG AND STEP INVERT WILL BE CONCAVE AND SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF THE DESIGNER.
CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW. 10. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1'x 2' x 3' TO 2'x 2' x 4'.
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE. SECTION A - A
9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1'x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'.
GRADE CONTROL ROCK J-HOOK VANE ROCK J-HOOK VANE
1/3 BOTTOM 1/3 BOTTOM
1/3 BOTTOM 1/3 BOTTOM WIDTH OF WIDTH OF
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF CHANNEL CHANNEL
CHANNEL CHANNEL
FLOW LEAVE GAPS (OPTIONAL)
FLOW / PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER STREAM BED ELEVATION
STREAM BED ELEVATION 20° TO 30° BANKFULL
20° TO 30° _ STONE BACKFILL BANKFULL- STONE BACKFILL HEADER ROCK
°°
�I�°°�op-Q°°Qoc) [HEADER ROCK
Uc Of1O0O.00.,o oo � oo •aL FLOW��. 4% ° �1��
J0�' * � , �O_ o� .�o•• 0 TO7/° SLOPE
isiiiirliglip
OO°••O ��/00( rx • •�� . ��-
FLOW�i.
• 0, •I
A Do 4ii-4-',
i u- 4%TO 7% SLOPE w 0.
Acc'Qo0 0 Cjo 'tro �
°°o. o �oo0 0- ooao o Q 8° .1P A ( � STONE BACKFILL
°Q�/ /81990 O 0 cn
co~ - STONE BACKFILL O°�% , �•
FOOTER ROCK
:0,� A111111 o
J
DOS : •'� o •�// •� GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
J oo FOOTER ROCK Y o�y�� % (EXCAVATED)
Y 'i /' / GEOTEXTILE FABRIC z
)OO
Lu °0 °o �• SCOUR •� SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
z °80,,` �• 0 PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
m , °oQ! % \ H 0��1 POOL
CO a ; °%/�CNJ O. •% SCOURPOO •� J PROFILE VIEW N J)�o, PROFILE VIEW
O �, i U �I
0-1 30. • •
(v j�� D \
•
• BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX Ao°
�Ca' �' - � STREAMBED 0 -
)0g;, J0 FOOTER ROCK
b81 FOOTER ROCK STONE BACKFILL Jo
HEADER ROCK J00
E:i1 °)0°°C SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
co
LO
c....-3-?-. PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER °08o° �8�0 t8�0
Lo ° oo° °o° NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX
� OoQogQ°o.O4O2°�QO�° STREAMBED
in NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS O°�o°O��O°°O°�O°°O° HEADER ROCK
o HEADER ROCK
E HEADER ROCK
STONE BACKFILL
i GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLAN VIEW
PLAN VIEW FOOTER ROCK 00
10' MINIMUM t8o 0�t)8°��8�0
0 0oO°��OoQ°0OooO°�°
i Qo(2Q°°d(2Q°°63(2Q0°Qo
o NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES: NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES: o 0
SECTION A - A
u_1 1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS. 1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK. 2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK. FOOTER ROCK
D 3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
�1 4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. 4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. 10' MINIMUM
& 5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS. 5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND 6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND
co DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A SECTION A - A
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET. MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
/n 7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE 7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
c
+' WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE
0 0- CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW. CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW.
c" i a 8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE. 8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
��R 9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'. 9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2'x 4'.
oo c
�' E 1

e ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
cn
LOG AND ROCK STEP / POOL 166680 2B
Lo
N A
N r \ 1 .
PROGRESS DRAWING
a. lid ' = A FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
__:_ ,� , -=---'�f' .4',._.-STF DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
-STONE BACKFILL
PROTECT BANK o2-,Qo°oo• '(sqo°po°e T FLOW
USING TRANSPLANTS16„, ® / ��go0°�i / o0•40 V ,c,uiv �G _�
jEXCCOVATEI oL 87A 3°go0- . PJ, _ o,
OD ..
46'0%* 0 )1 colt.t 0 ilb
-%jg�� , UP��%�� �oOQ,• • ;•000� l/�n�/� Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
OD ,',- %'/ O°°' 10 0��: , .°,•�- A� Michael Baker CaryO, NORTH CAROLINA275 8 Regency Parkway,Suite 0
�1 a� oQo' °�. Phone:[phone]
� A l ' �,°�. °poC� 5488
Fax:[phone]
® `1W1 �(v_ ° � • �0��8� INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
0 o0
A, °oo - PROTECT BANK USING 7:
' NCDMS ID NO. 100068
o°
\..............G������lips•��o0t)63or• '.el � �� ROOT WADS GEOTEXTILE FABRIC °�•S3 g000cl EXCAVATE I
/;•?-56g00*. J0
0o � POOL i�oSC ' Nt SECTION A - A'
1 vocousb00000`----.-' -,?e,
� � ___
PROTECT BANK fr...„4„
��I � � _
USING GEOLIFT ;�: 4 °gad -��')
Cj•
: �C�o,�o•. T NOTES:
•*♦�� •�:°ozQ �? O, 1. BASE FLOW HEADER LOG 1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 8" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED
�obacosi ) AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 3' ON EACH SIDE.
,I�* oOto col
4 jEXCAVATE 1pOgoc)0a; ,�' 2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
: . POOL i4ePcoOQ000 ,. 1 3. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
��� '�,,_,.��118C�oQ 0occ% i 4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE 1' X 2'X 3' AND PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
A �o°000g800•' = 5. TOEWOOD OR TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF BOUDERS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
��- �� o1°i�a0°i.� / _ 6. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH WELL
��--,-- �i r r�-01, : - `I GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
I I, l =�o� �i _� Q INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE.
i •••.._ lk - 0 --
`� �- - - = ���
-I
1%
BANKFULL
LFOOTER LOG
A' SECTION B - B'
PLAN VIEW
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE LOG VANE
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMBED
STONE BACKFILL
LOG BURIED STONE BACKFILL
HEADER LOG ` -�•:... BELOW STREAMBED
:::. .t ,4.9.1m,w,*;Ti'
0 p....-„int.vs:worrt%,00.?;kiwITikveup
ituritv4v;‘;;;::-*-4,044!Wit`
ANY GAPS BETWEEN LOGS MUST BE FILLED WITH OTHER0
7 BANKFULL O :2/3 ! ?' !::'; ::...:'�• MF;1.:::•:AtattiVitalq.°`
RECENTLY HARVETED BRANCHES OR COBBLE AND GRAVEL �.��: �' :M i�`° :: �;••"�•° �.:���.,. ':s ��=�'�-� �•.� '•:;==.
BEFORE INSTALLING FILTER FABRIC AND BACK FILLING ARM ' ` ' •••4 •'. '' ''. 1
•
il \ HEADER LOG M; )O
;•{cep, ° .: .�-'` .
•
• 1/3 FOOTER LOG GEOTEXTILE 2/3 = -.. -�: '��:t ;:. •�
k_...._ ....
BANKFULL FABRIC BANKFULL
� A' FOOTER LOG " GEOTEXTILE
4 41 .
6' MINIMUM ► FABRIC
SECTION A - A' •
' 1/3 6' MINIMUM ►-
A . 20°-30° ` ill BANKFULL
FILTER FABRIC <\`lir i ‘ A' '
cIIDap '
I SECTION A - A
•r
�� A A� . 20°-30°
�e ROOTWAD
c� 6' MIN. I EXCAVATE i `� ROOTWAD GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
POOL
1 IL
- 1/2 - 2/3 BANKFULL
1/22/3 BANKFULL
(n 1 / ��� � • FLOW
jEXCAVATEi ` FLOW
•
`\ ROOTWAD i POOL ♦
p STREAMBED °O �r� i `�I�`♦ STREAMBED olo / `
c9 °I° I -_� i ` 0 4°I°1 -•%
i
D
e_ ` =-' \� BOULDER _ -= '
/ ;%% r `\ ROOTWAD =`
c LOG BURIED IN _
STREAMBANK7
11
c BOULDERS CAN •.•-*_'-!'--:_-", ---- ----"-- ------- -----='-'---- •--'' \
0-1 PLAN VIEW ='% _ FOOTER LOG ;; „- FOOTER LOG
a) ALSO BE USED. - - -- ;���s� LOG BURIED IN � s'
�_ HEADER LOG ���"; -
O HEADER LOG %i��_% �%' STREAMBANK AT LEAST 5' t --
�f -- ANY GAPS BETWEEN LOGS MUST BE FILLED WITH OTHER
i RECENTLY HARVETED BRANCHES BEFORE INSTALLING
H NOTES: FILTER FABRIC AND BACK FILLING ARM PLAN VIEW
PROFILE VIEW
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED, AND FOOTERED. NOTES:
cc 2. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 2'x 2' x 1'.
s) 3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG. 1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
03 4. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG INTO THE 2. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ANCHOR LOGS.
uo BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL. PROFILE VIEW 3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
cc) 5. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ACHORING. 4. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
6. HEADER BOULDERS TO BE PLACED 0.5 TO 0.75 FEET APART. INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
u) 7. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL. 5. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
o 8. TRANSPLANTS OR BOULDERS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. 6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
c i a _ 9. BOULDER SILL MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 6'. 7. TOEWOOD OR TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
c\j o d 10. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH WELL GRADED MIX 8. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH WELL
Q R OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
Lo
-� WHERE AVAILABLE. INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE.
' i- Elk,
J

cn e ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
ci
ROCK DOUBLE DROP CROSS VANE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE 166680 2C
Lo
(V
BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
N ELEVATION AND STATION
BOTTOM BOTTOM BOTTOM CMATTINGR
TOP OF BANK A TOE
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF WIDTH OF O r LARGER STONE MAY BE PLACED PROGRESS DRAWING
CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL IJi TO REDIRECT LOW FLOW AT RIFFLE D-max
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER BANKFULL FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
FLOW STREAM BED ELEVATION 0•'o°0 ` ,.000 U0/o` DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
1/2 -2/3 OF BANKFULL j �0 Ic•�O°� oC °o `'O"1
Ti 840� • ThC .I of B' �Ooo �OoO
20° TO 30° HEADER ROCK B •�0 oc o Cj •�O� 0(Th 00Q)0D/
Jo oO o00 00 •• o o ° •
}-1 O��OOo On00 �n�O
w
A 0t)800�0�8000�:�00t,_ L FLOW -► ° O•l0 °moo `�0ih
TOE
C7 OQ� O%111�o%•��Oo,��`0o00o0Q u_ H • •� 4%To7/oSLOPE Oil O^oo90000GI°00°c
w0 i_ ,Do oQO( o 0QOC6 O O•�o o/• ���y�® �/O°O o 0 0 0 0I 0( STONE BACKFILL Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
��� � � Michael Baker Car
sock"-, •oDoC co J ,/Oo oQ Oo •� ` J0 p�0 00000 o00�c STONE BACKFILL g g
ch J •. • _ , �• ° /_ Q Q O.'00o 00 0Oo 00 DO 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
\__— \_— •8(% N -��O�o=0�0• 0 ,0°000 0 0°o�Q�l.° y, NORTH 3.5488 NA 27518
N J ,°Q s i ��O°O� N Y �i OO000O OOO 11•
Phone:[phone]/�,•-A ---•-- ► w STONE BACKFILL
N 4 ��• ,��f SCOUR o, ) 10000 0 000 •OI INTERNATIONAL License F310840
z Ddro, :_ POOL_ _ ��I j Q FOOTER ROCK ��0 00 �O O Ow o( SECTION B - B'
m �°0 $ov, 00 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC DO O s�OO°0O O°�0ic
'008% 1 ►;00 SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED) 0dp0° oQ0°O o�0° Do`
°! `-` ' - \,,,,_ �° B; O O Oo00oo O•c NC DMS ID NO. 100068
\--- \ Olio OOo • I o
�Ilo. - - - -=- - , •dr �o 000000 000 • •O i
PROFILE VIEW o o
.�0 4. ' •♦ N /�0 o O o O,
- 1, ' SCOUR POOL ,'� �� 00 00 000 00 00,, ,0 HOC
_ .. - �004-.000 c
NO GAPS SCOUR POOL Q41Oc)O�00c)g9Z0M()
BETWEEN BOULDERS (EXCAVATED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)
BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT A' 1/4 OF BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX ELEVATION AND STATION ► GLIDE ELEVATION AND STATION
LENGTH
PLAN VIEW STREAMBED
[HEADER ROCK STONE BACKFILL
STONE BACKFILL PLAN VIEW
0 ofl
0800°0800°080°
1/4 OF RUN LENGTH
ooc)c NoO°0 000nn00 ° GLIDE o
0°�0°°�cO°°d 000°oQ0 o O OOo OO OOo
00 00 00 o°°0 ( O0r°�o Q(>�o�v•Ob•—
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES: NOTES: �OOOn� n �OOo0�0 o0•IC RV:
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK. FOOTER ROCK 1. UNDERCUT CHANNEL BED ELEVATION AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR LAYERS OF STONE TO ��1�c-)00.00 POOL
ACHIEVE FINAL GRADE. -'00,•�
3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS. 6' MINIMUM 2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION CONTROL ,n^
4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS. 3. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO GRADE.
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND 4. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD HAVE THE ELEVATION OF THE BED 0.2 FT DEEPER IN PROFILE A - A'
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A SECTION A - A THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES. BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET. 5. STONE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF 10% CLASS I, 20% CLASS B, 40% CLASS A, AND 30% ELEVATION AND STATION
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM BY VOLUME OR#57 STONE.
WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE 6. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE 12" THICK.
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE 7. LARGER CLASS I & B STONES MAY EXTEND ABOVE THE BED SURFACE, BUT NO HIGHER THAN
CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW. HALF BANKFULL AND SHOULD PROVIDE A"NATURAL LOOK". ENGINEER SHALL HAVE FINAL
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE. APPROVAL OF EXTENDING ROCK.
9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1'x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'. 8. SATURATED WOODY DEBRIS THAT IS EXISTING WITHIN THE CHANNEL CAN BE RELOCATED
INTO THE NEW RIFFLE AREAS.
CHANNEL PLUG LOG DROP
5 5
COIR LOG
CHANNEL TO BE PLUGGED
A
OD i TOP OF STREAMBANK
B B'
Q111
-- -
----i44 FLOW
-w -- - __
LOG WEIRNary 410,
9 `'�' A ODI / SCOUR ` STREAMBED
POOL i • °:::D:::G
CHANNELPLUG
ODIODI .
-9' OD
CO TRANSPLANTS
OR LIVE STAKES
w
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC lb
PLAN VIEW
FOOTER LOG
c NOTES:
-o 1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
ci N 2. BACKFILL OF PLUGS SHOULD INCORPORATE ANY OF-SITE CLAY AVAILABLE. PLAN VIEW 4' MINIMUM
cn
U-
co co SECTION A - A'
Lo UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
c9 1.5' MINIMUM TRANSPLANTS
cn
i COMPACTED
C BACKFILL
ro
61-D
FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE . NOTES:
c
0-1
Cri 1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
a) HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
COIR LOG 2. TOP OF HEADER LOG SHOULD BE SET AT SAME ELEVATION AS THE STREAMBED.
3. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WITH COIR LOGS TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
s_ • • • 4. PLACE TRANSPLANTS ALONG BANKS TO PROTECT AGAINST BANK EROSION.
0 CHANNEL HEADER LOG 5. THE HEADER LOG SHOULD BE NOTCHED 2-3 INCHES DEEP IN THE CENTER AND
INVERT FOR 20-30% OF THE CHANNEL WIDTH.
cn
FOOTER LOG
cc
1
coil
coo COMPACTED BACKFILL
Lo CROSS SECTION VIEW B - B'
SECTION A - A'
Nam_
ON 0 Q
i i
\ 0_
\�� C 1
r✓1

me ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
PLUNGE POOL GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE 166680 2D
Lo
(V
(V
PROGRESS DRAWING
FLOW FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
LOWEST ELEVATION OF CROSS NOTES: DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
CULVERTV
VANE SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY 1. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE THE SAME SPECIES AS THE LIVE STAKES
• \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \y/\y/\y/\ LOWER THAN INVERT OF CULVERT AND SHALL BE INSTALLED DURING VEGETATION DORMANCY.
\%�\%�\%�\%�\\\%�\\\ \\ \\ \\% 2. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A2 DENSITY O.F 20-30 CUTTINGS
\ /\/\ PER LINEAR FOOT AND A MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 2.5 INCHES.
!\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\ / FOOTER BOULDERS
/ DEPTH / jj 7 EXTEND BELOW DEPTH OF SCOUR
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / 3. NUMBER OF SOIL LIFTS MAY VARY IN GENERAL LIFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\ / /\ TOP OF BANK OR BAN KF U L L STAGE.
FLOW % // // // // // // // // //// // //
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
\ /� j/jam/j�/j� 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
i— \/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
/\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\// / / / / / / / / /\// Phone:[phone]
LLIi\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//i\//%//i\//%//i\//%//ice//%//%//%//%//%\ 72 x48 x36 Fax:[phone]
J O License#: F-1084
D A STAKE TOP LAYER 4' DEEP (TYP) TOP OF BANK/ BANKFULL STAGE
O OF MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
SECTION A - A (SEE MATTING DETAIL)
�� �� \ ( NCDMS ID NO. 100068
TRANSPLANTS OR
•A TEMPORARY SEED COIR FIBER MATTING
WIDTH AND MATTING ENCOMPASSES LIFT
' FLOODPLAIN
B • of
UNDISTURBED
SEE CROSS �. h EARTH LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
VANE DETAIL TOP OF TERRACE
PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
i ) . ►� ►� ► 1.0' LIFT OF A
_/
q VARIES Wbkf VARIES
COMPACTED
A\A � ON-SITE SOIL (TYP)
m z z m ,, �— '��� BASEFLOW
O I— m D mD O 7 0/ r aIj17,i�
�.�
f
N m Lt m N ���1� ��l/ FINEISLHEVEAD
m D-Max ,jam
2.7 ♦.ice'
1. :n - —. ,4011 �
�. FOUNDATION APPROX. 1 FT
'C `� �1��is— BELOW FINISHED BED ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW
-. Wb .-
NOTES:
1. WHEN GEOLIFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER, USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANCHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. CLASS I STONE MAY BE USED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER TO BUILD THE FOUNDATION
SECTION B - B IN LIEU OF BRUSH MATERIAL.
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING BOULDER HEADWALL / ENDWALL
TOP COURSE OF 0.5:1 SIDE SLOPE
BOULDERS (TYP.) EARTHEN BACKFILL
,
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
' ' - ' ' ' ' ' - ' [ ' • - t ' - ' ' - ' - ' '
_ „ 1- FLOW - - ' - ' ; ,CULVERT ; ,-
- ' - - ' , - , " 0 BASEFLOW
STREAM BED I I ,—— —
LLIallrf \ '. 1 . ,, , . ,, , ,, -
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC COVER FILL MATERIAL WI 7 ' - -
cpv WITH 6 INCHES#57 STONE , , - , , -
-goof•. iso6.• o0e) :e .
s•oiy.-.�._. .�•_. .�•�,.•o��. CULVERT CHINK AND WEDGE 4-INCH STREAM BED
vM --* ••N° \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ io•9°A•l� z B z MINUS ROCK, AS NECESSARY, TO
•.• //i\//\/\ \/: /\ \/\/\//\� •• ' 7 a a LEVEL THE BOULDER COURSES CULVERT SHALL BE EMBEDDED
MP —•••�•�'/ /\\/\\i\\i\\i\\i\\i\\2�/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\iV v..•i.M m EMBEDDED FOOTER m
g.1 /, / / / / / .� / SLOPES MAY VARY TO DEPTH INDICATED IN TABLE
�.� / /\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\ �.•.MC/ BOULDERS
ULDER PLACED BELOW
••% '//\/%\\%i\\ \%\i�\%�\%\%\%\%\%\%/\ \ \%\ \i%�\%\%\%\%\%\%\//\\// °o �°°�- W INCREASE OFFSET OF w EXISTING O CHANNEL BOTTOM USE LARGEST BOULDERS
c ..: :0o0/ /\\%\\%/V\\\\\%\�%\�/\\�/\\�/\\�\\i \\�\\\\\\\\\%\\�%\\\ \ \�\\i/\ �•• �!- 1- EACH COURSE TO ACHIEVE
.•, TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 2'. FOR FOOTER COURSE
/ \/\�\� / \/ \/\/\/\/\/\/ \�\�\�\�\/\ 0.5:1 SIDE SLOPES
�'1 °P /\/ /\\/\\/\/ / /\j\j\j\j\j\ \j\\j\\j\\j\\j\\j\\ \\j\\j\\j\\j\\j\\j\ • •11 a� cn
O \' \\//\/\//\�%/\�%\�%/\%/\%/\�%/�%/V j\% //\%/\�%VV/\ / D %\�%\�/\////\/j// \/%�//\//\/�j\/j j\//\//\//\//\//\//\/
N \/i\/i\i\i\i\i\i\�\i\i\i\i i\i .\i\i\i\i\ \/\\//\\ //\\//\ -\/i\/ /i\i\i\ -\/\/\i\i\i\i\i\i\i\i\i\i\i\r� PLAN VIEW SECTION B - B'
= FILL MATERIAL ' 12" OR AS SPECIFIED
c.n EXISTING GROUND
o_, FLOODPLAIN CULVERT
co STREAM CHANNEL CULVERT FLOODPLAIN CULVERT
Lo STAGG
c_o (SEE PLANS FOR TYPE /SIZE) JO NTSER REACH BOULDER CULVERT EMBEDMENT
CO B SIZE SIZE
i UT1-R1 1'x2'x2' 4 FT 12 IN
in
C Y / :Y UT1-R4 1'x2'x2' 5 FT 12 IN
CROSS SECTION VIEW z Q UT3 1'x2'x2' 4 FT 9.6 IN
00 UT4 1'x1'x1' 3 FT 12 IN
p , -- -r� CULVERT w STREAM BED
a,
6
o co --- 1111
lip cn
i
i r
WI NOTES:
o 111111111--- ���r
_C
in 1. SIZE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLANS. MAKE TOP OF FOOTER COURSE
cc 2. APPLY SUFFICIENT FILL (2' MIN) OVER CULVERT TO PREVENT COLLAPSE. EMBEDDED FOOTER B AS LEVEL AS POSSIBLE NOTES:
1 3. STABILIZE SIDE SLOPES WITH EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND FILL AROUND CULVERTS BOULDERS
Co WITH CLASS II STONE. EMBED TO DEPTH 1. BOULDERS SHALL BE TOUCHING SO THAT VOID SPACE IS MINIMIZED.
CO 4. INSTALL HEADWALLS AND ENDWALLS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND IN THE DETAILS. SHOWN IN TABLE
CO 2. BOULDERS SHOULD EXTEND BELOW SCOUR DEPTH. FOOTER BOULDERS SHALL BE AT
CO 5. PRIMARY CULVERT SHOULD BE INSTALLED 12" OR AS SPECIFIED BELOW CHANNEL ELEVATION. LEAST 2' BELOW THE EXISTING BED
i 3. GEOTEXTILE MATTING SHOULD BE PLACED BETWEEN BOULDERS AND SOIL.
In
SECTION A - A' 4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED. VOID SPACE BETWEEN FABRIC AND
o BOULDER OR ROCK FILL MATERIAL, SHOULD BE MINIMIZED.
0 0- 5. BOULDERS SHOULD NOT BE HIGHER THAN THE TOP OF CROSSING ELEVATION.
cy N. L a 6. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND BOULDERS, BURIED BELOW BOULDER DEPTH, AND
s.
Lc)R EXTEND INTO THE BANK.
Elko 1

.e LIVE STAKING TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
166680 2E
Lo
N
TOP OF STREAMBANK
i
/ i / TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL PROGRESS DRAWING
FORREVIEW PURPOSES� � � � ONLY
TOE OF SLOPE TOP OF STREAMBANK 1 ,_ DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLANT STAKES ON TOP OF BANK AND , y
TOP OF • • JUST BELOW BANKFULL LINE IN A I
STREAMBANK DIAMOND SHAPED STAGGERED PATTERN 'l
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL ‘1
1 • • • • t
t41, Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
TOE OF SLOPEN 8000 Regency Parway,Suite 600
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 2'
\ / TOE OF BANK Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
CROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW '��, J INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
/ <
___ BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
SQUARE CUT TOP NOTES:
BUDS FACING UPWARD \ 1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
CROSS SECTION VIEW ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
LIVE CUTTING BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK.
6'-8' SPACING MIN. 1/2" DIA 2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER.
,.':.:♦=♦=♦=♦:.:` 2'-3' LENGTH EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE
.�♦��� ♦' EXCAVATE IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE
������������ AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
• •��� 1 2' '
♦,. '. ����_��� -3 SPACING TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS 3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
.i ►�� VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
- --, r- -- ---- 5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
ANGLE CUT �� `��`\ 6. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
30-45 DEGREES\ `I / / THEY TOUCH.
D OD ..
OD
LIVE STAKE DETAIL TOP OF BANK
CO li
/ NO LIVE STAKES N
OD
ION POINT BAR I♦ /� il
OD
OD OD
4316D
,`•�♦�� ���•/ NOTES: 1D
'�1 �.`` TOE OF BANK
�♦'� I�•♦ 1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY. OD
CO
�� OD �� �� - OD �-�
'�������===�����, 2. DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT. -- `-----
3. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
PLAN VIEW 4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
5. STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG.
6. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND. PLAN VIEW
PLANTINGS PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS COIR FIBER MATTING
i \ 2.5 INCH
ROOFING
NAIL
°� NOTES: PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 6 INCH DEEP
aly 1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT NOTES:
�Cp \\ BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
� � 2. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
1. BANKS SHOULD BE SEEDED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF MATTING.
TOP OF STREAMBANK 3. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, TOP OF STREAMBANK 2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING PER SPECIFICATIONS ALONG STREAM
OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS. - - BANKS OR IN OTHERS LOCATIONS SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER.
4. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS / ♦ 3. LARGE STAKES SHOULD NOT BE SPACED FURTHER THAN 36" APART.
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J-ROOTING. �____/ 4. PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL SEAMS, IN THE CENTER OF BANK,
5. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT AND TOE OF SLOPE.
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP, OR STRAW. ♦ 5. MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ON BANKS, STAKED, AND TRENCHED PRIOR
6. HEEL-IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY TO INSTALLING CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE MATERIAL.
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE. /�
TOE OF SLOPE
1,
it
LARGE STAKES
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL BOTTOM OF CHANNEL TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING AT TOE OF SLOPE.
SECURE MATTING WITH LARGE MATTING STAKE
LEG LENGTH 17.00 IN (43.18 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING CROSS SECTION VIEW WIDTH 1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
THICKNESS 1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
c
01
Li] PLANTINGS
N
iS)
= NOTES:
cn
H g q 1. WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED PLANT OR SHRUB
E:ip DIG THE HOLE 8-12 INCHES LARGER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE
°o POT AND THE SAME DEPTH AS THE POT.
CCo y� 2. REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT. LAY THE PLANT ON ITS SIDE
cn / IF NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT.
7- TOP OF STREAMBANK
3. IF THE PLANT IS ROOTBOUND (ROOTS GROWING IN A SPIRAL TRENCH
c AROUND THE ROOT BALL), MAKE VERTICAL CUTS WITH A KNIFE TRENCH
��py>, �a�, OR SPADE JUST DEEP ENOUGH TO CUT THE NET OF ROOTS. • ` TOP OF STREAMBANK
EL' .edi r, A ALSO MAKE A CRISS-CROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL. \-
4. PLACE THE PLANT IN THE HOLE. STTOP REOF
AMBANK i • • • • • • • • • . 4
5. FILL HALF OF THE HOLE WITH SOIL (SAME SOIL REMOVED FOR BACKFILL). -
•
a 6. WATER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL THE REST I I I I I I I I I I I I TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
o OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL. LARGE
i
STAKES • • • • • •/ STAKES
L° • • • • I I I • I I • e
COIR FIBER MATTING LEG LENGTH 11.00 IN (27.94 CM)
cn BOTTOM OF CHANNEL TO BE EXTENDED TO HEAD WIDTH 1.25 IN (3.18 CM)
cc i i 9 TOE OF SLOPE HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
LEG WIDTH 0.60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
co
Lo
LEG THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
co TOTAL LENGTH 12.00 IN (30.48 CM)
''''N
cn
cn CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING PLAN VIEW LARGE
STAKES
N N
O -'-
N 0
i i
Lnj R
co C J
�

.e BARB WIRE FIELD FENCE STEEL GATES ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. IN
166680 2F
Lo
(V
(V
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
END POST
Baker Engineering Inc.
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG Michael Regency Parkway,suite boo
[BRACE
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
BARB WIRE Phone:[phone]
SEE PLANS FOR SPECIFIC LENGTH Fax:[phone]
3 INCHES (TYP.) 4" INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
x x rx
x x x x x
GRADUATED IN SIZE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM " N j . N C DMS ID NO. 100068
x x lx x x x x x GETTING LARGER IN SIZE TOWARD THE TOP. �_ 7 N M
48INCHES m m I—
Qo N o
Z r ' " " Q Z
X X X X X X X X > � " �p > �
/ i I \ / \
"
i %\iiice//ice �/��/A\iiiiice//r >\/: A A A A A A /ice//ice///, A> A
X x x x x x x x A A A A A A i i i Ai iT>
V I I STEEL FRAME GATE -
A BARB WIRE N I I I I q
M
VARIES X X X X X X X X GROUND LINE . I IYi
H
V
\ \
/i i \/ i iV
24 INCHES (TYP.)
\ \ \ \ \
/ /
\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
NOTES:
1. POST HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL BE THE SAME AS REQUIRED FOR THE ADJACENT FENCE.
2. CONSTRUCT AN END OR STRESS PANEL, AS REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFICATION, ON EACH SIDE OF GATE.
NOTE: 3. HINGES AND LOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SPECIFIED BY GATE MANUFACTURER.
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF 10-15 FEET.
2. ALL FENCING AND FENCE POSTS SHOULD BE SET 1-2 FEET OUTSIDE OF THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT FOR FENCE LINE MAINTENANCE ( LIKE HERBICIDE SPRAYING).
C
0-1
LL.
(N
IS)
Cn
0
00
CO
CO
CO
in
C
ro
0
C
(D1
In
N
Co
L
0
LL
_C
In
D
CC
CO
CO
CD
CO
In
+)
D
CV a)
O —'-
CVDQ
L i
Lo
co C J
� I

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
166680 3
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
N
A general construction sequence is provided below for the UT to Rush Fork Creek Mitigation Project. The site construction, PROGRESS DRAWING
including grading and planting activities, will be conducted using common machinery, tools, equipment and techniques for FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
successfully implementing the project. DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. Contractor shall contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation.
2. Contractor shall prepare stabilized construction entrances and haul roads as indicated on the plans.
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
3. The Contractor shall mobilize equipment, materials, prepare staging area(s) and stockpile area(s) as shown on the Michael Baker 80 0 NORTH DArkway,us6$°
plans. Pho Faxn . 88
INTERNATIONAL License919#:463 F-10845490
4. Construction traffic shall be restricted to the area denoted as "Limits of Disturbance" or "Haul Roads" on the plans. NCDMS ID NO. 166680
5. The Contractor shall install temporary silt fence around the staging area(s). Temporary silt fencing will also be placed
around the temporary stockpile areas as material is stockpiles throughout the construction period.
6. The Contractor shall ensure that the livestock watering system and temporary fencing is installed prior to beginning any
stream grading or construction. If no livestock are present at the site this requirement may be waved by the engineer,
but these items shall be installed prior to the lessee moving livestock to the site. MAINTENANCE PLAN
7. The Contractor shall install temporary rock dams at locations indicated on the plans.
8. The Contractor shall install all temporary and permanent stream crossings as shown on the plans in accordance with the
NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. The existing channel and ditches on site will remain Maintenance Plan:
open during the initial stages of construction to allow for drainage and to maintain site accessibility. 1. Qualified personnel, on a daily basis will evaluate all temporary erosion and sedimentation control practices for
9. The Contractor shall construct only the portion of channel that can be completed and stabilized within the same day. stability and operation.
2. Inspect and maintain all erosion control measures every 7 days and after each significant rainfall (0.5 inches or greater)
10. The Contractor shall apply temporary seed and mulch to all disturbed areas at the end of each work day. and document with inspection reports and written logs will be kept.
11. The Contractor shall clear and grub, where necessary, an area adequate to construct the stream channel and grading 3. A rain gauge will also be kept on-site and daily rainfall amounts will be recorded.
operations after all Sedimentation and Erosion Control practices have been installed and approved. In general, the 4. Any repairs needed will be performed immediately to maintain all practices as designed.
Contractor shall work from upstream to downstream and construction in a live channel shall utilize a pump-around or 5. The contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance of temporary on-site erosion control and sedimentation control
flow diversion measure as shown on the plans. Contractor shall not clear and grub more than can be stabilized before measures.
rain. 6. The contractor shall be responsible for implementing and following the approved sedimentation and erosion control
plan.
12. Contractor shall begin construction upstream and proceed in a downstream direction until the reach is completed. The 7. A copy of the combined self-inspection monitoring form can be found on the DEMLR website at:
Contractor may concurrently work on separate reaches as long as no more is disturbed than can be stabilized in that htt //de nc. ov/about/divisions/ener mineral-land-resources/erosion-sediment-control/forms
( p� q� g gy- )
same day.
13. After excavating the channel to design grades, installing in-stream structures, applying seed and mulch, matting, and
installing transplants, the new channel can receive flow. Channel shall not be complete until approved by Engineer.
14. Water will be turned into the constructed channel once the area in and around the new channel has been stabilized.
Immediately begin plugging, filling, and grading the abandoned channel, as indicated on plans, moving in a
downstream direction to allow for drainage of the old channels. No water shall be turned into any section of channel
prior to the channel being completely stabilized with all structures installed.
15. Any grading activities adjacent to the stream channel shall be completed prior to turning water into the new stream
channel segments. The Contractor shall not grade or roughen any areas where excavation activities have not been
completed.
16. Once a stream work phase is complete, apply temporary seeding, permanent seeding, and mulching to any areas
disturbed during construction. Apply permanent seeding mixtures, as shown on the vegetation plan. Temporary seeding
0-1
shall be applied in all disturbed areas such that ground cover is established within 15 working days following
completion of any phase of grading. Permanent ground cover shall be established for all disturbed areas within 15
working days or 90 calendar days (whichever is shorter) following completion of construction.
03
17. Contractor shall improve and construct the farm roads and crossings by installing culverts, stabilizing side slopes, and
modifying any farm roads according to the plans and specifications.
18. All disturbed areas should be seeded and mulched before leaving the project. Remove temporary stream crossings and
0-1 any in-stream temporary rock dams.
19. The Contractor shall mechanically remove and treat areas of invasive species vegetation throughout the project area
L
according to the plans and specifications prior to demobilization.
20. The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation and live stakes, according to planting details and specifications. The
03 Contractor shall complete the live staking and reforestation (bare-root planting) phase of the project and apply
permanent seeding at the appropriate time of the year.
In
21. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials at all times and disposed of prior to
_
demobilization of equipment from the site.
oo C

cn
0 ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
166680 4
Lo
(N
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PO
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8Caary,RNORTH CAROLINA 275680
Phone:[phone]
Iax:
N T E R N A T I 0 N A L FLicense#:919.463.54 F-108490
7
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
WE KIRK I
FARMS NORTH, IJLC
INSTALL 16' GATE PIN: 8731-33�59�8
DB: 838 PG: 00, TRACT IV
REFERENCE: GB: 5 2 'G: 286, TRACT II
/ I / / / 1 1 16 LF - 48" CSP 41D D`B: 1158/P9 305 INSTALL BARBED WIRE
/ / / / / / I I INV. IN 3,046.10' \ i \ '\ \ PC; C/SLR`. 6460 FENCE (TYP.)
s� / / / / I INV. O(JT 3,045.30' , \ \ \ \ \ 1 / / END UT1 REACH 1
CONTROL POINT#305 ' / / I I \
GROUND COORDINATES 3456.03' // / B GIN UT1 REACH 1 ,) I \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / I I IN BEGIN UT1 REACH 2 REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
E: 830566.09' / + / / I _�—' \ / / / 1 1 STA. 13+25.00 WITHIN CONSERVATION \
ELEV: 3065.15' / / STA. 10 98.02 �/ _ .� _�_ I \ / / I _� o I •M \ EASEMENT (TYP.)
-�. -'� 30 � _ — I I P Ln �`` / / l l I cy,�- -—_ — \ 20"wAl NUT \ \ \
// // j�� I I 12+�32159// / / IOC DOUBL DROP I \ i c3 _ -�_ ^I \ 1 ,\ \ \ ci, \ \ \
O,, / (a �� /l �1 // / / / 1 CRO S V/ANE/ I I / 7 /(TYFP.) 1 LO\ AND ROK \ \ \ I -� � - \ - \ `"� \ \
✓ _ - _ _ ST TY •�- .�.* / / ST P POOL YP. \ \ � \ \ _
5 — —_� / i *;i y / / f l8a`wALNU ( \ ) \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ F—
, N.....---- --� \___ -� _=- ; � / �/ / / / l l �� l I
����� _ ——— �' }� ,� \ \ \ �X /
1 �� \ l:"wALN�ir \ \ \ 1 I 1 LULL]
\ \ ��. / / / / / ,�r� / rR` ' \ ?`/ d+ � 1 I i ' `rt C�� � \ . . \ • \ •
\ \ TRIPLE
I \ J fi (!)
\ \ \ \\\ ��I ' / / `• _ A�►�' --_ ,,. ---L. ��'D wj- \ , , w LNUI'
�__-__�_...-...\ \ ♦, ��' ,/ \ ( ( .14/'J'9�(r 1 �.A �e��a � _ /_ _ — —nLu �4. ,; - k X X- --X X —X .:"" )
W
ke -Ms.*;-friiiitow_ __,,,,.- _ -.4111111 _
..., ..-e)k__• '' ______" 111-4-1111r --. ___---- --I "---- --.,
\ � % _�/ ���\a — C '� _'. ��A I�j z� ✓t �" N� �- - _ -_-- — �� 20"wA N�TS I \ I
l
` ` \ /- �,c' i�\ \ \ \ \ `♦ �� � --- �� S ` -�- - \ — - / / ��
_ \ •�7t_.'ti' llro.11MLW/j -- - - --- -_- — 64--->-'------4---- - O
��\ \ /)641
0 „� -- \N \ \ \ \ \ so \ \ .� \ �\ -- I \ 24"V1. Ts�o ST•�� \-_�- --- �y� ---�=_-� / / /-- / / 0
�. I NU �kj \• /
•
\ �" k,, // �, \ \ \ \ \ 0 .,�, \ \ \ 1 l I \ \ \ \ \oFK�_-- aI..� �� \� � , � \ �,,_,, O
` \ � / \ d ST�ALLx� GATE \ \ \ \ \ \ . • • _ \ , _ ----
kIN, \ � */ / \ \ \ " E N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � � � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,fr,T ----
\♦ \\��\��j� /�`' � � \ \ \12+11\81 \ \ ��,\a, - \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ `\ - - _ _ �ZO. -.-`_ • - = ��_ _ -
,��`\\ / \ \ \ \ \ -rn� \� \\ \\ G�OLIFT\WIT�i \\ \ \ ,c�"w- Nub ,�__ -
- \ ��� \ \ BRUSH TOE l'Y \ \ \ \ \ --�
s'�, , = — \ i\OG\DROP (GYP.) \ _ \ \ \ \ \
ROCK CROSS VANE (TYP.) 4) -, \\ \ \ \ �\ - Et _ N N \ , \ \ N \ \ \ \ H
- - ��� \\ \ \ ' % z \ \ \ \ -� - N N \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ cn
\ __--- ��\\\�\ \ \ \\ ��� \ \ �`\� \\� \�. �Al- N N\ N �\ \ \\ \ I \ \ \ LU
„ , ------ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ N
7 N \ � \ \ \ \ \ \
_ \�\\� \\ \ \ \ � �\ �� Nam\\ N\ �NN N N - � -INSTALL BARBED WIRE \\ \ \ \ \ \ \FENCE (TYP.) \ \\\� \ N �� �� N \ \ �— -
It TEXIONG PENCE N N \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _
GRADE COIN- DLL° a ` \N\� INSTALL 4' GATE 2 - 16 LF - 18" CSP \\ \ N \\ \ \\ \ANAL€ PA MEI \ \ H
J-HOOK T \ \ \ INSTALL 16' GATE FLOODPLAIN CULVER CONTROL POIN)`#304 N \ \ \ FAMILY PRQPE TIESL.P. \ \\ \\ \\ \\
?'`) INV. IN 2 989.76 GROUND COORD N'ATES \ \ \ \ \ Q
' N: 713312.24' \ \ \ \ \ •p I N. 72'�-72-6837 \ \ \ \ \ \
VVt KIRK INV. OUT 2,989.37' N ELEV: 3038 02' \ \ \ \ DB: 4 9 P : 16 3 \ \ \ \ \ \
FARMS NORTH, LLC \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
PIN: 8731-33-5998 ' \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \
4 DB: 838 PG: 400, TRACT IV
\ \ \ \ \
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II
cn
AND DB: 158 PG: 305
00 PC: C SL: 6260
Lo
Lo
in
c NOTES:
1. ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED 5. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN GRADED MUST HAVE POSITIVE
WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED. DRAINAGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
0 2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE P��
� CHANNEL PLUG
OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP ���_
o NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
LL
in
3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE 7. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTROL ANY INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN
WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES EASEMENT. r
ALONG MEANDER BENDS.
Lo
8. LOCATIONS OF BOULDER STEPS AND GRADE CONTROL UT to RUSH FORK
co 4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD UT1 — PLAN VIEW
OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
In
AROUND EASEMENT.
N 9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 20 0 20 40
O -_
itliti
� SCALE (FT)

cn
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
166680 5
Lo
N
N-'P PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
' WE KIRK
PIN: 8730-09-3258
DB: 838 PG: 404
WE KIRK REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
FARMS NORTH, LLC
AND DB: 158 PG: 305 Michael Baker Cary, Ne2,, AROLINA275680
PIN: 8731-33-5998 PC: C SL: 6260 & PC: C SL: 7314 Phone:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#4 F310840
DB: 838 PG: 400, TRACT IV
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN NCDMS ID NO. 100068
AND DB: 158 PG: 305 HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
d
PC: C SL: 6260 (CONSERVATION EASEMENT)
o"qk`� DB: 917 PG: 978
‘'Qogo � INSTALL BARBED WIRE 'L OD PC: C SL: 7314
FENCE (TYP.) so
REMOVE EXISTING _x_
FENCE (TYP.) BEGIN UT2 INV�N 2�,70, x
CABIN TO BE REMOVED STA. 10+00.00 /NV OUT:2997.63- ,� +
\ __ _ _ ���— V 4 "�x�x ALL SOIL ROADS WITHIN THE
'` CONSERVATION EASEMENT
�� GRAVEjOAD _ — xx\ WILL BE REMOVED
�� - —
•- �x-/ — — _ _ _ _ �- ram.'
m / � Ce
CABIN ++� �►yLB '/ x�xi _ _ �' .-� .=�_ — �30,00_ — — _
GUY
,� \ / i '� i / �// \ — •..• ... — _ _ '����3 0 �! -- _ — _ �x REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
j �/ / / / �-�- 47 \_ �� \_gim Cam' , �� \\ - k � \� ,,�,� max_ WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
J�(�G D��P�2 / 3- ` — L \ \ , IL\ — \ ���x — — -�� ` — — _ _ ��SEMENT (TYP.)
i --:�- BOULDER STEP TYP.) \LerG'�b'ANK Y`P. \' , � �.�\ — — �k ���\ ��. �M N — — — —___
w \ 1 1 �:���_ \/
�y �, I �7+28.57 • — �a�M—j —/— — -� — — — ����, �,�_ —� __ -_- - - -x�k� `,�`� 1 .�::. - \k\
c= / / LOG AND ROCK/ i \ s, % �o ——__=_= k _ \ \
V I 1 I / / STEP POOL (TYP.) / d iikK ' �`°� — — _ -== _ — �k— — P (TYPO v —
I / - \
NLI-I I I 1 \\ I ' \ �/ A / �� / / 1$+0e -__E_"_' r•i7 r� --5 19 0 �,. \s• ``_ 29 — \ ;..n.:ii ` #,SA `= = _ _ — �� \\
_ _J__46:17100
\ i ` 7 ___ _CV_J_ _1 4 Ate" �- �� — _ _ _ __J_ �—' �l. _ __ _ ___ - - _� _� Rs, —�_� \
I 1 / I --- --- - V- -�)./ __ — ��_�l� _ E \\��\ _ — � — - -- � �, t � `.- r- I11�\ .* — `--�\. \ W x
/ / % I I __ / \�_ - .--,was /van do ' �,- . ,— / \ I /�� ;� rl����l ���� \ �7 \ .,�ti•• \ —r�\ \ \
^\ i� /� � �%�> ��� .✓� —7� U,aU � � � �' \ iv'll lai �. : ���� ... F
�.� i� Sri 0 . � -Q �' i lllll �� / i A V O • _ ♦ A —+• _
�' ��dl� •yrr._-ti i0•g- k....,..__ • .`� i� � — �� •,m--.� ----- 7>�� c� \ 4, - = -- — — — v _ice —
�,,.., _ Y� i uu �7j � • � __�Ls � � ti � � � � IUhOv � (�' � _ ar-___A A � V��- ��\� \�-� — V� A
• -- G �,.� �iy ui�l� ai :o�• — , y�� ._ __ ~ _ _ �" !=,,+• •__ �� OF BAN ` `♦ \ \ \ \
. \\`\C------------ \\\-\\\\\\•__ c•)<41
-- iEX T ro)\oF Nrc N \ \ \ y ;,\ \ \ — J 1 I I I 1 1/ \ \ \\ \ �'�.� \ I ill,-` , ---- \ \ — /
\ \N\\NNNNN \ -9 \ \ • \ \ N \ \ \ , \ ll,,, �< \\\\�,` 00
H \ \ \ \ \ \� N N N N N \ \�0 \ \ \ f�'OCK CROSS IVANE� (TYR) \ GRAdE CONTROL ROCK � \\ \ \ \ \ -N�.��\\ % °,,:�c-� 0•
\ \ \ \ p \ \ \ \ \ J-NOOK VANE (TYP.) `_ �.� •� .�.
\ \ \ 0
to \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •\ N \ ,-- X
w \ \ \\ \ \ \ 16 78.O \ ,e� \ \ �` \ \ �,_ \� `� \ �\ - \ - \ _ \ _ — _ \a_ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ `,_` . ,Z \ \ \ \ �i. \ \ s\ /„ , ET„i;. --T- __ - W -�- — \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0. \ \ \ \ \ G3
I \\ �x—�- \ e x \ 6, \ GEOLIFT WITH \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
v \ \ \ \\ \ - \ ��� \� \�RUSIT�OE (TYP.) \� \\ \ \ \ \\ END UT2 STA. 10+86.24 \ \ \ \ \ ��'
\ \ END UT1 REACH \ \ \ \ \ ANNE PALMER TOB UT1� BEACH 3 \ \ \ �, \ 1 I Ni
\ \ BEGIN T1 REACH \3 \ ,,
\ \ + \ FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. INSTALL 4' GATE \ \\ \\ e ' I C�
STA. 16 00.00 \ \
\ \ \ \ PIN: 8721-72-6837 \ \ \ I�,.
\ \ \ DB: 489 PG: 1683 INSTALL BARBED WIRE \ I
INSTALL FENCE (TYP.) I
4' GATE \ \
c \ \
-0 \
L(- \
c,_ \
(s) \
03
Lo
Lo
c NOTES:
ro
1. ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED 5. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN GRADED MUST HAVE POSITIVE
WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED. DRAINAGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE
OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP :, _ CHANNEL PLUG
i NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
p
LL
3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE 7. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTROL ANY INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN
WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES EASEMENT.
cc ALONG MEANDER BENDS. r .
s) 8. LOCATIONS OF BOULDER STEPS AND GRADE CONTROL UT to RUSH FORK
Lo 4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD
Lo OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER. UT1 — PLAN VIEW
cn AROUND EASEMENT.
\ 9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 20 0 20 40
O -,_
N p
i Q itn_l_
\o C
Eikii SCALE (FT)

F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
c�
166680 6
Lo
WE KIRK
`� PIN: 8730-09-3258
3
DB: 838 PG: 404 �Pp $
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II
AND DB: 158 PG: 305 PROGRESS DRAWING
PC: C SL: 6260 & PC: C SL: 7314 REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
'< (CONSERVATION EASEMENT)
�s -\ DB: 917 PG: 978 i
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
, \ \\ PC: C SL: 7314 Michael Baker Cary, O NRTH Carkway A 275680
CD -k- \ �\ \ ` \ Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
p• 4vA ��+ \, NCDMS ID NO. 100068
XO , �� — \\�` \ \ �� �� REMOVE EXISTINGd
'� ` �� \ ` - FENCE TYP.
v , •\ \fit NN \\\ � , ` ` `� ` REMOVE EXISTING FENCE WITHIN (TYP.)
� ',♦\ \�♦` 1 \\\\ 2990_ + �� ciu-� ,� CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TYP.)
0 / �`��� �1` `\\\� \ \k ' INSTALL BARBED WIRE
// �� � • \�\ \\�\ � \ \ \ FENCE (TYP.)
�G / / „‘ \ \ \ \�,\ \ \ \ , x x�x r x x�—x—x—
`,r ' / •..4 \ \ `�``� , \ \� END UT4 STA. 10+42.80 X�x//
// / �o�\ \ ,�. ���`\����\ TOB UT1 REACH 4 x�X�, /, /� / / / / /
/ / \ \ \ \ �\ ��\♦\ ,RW-QI C-MDSS VANE (TYP.) \ ,(� / / / / / ,\ \:- \ \ \1 ----_ /
I / / / )..\ \ \\)\ — \ -k� _ _ x x - - pR6 i� / / / /wiiF / / / /
I `/ / / / / .�� \ ���. �\\\ :o_ �� \ _ k _ �,- X/rx / B/ / 7i // /7V // // GE/OLIFJT WI �,
•
I I / / // / / \ \ \\r \\ \ \\ - - - __ - �x�x— , x�-'� � / / / / i / '//
/ /BRUtSH TOE (TYP: /
I I , / 1 / / ; I a \� -.18" 4PLY \ \ \ _ - - - C���#�OP (TYP.) / � - n"O R / 7- E � / // . . . / �
I I / I %\N
• +. \ , / // _ - • / / /
/ � `� . PLC\ �� - - - - _ _ - - - - / / _ __ — _ _ PLA1 / GRACOIT OL�ROCI�`, - • ' - - -ALLSOILR-CIAaPI-THINT E_ - - - ���-_ % ���? %� ' _ = . _ ` �/ J� OOK,VNE (TYP� IL•
'-- \\1.\44-------
� \ _� - - - -CONS-E-RVATIO1LEASEIVIENT � — —/ � //// /_% � /� �i�% /� y� �� � — `\ ���= —=�� � � � ==— - -nP_ OF Q / / //— I
/ I J ♦� W1LL BE-RE1�lQVe - - - 5 - - / - - / ^ - - r -� _ —__�_ /
I l ♦ — — _ — --297 5 i % / �i Z G �"T� L / "1._. .,--. -.4.. ..."*`•-N . — 4���w ;' -a Ci —E��� '= — _ / -
�+�jl —
1 1 I \!l / / I ` \ \ ``' —2975 — — — / / �_/ -- — —/ j j /� j /� - >. ,/%C: C . / ��_ _= �••-M — i�� _? \` �—, ��� W
_ /'��
1 I l / I I `\ \ 1, \ \ v — — — — — — — — / / / / / / / �/< / I / — — — --=% \ �O' (DUO4 = — '�"—+a+►' r , ..__- 5.r
a V J
► ♦ ' ♦ — — — — — — / /—
, / // I / ninili�l — `\ �� f•lips alp` z.�\
gpv
/ / , ,, ,---_-_-_- . Awroo,\\\__- _--- ,p„iu � ^ n' ._- -_ _ g70- / ti n'��•�•' I(IIIII -,•^es- \\ EX�S'R--_ _, ��•_ u--,\
--- • �A
1
,_,
/ / / All llll�i/�� \� I —� 1/
�//�.��O• N A
),
/ ,,' I ��1"' nn1'� \� --- '� Bar, / *k‘il ,/ / / / `7� \ \ / N \o \ \ / �V
N
/ // I �` f'l /A� � L _ \ \ ``.` \ /X) �• c.•
\ � � ' I // /J/`l�� // // — \ ` \\ \ / `\ \ \\ \\i_ — `� 967i— —_ — —
• (4,,,‘.4._ ..,00,004•- , =,--___--L---_,__ _,\ „`""!,":„..-_,„-_,..,,___,
sIt
I ///VI\ / All , - - - -\ L \ \ �— \ � � -��- � .' /; ,' N BOUL�ERST�R(TYR _�__ _ , O�,K-Vy41 f6� = - _ _ _ _ _ —
g' //, r — ` \ \ \� \ . r� Q=�����• /��//� \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — W
9
c3` f _ \ - - — - —_ g \ \��\ � \ \\� \�� -- - - - 414 � � . :� ,—� ��"� - i► �1-72 6837 — _`' � \ �` _
X i / 0 -/ — _ S \ \ \ - / / - - - — _— _ — i x V
_ _ �• � \—
o - -_ _ — — _ -�=\— _ , —olsz �- ,4�. \__
\ �$E-GIN UT4 �/ x�'` Q
- - - - - _ _ — T1, t-l-r3 � - - - _ ®- i \ —STA. 10+00.00 �3 / x�X�
�� \ STALL- - - -r- 1,-, -
J' _ _ 6z _ - - � GIN,�JT \ � 4 , \ � ` - , ' , � - ; - TR, � /X
�� - - - — — — STA-2�2+ ,�7��\ \ \ AT\ — — �Q ��!. , t � ter ` / — ELE/x —d N�N� Z�0
P
d% __ =ANNE-PAL�IVIE — - -END UT3 STA. 26+30:8.0, 7 \ ' �,�i _ ,' ,22e-RcC "c FOR►c
\ \ \ / #IV�V:2967.76 � / ROSH
_ _ _ F_AMIL,Y TOB REACH UT1 REAL 18 & \ _ _ /�'' �_', �rnfv our:296526/ ,��/ �-
\ O \ \ ` /% \ - / IBROKEN� X // d —3�
��` �- - -P�PF�TIES, L.P. -
�j - — — --PAN: 8721-72-6837 SS FLOP /f ;,=�F%e' P
- DB: 489 PG: 1683 PGG� + / � 16 LIB'- 36" CSP NOTES:
�°) +/ / / ' : 110? j-
. • V. I / 1 . ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED
GP / N 2,969.00'' WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED.
CONTROL POINT#500 ��� O X/ / / / I IVV, QU 1/L,967 '
La' ii STATE IC N: 71 855 04E COORDINATES / / ��-` /(a.AM / - 2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE
•E: 829608.53 LPL' BP� D WIRE a OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE
ELEV: 2989.63' + / NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL.
0_ V W C`E. ('GYP.) �/
21- / / ♦ 3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE
XfrO�/ / sc_o + / WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES
/ ALONG MEANDER BENDS.
in + ♦ /� /
c �1M, /
c �/ / / / 4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED
+ / / / OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED
\ +�/ / ✓ ,M� AROUND EASEMENT.
/ s
+�/ , % / 5. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN GRADED MUST HAVE POSITIVE
/ , s DRAINAGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.
i FILL EXISTING CHANNEL l ��0/.� / a
L° x / 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE
/ TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP
D r - 4 CHANNEL PLUG I / LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
12E ►_�_�
03 \
x )7•N 'N 87.. CONTRACTORLOCATIONSOF WILLBOULDER CONTROLSTEPS ANYAND INVASIVEGRADE SPECIESCONTROL WITHIN UT to RUSH FORK
co
1114
EASEMENT. UTl UT4 — PLAN VIEW
Lo
V X / Q�
In
\'/ NGD
N STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD 20 0 20 40
o= CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
� QR ` till
9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SCALE (FT)

ill ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
c�
166680 7
\ / C63
N PI
PIN: 8730-09-3258 vg/
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
- Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
/ / Phone:[phone]
FaINSTALL BARBED WIRE / / Lice 919.463.5490
License*
INTERNATIONAL License* F-1084
FENCE (TYP.) / / s
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
REMOVE EXISTING / '
FENCE (TYP.) .
r _ .- •••''.' / ..../........:, ''...2...../ ,,,,,,::;-__ ;< .*°'
—X a - - LMEA ONTROI-R-01NT#502 `� / — X x • / • j � _/i// �/� / / /
/ / `J �I GF30LDCOORDINATES�_ i '� � — _ �� �/ / � i//� / /
— ,ELEV: 29590 i / — / JJ /i IL
— _ / 29 5 —0 / / I GEOLIFTjWITH // / / �j�1�T Rl Sp R//
— — /' S _ / % !: RW / BRUSHrfOE,( ''% /��;�� � Nip
H - - - - - - / RO�.I�C��UBL D — / / / — T ii /i%///�jI/ice ?? /
_ / -� _ _ _ O� / / / / Napo / -P�/// /// .�� i/
��C— — / / A A / / / /� /—
tn � / _ _ — � � , � / / / AO9
FAR 0 / 4p��j--�/ �� -- a
— i�-�i i/j 295•- -_ �� � / � — �/ / x / / - / R�S� �i /��Z9ii //35/// %�� -�''%� // ///
— 2955 = y,
���/�� ��� _�_�� , /� ! / /���_,� j // / ,- �.—.j/ — zo _ / / ,LOG AND ROCK / / ,.
O
/ / / �` = `- _- � // / \ /''� � %�% /, -- i' STEP POOL (TYP.)
f -/ , — �► � _ �� I R STEPI TYP. /�� /��/����
I i j / ��- ( \ ! ���� �'e a �`` 0 — — �/ / /(TYP.) % / %// %,i - ��r-- ����� . 311+0�_;Si 4;11/ I/ PIN: 8721-72-68
00 -A ;41\0 WOW-•- f' / . • -- -.--: r.
\ �� — , y�_ — _ 'ram �� �/ //—� //// I_ � � — �� r :::::3:2:
l/ _........ IOW.*i j 1/7 _, y).._ — --,-...--0,7cr. / el"
Mitirrf ------ - -----. '. ,$)
— _ / \ _ // ` — r\ \ /
tip / — i✓ — — ��, ���� r— / / //// �— �//// \{ ► — ����� � ' • --- � /\ -.` j— `� �•- i.�.1• -�(�T� � ! \� �/ / //// // �/ / �i i j�0�0j �\ L U T �_�� ` ` � '_" + /
cr / 103 i5 OC�/S '\
N - — — — —556Z � - — \ �� \ � �i /� / / / !/ // / , �� 15�L�1 RR T 0 , \ I= 5»�E� • �z4"BE CHI �. :•'o`i "'```'��. -
- � _ �� - - - /\ 1 / % / j / / / / �l�/A � � / Jim•fti �� p 1 ' �� �Jc�Z� -��� 'g��. �`` ate: _ / — L
—� — -� — _ �� j / // /// / o°% �• * \ c C ° NEIS -�' �� � — —\ .o-4-•oP \ � -� / •
— —_ / _—, //Y ��// /i /� _ j / / ...�;f. /- E \ N Top �F �N�- . ;\ — /
Z — __ — _'���^ ���/ 0�85 \� I /1 �// // 2,, ✓,< �y `� / / \ /', _ - - - \ \ 4 LF� - 60� CSP \ \ \ \ `\ \ \� \---1----�\_-�•� \ , : =_�;,_, ��
J 1,^- �`_ _ / I /, / / , ; � � . ;iz ... \ 1 ✓ \ INS IN z,925.59' \ \ \ \ �---- �� `y<�
es.Ild`�-X � ,��` - — 3 \ 1 l � � � / / / ' ( :� - °oo�, \ ,�jG' i��, — � � � � INS/ Ol�T�29J25�52, \ \ - 1 + 11 \ \ \ �,_�� \� �� _ _ ........
U _ — — _� \ \ 1 /� I I \� .. s i �'�-,_ _ ��- Ni r \ \ N \ 44/
\ \ ` N \ -� \
I— - \ N
\ , 1 I I �� vvv ,-'°tea ___ -=_ � ;4: � v v v ® \v �V A v \ \ v v - v
V �� �/ Ipi E �8»IPI VAV•��TL���- �� _ , j� y/�a�! — A a
\ \ \\ \ \ V ---i�
/� \ 1 / � \ \ ��\\�� _ �-�—��/ - - - - - - - + ` � � \ � . CONTROL INT#3 6 ` \ \
\ \ / BQ"CMP \ \ �� _ =_�� — ` GROUND CO AI`ES ` \ \ \ I 'A
\ \ d1 //< lNb IN:29�J 0.13'\\ \\ \ � \ � � � _ x�k N: 712091.05 \ \ \ \ LOG DROP (TYP.) N
y _________/ lA<V OUT:293`7,`38' \ \ _ \ __ — _ — / �X�k ELEV: 2934 51' \ ��` \ \\ \ \ ®
\ \ — \ �k • ` \
— •
_ \ _-- _ __ _ CON{RAC�ORSHALLIBIS �k�. . \
_ \ — — FL-�JAI.CzE P�Q 7�T T�-IE OUTLET X\x ' . \ ` \ 1 ® �4
�3- co
,-------
0/ SS6?� IA,S 'STO NE. \k . \
ANC , _ _ _ — _ ; , _ _ _ _ _ _ �x v
— — — �k�x . . . .
PIN: 8721-72-6837
c
cn
CO
LO
LO
co
NOTES:
1. ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED 5. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN GRADED MUST HAVE POSITIVE
WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED. DRAINAGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
r
0 2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE . -�
OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP ���_ 4 CHANNEL PLUG
i NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
0
LL
3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE 7. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTROL ANY INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN
CC WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES EASEMENT. r •
s) ALONG MEANDER BENDS.
Lo
8. LOCATIONS OF BOULDER STEPS AND GRADE CONTROL UT to RUSH FORK
co 4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD UT1 — PLAN VIEW
OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
AROUND EASEMENT.
N 9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 20 0 20 40
O -,_
CVp -
\ 0 Q 1
\ C
E.% SCALE (FT)

cn
F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
166680 8
Lo
N cb NOTES:
O 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE
�� 1. ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP
WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED. LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
/ 2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE 7. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTROL ANY INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN END UT1 REACH 4 PROGRESS DRAWING
OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE EASEMENT. STA. 37+91 .37 FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
/ 8. LOCATIONS OF BOULDER STEPS AND GRADE CONTROL -- —
3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD
/ / WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER. IL ROAD
/ ALONG MEANDER BENDS. / _ So
9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. / �-�%_-_,__=—_
4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED / ''%�'- - __ —
, • / / ' FF-OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED // /% / — — — — — _—39+ - Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
�+ /// / _ _ — — , 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
0 S Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
/ / /*/ AROUND EASEMENT. f/ /j/ / / -- _ _ = Phone:[phone]
l8 C Efi/ / / /—�-- Fax:[phone]
/// / �� // / // /!�- -�_ — __ I N T E R N A T I 0 N A L License#: F-1084
/ -- --..---7- (
// 1 / / ---/n,cii%/ /// \ 4tioy /, j A/: �' NCDMS ID NO. 100068
14 / //
r / , , ,,v,/ ,„
,,, /, , 7 :, -,,,
/, ,„ , ,,,, , z
, /, , , , , -, \
, „..„
.., _„„ _
,,
/// PP // WE KIRK //11 I I 1 )/11 ///// �,� / /�14/ /C)4°
PIN: 8730-09-3258 / ///f ( ,► ,/, r / . /
a DB: 838 PG: 404 20«PO-tlA///// , ��( j i II � "
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II /// / ///i//// 1 i / / w�
/*/
AND DB: 158 PG: 305 // /� ,�/ /��////// // i// / .x
/// ALL SOIL ROADS WITHIN THE ooueLE / // ///////// r / ��' AL Gr /
PC: C SL: 6260 & PC: C SL: 7314 DOUBLE �� R I �/ // // ►, / y
//// CONSERVATION EASEMENT .r�. /// /� ///////�/ /1 ,'// // / / / ® • • x
WILL BE REMOVED N �'a r
// SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN //DWI FEX I/� /I/� I �� ��' / // / / // //
//
HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
gARBE I 1 / I I�,I / 1 /// / / / / // " '
CONSERVATION EASEMENT X � � I I I �l1 I I II �� j/% // / • / // / / /
i� ( DB: 917 PG: 978 ) x� / I I I I I 1111 • ,/ / • / / / /
/I I ''� �� / / / / / / /
r�
'4 /
,� /x� /� I 1)/I I I I I I I I ; ! / ti / / / / / /
PC: C SL. 7314 x 22~ -,- l/ /lllll III �i//,,' / ti /
�/ Air x� � / / / / /// III �. , / ,�� / / �°
i / / / I ///. / / / / / o /
/ /x N / /� / / ( ( 1 )>/ / ' i •
a _�-- �-x—x �x--X—f'� ��� / // // / I >////// ,, i i/ / / /l / // / / //
• x x x x x x x x x x x/ i
�' ro«TREE/ //// / // ,/ ;,' -. / / // / / / / / /
/ //1--- ,,,,, / / / /
ROAD ��� 29 / / / / / �� j� _____ - _--,40�7 eI,, /� //® II 1
SOIL / / / / / / / / /j j�j �� �'E ��+� /
/ / 1 CONTROL POINT#308
GROUND COORDINATES
V:7-7/--
V— — / / / / :C // / //% .�_ �p�� N: 711505.4T/ / / / / / // //�' — ) rE: 828898.77' El)
' // / / / / //� �� %4143P ROCK CROSS VANE (TYP.) ELEV: 2918.81'
/ / // / 74,///// r co62
I0 Or
/�� / ,
/ / 11 / /N I/ / .X
/ / ( ' (/ , :iit ;-PIN: 8721-72-6837 / , / \
/ v �" v
I //,' \ / — — 6, GRADE CONTROL ROCK
/ I i 1,' — _
8 � , J-HOOK VANE (TYP.)
/ / / C0
1 I // /// /,'
/
/ / / /
/ / / / /
/ \ /// / 4/; _ }, GEOLIFT WITH _
/ // / �/ / - BRUSH TOE/(1 YP.)
ROCK VANE (TYF�) / ® \ ; I I r-, ,Aftf / /;,c B
7 / ® 7 I 3v1,1
I ��a.• 41
/ \
,, t,„ , , /6
\ 1
I I ® ' 0
/ / \ I ,/ I,;/ / 4;;16',%tc (i / i
°QI / ��� - - - , — 71 PIN: 8721-72-6837N le / LOG/VANE (TYP.) / /
35+00 /
• _
E I / I I P ��, - ,% /
TO — �, � _ _
—
/ ''�'�
f.
0
•oo to / // / "—"�N / - ---- - -
Lo / - ,
LO I 7 , --------_____4tA ---'5W-Nrow i a„,-x -
/
___
. ,.., , ,,, .„.___ ....%.,..,„,...,.
-..5... ..iiwi.„_________-____ __ __-- .- ........ ),,,.„.r...1.,,,„,± . 1..,, ,_. _ _ , _
-
___ ___,
-g/se_ — — _ „--- ---
__- --- e_____ ___ ____ _--- ____ —
_ _
C + —�►= 1 — —„ - --,_-_-_--,2 _ --
—2j�___ — �__ - - __ _r — \ — — � � , _ 8 _ � � // — / /
_ _�' ` /
0-1
cv) — — ;.�---------= — — � , , . —® _ _ — — — — ROQI�,J- �'bCSK VANE (TYP.)
n Q ��'-" OZSZ- - _ \ CONTROL POINT#307 — — / / ./
H O GROUND COORDINATES /
o C/) ® / —1V 11812 I
w \ \� BOULDER STEP (TYP.) — — . ELEV 9117.97'
inin Z \
D \ r - — — FILL EXISTING CHANNEL r
i \ — — a
L. I \co \ � - - - - � \ \ ����� CHANNEL PLUG UT to RUSH FORK
cn
I- , —
\ CD ' _
UT1 - PLAN VIEW
±,
c\i
0_ o
1 _ — 20 0 20 40
CV p
i a itill
�o C
Eihii SCALE (FT)

F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
c�
166680 9
Lo
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A' Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
q0 Michael Baker 8Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
9,9 Phone:x: 919.463.5488
63.5490
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
ANNE PALMER / /j /j%3060 _
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. — _ — — — — — -
- -- - // //i i j/ / —
PIN: 8721- 83�- —_ /
DB: 489 �' :168 — — - - - _ _ -,- / / - - - - - _
/ / // / / / —_-- - 7.„... .._ ____-_-_ ____—___ - 7y-CiLlF Vet �--- / '-i.� T - - - - - - -t- -- /"
// / 1h/ / / / / /csv // // i // � — _ __ — / /�/ — - - - a — - - - � /// /' //
/ /�0 / / / / 4) / // `/ ;//ice i _ —INSTALLBARBEDWIRE 7
_ - - - - - __— — _ - - - _ /
FENCE (TYP.) / // / / / , . //�/ /// /i / _— ____ ___ __ _ ____ - - - - i
/ / / / / / // // / / // / // — — — ' — ,, d-H- VA-VA-A�E�LY�.�- //77
/ //
// / / / // / / / / / /6)// // // ///,///�/�_ .�-! �__r - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - -/ 7 /� /
/ // / , / / / / /4-0 / / /,/ /�// / 11/ l/ // //- /// //, / , / , ,"/ -,--/ 1 - --i--- 3045- - _ � - - 1� - - - . :_ - - - - - /� /�/
//-.--__ _____ ___ .. --::-:-.—i-_-_-7,---„-------s-_,___ -_. ......_______ _ _ i ►—
LLJ
/ / /
z / /// // // /�/ ` // / ///// // /////// //j%-i X� � Lo �-..� ,.- .:�� r � / � — � / i/ t/�
o '�•- .� cif /
// ///j/ / // // �, / / ////// /////// ��j%/ A� �. � • . `- - - �� \ \ -; •\ "�rl \ �•, ` _ — // /- W
/ // / / / / / 'J!�i / / / / // / / / / // /,,r<' ` ! ���7- `` \ .p c ' ""..� . . / /
/// / / / /// / / //////// /�/' j . � ?' 4 . - �`-�'��'\ � �� � \ � \ �,��'� ` � /� to
ROC/K7F0S'&� /(TY P j/ / / / / /! ///// / // // /i/�- G/ r'IP" , -\ \ -- -�.��\ � `'� i' �-
I /// / / / / / / 7 �j / . /A-_.=_---_-_ _ r ,c, — ��// \ • ` ' \ \ \ , \\, _ ° = jt� i -,` ` 0.---
::
1 I I I ( / /dd i:p OF) i(TY1 IP/I.)// ,/,/ , / / // / / / // / i /777 ,3,10 / /. / ,- � � // N \ \ \ N .4` .\� - -
:-:-::
J-ip4Or: j ,43-2,-61,4 ‘..... —
/ ;4:
7/ ;//'5 . , %// . •-g5e-'°' ' N N \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / ) I I ) I / , I 1 /// /// /.4 **,..4 �0 — \\\` < \ \ - - , �� —• ' - - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ • \,
.\
/ / l / / I I 1 / / �`,�GL�i,="•. .� — ULCERS` P ( \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -�
// // // / //^-) l i / / �4''?�*ram* 4ir•- !� \ \ \ \
//
// /// / / / // / / / / / bA��j�►���,� .t.,.�>��� ..4. '•�, - — /— — \ \ \ \ \ LLI
// //// / / /// /j / / / / / / // / 4 1114►� *eill'l!F.°' 9)^ V v V \ V A \ \ \ \ \ \ v A
/ // / /i / / / / / l l ,G�41104 ►�.i �% .��� -�'.41 •. . / / v v A v V A \ V A \ \ \ \ v Z
/ /- �//////• / ///// //247rje yr/ / / 41**41�40�4_ �,,,� lir-41 :• \ vv _c , -- - - v \ V A \ V A \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
h /-j/ ;30 /// // /%/r///// y7 /fl*Ii!. ��_"- � ...c \ \ / / �\ _ r��- - r Z. \ \ \ \ _
$- / / // toe / /i /// / ,i,,, �►�,�� ��,.: \ \ — — — ' \ — - _ _ 2
� / ///,,/ / // / /// ///.i5 �.4L-Nur', ! 4;,,t 4 \ s A 2 — — — � 1
\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ , U
Cry \ 0 CONTROL POINT 302 \ \
/ // / '� / ��\ //� �— — V GROUND COORDINATE \ V A \ �\ \ Q
/ / / //,Sr./ ,%j j/ / ////�% � �71 ✓� �� _��_ � � �\ � — � � —� - - — — — — E: 829341.61' \ � \ \\ \
/ // / / /// /--- (.,•) ., 7 Z / / /4..... --.7,./q / /4 ,- •__ _- — — —• \ ELEV: 3058.92' \ \ \ \
lig
BEGIN UT / ///' / / / // // / 1/I \ \ � k 04 - - - \�\ INSTALL 4 GATE INSTALL BARBED WIRE \ \\ \ \ \\ \\
— FENCE (TYP.) \ \ \
STA. 10+00.0 f/ / ( / / I �— / ,�� \ \ i — — — ` 7 \ \\ \ \ \ \
� I ( \ \ \ � � � \ \ \
\ \ \ \ ,1 I , , _ — -.- - r\ N
/ 1 . , / — _ - - - _ \ - ANNE PALMER
r
/ / / / I 1 /,�/ / r — �-- -:_. _ �\✓� \ FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
I
I I I ( . � � I I ,,�1'7 , — — — — — — — \ PIN: 8721-72-6837
\ - l \ V �� ,'C / ���o / /
v ZDB: 489 PG: 1683
\ \
//\ \ \ - \ \ \ \ �� / �\ �� - - - ' '
\ \ _.__ , e
\ \N \ A \ v ' ' STONE LFN€Q
—A \ \ \VR• fr� DRo v. V v\ \ \ i j�� •
.A Ie.. ,o4 o ' OE— VRF- W C1AA EL ,Z
\ \\ \ \ - >�� \ / 'f " \ �� `. ( ' .a - FOR �M P \ Z
0 vv \ vvvA VA \ , I> Vv , A A (40<•- % A \'�/ I -��'�, - -
cn 0
\ \
`\ \ \\ \ \ \ `� \\ \• \� \\ T� // \ I �O I �, �� ' — ';•_" s — — INSTALL BARBED WIRE FENCE
\ \ \ \ \ - • G - 8s - '" �ci - - , AROUND PROPOSED BMP
\ 1 \ 1 \ ) \ \ \) I \I i \\\ N\ I �- /-7 / T r —-_- _
Mco
:4,. , 91 �,
\ \ \ \ ) 1 1 1 I , ;�— — 0,4, 1
80er - s,,..
---- --,-
c I I / I I e �x___ g� ` — sgo,,, ,./
NOTES:
/ l l / �_�-� T• Tom` o 1. ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED 5. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN GRADED MUST HAVE POSITIVE
— — — — - s° FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
l I I — , \ — A WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED. DRAINAGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.
I I I \ $ �\ \\ ' �� \ corvTReL�o�NT 03 3� _ X�k k 2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE ���
I ``�. GROUND COORDIN�CTE�S — — \ �� ♦ CHANNEL PLUG
i I I \ •
\\ \,� ,� \ �87, \ _ — \ — _ k OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP _
I \ \ � E: 829121.90 0—
W
�' — \ — NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
, \ \ \ N N J� LEV:-3D9L4 _ Jr) — — —
in \ \ N \N N\\\ \ — — _ — — \ \ 3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE 7. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTROL ANY INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN
\ \ \\ N N \ \\ N\ -�, , \ — , \ \ WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES EASEMENT. r •
\ \ \ — — — — _ ALONG MEANDER BENDS.
03 \ \\ \ \ \N \N \ — — — , ; —\ 8. LOCATIONS OF BOULDER STEPS AND GRADE CONTROL UT to RUSH FORK
co \ \ \ N
\ - 4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD UT3 — PLAN VIEW
OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
o N� \ 7 — — — — — AROUND EASEMENT.
\ \\\ `� _ _ — — — — — — — 9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 20 0 20 40
�- \ \ \ — —
CVp - � �
0 L 1 1 1
\ C
� SCALE (FT) 0

ael
f BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
c�
166680 10
Lo
N
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A' Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
'etj Michael Baker 8CaOrry, NORTHy CAROLINA 275680
9,9 Phone:x: 919.463.5488
63.5490
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-6837
/ - DB: 489 PG: 1683
' ' , INSTALL BARBED WIRE
/'V�/�/�— FENCE (TYP.)
/�V/ /� /, —=�_3040/ / - / / _
/ / / / / / ,� /- / / _
`0. / � / / /�.. = / / / / / //V�// ////// / // / / /� / ii
// / � ^3°coo — \ � � / / / / / / /�/ / /' // / / / l I / / , / -
..,
7 ,.._ ____
I
I
7
_ ___
49
_ _
--
~ ''LLJ � //_/ /// / / / / / // / / w /' `/ / / / X ® X X �_ / ` � � / / � / / / / ' // // / / / I / / /
/
_ '/ / ' LOG DROP (T(P ) ' /' i/ // // / / // ��,� / X J — _ , - - - �� - — / �/ I x�—x
to / / / / / _ / / / / �� - - - — — � / / / ~
/ / / / / lz/:
/ / / / ' LOG AND ROCK / ROCK J-HOOK VANE (TYPE — — — — — _ / / / v / ►�.�W / / / / / STEP POOL (TYP.) / — — — — — _ — _ / _i/, / o�h '/ram`j__ ``0 I ` / / / // / / / / // /
— __ i // / / _ _ _ / _ — i / / / / / / 0
/ / / = — _ / / / / /
/ _ /
16+ eki /
o _ _ _ _ 2
'\\\� ,. �i.�r �-/ ---1 / iillST. OF BA - - / — � _ _ � - -i/ =_ '�Y�i� �--i � � i� i � __ — =_��' j� \\ -ice �O
VI VI STE - \- \ ��0� ��— / �� —�—& . rwarri._ . __4_,,..1_1 -ftimmetriegn.,"_ --.:. '.% imams forsozgrog:- ---- r7,v —WL$— ��'i— •_ �'� -- j T�/� � r— ����� —7 / l-B�I. � /�L �� - —
e.
ia... .-_f ia SeginSIMill ''' 0
a --- _ — _ �, \ \ - — — _ •� •��A • G =� O::.•r - ��c�. • — I ` ---���n9C o — ''�' �� `_ taw T
'\ ---�-7_I_ �'_----A \ \ \�.-- I \ -, \ \ ;_ - ___ ---�-�_ \ � '� - _� _ _--_-_---/------------ -------\\i -�� \ �._ _ o
\ _
\ - \ I \ �- \ \-_- �— \ / \ `��\ \ -- \ 1 \ � i \ \ \ \ ♦ � �,
- - ---- \
`I I / / ' J \\ /\ \ \\ ` \\ \ o \ \ \ \ ST. Td1�t OF BANN N
\ \ \ I I I I I I / 1' �\ � \\ \\ `Ns /\\ �\ \\ \� � \ °�°,c-,`•\\ •\\\ \ \ \\ �� \• \\ \\ �� \ • N \ \\
2 \ I I I I I I i \ N\ \ \ V \ \\ \\ •\ \ N \ w
U 1 Xcr 1 X I \\ \ • \ N \\ \ •�\ \\ �\ •N N` �\ / \ N \ OULOR STEP (TYP.) Z
F— \ fi— I X X A.
_ \ \ _ _ \ \ \ \ \ \ �\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I 1 I /I \ — - _�_ \ \ N \ \ \ N \
\ 1 I II I I ` I �\ \'� ` �_ _ , <` • • • • —max__X \ \ \ \ \• \ \ \\
\ \ �' 1 \ • - �N- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 41)
\ \ \ / \ \I �•• \ • \ • EOLIFTWITH • • \ • •� � •�• •\ \ \ N� •\ \ \ \ \ \ \ V
/ \ \ \ \ ' ER TOE(T-Y-P.)•
\ \ • � •• \ ••� \ \ \ \ \\ N N\ N N •\ •�� \• \ � \ �• \ \ ~
•
•
•
�s \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ •\ N_ \ • \ \ \
/ • \ \ N \ INSTALL BARBED WIRE \ \ •`� \ \ \
CONTROL POINT#301 FENCE (TYP.) •/ ANNE PALMER GROUND COORDINATES
/ FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. N: 713530.52'
E: 829447.33'
— co PIN: 8721-72-6837
ELEV: 3021.99'
— —3 DB: 489 PG: 1683
03
LO
LO
in
C
NOTES:
1. ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED 5. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN GRADED MUST HAVE POSITIVE
0-1 WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED. DRAINAGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
In
2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE r �
OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP ����� CHANNEL PLUG
i NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
0
LL
In
3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE 7. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTROL ANY INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN
CC WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES EASEMENT. r •
ALONG MEANDER BENDS.
03 L.
8. LOCATIONS OF BOULDER STEPS AND GRADE CONTROL UT to RUSH FORK
L.
4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD UT3 - PLAN VIEW
OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
In
AROUND EASEMENT.
N ,D 9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 20 0 20 40
O -_
N p
0oo 0_a i_n_t_l_
\ C
Est SCALE (FT)

cn
F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
ci
166680 11
N
/ /
/ / LIVESTOCK WATER SYSTEM
DRINKER & HARDENED PAD #2
/ 4, PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
j DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
/ Q
WATER SYSTEM
il
/ / WELL Michael enBca Pe1rkEngineering
g ee in Inc.
ANNE PALMER Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P. Phone:[phone]
,. INTERNATIONAL License#Fax: 4 F310840
PIN: 8721-72-6837 ` ANNE PALMER
DB: 489 PG: 1683 �v ��� FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
J PIN: 8721-72-6837 WATER SYSTEM NCDMS ID NO. 100068 d
0' // DB: 489 PG: 1683 WATER LINES
2-16' GATES, / / ___-
INSTALL _
/� lV'/ / / -2990— — — -
INSTALL BARBED WIRE / i , - - - - - — - - - - - --44444
- - - NG (�YP � � ///'/' / / \ 4 L�- 4 CSP // / �� // /
3005—_ _ _ / / /V / / / / I,P4v. IN1 :7:681 /
— \
w /�%i_— — / x — x — x � — _�3, i0 �_ / / / posh /�* // �,�� J - - /
Cle
�' // — �// / LOB-DR{�PrtT�P) — / / // � � / +25 5 / GCS IA r— GEOLIFT WI)H' / __ — — / /
w / - - - - - �/ , - - - - �/ /r? / / �'/ BRUSH TOE TYP. -v - - - - - - - _ - -
Umi / / // _" _ / / i � --- / / / / I --
/
/ ' / 6 .........
-.... ___ ...--..,,,,...-:- ------ _--_-- -_ _ _ _---__.<2:1±_M-------___________ ___ __ _ _..:-- __ — '22- 0a,/
— _
T- • • y 'c'.',�br J fir.,;— — ---- -� I / c/T3 24 _ . No
- ___ .,„,,,, ...,„ --,, , n,z,„ ,- ,/--
,.......\.,.., ,,,_, ..... ___,.._____„su .......____ _______-___. _____ ______ .;..---- --___77:- — — -- ____,_—___—_-__„ _„_. ,.. ___ ,,,,
„..,„„,.,, . __ ..,._
-, ------ - _ __
„„0_, ,.._,;__ ,--______, ,
___., ,<.„.
,. _41..,
Y - — _
\ _ ..,........,
/
\ \ \ \ \\ �� __- /__-_- 18".IRRC - +•�-c . 0„\, -
.N--- 7- - 0 .'. `yam . Q't1 - . K . --
Z \\ \\ \ \\ \ � \\ N� ROCK DO\UBL �ROF'�� - \_�,� �__ -- \ —� - _ � /'
y _
\\ \ \ \ \ N $ r� CROS JIANt�TI%� \ N \ _ _ \ �__ — �� fl- - .,4 `� '-�`
�\ \\ \ ROC -I-IOOKVA�CI� YP.) \ � \ ) — � - - - - 22+ \\ N � \ \\ N\ \ EX/sNT;�T�P OF �� ���N N _ _ fil `� �— l
N \ ROCK CROSS VAN TYP.
N
N
.„„„
N
T \ \ \ \ \ \ \ "fte i\�\ \
II— \ \ -� \ S66Z- — — — \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N
\ \ \ \ -...7-
---, —T -- _ _ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ ——�
\ \ \ \ �l N ..,,, cNi
N N \ \ \ `-�\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � � \ \ - _ I
_ _ - - - - - � � \ \ ��_ _\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ � ` — \ \ Q
\\ \ \\\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ � � \ \ \ \ — \ \\\\\\ \\ \\-- \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ BOUL�DRSTPTTYP:)— \\ \ (�\ \ \ --INSTL4TE7
_ _1NS-TAL-L-4- _GATE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` _ — — — \ >
_ N
/— [ WTERSYSTEM \\ \, \ \ - - - - - - - - _-,_ et \
INSTALL 2-16' GATES WATER LINES \ _ — — — — — — \� —\ , V
— \ \ N I`
\ \
INSTALL BARBED WIRE \\
FENCE (TYP.)
Lig
/
/ Q
RELOCATED q
ANNE PALMER CCESS ROAD
/ / FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
0-1
, IC
PIN: 8721-72-6837
�h DB: 489 PG: 1683 -
0_ CON ROL POINT#300 i OLD �I
i co GR: ND COORDINATES �` SILO /
N: 13167.63'
--�/
Lo
E 29461.72'
co
c9 EV: •3014.21'
cO
-; /
cn
c NOTES:
' / LIVESTOCK WATER SYSTEM
1. ANY HARDWOOD TREES REMOVED MUST BE INCORPORATED 5. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN GRADED MUST HAVE POSITIVE
DRINKER & HARDENED PAD #1
0-1 WITHIN THE STRUCTURES BEING INSTALLED. DRAINAGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
Cri
0 2. EXCAVATE STREAMBED MATERIAL BEFORE FILLING IN THE 6. AREAS OF BENCHING: CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE THE OLD CHANNEL AND USE STREAMBED MATERIAL WITHIN THE TOPSOIL, STOCKPILE IT, AND THEN ADD THE TOPSOIL AS TOP :: i��� CHANNEL PLUG
i NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. LAYER OF BENCH TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 8 INCHES.
O
LL
cn
3. CONTRACTOR CAN USE BRUSH MATERIAL TO INCORPORATE 7. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTROL ANY INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN
CC WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AND BRUSH TOES EASEMENT. r •
ALONG MEANDER BENDS.
Lo
8. LOCATIONS OF BOULDER STEPS AND GRADE CONTROL UT to RUSH FORK
co 4. FENCING INSIDE EASEMENT WILL BE REMOVED AND HAULED STRUCTURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FIELD UT3 — PLAN VIEW
OFF-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER NEW FENCE IS INSTALLED CONDITIONS AND BY THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
AROUND EASEMENT.
N 0 9. BANKS SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 20 0 20 40
O -_
N p -
0 1 1 1
C
Est SCALE (FT)

\ n 0 O O
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. N
3060
\ � � p0600 166680 12
c9 1 0 - Ocri- M Ln 0c 0
N ` \` � I1 J ;' o rE ISTING GROUND
WIIJ + 0 UT1
aw + oln u) o00
-• M + o
C � ''`• ii
J c� • Q cii 00 DESIGN CHALIIVr:G
\ �._ a w 11 _1 " +
a W M 00 LO 0 0 PROGRESS DRAWING
N I _I • M If (D o " FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY IJ _ J + g4 � 00 � 1
o �••` a w cv c N CO o v N DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
3 050 /�•._. II _1 II 12i
o in �1 0 111 a rJ + LL W
01 O 0
+ O '•�, ,J II 0 0 0 0
M p L) — •
•� • .. _ 48' 11 W O• ti R
IL w CO N — _CSP __•_•�• o o 0 0 0 o END UT1 REACH 1
+ O \ .• N II o o _ BEGIN UT 1 REACH 2 Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
— c�i 11 CO v U7 0) 9 9
co- 0 0 •\ i Jaw + O a v Oa O o SCT/�. 13125.00 Michael Baker 8C0aOry0,
RNedReTncHy
CARowi%A275680
�1 J IM r "•.`d W II rt., " co G r` O J F1 = ';•a 6_1 Phone:[phone]
a lw f `' 0 0 • a w it -1 + 0 rn Do o 0 INTERNATIONAL License
BEGIN UT1 REACH 1 CO o00 \ CO + o
STA. 10+98.02 a w + n o o ~•• •,` a W o orn �DESI N BANKFULL
3 040 EL=3,???.?? = M a cuo a w --' J + o NCDMS ID NO. 100068
_ � W + 0
d W CO Do
N fel p `t co-
�' •�'•� W M II 0) N
d W + cm 0 0 \ • M
(--� LC) �. 11 Ir
cal _
_ .�
M J
II `•�„ E W
n ti �\
a w + n o
II w ) w
+ r) r) n
(.1 �,- O O)
M CC `�• �I II _III �
3 030
, c 3 030
,
II co 4 \_
W + 0 — \ `
coco \
d W ` — N
-
- ` —
\
�,. —
,020 '3 ' _ 3 020,
_
10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
END U-1 REACH 2
_ BEG N UT II REACT 13
0 o S I A. 15+0 .00
3,020 o r` EL = 3,012.46 37020
� c6 UT1
O 0) O O
I II O
+ CD N- N- (-1n
W CU M + a n (D 0 O
Il II l N- M In 0.,.; c7 N-
b_ w it J M 0 d O
+ O d CDc7
- rw (0 (.,- I 0 8cyb o
- - � ., I CO O r ID r`
., ` IWW J O'�•• + ei co
QQ_ a 0, 0 o
35010 + 3 010
`•• a w _1 © 0 of
1 — .,•.. ,,, W 1 in
`, O O o N O
— •..,.,
•�•• , a W 11 J N 0 4 ,-
•� + O (h O O O
� W r•-. + 0 0N00
o — '`••- 11 II _ c') o o *13 of
CO. m _ W 11 J + 0 I.c) 0) 0 0
� _ W Qh8
I 0 •• 11 n La
CD n o © — a w _ _1 00 0) 4 1-
0 0
II m •
N + O) O) O
a w co o 0 0 ` '\ 'R`•'••� a w N �' 11i 0 EStGN THALWEG
3,000 a w N- ii
\ � � W a w � � co � o o p 3 000
° o ` �, lr °D N_1 1 o 0
O� O 0
11 J M M — — •� •.
••, c0 0)
N u p —. _ a U' Cal CO+ O 0 O) O O
r" 1) 111 . 0 - -.— _ II 111 r N pp p O '1'
O 0 ' ' 11 II O o 1J C)
J EXISTING GROUND - r.) o N a W 0 o Lo it J co -„-- , C w +) N o+ rn � co 0 UESIC�N 13ANKFULL
11J + d o `� . ice•`. `•• II I'1 II + fMs) ^�n
003 M - 11 W -I O + 6)
j III g E 11 J jj O O
co 2 UJ ti N p p ��•�••...., 11L w II _1 O in O in
O r a w 1s i 1.1) C) 0)
ro 2990 I II
I
° � 00 �..., •• � N + 0p 2990
^io rl ' r ^' 1si of 0 v
J N — �••� II W J N- 00+ O N co O O
r N L? O '�. N Ci s II
m U ,_ O cal
n J M (`d — - . 11 J (-NI CAI LO u.) of O v O
O w 'D •�.•�• d W II J + 0) LS) Dal C.) Cr) 0 LU
CO al
N •
o �-. `•'� N--
--,..,� W N N N O O 00
i 11 ai ► I�1 //. 1, 11 II + m n r.
° d w 0 CO 0 0 ..� T _ N + rn
1 + N co 00 '•:tr - -• -• \ W N I I N N
cn II II N CO _
D � � + w ``,, dw �il w
CC a w 0)
2,980 0 , 0 -'•- -• -••-. _ 2,980
Ill O
CO cd-
c9 co 4 ao •
co rn + 0.+ p N PI=-20+b3.000) � N
_
PI-21+03.00€L2980.30_I r UaQ d Fl =>,9i&70N
o
0
M 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21 +00

F r BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. I♦
cn 166680 13
— C, U
CO I o °O a N DESIGN THALWEG
d END UT1 REACH 3
NC) 0, CO BFSINUTI REACH 4 U TI
+.- 0 + r' n (`D o LU TA. 22+61.78
2980 NJN � � :L = 2971.39
a w 11 J + 0) 0) I- o 0
v 0) `i-t.6 PROGRESS DRAWING
I N Ir 1 (7 c\i O N-:
aw �I J NI-
CO
1 o co o 0
. a W N c i rn Ui `i o 0 FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
N- II II N c„ ()' C) Q o DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
W W !I J N O O+ c> U O
_ — — - - ` W w IN j� N U OD O C.
.2,• ` _ II J c V II LU I.. _ c1-'
�.._-- . -- O W W + O D O O
-,•�
II CO CD Oi .5 O
2 970 Cr- _ _ I-I-I J + O co O O p DESIGN BANKFULL Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
,r) \—,• W Ill M + O O N Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
1 ti ...... _ ,�' -, _ N II jI c 7 O Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
* N CO ,`�/ ` `,\,•�''-. 0 W II J + O O O a o Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
II II co ri a (4N + c. cam' c\i o �? INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
I I J n0 I` —•._,— I I I N N t CD
li 111 + N^ / `•._. _ II If + a) In c0
N N `� `••- a W " " ' N Q p NCDMS ID NO. 100068
I + 0 0 ., I 11 1 .I N J I I l 0) °n O CA
J 0 eJ ••�-..;;;;.A.As. I11 d �I T O O U U
_I ,,f,
II (i rn © •a'•— --•. N J N N o EXISTING GROUND
JJJ O o W n �J + 0) + m -
N I 6 L� � ,. j ! NI N N co O O
•• ! J II I-c7 u-i
2,960 ' - o _ a w w o Q 2,960
N CV O CJ ._• (N tv O N O J.
d W O O - •` W W CO nj �) O ti o0 0
II O d '-.- _ 11 J N :NI O O N
J + CA O -�•-�.. W W 111 -1 ;+ O Id) LU
_LLI N N O Lf) :C••, W JJ CO N + cA
11 II Q c0 -���• 11 J -.I N
N 0 O ' W IJJ II
11
d W N II O N ��� �-z- d W
11 J _
n I I I Q Li) •.-••.. \t U1 O go _ _
-�2 950, 7 pis po
0 N �.�„, 2,950
►n Nnl
d W + V O t�
II �I O (.0 —
_ _IM
�V I In
+ 0) Q c-)
0
Fri Oi
II J ►.0
a w + 0)
tc9
- N
II
2,940 a W 2,940
22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00
L1
2,960 2,960
UTI
O o
O O p
��yy'')� 1 i _(, N + 0) / _
\ `N II CD N- O O /N I
W UJ I O Q /J O O
\ 2 9502 950, M o M a � ,
' II, N N + 0) 60C) ri d- 8 N 0 0 /
�'-� J II tV p O N O ` O O
..•� a W 11 N 4 C) c- O O /
•` �� __ W W I I J N I f + 0) N- u 00 0 `
`/ . d W J cN + J> . • N // 1
'.... \ W W N 1I N tv + C3) 00 0
'�'•- Nam\ W W II J N N + C3)
`••_ \ w a -4II J 1/ \ �o 0 0 1 -DEICN
BAN if ULL
! \ Ki O ti
• a wi co CD ce)
O ` ` '-' \ ' \ T 0) + (3) ( O
M f` 1��i.� ` n1 j j N N h' �C�1j g 0
I I
2,940 �� • - ' - •_... ._• w a w J
O 2,940
N II n C _•.� cV ti 8 N
0-1 n rn cV O N
J 0 co _- . J ((INN]
II II
c W M tfi o •_. _ - w W co O cN p a O 0
CO - OD • O N EXI STING GROUND
J N N LO d' c7 c7 'C� — — -•, - II II cJ Cr) w ON a O O
W I I I I + 0) Q O� �•�, W W a II w p N co co o o
+ (3) O O O
W l i J + 61 C •
~ - --S:. IC•, �•• -1• Cj J m cN u c1D o o p - 1 1
O O O O
co In_ w N- c.1 a) co �.,. ,, a w !I + a� N a e �o CIV THALWEG
Co II J 1` W ••` .._ \• Cl_ W OM N N N O CD O O
c9
j • W �, N �'• �..�• �''�•.�,• 1` 1 co II o+ °� coIrn + + C LO LE a o POST STORM
�, f1 III J M CV o o 0
2 930 n III a W 11 J M N M M + CD ; N o oI
EXISTING GROUND
cn
ro O__D ! •.._ d w 11 J I � , 11 J 11 J N O `� O LO 2,930
f J 1 , .. — �_ _ _ _ d w +�1~_ 7 Po 1 7 Po 1 00 I I 1 C- N T In M
_ _ u, W tv
- I 0 W i 11 J T �I + U) cocl O C7 0
O CV + O - _ W pi Il N If) 1
I CA N N
— a J CO"• CSP
N + 0-)
CO 11 J M � . �•� `,.) N N
W d LIJ Q c'D _ -y• - II J M II
i fig) ? ! •-. �W II J
0 N t� ', .......
'� LT_ co
--
Co 11 II N N
J
cn en C\I O N -�► •.
D
cc _1
. 2 920 a W �LO N o � CC �.
2 920
•_,
co 1 1`) 11 N- N •- N op m 0 O
Co ' II J + L., t au) 8 PJ U ,� , C l. 0 '........
CO LO
j) I11 O N co N N w N O Q.,
II J II + 0) + Cn .- N
1 W n III ' (NI N + (A
�Q I I J I I J Cr) IV
(NJ�� r uJ 0_ W II
w
0 0 d-
CV L ••
��° 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31 +00 32+00

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
m 166680 14
co I
N
N UTI
2,930
PROGRESS DRAWING
c 1.0 FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
0LC) 0u•)
O 0...; O O DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Ln — Q ( ) qa O
00
+ 0) CO cp O O
N + .7, r hj W
Cr) N + U) CO
Cr)11 (1N
w N +
U)
1 a W W JNN 0
N- O
CY) LC) O Na II
W d w + i LA r O O Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
2,920 - ,• Cf)M II + N O M O O Michael Baker Cary800O, NORTH CAROLINA 275 Regency Parkway,Suite 680
.��f N M O O
Phone: [phone]
N •_x——— 11 '� II V `-' 0' Fax:[phone]
. W W w + t7� O
---•�• w + �� o cV o INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
'�'�• i i 1 c N n T_ C. ESI G-N A N KF U LL
..�/,�• .6. w W w + fD N. �O O
-'�� a W N11 S CD o o NCDMS ID NO. 100068
-1-Y -1-; I I I.•W
� cs; (5):
M N Ln
rri CO �a —.._..—, — II JI
N U W 8
O N "- �•. _ a W II J + 6) cA 0 O d' 0 O
N °,�° a w c i' N �r' `c) 0 a' 0 Q o E-N D ST UT1
-R ACI.14
M N + O� .� I I I M N O ^� n 0 0
2 910
I,I I IJ I� ', _ w I I I + N N O n 2 910
Q. , a W n J N N `i) a0i a m m EL = 2$ CII4 '
• N I O U N O O
W O) O G
�+ O O T''•-" _„_ w d I J II J coM c.I O c7 O N
co `ii N DESIGN TI-lpL1NEG �`_..__, ..��... a w a w M N N u c� o
II 'l O O -v ` N. Cd + fn
w 1` O .� •�._ M II N. N
M il
\T "-'
i1 J TN. -., w W
a W + o c o c) \ r&oRsertitSleT)O RM2,900 o l;. , , e 2,900
v
W N m St re: O—B
11 J + CI)ca 00
Oi Cv
n Ii1 M I + CD
00 Co
N
Cl_ W M N
II J t O)
d W M II N C.
O
11
I _LLJ
N- N
2,890 a w 2,890
33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00
01
4.
Co
CO
CO
CO
CO
C
r0
V
CoC
0-1
ai
V
i
0
LL
s
D
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
OQ
O
O
� i�
O-6'
/N
MIO

i
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
m BEGIN UT3 166680 /5
Lib•-•-7--
STA. 10-`00.00
co 1 EL = 3,085.22
-....
U T3
3080 •�'` co(ON-
'+ o � I o
II J ;' PROGRESS DRAWING
v'.. LL w III REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
00 �. CLWFOR
o 6v.c, \ • o c i DO NOT USE FOR U®NSTRUCTION
+ o \ \., co 0+ co
Ii J '•� ` it I Ii Ceis Li
BAN KFULL
W LLI LO N �''"., w IJJ d W
3 070 xi 0 + O `��v N � Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
7 + O + O O II ,` co O Caryy, NORTH CAROLINA 2751 Suite 8
0
N 4 LO +
co- pp
u J N r� •\. b (__) N CJ C Michael ae Baker Regency Parkway,
o 'er O h� CO 1` T ET
T J u J W W `' •� � M co N Fax:[phone]
Phone: 9. 88
d LLI a w CO 0~ `, I II II N (0 o ti ( 001 N INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
O M • ■ WA LJ , c7 + 0) N w (D a)
II J II O uD + 0
• NCDMS ID NO. 100068
LL w \\ L.
W W ,��. J c+.l O� N CO
CO _I',- ' '•�, II Mb
�, t� afifi ti
O '�•�, / ■ w N ti
0) ' '\' � /� /!� � + O ('`) Lo
CD 'M �-'•.�/ M + O O� co
3 060 co
" J ~ ����' 'I J 060
EIL° �� � w � w + o � o COMo COcn .o ,
rr n \ Sri �I (NJ co. C M ''�
• 0 '�•., \ w W 0 W A oQ N+ :0 CON No N c, :XIST NG GROUND
c7 �1 / H M O c N
M O N -.,`,,� II J II J o t ' Qj
ii .II r� , . ! W LIJ IZ w + O C)
!Z W (0 co '' \ CO c.j + O Q
+ O 'I M c.,) h
�I (D N. '��'•.� \\ d LJ II J V co r0
II J O '%.• O N.
LL W O IL) •�, ` . .....
LL W N (D
+ O + O + C5 CO CO
N M M n CO N ,o M M M `1. O
3050 � w M � • � waw 8 " 3050
+ ,� � (0M + �
1 ES-ICN THALWEC 04 F' I- N� II J �J �,
II - .,,\ Z a_ :w jI II
LL W 00
O `� \ _ '_ co_ LL
CY)
■ u - O '��—
C� n
N h; I` ti �''� .
II J N co i. .''�.
L1 W O •�••.
O r. U�
3,040 J —
W N + 3,040
M 'c+) �, fi-
ll J II_ J
LLw w w
10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00 14+00
°o 0
N O
III m
CD O V M co
CY + 0 co r- O N
oi
•
■ IJLI II co- CN CO h M
�, � �_M � � � � co. 0 U T3
II I I . . ,- ` co. r
I „ II ,) m
.. W ■ J + `, + 0 �
1 ,-.
r ` ' .. II �. M °O .N
37040 J CO 0 3,040
N `1IJ Ln .c i N 4 .0
O .
c7 n W W O
4 ,' i J .c'C) LIci a'`i cy)a DESIGN LANKI-ULL
_ I o r,�, r, — - - . pi_ In , 4. al n
a w N 1 W W II J •— N • O
- co) o N — � c') o - r` O 0
II J (NiC� � � � � •'. •�, II J co- .. O N
1
3 030 CL W CO \ w " J , N O oa 3 030
f O ''ti,, i a W n N O N I`
II J cD r6 N II Jr 'I c0 N N
d W O+ ` � ` '-"••�,\,, • w I� J co (0 C) c7 U 0 O O ®-0 8
DES GN THALWE G `�" "� ( — ' _ _ ! •�•.� w w II J it _I m c N 0 0 �i M ai
ii
CT_ Wa JJ O N O N - < -'-
c LL JJ CD cr r-. ` . .,`• \ _m (-. rN- O + �O .. �O
in a� O f` _••` _ II Ij II If - II c�
�I J (D c0 •.'•- ` W Ill 'I J F J L) N co
LCal LL W + 0 � 1
li_-j II J CO \` -.•• / co CII M ~ 6 N
3 020 a_ W Ncri. ' ,'•�.,, II J 11 II 3 020
+ o �� •� w n ,�, + 0 r, 0 0
Coco
ri
w (c) \ ',._`, I J II J N.
CO II II '�' II CD. N a?. N-
i \ •�..� IT UL O. w 6 O Cj.
• M Q ` � � I I I I CO Crj O 0
C II L '- O n O / W W N J O cs) .4 O
ro
w W No Q � — — _ _ w co co CO m
C II + Co II
0-1
J Co M ro '�•y,,� I� J II n
w IJJ II `� •�, W W w U
Co II t 0
w W co A o)Lc) . '�•. ,
II '�
3010, 0 W X1ST1NG GROUND 3 010
t Q N
o U U ♦ ' ,.
i I J M
s
n d w 0)
ti O O c�
Co O o \ ,
CO
0 W N
Co L./ C..)
Co M 0) V
Co II _1 O m
c0 C)
C' W + 0
3,000 I 0 w 3,000
Nits
14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00
M

1 BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
m 166680 16
co I
N
N UT3
'' .. . PROGRESS DRAWING
ECM ii�._ y:� _ •0 •• FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
3,010 W �! , III,„„,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,IIII,„„,„„ DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
,111 . 11 : � ;:
11111111111111611111111111111111111111e1
� �, • •• �. �• '� � � � • r i • Michael Baker Engineering Inc.'n � k � �� � Michael Baker CaryO, NORTH CAROLINA275680►•• ,11 Jj • � �� Phone: [phone].�� , iF!!!iIJ1 !i
a •• �! ! IL1111111111111111111;��I111i■.._ ■.M'u■...■■■■■■■■..Fib,il.lWu_.■■■■■■■■.1.■■■■■■■■..■■■■■ :a. .Gi1ir.■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■
111 1 I ��1■��1111=� INCDMS ID NO. 100068
3000aill
�
• Pill" 1 �o»1 IIIIIIII��E1111��.111111111� 11 1i11111111111111111111" 111III : "1 :��1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111iiL!!1111��. *r
2,990 , ,z 1 1 ....�::l ��
1 ■..--ili 11,,!!I II!lI111111111111111 I IIIII!111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2,990
�� � � � I � � 1 1��111�1111111 �ii111���� 1ICQ=!!1!1!�11 " • � . .
a a ,■■■■■..■■■■■■■...■■■I► ■■■■.■■■■■■■■._:-!!!j•.! !!!■1..:.-.----!! IIEI �!!I!l111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Q 0) - — _ — _ mpg ! ■■■..•••■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
N N O) u7 III I
II J r`
E W M I II
f n
N Y.)CT, c
a u {
2 980 EXISTING GROUND c II 980
EL DESK i e
19+00 20+00 21 +00 22+00 23+00 24+00
UT3
3,000 3,000
'DaeC, �,
0 0D O ,t 0•
_ + F- a)a) O c) o 0) o LLC
rn + 0 o
IN L i ri Lfi
N N N N N N 1 c) O+ O O O O
2,990 I I J N O N N M h 0) M
2,990
- W �W a LLJ N N Li II N II M M M
II
/_ a Ili EL w w •• o • o EXISTING GRO ND
N —I jl� 'cc"
N II � N LSD M 2
C - . -- I II II I, M c0 m
`9 0 o m� o - ���� - ~•� 1 I CN N N ooc, DE SIGN BANKFULL
2 980 OC°oti o`Oo 0 0 � �`- ftl
a w w N 601. 010 U-SII�NIHAIvvFei 2 980
+ 0•i r(� 2 O v Q CU , ..s••_ N II N II O
• ---_.._ _ w r� w �, o .ND UT3
co -Li_ i w N N N N o - ii N M onn " r ETA. 26+30.f 0
�I it J 1- •
_ --- -a W a in N -I = 2,971.56
cT_ w 7 m i
ro co N O ,`••� _
II
2,970 N -'\, 2,970
o ii
- w •
+ '�
0 0
_C N . II .. 0) C f-)
cn I II 1 r.- I)- G rQ
0_ L1J v�
1 li 1 I N + 0)
co Fcc N
Ii1 if
c II L
co
w W
V
n _
U
ci
2,960 2,960
0 O
N i o
23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00
Mi-

F r BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. %
cn
ri
166680 17
Lo
N
PROD I' ESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8Cary, NORTHy CAROLINA 275680
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
\\ I \'\ I N \ \\\N�� // ,/ /I NSTALL TONS
\ I I► ��\\ \ \ \ / ^ �`\' / / / CLASS B RIP RAP 18" DEEP
I I 1 \,\ \ \ \� I 7 7 i /
\ 1 I II 1 \ \ \ \ ( 7
I I I 1 \\ \\ \� — / / /
INSTALL EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
\ -� \\\ \ „, \\ Proposed BMP Planted Species
\ 1 � V \ \\ �� ;�� �/ / �� UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
I
ct)
Q i I \ 1 ` \ , '\ — \ I % Planted by Wetland
Z I I I \ \`�\ \ \ S \��� \\�� ,, \ I €N D OF RIP RAP Botanical Name Common Name Species Tolerance
1 ► `,I \\ �0 \ — — \ --- NV. ELEV. 3079.0' Shallow Water Zone (50 Herbaceous Plants per 200 ft2)
I 1 I I 'c, \ 'N /
I I \ ,,\\ \ \ '� \ OV Juncus effusus Common Rush 10% FACW
\ A \ \ \ /'F/l/6# /
Peltandra virginica Arrow Arum 10% OBL
�� / Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed 10% OBL
I S�PIL WAY �U�LET � \ �\ , , � �
r / 10%
1 �� \ � _ Sagittaria latifolia Broadleaf Arrowhead OBL
INV.) ELEV. 3086.Q \ _ /
`, \ i \ Saururus cernuus Lizard's Tail 10% OBL
\ � -
I I I 1 I N � i,�< !.� / /` Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 10% FACW
'�'` _ Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 10% OBL
1 3Q861 {��� '� ___
I Iti•'•�uA.��• \ \
\ I I I ��1 1 \ 1
-1;�rv� �:!'= \ \ \ Sparganium americanum Bur-reed 10% FAC
�' Carex lurida Shallow Sedge 10% OBL
\ \ \ \ I 1 1 \) I 1 I \ �` \\ Polygonum pensylvanicum Smartweed 10% FACW
1 \ \ I\ \ ko 1 1 l 1 \ I I \ -- \
1 1 I \ ezi 1 I g / / I \ \ \ Temporary Inundation Zone (8 shrubs per 200 ft2)
1 \ Vi.19
1 k� / . / \ \ I\ \ \ Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 10% OBL
i \ 1 'M �/ \� \ \ \ \ \ Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 10% OBL
I \ Co M / ( \ \ \ \ Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 10% FACW
l0 1 �� / \ \ \ \ \
I I I M I \ \ \ \ \ Ilex verticillata Winterberry 10% FACW
I I 0) I \ I CO \ \ \ \ Rhododendron viscosum Swamp Azalea 10% FACW
1 I II M 1 O I i I \ \ \ Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark 10% FACW
\ ► `Y' I I I TOE OF BERM Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 10% FACW
o II I NV. ELEV. 3086.5' Leucothoe fontanesiana Highland Doghobble 10% FACW
\ I I I 1 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush Blueberry 10% FACW
1 I \
\ \ 1 I I446, I I I I Xanthorhiza simplicissima Yellowroot 10% FACW
X I ► I ERMANENT \V.S.
\ I 1 I Notes: -Final species selection maychange due to refinement of site conditions or to availabilityat the
p g
I 1 I I 1 IINV. ELEV. 3086.0' time of planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting
I 1 I I I I I 1 I
I list to Baker for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
I I I \ I I I -Shallow Water planting zone is from basin bottom to elevation 3085.5' while Temporary Inundation
X �� X\ \ Ni\ i I I planting zone is from elevation 3085.5' to 3086.5'.
I 1 \ \ 1 I -Embankments and perimeter fill slopes will be planted with non-clumping turf grasses (no trees or
0-1 I \ \ I I woody shrubs).
0
,21:11X �I I I \ I \ I I
CO X I 1 I 1
1 II I I
= I I
c
CO
LO
LO
in
C
c
0
L
0
In
CC
CO UT to RUSH FORK
Lo
co
Lo BMP PLAN VIEW
In
Na) 10 0 10 20
o -_
N 0 -
0 s- Iiii-
a_i j R
\ oo C
�� � SCALE (FT) 10

m
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
ci
166680 18
Lo
N
PROGRESS DRAWING
f--..., \
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
I
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker Cary, NORTH cAROLINA 275680
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
N.
�d _ __ _ �♦ `� --___ _
,...._._........I\s'\.:\ \\ cA'W W ,_ 0. lik WA ' VW:W
fib72 v � 4V\
IlL: 'I�•y�-yam-_-- �, . �, �, �. �. �, �, ., .4. ,4. . �A�Arrfflriiir MWrIk4 a _
rd'Wilit-'-- 4 0:1:-\rillill'7'' '-- - I I I I I IIIII I I I 111111 -- ---1 r 4 I I I Or 111;1P'.41,,L .,d I I 011M OP,...0,.1 I I I 11-111 II I 11111°.'-- 1:1111° -W..FT- -1.P.-4 I 1 I rjMiliv:----74t1.r-v4 ra:I 1 -- 1V---W-7MAV*Y.'1 k A wrivW Ilk II I k-'4 k"
W 'ImL W W .Wa ° --- -vi 0 i 1 p i III,uw-____..m•a...*''''',,;7--.. -411111111*11:....„,00m....7---- W 7 W -I 4- 1fr,ft----\..'''4'..'°.:14'' --.4‘...4 I 11141:41 LA:IL----.14-: -4- v-11111k4 I r---44',' .-....-----.. s.,
" " " " ypr‘n -- v" i w errM4 - _ ...Al o.- "NI Paw&
‘t 441111 k ., .Nt ‘ 4,w4, w .. • fl'4...,_ \'''.N.....,„, .'1VijeriCOLvariTA 4.4*
Alktir. -'v ; W V W WM V W W . w...... .swww . 7 --_,,...1. ...... 4w._ -1„. - - , _ 411‘,74444,wit-44
miri,
,olt .
_ jojesofq*--- _ _ *w, :,,
_ v ►�m—ter _ -_ _
W ---* ...._ - 7.
14, ---'- •-.11711W WW '14" --4 .k..._ 4 W ----z- `--
\ W
: ;14,
7,
N Ak 6 _ W, omL,WWw
W 10V Stili‘ tki*
W ‘N '.81,,W W
\ \ . \ -•
WW'et%V\ w
\ \ 0,4 W , ASk%\ ,‘k W W w , V / I
\\
\ \ \ -6
w ` , . . i.iii 1 ir, w w- ,e 4,1 1 6 40 riso v 4.4
LLI
- ' N
\ \ \
\ \ '75,w . , ----itiki.,,, -; . -. ---- ipfAlr/IIP--
*vvi , 400. Ij'W, IIIL ettril*Ill& 111P3eit A*
\\\ \\\\
...-ffwW/,:?W•//
0v.',,a0Ag.1 iH1i1s—,/!0,--,/.1/9/)'.,,.ig.).,/t i
ZLII—
,* "� ter- , / J
--=,
GG� // ► Q
\\\\
.\,,\
\ .,tAv—v.rV,,7I 7VA:,.,‘o-A',VW-r•.' W,i/,•W,„A.i,.
,*11A7v7i..
♦ P / /
R- `N9 GP
\ \ \
\ \ . ''''# ,-].,-.):,-., ' :A !.6" # i .3// /
r 3 ' / Ace,, ,
\ \
\ \
*it - i07
\ A m y::\ //
' . / / /
\ w
-'ice / _d 1 ----t >/ /
'w w:7 v
c o , / //
o-1 \ - \''',5t \ *wW
-o \ .
SEEDED, MULCHED, COVERED WITH COIR ♦_ tl ��°GP // / /
E MATTING, AND LIVE STAKED =� - // '� /
LO //0119, A V.,
c9 to W.4 ///4 // /
•k •k SEEDED, MULCHED, AND PLANTED WITH e� / / ` //
c ' � � � BARE ROOT TREES ( WETLAND ZONE ) '_�,' ,,,
►'/ �t`, E�, ,N� �/ /
EL' 9 /
'4 \ // / /
0-1 SEEDED, MULCHED, AND PLANTED WITH MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 20
BARE ROOT TREES ( GENERAL RIPARIAN ZONE )
s_
0
L_
cn
CO UT to RUSH FORK
Lo
co
LO RE VEGEGA TION PLAN
cn
N a) 50 0 50 100
0--
N Q
i itill
Lo
—j
.. C
� Eihii SCALE (FT)

F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
ri
c�
166680 19
N
N
Q
P / j
III j /,/ PROGRESS DRAWING
1/ / / FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
/ DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
/ /' //,
/ /
/ /
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8caOrry9
NORTH CAROLINA 275680
✓ /, Phone:91
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
/ NCDMS ID NO. 100068
ii
i
V /2").11 , I.-V 7 -77---------*'- ..:...... ..---
frV // is.,...),/, / v yi /"0/ 0,- k Ilk ••
V 4 7 ---, ''''''''''''Z''..----
....------------ 4,19 .* ...':; —..,:rW . —411ilr?W'W # ' ''. -/ A W A
,r, /- 4 AA .::--- --. _ ,.. A
,,,,,;*,
,..e."*" w * _ ft W .6
,,a Alp, A _ ft wNik VAL vwS-— IL WA, '''Al W w
TAsitiL....._„.....— k W W /1 W W V
/ ' .11r411101.0rgr -44*.._ ,•-- iilifi ''' ,,40 -.:7.,.... .: tili ' A
'''2v' 10 ,' ,/ k ft WW W ft * 411W;;-/'. ... iv .....-W
w A . -.- -: ......!---_,. :r , _-le i,.-z/-<./: : _ __ _ I 1 • •
•
w _ �
w
44-girAft . .� �/lam,/ ° /
elv
AIL =- _--- /+ / "
w ,//j // /1
c
—I / /// //
_ /
/'
0-773 0
1i/ / SEEDED, MULCHED, COVERED WITH COIR
j _ MATTING, AND LIVE STAKED
/ SEEDED, MULCHED, AND PLANTED WITH
LouD
-k -' -' -' BARE ROOT TREES ( WETLAND ZONE )
SEEDED, MULCHED, AND PLANTED WITH
cc BARE ROOT TREES ( GENERAL RIPARIAN ZONE )
0
0
L
0
LL
in
CC
09 UT to RUSH FORK
up RE VEGEGA TION PLAN
N a) 50 0 50 100
o -,-
N Q
i 1 1 1
co C
� Est SCALE (FT)

cn
F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
166680 20
Lo
(V
PROGRESS DRAWING
SEEDED, MULCHED, COVERED WITH COIR FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
MATTING, AND LIVE STAKED ` Nqp 83
®O NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEEDED, MULCHED, AND PLANTED WITH
BARE ROOT TREES ( WETLAND ZONE )
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Bakerency Parkway Suite
Cary NORTH CAROLINA 275680
SEEDED, MULCHED, AND PLANTED WITH Phone:[phone]
BARE ROOT TREES ( GENERAL RIPARIAN ZONE ) / INTERNATIONAL Fax 919 License#4F31490
� — NCDMS ID NO. 100068
I
I
Lgircid ; 4 et&ie
7
- /• 't ; :♦ .gi • * 6 f„iwIl _l?'- -1111'7-___ Itro-'4412rr • oz7 4__ / • F
_ 4.• 4• N4_ . 4 &Zvi° P 40/X • 4 . :4, , -..10..... igiii... 110.. .. _,.. m•--,4--rol dr -I &
• , t4s-04xiwil-- -----,- ,- -__ , :-.. tk- t._-4ziabl..-,4440 04e • ffl4i214 ; : • % 1,- .
Io-%.• • 4 • or • 0-,--9_ 16 . - / is
'• • f / , ''''- r ' ' 4 WS.Voi)2 0 '-'''
•• • / / • ♦ •
4 4 0 • -•-*- ‘.._ --,1111111- qv • • • woo, .. /
,voirir- :'‘' iA4. 4*1:' n'._ °,0: 0 • ,, 4 .1,,--
w 4 v,, _.-..- . --.1 - --- • • - . 4 &
4o- -• 4 4 r 0 4 4e , • 4 4 * 1 -...„e 04. 4 IiiwiiShillw. ‘ I. d t 4 4 0 AL16 / kfi„, , , /
1 4 4 • • 4 4 . !.-4 / 4
4 4 • . 41 •....40'11*--.7- 114111aftki„.1° ----.-4,_ ----- 1.01.- --,x061,- "" / /
/ i
44 4 0 0 ,A4,W --12"4710 0 W, * -0 '1 40,‘ i w04 4 4 (.4 ,i :' ' -!'' i /
* . ,, , . A1.40 • •1114 4 4_.. ): :: ::!. "-- i 4 ; 0 0 N II ill ell .
• � / / / ,....„.---------
GUT4 / is � „ 4 �
hk
/ � / I / L,..............-----)--- H °OD
,,, 4 4 ,t• ,,,,#":44w.,, • •4 Ai" ea., • ,.... 0
/
/ / /,/ —�
.-4 0 • .04-0,° v 4: ;0* -
i 4 44,- #- 4 4'7 \ ____.-4------
y_ ,.A. _
-\' '
4 • 'Ailk iftp- r ./_ -_ix • •
N rir ift 4 v & __ ii7 7.., _......--- .......--.
...----"........................- \
...----.........- \ \ \
r 404
4 0" - 0 , 4 fr ,........- ........-----
....---" \
c 0 44w 4 X f ------ ..--- .....-----"............-
..---"'............------ ...---' \ 1
ivor,
i_ / / // /�IPIA • # \
/ I
\0
o' 4 *. 4wii. ,,,.„..i.../--7 ,..---- ...,....- ..----
\ \
, 4'00 3' '- :V4° N' -c I ...--- ..,..--
co -I v*, : '-:it' : 0\) 1 ••••........' ...../....' ••••... .
LO ••••.. ......'......' \ \ \
��/ % \ \
/,/ / ,/ II\/
..---- \
/ ..\-----..........-
I I
I
\ \ -1 L
I/ I/ // /O / // // ' I
I,/ / / Icn _ �
_ //
, / / /� _ / /
/ / /
03 UT to RUSH FORK// ,/ //
,/ REVEGEGATION PLAN
N o) 50 0 50 100
o --
O CVQ
N.Lo
0 - 1 1 1
.. C
�� � SCALE (FT) ,

��� STATB dAKBR PROJ&T REFERENCE NO. SHEET TOTAL /
NORTH CAROLINANO. SHEETS
LIVI NC �����® NO.
9
- ---1, DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
enkr44
Vir.ip. EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
Pik4
LOCATION: FROM EXIT 24 ON INTERSTATE 40, TRA 1/EL NORTH FOR
MAINTENANCE PLAN: 5. 75 MILES ON NC-209
rApi,
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
1. QUALIFIED PERSONNEL, ON A DAILY BASIS WILL EVALUATE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND
SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PRACTICES FOR STABILITY AND OPERATION.
2. INSPECT AND MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES EVERY 7 DAYS AND AFTER EACH
1%3
SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL (1.0 INCHES OR GREATER) AND DOCUMENT WITH INSPECTION REPORTS.
3. A RAIN GAUGE WILL ALSO BE KEPT ON-SITE AND DAILY RAINFALL AMOUNTS WILL BE RECORDED.
4. ANY REPAIRS NEEDED WILL BE PERFORMED IMMEDIATELY TO MAINTAIN ALL PRACTICES AS DESIGNED.
rg 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF TEMPORARY ON-SITE EROSION ��
AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND FOLLOWING THE APPROVED
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN. rook
7. A COPY OF THE COMBINED SELF-INSPECTION MONITORING FORM CAN BE DOUND ON DEMLR WEBSITE AT: .`•
(http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/erosion-sediment-control-forms) 1
0 1 �
\ i ,/
1%1 ,/ \ ,i
C-5
\ / \ - ii ------
EllillIIIIIIIII \
j ,�vteQ IV
�� j +�AN! ice/
1 0
....... 0,
, \
c„,
\, <\,.‘
)"' '‘' \-: \--
Li
, ,,, f,, \ \ .-
, .-
, .- ‘57
—=~ 1 _ -: __ _ iiiliimillitii, \
4.
I 1 II
I O •
♦
I 0
I ! ` - -, \� :\.e •`
1 \\ '•` :'""; i
1
1 \ * --,.
00 i
1
STD. NO. DESCRIPTION SYMJOL \ '� ��;\C) ,
v, \ ...
`v ham, ,
\O 6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS =
\C) 6.62 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE III III III 1`1/1111 `
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM _ i Ih
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING ♦♦,.
y----+
TEMPORARY WETLAND MAT 11111111111
W}111111
Eilliiiiiiiiii LIMITS OF DISTURUANCE -..-..-..-.-"-"--
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
cii) � J
Y PROJECT STANDARDS PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: PROJECT ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker Car800o CAROLINA 275 Regency Parkway,Suite 680
THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE "NC EROSION CONTROL v,
Phone:NORTH CARD
PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL" AND ARE APPLICA3LE TO THIS PROJECT AND 3.5488
Fax:[phone]
Lr1111114 THIS PROJECT CONTAINS 3Y REFERENCE HERESY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PLANS. INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
— --", EROSION CONTROL PLANS
50 0 50 100 FOR ALL PHASES OF PROGRESS DRAWING
0 ititt
CONSTRUCTION. 6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLANS es1;14
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = ??.? Acres 6.20 TEMPORARY DWERION KATHLEEN M. MCKEITHAN, PE
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING LETTING DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER
llilli4 6.62 SILT FENCE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM P.E.
`` .1 ` .IL J` Jt� J� SIGNATURE:

ill f
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
cn
166680 EC-IA
N PROJECT ENGINEER
(V
ONSITE CONCRETE WASHOUT PROGRESS DRAWING
GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING PRACTICES FOR COMPLIANCE EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE STRUCTURE WITH LINER FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
WITH THE NCG01 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT 1. Maintain vehicles and equipment to prevent discharge of fluids. DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
HIGH COHESIVE&
Implementing the details and specifications on this plan sheet will result in the construction 2. Provide drip pans under any stored equipment. GWE"TRAY'°"
SOIL BERM 10 MIN
IA B LE(TYP.)
OR STAPLES
STAPLES
activitybeingconsidered compliant with the Ground Stabilization and Materials Handling3. Identifyleaks and repair as soon as feasible, or remove leakingequipment from the o\ io OOR"STAPLESTYR, 10 MIL PLASTIC HIG"°°HESIVEd
p q °> <� 'o - o' } LINING OIL BERMFILTRATION
10 MIL PLASTID '01 � �� /01
L:1 SIDE SLOPE SOIL BERM
sections of the NCG01 Construction General Permit (Sections E and F, respectively). The project. 0 SILT FENCE LINING
6 "DBAG6 TYP, , , . , VP.)
SIDE SLOPE OR STAPLES o Z
> (TYP.) l 0 1 r 01
permittee shall comply with the Erosion and Sediment Control plan approved by the delegated 4. Collect all spent fluids, store in separate containers and properly dispose as hazardous 0i A <o io6AM jo . �
0 C C C 0 .,'4 9I , '��.=.=.=1 y �'6 SFCTI[�N R-R
authority having jurisdiction. All details and specifications shown on this sheet may not apply waste (recycle when possible).
depending on site conditions and the delegated authorityhavingjurisdiction. 5. Remove leakingvehicles and construction equipment from service until the problem has B
p g g SANDBAGS(TYP.) Ical.s Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
been corrected. NLEARLYEACKEDSIGNAGE SFr,TI�NA-A OR STAPLES
ACTUAL LOCATION DETERMINED IN FIELD NOTING DEVICE(18"X24" 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
WASHOUT MIN.) NnTF.0 CLEARLYMARKEDSIGNAGE 2.THECONCRETEWASHOUTSTRUCTURES Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
6. Bring used fuels, lubricants, coolants, hydraulic fluids and other petroleum products to a ACTUAL LOCATION
SHOUT STRUCNED IN TURES
CONCRETE NOTING DEVICE(18"X24"MIN.) ANDLL/ORS LID REINED ACHES7ENTHE HOUID Phone:[phone]
SECTION E: GROUND STABILIZATIONWAS"OUT ""°'ORS°"ORE"°HES75°'OFTHE
2.THE CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURES SHALL BE STRUCTURES CAPACITY TO PROVIDE Fax [phone]
recycling or disposal center that handles these materials. MAINTAINED'..OFTHE THE CAPA ITIORSOLIDREACHES ADEQUATE HOLDING CAPACITYFREEBOARD
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
OF THE STRUCTURES CAPACITY. MINIMUM E INCHES OF FREEBOARD.
Required Ground Stabilization Ti m eframes PpAN 3 CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURE NEEDS TO CLEARY MARKED PLAN TO WITH SIGNAGE NOTING DEVICE PL 3.CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURE NEEDS
TO BE CLEARY MARKED WITH SIGNAGE
NOTING DEVICE. N C DMS ID
NO. 100068
Stabilize within this ,
Site Area Description many calendar Timeframe variations BELOW GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE ABOVE GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
days after ceasing LITTER, BUILDING MATERIAL AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
land disturbance 1 . Never bury or burn waste. Place litter and debris in approved waste containers.
(a) Perimeter dikes, 2. Provide a sufficient number and size of waste containers (e.g dumpster, trash receptacle) CONCRETE WASHOUTS
swales, ditches, and on site to contain construction and domestic wastes.
7 None 1 . Do not discharge concrete or cement slurry from the site.
perimeter slopes 3. Locate waste containers at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface waters 2. Dispose of, or recycle settled, hardened concrete residue in accordance with local and
unless no other alternatives are reasonably available. state solid waste re ulations and at an approved facility.
(b) High Quality Water 4. Locate waste containers on areas that do not receive substantial amounts of runoff from g pp
(HQW) Zones 7 None 3. Manage washout from mortar mixers in accordance with the above item and in addition
upland areas and does not drain directly to a storm drain, stream or wetland. place the mixer and associated materials on impervious barrier and within lot perimeter silt
(c) Slopes steeper than If slopes are 10' or less in length and are 5. Cover waste containers at the end of each workday and before storm events or provide fence.
secondary containment. Repair or replace damaged waste containers.
3:1 7 not steeper than 2:1, 14 days are 4. Install temporary concrete washouts per local requirements, where applicable. If an
6. Anchor all lightweight items in waste containers during times of high winds.
alternate method or product is to be used, contact your approval authority for review and
7. Empty waste containers as needed to prevent overflow. Clean up immediately if approval. If local standard details are not available, use one of the two types of temporary
-7 days for slopes greater than 50' in containers overflow. concrete washouts provided on this detail.
length and with slopes steeper than 4:1 8. Dispose waste off-site at an approved disposal facility. 5. Do not use concrete washouts for dewatering or storing defective curb or sidewalk
(d) Slopes 3:1 to 4:1 14 -7 days for perimeter dikes, swales, 9. On business days, clean up and dispose of waste in designated waste containers. sections. Stormwater accumulated within the washout may not be pumped into or
ditches, perimeter slopes and HQW discharged to the storm drain system or receiving surface waters. Liquid waste must be
Zones pumped out and removed from project.
-10 days for Falls Lake Watershed 6. Locate washouts at least 50 feet from storm drain inlets and surface waters unless it can
-7 days for perimeter dikes, swales, ditches, PAINT AND OTHER LIQUID WASTE be shown that no other alternatives are reasonably available. At a minimum, install
(e) Areas with slopes perimeter slopes and HQW Zones 1. Do not dump paint and other liquid waste into storm drains, streams or wetlands. protection of storm drain inlet(s) closest to the washout which could receive spills or
flatter than 4:1 14 -10 days for Falls Lake Watershed unless 2. Locate paint washouts at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface waters overflow.
there is zero slope unless no other alternatives are reasonably available. 7. Locate washouts in an easily accessible area, on level ground and install a stone entrance
3. Contain liquid wastes in a controlled area. pad in front of the washout. Additional controls may be required by the approving
Note: After the permanent cessation of construction activities, any areas with temporary ground 4. Containment must be labeled, sized and placed appropriately for the needs of site. authority.
stabilization shall be converted to permanent ground stabilization as soon as practicable but in 5. Prevent the discharge of soaps, solvents, detergents and other liquid wastes from 8. Install at least one sign directing concrete trucks to the washout within the project limits.
no case longer than 90 calendar days after the last land disturbing activity. Temporary ground construction sites. Post signage on the washout itself to identify this location.
stabilization shall be maintained in a manner to render the surface stable against accelerated 9. Remove leavings from the washout when at approximately 75% capacity to limit overflow
erosion until permanent ground stabilization is achieved. events. Replace the tarp, sand bags or other temporary structural components when no
PORTABLE TOILETS longer functional. When utilizing alternative or proprietary products, follow manufacturer's
GROUND STABILIZATION SPECIFICATION 1. Install portable toilets on level ground, at least 50 feet away from storm drains, streams or instructions.
Stabilize the ground sufficiently so that rain will not dislodge the soil. Use one of the wetlands unless there is no alternative reasonablyavailable. If 50 foot offset is not
techniques in the table below: 10. At the completion of the concrete work, remove remaining leavings and dispose of in an
attainable, provide relocation of portable toilet behind silt fence or place on a gravel pad approved disposal facility. Fill pit, if applicable, and stabilize any disturbance caused by
Temporary Stabilization Permanent Stabilization and surround with sand bags. removal of washout.
• Temporary grass seed covered with straw or • Permanent grass seed covered with straw or 2. Provide staking or anchoring of portable toilets during periods of high winds or in high foot
other mulches and tackifiers other mulches and tackifiers traffic areas.
• Hydroseeding • Geotextile fabrics such as permanent soil 3. Monitor portable toilets for leaking and properly dispose of any leaked material. Utilize a
• Rolled erosion control products with or reinforcement matting licensed sanitary waste hauler to remove leaking portable toilets and replace with properly
without temporary grass seed • Hydroseeding operating unit.
• Appropriately applied straw or other mulch • Shrubs or other permanent plantings covered HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND RODENTICIDES
• Plastic sheeting with mulch 1. Store and apply herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in accordance with label
• Uniform and evenly distributed ground cover EARTHEN STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT restrictions.
sufficient to restrain erosion 1 . Show stockpile locations on plans. Locate earthen-material stockpile areas at least 50 feet 2. Store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in their original containers with the label,
• Structural methods such as concrete, asphalt or away from storm drain inlets, sediment basins, perimeter sediment controls and surface which lists directions for use, ingredients and first aid steps in case of accidental
retaining walls waters unless it can be shown no other alternatives are reasonably available. poisoning.
• Rolled erosion control products with grass seed 2. Protect stockpile with silt fence installed along toe of slope with a minimum offset of five 3. Do not store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in areas where flooding is possible or
feet from the toe of stockpile. where they may spill or leak into wells, stormwater drains, ground water or surface water.
c POLYACRYLAMIDES (PAMS) AND FLOCCULANTS 3. Provide stable stone access point when feasible. If a spill occurs, clean area immediately.
0-1
-0 4. Stabilize stockpile within the timeframes provided on this sheet and in accordance with the 4. Do not stockpile these materials onsite.
1 . Select flocculants that are appropriate for the soils being exposed during construction, approved plan and any additional requirements. Soil stabilization is defined as vegetative,
selecting from the NC DWR List of Approved PAMS/Flocculants. physical or chemical coverage techniques that will restrain accelerated erosion on
Co 2. Apply flocculants at or before the inlets to Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. disturbed soils for temporary or permanent control needs.
= 3. Apply flocculants at the concentrations specified in the NC DWR List of Approved
0_ PAMS/Flocculants and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE
4. Provide ponding area for containment of treated Stormwater before discharging offsite. 1. Create designated hazardous waste collection areas on-site.
CO
CO 5. Store flocculants in leak-proof containers that are kept under storm-resistant cover or 2. Place hazardous waste containers under cover or in secondary containment.
CO
V
surrounded by secondary containment structures. 3. Do not store hazardous chemicals, drums or bagged materials directly on the ground.
In
C
c
0
V
c
is
In
an
0
i
L
0
LL_
_c
In
D
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
i
In
N a = NCGO1 GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING EFFECTIVE-. 04/01 / 19
0 Oa
Q C
. 1-,,,,,
r,'1 Eiki

cn
0 ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
166680 EC-1B
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N
PART III PART III PART III PROGRESS DRAWING
SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
SECTION A: SELF-INSPECTION SECTION B: RECORDKEEPING SECTION C: REPORTING DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Self-inspections are required during normal business hours in accordance with the table below. 1. E&SC Plan Documentation 1. Occurences that Must be Reported
When adverse weather or site conditions would cause the safety of the inspection personnel to The approved E&SC plan as well as any approved deviation shall be kept on the site. The Permittees shall report the following occurrences:
be in jeopardy, the inspection may be delayed until the next business day on which it is safe to approved E&SC plan must be kept up-to-date throughout the coverage under this permit. (a) Visible sediment deposition in a stream or wetland.
perform the inspection. In addition, when a storm event of equal to or greater than 1.0 inch The following items pertaining to the E&SC plan shall be kept on site and available for
occurs outside of normal business hours, the self-inspection shall be performed upon the inspection at all times during normal business hours. (b) Oil spills if:
commencement of the next business day. Any time when inspections were delayed shall be • They are 25 gallons or more, Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker Caro, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
noted in the Inspection Record. • They are less than 25 gallons but cannot be cleaned up within 24 hours, Phone:[phone]
Item to Document Documentation Requirements • Theycause sheen on surface waters (regardless of volume), or Fax [phone]
( g INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
Frequency (a) Each E&SC measure has been installed Initial and date each E&SC measure on a copy • They are within 100 feet of surface waters (regardless of volume). .<
Inspect (during normal Inspection records must include: and does not significantly deviate from the of the approved E&SC plan or complete, date NCDMS ID NO. 100068
business hours) (c) Releases of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities under Section 311 d
locations, dimensions and relative elevations and sign an inspection report that lists each p
(1) Rain gauge Daily Daily rainfall amounts. shown on the approved E&SC plan. E&SC measure shown on the approved E&SC of the Clean Water Act (Ref: 40 CFR 110.3 and 40 CFR 117.3) or Section 102 of CERCLA
maintained in If no daily rain gauge observations are made during weekend or or G.S. 143-215.85.
good working holiday periods, and no individual-day rainfall information is plan. This documentation is required upon the (Ref: 40 CFR 302.4)
order available, record the cumulative rain measurement for those un- initial installation of the E&SC measures or if
attended days (and this will determine if a site inspection is the E&SC measures are modified after initial (d) Anticipated bypasses and unanticipated bypasses.
needed). Days on which no rainfall occurred shall be recorded as installation.
"zero." The permittee may use another rain-monitoring device (e) Noncompliance with the conditions of this permit that may endanger health or the
approved by the Division. (b) A phase of grading has been completed. Initial and date a copy of the approved E&SC
or complete, date and signenvironment.
(2) E&SC At least once per 1. Identification of the measures inspected, plan an inspection
Measures 7 calendar days 2. Date and time of the inspection, report to indicate completion of the
and within 24 3. Name of the person performing the inspection, construction phase. 2. Reporting Timeframes and Other Requirements
hours of a rain 4. Indication of whether the measures were operating After a permittee becomes aware of an occurrence that must be reported, he shall contact
event> 1.0 inch in properly, (c) Ground cover is located and installed Initial and date a copy of the approved E&SC the appropriate Division regional office within the timeframes and in accordance with the
24 hours 5. Description of maintenance needs for the measure, in accordance with the approved E&SC plan or complete, date and sign an inspection other requirements listed below. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be
6. Description, evidence, and date of corrective actions taken. plan. report to indicate compliance with approved reported to the Department's Environmental Emergency Center personnel at [phone].
(3) Stormwater At least once per 1. Identification of the discharge outfalls inspected, ground cover specifications.
discharge 7 calendar days 2. Date and time of the inspection,
outfalls (SDOs) and within 24 3. Name of the person performing the inspection, (d) The maintenance and repair Complete, date and sign an inspection report.
hours of a rain 4. Evidence of indicators of stormwater pollution such as oil requirements for all E&SC measures Occurrence Reporting Timeframes (After Discovery) and Other Requirements
event> 1.0 inch in sheen, floating or suspended solids or discoloration, have been performed.
(a) Visible sediment • Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification.
24 hours 5. Indication of visible sediment leaving the site,
6. Description, evidence, and date of corrective actions taken. (e) Corrective actions have been taken Initial and date a copy of the approved E&SC deposition in a • Within 7 calendar days, a report that contains a description of the
(4) Perimeter of At least once per If visible sedimentation is found outside site limits, then a record to E&SC measures. plan or complete, date and sign an inspection stream or wetland sediment and actions taken to address the cause of the deposition.
site 7 calendar days of the following shall be made: report to indicate the completion of the Division staff may waive the requirement for a written report on a
and within 24 1. Actions taken to clean up or stabilize the sediment that has left corrective action. case-by-case basis.
hours of a rain the site limits, • If the stream is named on the NC 303(d) list as impaired for sediment-
event> 1.0 inch in 2. Description, evidence, and date of corrective actions taken, and related causes, the permittee may be required to perform additional
24 hours 3. An explanation as to the actions taken to control future
releases. 2. Additional Documentation to be Kept on Site monitoring, inspections or apply more stringent practices if staff
(5) Streams or At least once per If the stream or wetland has increased visible sedimentation or a In addition to the E&SC plan documents above, the following items shall be kept on the determine that additional requirements are needed to assure compliance
wetlands onsite 7 calendar days stream has visible increased turbidity from the construction site and available for inspectors at all times during normal business hours, unless the with the federal or state impaired-waters conditions.
or offsite and within 24 activity, then a record of the following shall be made: (b) Oil spills and • Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification. The notification
Division provides a site-specific exemption based on unique site conditions that make
(where hours of a rain 1. Description, evidence and date of corrective actions taken, and release of shall include information about the date, time, nature, volume and
accessible) event> 1.0 inch in 2. Records of the required reports to the appropriate Division this requirement not practical:
hazardous location of the spill or release.
24 hours Regional Office per Part III, Section C, Item (2)(a) of this permit.
(6) Ground After each phase 1. The phase of grading (installation of perimeter E&SC (a) This General Permit as well as the Certificate of Coverage, after it is received. substances per Item
stabilization of grading measures, clearing and grubbing, installation of storm 1(b)-(c) above
measures drainage facilities, completion of all land-disturbing (b) Records of inspections made during the previous twelve months. The permittee shall (c) Anticipated • A report at least ten days before the date of the bypass, if possible.
activity, construction or redevelopment, permanent bypasses [40 CFR The report shall include an evaluation of the anticipated quality and
ground cover). record the required observations on the Inspection Record Form provided by the 122.41(m)(3)] effect of the bypass.
2. Documentation that the required ground stabilization Division or a similar inspection form that includes all the required elements. Use of
measures have been provided within the required electronically-available records in lieu of the required paper copies will be allowed if (d) Unanticipated • Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification.
bypasses [40 CFR • Within 7 calendar days, a report that includes an evaluation of the
timeframe or an assurance that they will be provided as shown to provide equal access and utility as the hard-copy records.
soon as possible. 122.41(m)(3)] quality and effect of the bypass.
3. Documentation to be Retained for Three Years (e) Noncompliance • Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification.
All data used to complete the e-NOI and all inspection records shall be maintained for a period with the conditions • Within 7 calendar days, a report that contains a description of the
NOTE: The rain inspection resets the required 7 calendar day inspection requirement. of three years after project completion and made available upon request. [40 CFR 122.41] of this permit that noncompliance, and its causes; the period of noncompliance,
may endanger including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not
health or the been corrected, the anticipated time noncompliance is expected to
PART II, SECTION G, ITEM (4) environment[40 continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and
DRAW DOWN OF SEDIMENT BASINS FOR MAINTENANCE OR CLOSE OUT CFR 122.41(1)(7)] prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. [40 CFR 122.41(1)(6).
• Division staff may waive the requirement for a written report on a
Sediment basins and traps that receive runoff from drainage areas of one acre or more shall use outlet structures that withdraw water from the surface when these devices need to be drawn down for case-by-case basis.
maintenance or close out unless this is infeasible. The circumstances in which it is not feasible to withdraw water from the surface shall be rare (for example, times with extended cold weather).
c Non-surface withdrawals from sediment basins shall be allowed only when all of the following criteria have been met:
0-1
m (a) The E&SC plan authority has been provided with documentation of the non-surface withdrawal and the specific time periods or conditions in which it will occur. The non-surface withdrawal
n shall not commence until the E&SC plan authority has approved these items,
w (b) The non-surface withdrawal has been reported as an anticipated bypass in accordance with Part III, Section C, Item (2)(c) and (d) of this permit,
n (c) Dewatering discharges are treated with controls to minimize discharges of pollutants from stormwater that is removed from the sediment basin. Examples of appropriate controls include
i properly sited, designed and maintained dewatering tanks, weir tanks, and filtration systems,
co n (d) Vegetated, upland areas of the sites or a properly designed stone pad is used to the extent feasible at the outlet of the dewatering treatment devices described in Item (c) above,
Lo (e) Velocity dissipation devices such as check dams, sediment traps, and riprap are provided at the discharge points of all dewatering devices, and
(f) Sediment removed from the dewatering treatment devices described in Item (c) above is disposed of in a manner that does not cause deposition of sediment into waters of the United States.
in
c
10
1
c
is
(t)
0
L
O
LL
in
D
s)
co
Co
Co
CO
i
in
N NCGO1 SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING EFFECTIVE: 04/01 / 19
00 -
QL
. 1-,,,,, R

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
c .
Lo
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /EXIT TEMPORARY SILT FENCE 166680 EC-2
(V
(V
PROGRESS DRAWING
WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES WITH -41 8' MAX. WITH WIRE I. T-POSTS SHALL BE 1.33 LB/LF STEEL WITH A MINIMUM
(6' MAX. WITHOUT WIRE, FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
A MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRES USE OF EXTRA LENGTH OF 5 FEET AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO
PUBLIC ROAD OF 50 LB SHALL BE USED TO STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC) AS TO ALLOW FOR FASTENING OF THE FABRIC DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCT THE FENCE
------------------------------------------------- (4' MAX. WITHOUT WIRE,
NORMAL STRENGTH
FILTER FABRIC)
•` °nU0�0000°Io. MESH CONSISTING OF
� bb O O 14 GAGE WIRE AT MAX Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
O 0 Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
R=40' OoP0°O 0 "L' R=40' SPACING OF 6"x6"
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Fax: [phone]
O° no O/ r - — Phone:[phone]
)O° r-,, INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
° o0o 0
�0�0°0°00 z -1 l 1=111J 11=111=111=111=111=111=111 11 IJ 11=11 I=11 IJ 11=11 IEI 11=11E 1 EI I I'f IEI EI I E1 1I-11 I-f f EI z11=111=111 — 1-1 1J H 1-1 H 1=H 1—i H 1J H 1J H 1J H 1J H 1= N C D M S I D N O. 100068
Do O°0°0 0( 1-111=111-111-111-111-111-111-111- 1=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111-III=1 1=111=111-111-III-1 111=11 E111=11-111-111-111-111-111-111=111
'DOCI,t° 00- 0
Q300 0°OO
12' MIN _ O �0o O
°°00�°°0o C -
° II - FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STANDARD OR EXTRA
�r�0 � -
STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FIBER CERTIFIED BY THE
MANUFACTURER TO COMPLY WITH MATERIAL
REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM STANDARDS D 6461, 4632, 4491, WIRE MESH
4751, AND 4355. FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1. AVOID JOINTS, UNAVOIDABLE JOINTS MUST HAVE 4' OF CLOTH OVERLAP AND SHOULD TIE INTO
THE NEXT ADJACENT POST. MECHANICALLY COMPACTED FILL
PUBLIC ROAD 2. PLACE ON CONTOUR EXCEPT ENDS WHICH SHOULD BE 1'ABOVE GRADE TO PREVENT CUT AROUND. 2 PASSES OF A COMPACTION DEVICE
3. WRAP APPROX. 6" OF FABRIC AROUND END POSTS AND SECURE WITH TIES. EXERTING AT LEAST 60 LB/IN2 ON
11/
4. REMOVE ONCE AREA IS STABLE. BOTH SIDES OF FENCE FENCE HEIGHT
6" MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL SIDE CAST SPOIL MATERIAL FROM TRENCHING FOR SILT FENCE ONTO HIGH MAX 24"
�� �v �t� "� V WASHED CLASS A STONE GROUND OR ONTO THE PERMITTED ABOVE GROUND
O 00 0 00 O OOa (,60 C WETLAND IMPACT SIDE TO AVOID UNPERMITTED WETLAND IMPACTS. RUNOFF
,� C O Poo 0 00 P 0 0 O DIRECTION
O O ° c
,O°rOch 0,0 0 2 00�on 0 0�O 00,0P,d-°°O�°°o O ..i.':* •
n MAINTENANCE NOTES: - 0• •1� •�
1. INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED „vat 1 •
..
REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY. 8 .• .
FILTER FABRIC 2. SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, .4+,1;..t. e.,qii_r.4. \ \ 1 1
� t ':•,,.
REPLACE IT PROMPTLY. • 47�• '•�`•.
3. REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE ..�, y. POST DEPTH
NOTES: NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE 24" MINIMUM� ►
DURING CLEANOUT. FILTER FABRIC
SPECIFICATION NO. 6.06-CONSTRUCTION ACCESS "N.C. EROSION AND SEDIMENT 4. REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE
CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL MARCH 2009" AND STABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM TEMPORARY STREAM AND WETLAND CROSSING - WOOD MAT
FLOW
Y Y
z z
a a
m m
2
Q Q
w w
I I
I- H
rn CONSTRUCTION AREA UPSTREAM
SILT FENCE
/ � � - - � --
WOOD MAT CLASS B STONE
RAMP
r `N #57 STONE
STILLING BASIN 1 CLASS B STONE
(2 FT. MAX DEPTH) 1
oo - - A
.0... O
\ — — _ i ftCLASS
TILE FABRIC o� °�o� oO o o
°° k, 9,0° )N,.. -9o°D �ooi ft._ �800 ten
„ / „)cx� OCJbW OCJb O�b��� Oo x�bo°��o075O° b° ���0 0Q� _- 1 - — , �— -°0OQV
0 �9�0���� 9$U[l° O 9 0 O 9Rr '9 o00cY�o �� �.� -
— �___-�00 OOo
— —� - s CHANNELBOTTOM J =TYPE2NNWOVEocFILTERFABRIC. : . I 000
0-1 B STONE �. o
EXISTING CHANNEL
cp NO GAPS WOOD MAT
w BETWEEN LOGS
= PLAN VIEW STREAM BANK
cn CROSS SECTION PLAN VIEW
co
Lo
c_o ma 2'
Co
.-
V . 1' vi
in FLOW Cgo
T
i 108�a N1 2/3 BANKFULL NOTES:
� MAXIMUM DEPTH
go
..)0o0 0 1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
) jOPo g 2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
o
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
L 4. LINE STREAMBANK AND ACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
0
#57 STONE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 5. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
_c 6. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES FOR LATER USE.
D 7. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL BY INSTALLING
cc
CROSS SECTION SILT FENCE ON ALL FOUR CORNERS ADJACENT TO THE STREAM. SEE SILT FENCE DETAIL.
8. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUD MAT.
co
L0 9. THE WOOD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
co NOTES: 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED, RECOMMENDED AT A 5:1 SLOPE.
i 1. TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE END OF THE REACH THAT IS UNDER
+°-p CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CURRENT PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND/OF AS DESIGNATED ON THE TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING MAINTENANCE NOTES:
o EROSION CONTROL PLANS.
a� 1. INSPECT TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AFTER RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINS TO CHECK FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL,
0 0- 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTING THE TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMS EROSION OF ABUTMENTS, CHANNEL SCOUR, RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT, OR PIPING. MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO
c,, i c ON A DAILY BASIS AND CLEANING OR REPAIRING THEM AS NEEDED.
0_L 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM THE CHECK DAMS ONCE THE PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION.
. c DEPTH OF SEDIMENT REACHES 12 INCHES.
r�� Eiki

cn
0 ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. %
TYPICAL PUMP-AROUND OPERATION CHANNEL PLUG 166680 EC-2A
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N
CHANNEL TO BE PLUGGED PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
SUMP-HOLE / POOL INLET DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
(12" MIN. DEPTH)
A
PUMP-AROUND PUMP -9 -,s
IMPERVIOUS DIKE /ROCK DAM Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
•
CHANNEL PLUG
Michael Baker Ca0r y,Regency Parkway, Suite
0 NORTH CAROLINA275680
Phone:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
/' NCDMS ID NO. 100068 .<
d
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
PLAN VIEW 1.5' MINIMUM
FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE CHANNEL
INVERT .
O�
Cr
O BACKFILL CONSISTING OF ON-SITE CLAY
Z MATERIAL WILL BE COMPACTED USING
tt Y HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS
0 NOTE:
1. BACKFILL CONSISTING OF ON-SITE CLAY MATERIAL WILL BE COMPACTED USING HEAVY
EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
2. THE REMAINDER OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE PLUGGED WILL BE COMPLETED FILLED
TO THE NEW TOP-OF-BANK ELEVATION.
EXISTING CHANNEL
A7TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE HOSE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE/ROCK DAM COIR FIBER MATTING
2.5 INCH
ROOFING
NAIL
DEWATERING PUMP
PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 6 INCH DEEP
TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT NOTES:
io()%06VDocP TOP OF STREAMBANK 1. BANKS SHOULD BE SEEDED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF MATTING.
.000 o°�o°o°i 2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING PER SPECIFICATIONS ALONG STREAM
°o ° BANKS OR IN OTHERS LOCATIONS SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER.
, ••%g°off SPECIAL STILLING BASIN e
3. LARGE STAKES SHOULD NOT BE SPACED FURTHER THAN 36" APART.
STABILIZED OUTLET - • • ♦
CONSTRUCT WITH A MIX OF 4. PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL SEAMS, IN THE CENTER OF BANK,
BOULDERS AND CLASS B STONE /� AND TOE OF SLOPE.
TO STABILIZE STREAM AT TOE OF SLOPE
PUMP-AROUND OUTLET . •
NOTES: 1,
LARGE STAKES
1. EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY SECTIONS OF CHANNEL. BOTTOM OF CHANNEL TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONE
WORKING DAY. PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING AT TOE OF SLOPE. THE WOOD STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
4. THE PUMP-AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY CONVEY 1 CFS (450 GALLONS PER MINUTE). SECURE MATTING WITH LARGE MATTING STAKE •
c LEG LENGTH 17.00 IN (43.18 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN CROSS SECTION VIEW WIDTH 1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
Q THICKNESS 1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
c� INSTALL 2 INCH PAD OF
#57 STONE BETWEEN
cp SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
w EXISTING GROUND AND FILTER FABRIC
Cn
D -868 aoo �OOVUC-o-° 3-8-68 S3-Aa�8-68 �oo°OcW)(o Doi
is
co
co
FILTER FABRIC
co
-4111 15-20FT
in
c
c
o- TRENCH N TRENCH
• ` TOP OF STREAMBANK
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND
ID TOP OF • • • • • • • • • • • 70-
0 1. INSTALL STABILIZED OUTLET AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA. STREAMBANK
2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE THAT • • • • • • • • • • • • TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE TO THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
o OR STABILIZED OUTLET. SARGES STAKES
' 3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION. • • • • • •/ THE WOOD STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
can 4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE
D ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER e
1 THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILL FLOW INTO A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN.
co 5. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND COIR FIBER MATTING LEG LENGTH 11.00 IN (27.94 CM)
TO BE EXTENDED TO HEAD WIDTH 1.25 IN (3.18 CM)
Coo FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. 4 . • • • • • • • • • 9 TOE OF SLOPE HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
co 6. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE LEG WIDTH 0.60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE STARTING • • . 9 0 0 LEG THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
cn WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
+,o 7. THE CONTRACTOR WILL COMPLETE ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION IN ONE DAY WITHIN THE PUMP TOTAL LENGTH 12.00 IN (30.48 CM)
''''N
AROUND AREA BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES.
0 0= 8. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTLET PLAN VIEW LARGE
Qa
. 1-,,,, AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH. STAKES
�� Est 0

ill ( PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
cn
DEWATERING PUMP 166680 EC-2B
Lo
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N
PROGRESS DRAWING
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN TEMPORARY SEEDING SELECTION AND APPLICATION RATES FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN Application
BMP Common Name Scientific Name Application Time Rate Total (lbs/acre)
EXISTING
TEMPORARY GROUND Cereal rye Secale cereale Sept - March 3 Ib/1 ,000 sq ft. 130 lbs/acre 8Michaegle nBay kerr Engineitee ring Inc.
FLEXIBLE
Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
••� ••� ••� ••� •.� ••� ••� ••� ••� ••� ••� Phone:[phone]
HOSE t•.Co`bi#•.Caeja.CcT i�..CcTIZI.Ccbit.0o�i�•.icTela.OMA.Cai�•.CRCI ,�o�i�•� Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
a Browntop millet Panicum ramosum April - Aug 1 lb/1 ,000 sq ft. 44 lbs/acre
QFILTER
FABRIC }
15-20FT (` NCDMS ID NO. 100068
z
0
INSTALL 2 INCH PAD OF
#57 STONE BETWEEN
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
AND FILTER FABRIC
1. INSTALL SPECIAL BILLING BASIN OUTSIDE OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA. TEMPORARY STABILIZATION TI M E F RAM ES
2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE DEWATERING PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE HOSE THAT WILL CONVEY THE WATER IN THE BMP TO THE SPECIAL
STILLING BASIN OR STABILIZED OUTLET. SITE AREA DESCRIPTION STABILIZATION TIME FRAME EXCEPTIONS
• 3. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND
DEWATERING FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. PERIMITER DITCHES AND SLOPES 7 DAYS NONE
PUMP 4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT, REMOVE PUMPS, DIKES, SWALE,
AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE
5. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COOMPLETED, REMOVE THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN HIGH QUALITY WATER (HOW) ZONES 7 DAYS NONE
AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.
If slopes are 10' or less in length and are
SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS
`0 not steeper than 2:1, 14 days are allowed.
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR DEWATERING PUMP
SLOPES 3:1 OR FLATTER 14 DAYS 7 days for slopes greater than 50' in length
1. WHEN NECESSARY, INSTALL THE PUMPING APPARATUS TO DEWATER THE BMP WORK AREA.
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
THE PUMP AND HOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE BMP WITHIN 24 HOURS. ALL OTHER AREAS WITH SLOPES FLATTER THAN 4:1 14 DAYS None, except for perimeters and HOW Zones
THE WATER SHALL BE PUMPED FROM THE BMP TO THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN.
2. THE CONTRACTOR MAY THEN FINISH GRADE AND PLANT THE BMP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE * ALL CHANNEL WORK MUST BE STABILIZED DAILY
PLAN AND THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
3. ONCE GRADING AND PLANTING ARE COMPLETE, REMOVE PUMP AND HOSE.
4. STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH.
0 Z
m
0 CD
n�0m Hcc=ca
mOm =-1 u_Jai-Iz
Z = 00 =
-nz >.m NOTES
HUccOo
C70� OM CI)I—�0J
• 2 Xi an EXCAVATE TEMPORARY DIVERSION WITH NON-VERTICAL SIDE SLOPES AND NOT =0 ‹
GREATER THAN 1 . 5 : 1 SLOPE . 1-4
C"0 w SEED BERM CREATED BY COMPACTED SOIL AS DIRECTED . . o 0
C
CO0-1
m COMPACTED SOIL cc
—I 0 —P-1 2' MINIMUM Ho— o� Z
1-1 co
0_ O CI) - _ 1 '-6" f� FLOW
co > y = MINIMUM p
CO 3.I
CO v i o IH
CI
CO > CC
co 0- 0 0
El
c m = 6' TYPICAL Ha
cc
7, * O 0
0 y z C
a 0 0 _1 lao Z m
0 CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW z
0
LL
-c
in
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET 1 OF 1
In 1630 . 05 1630 . 05
0
Nam_
ON 0
i Q
0_i
�\ C

F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
g' -....N'
166680 EC-3
(V
(V
" PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite Carry, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
•
•
•
•
INSTALL TEMPORARY ��\`�• `
STREAM CROSSING (TYP.) •� �• �
-
•
10
♦
•
0.0
ii
it '►�,�� � =j am • < ` -` \\\\ \\\
•• 1�
,TT
F I ——
1
\ .___ .
HAUL ROAD °' -
--- '�
to
,�i _
N • .---_gm,
x � `mot `
• `:• �`_ _ INSTALL TEMPORARY ���' 2 V
\ \
• ` �� ROCK DAM (TYP.) � - W
_ .vi.1:— l',11, Li.,
\ \
STAGING/TOPSOIL .�` ��, `♦ �XQQ i LLI
\ \ \
\ \ \‘(c1;
,l''' ' :
STOCKPILE AREA )` ,, `� �� ...,,,,-,..._.--,„/„ 23+oo / i� CO
t LLI
\ -...../-7----- ____e , -
IIt 1 ...... ----7,01 LLI 6 Z
\ \ \ /'6. _/.0 , __ ,AS -,------
S:I:1:.":1
d� i\ \ \
s Ili ,
\ \ \
\ \ 1,iN
I°°I°/:*.'**/ , ,
` ' O 4s �a P �/ I + •�e/,V
•INSTALL TEMPORARY OQ' ,, .j`, �� //
\ \ . \
SILT FENCE (TYP.) /' •• _
' '� ;' �' II /� /
EROSION &SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES: ` _1��t' • ' /
i Ii III //
1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON ` � I�, �/�
THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. �; I k.).; ♦�77 ���� i� // /
/117V
2.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. ` ` I� N\ II/� 1I /
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BY THE END OF EACH ` ` ✓ ,/ ., i/�/ /� / /
O WORK DAY. SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3H:1 V SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER WITHIN FOURTEEN(14) ✓� 1� •
�I�i �_ /
is CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3H:1V SHALL BE \ ` / 1- / / I,' / / /
STABILIZED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS. SEE SHEET 1-A FOR VEGETATION \ •
I /
O AND PERMANENT SEED SELECTION. SEE EC-2B FOR TEMPORARY SEED SELECTION AND APPLICATION RATES. �� ;=a• II1�� �oP�
(� 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION �; I / I i� & / /
W CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE ` c� XOQ \I.,I
' / 4‹, ////// /
o
MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS,AND STOCKPILE AREAS. 140
� f- // P
4.ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE ' f� /
CO CO ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY,TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER. \ 4 •f / // /
\ #w
c9 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH - - �" 7 // / /
THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING •-_--we "t i / // /
cn SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AND SIDE SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 AS SHOWN INit
/ / /
C THE PLANS AND DETAILS. � w'� /
C 6.THE CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING, MULCHING, AND MATTING IN , , AO
// / /
C ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW MATCH LINE SEE SHEET EC-5
-1 STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
r
N O 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP-AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
L
O 8.THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
LH RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
D 9. ROCK DAMS SHALL BE INSTALLED BELOW ACTIVE WORK AS NEEDED TO UTILIZE PUMP AROUND OPERATION.
C' r N
1
& 10. EXISTING CULVERTED CROSSING SHALL BE UTILIZED TO CROSS THE STREAM CHANNEL UNTIL SUCH TIME UT to RUSH FORK
CO THAT NEW PERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS APPLICABLE. EROSION�r € SEDIMENTATION
co
(9
CONTROL PLAN
N 2 50 0 50 100
o —,_
CV p
La itliti
C
Eihii SCALE (FT)

es ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
cn
166680 EC-4
Lo
(V
N
Q
�P j j
,III j // PROGRESS DRAWING
1/ / / FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
/ DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION/
/ /
/ Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
✓ /, Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
� INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
INSTALL TEMPORARY / / //
GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION / /
ENTRANCE (TYP.) j / //
/ ///,
OlY
---74g
/
:. //
: f: :: Ac /S/.
/ . TAGING/TOPSOIL % / 7 �` /// ./ /// `> // STOCKPILE AREA ��4� 900-
_ �-- /� i s/ / �•9 7 ..
/ 7 ....,............z.„... 0/ ,.. .
/ /j 1.--•••---i s*B -.. :—_,.. , /
si/e/y . \/ --- ---'----...... .. 6
0 i .••.
4.10100'
- / �/, ,, 6- #'
INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE (TYP.) o
/ / fr ,. O
'5I0 rS.-.ftC,.;/..,.0.1.•
--•...4,..—*"_4:.-.--_c/,-'..4--A._W.-d_—.,..'r_
1 ' X" " // .+4�% 3111+00;(4► --- _zZxC° , 1
m _
--_h` i, t,�/ %+ /� K', `a -' • `e e $ HAUL ROAD
1
Ae
•
,. / / C `� •
,; . :....•''*.---./ ......
W /{
I— . / �. .' To
_ i / ' 'mac . �a4 /-I .4 J _ �S� i�� /
v, / EROSION &SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:
, / a ,� .2 INSTALL TEMPORARY
1.1.1 7.--LJJ - /// "�'' ,� / ROCK DAM (TYP.) 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
N /� / THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
NS.
�/�a /+� / / 2.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BEBE PLACEDD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL
THE ENDI OF EACHO
WORK DAY. SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3H:1 V SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER WITHIN FOURTEEN(14)
—I / /// / INSTALL TEMPORARY CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3H:1V SHALL BE
' GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION STABILIZED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS. SEE SHEET 1-A FOR VEGETATION
Ll / AND PERMANENT SEED SELECTION. SEE EC-2B FOR TEMPORARY SEED SELECTION AND APPLICATION RATES.
LU I , ENTRANCE (TYP.)
= • j U / 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
I— CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
0_I MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS,CHANNEL RELOCATIONS,AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
1
CO
co / 4.ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE
(O 7 ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY,TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER.
LO
V 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
in
C THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING
r0 SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AND SIDE SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 AS SHOWN IN
THE PLANS AND DETAILS.
C
01 6.THE CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING, MULCHING, AND MATTING IN
Cri ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW
O STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
O
7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP-AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
0 O MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
LL
8.THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
cn RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
C' r N
1 9. ROCK DAMS SHALL BE INSTALLED BELOW ACTIVE WORK AS NEEDED TO UTILIZE PUMP AROUND OPERATION. UT to RUSH FORK
co
Co 10. EXISTING CULVERTED CROSSING SHALL BE UTILIZED TO CROSS THE STREAM CHANNEL UNTIL SUCH TIME EROSION € SEDIMENTATION
co
c9 THAT NEW PERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS APPLICABLE.
CONTROL PLAN
In
N 2 50 0 50 100
o -_
N O
0 a- Iiii-
00
\ C
� SCALE (FT)

cn F ( BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1
166680 EC-5
Lo
(V
EROSION &SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:
(V
1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
2.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. PROGRESS DRAWING
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BY THE END OF EACH
WORK DAY. SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3H:1V SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER WITHIN FOURTEEN(14) FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3H:1V SHALL BE
STABILIZED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS. SEE SHEET 1-A FOR VEGETATION DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
AND PERMANENT SEED SELECTION. SEE EC-2B FOR TEMPORARY SEED SELECTION AND APPLICATION RATES. NA`
`
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS,AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
4.ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE
ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY,TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER. Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH Phone:[phone]
THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING Fax:[phone]
SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AND SIDE SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 AS SHOWN IN INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
THE PLANS AND DETAILS.
6.THE CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING, MULCHING, AND MATTING IN N C DMS ID NO. 100068
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW
STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP-AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
8.THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
7 RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
9. ROCK DAMS SHALL BE INSTALLED BELOW ACTIVE WORK AS NEEDED TO UTILIZE PUMP AROUND OPERATION.
I 10. EXISTING CULVERTED CROSSING SHALL BE UTILIZED TO CROSS THE STREAM CHANNEL UNTIL SUCH TIME
THAT NEW PERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS APPLICABLE.
s 22
ti
__ _ ('ti
— = ll k. ./♦-<(
-
0 ,----- ' 7
+� —+
/ \t?
0 .
✓ - --�— - i� --'� _ •,,• ' •
i
.1. -------' 7. /
/ `� ----'/. • " �"""��= _ - '-- // I I__-
•
' , f �.
/ ,yam' %. �� _++ /
,
•
�,t
• '7i �_ •♦ • /, / / /
4 •/ ,,.."-_i ,!;.,*' , --—• • /i• ///�N.� eo p n
, e L.../..---- '..-----------
,'44e 1:/. ,
R�A� / /
v�- / -- / ''
!gi ... / �/ ....../
/
�iii� /
6!, ........--"*"."- ..-----...' ............ ..1 \ ....../"...........-
....y4.-- .------
I ..------ \ I
1�, /•" / j// /// /// I
, , /i • \ \ \
J •�/ / /' /// /,// /- -
..----- \ 1
1 '49 %•• A.--. .....--- \ \
LD
4„ z, ...----- ......--- ...----- \ \
'fr
^0 / " ,jam, 4 0........'' ....0.
s/ //
a
/-/
I� - ------ -----"".- \ \
' c o,aF /
\ ��� —��I� .� x�- // /// ,� ///
LO
C % e - ..----- ..----- \
,---- ..---A.........----- \ \
o-) ..----- \
----- ..---" \..---"
LO • , e aP, ..... \ \\..-----o ..---" ..---"
•/ /
I a I
L I '// // ../......' // I I
co
// // UT to RUSH FORK
Lo /,/ / EROSION SEDIMENTATION
y CONTROL PLAN
( i2 50 0 50 100
o _,_
CV p
00a itliti
N. i
C
Esti SCALE (FT)