20130739 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20130718

To: Eric Kulz, NC DWQ 2 0 1 3 0 7 3 9
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
From: Jeff Schaffer, Eastern Regional Supervisor, EEP
CC: Heather Smith, Project Manager, EEP
RE: Draft Final Mitigation Plan
St. Clair Creek Restoration Site
EEP Project #: 95015
Tar Pamlico 03020104, Beaufort County
Date: July 16, 2013
Qc�c�cIOa[0
�I. ►l 1 8 20113 ;
s7 6UALITY
WOand& S �r atar Brnrwk
Here are two hardcopies of the Draft Final Mitigation Plan for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Site for
your review. This document was posted on the EEP Portal, July 15, 2013. Please forward to the
appropriate DWQ Field Representative for their review.

20730T39
FINAL DRAFT
kINKE-TWO,
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Pla -..- U
i 1
St. Clair Creek Restoration Projec L., 1 n 220'3
AiE 6LjZ-Ty
Beaufort County, North Carolina wsuandr. 4, §qMatw Branch
EEP Project ID No. 95015
EEP Contract No. 003986
Tar - Pamlico River Basin: 03020104 - 040040
r,d N.-
Ecosystem
r= qw
rk -- `�
L
Il ll. 1 8 [013
- W- ATEK. 1 LI d,
wedands & SkWw
11MMM,A,.
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Servicc Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
11111/���
CAR
July 2013 =, a. S E A L
I� 'T Q39201 —
t`ylThi.r docirnreni eras primed using 100 %recycled paper. i •�.
p 9 �
off_ 1 6 2013
WC ECOSYSTEM
[ NHAPCEMENT PROGRAM

FINAL DRAFT
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Beaufort County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID No. 95015
Tar - Pamlico River Basin: 03020104 - 040040
Prepared for:
r�
ecosystem
f'ROC,RAW/
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
L, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
- 8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
41 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
July 2013
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

This page left intentionally blank

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore 3,274 linear feet (LF) of perennial and
intermittent stream and 2.8 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands along two unnamed tributaries (UT2 and UT3) to
St. Clair Creek in Beaufort County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 2.1). The St. Clair Creek Restoration
Project site (project) is located in Beaufort County, approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. The
project site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 03 -03 -07 and the Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) 03020104 - 040040 of the Tar - Pamlico River Basin. The purpose of the project is to
restore stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions along areas where the impaired stream channels flow
through the site. Examination of the available hydrology and hydric soils data indicate that there are
favorable conditions for the restoration of a headwater stream and wetland ecosystem.
The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project will involve the restoration of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small
Stream Swamp system INC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) which has been impaired due to past
agricultural conversion and silviculture. Due to the productivity and accessibility of these smaller stream and
wetland systems, many have experienced heavy human disturbance. UT2 and UT3 have been ditched and
drained numerous times in the past, most recently during the summer of 2010; and two waterfowl
impoundments were constructed by installing water control structures at the outlets of both UT2 and UT3.
Restoration practices on UT2 and UT3 will involve restoring the remnant headwater valleys, reconnecting the
stream to the relic floodplain, and restoring diffuse flows to abandoned wetland floodplains and hydric soils
areas previously drained by ditching activities. The existing ditches within the restoration area will be
partially filled, to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table, or graded to
promote diffuse flow into the restored system. The project will include removal of the existing waterfowl
impoundments and water control structures. Vegetated buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along
both sides of the reaches. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 17.43 AC will protect the site in
perpetuity.
Based on the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (NCEEP) 2010 Tar - Pamlico River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) Plan, the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local
watershed (TLW) within the Tar - Pamlico River Basin
(http: / /www.nceep. net /services /restplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2OTar - Pamlico %2020110523.pdf). The
restoration strategy for the Tar - Pamlico River Basin targets specific projects that will promote nutrient and
sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
The proposed project aligns with RBRP priorities, which focus on restoring ditched streams and projects that
reduce sediment and nutrient impacts.
The proposed project areas are shown in Figure 17.2 and described briefly in Tables ES.1 and ES.2. The
primary restoration goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions to the impaired areas within the Tar -
Pamlico River Basin as described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the estuary,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

• Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and allowing diffuse
flow, providing the streams access to their floodplams,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by allowing natural microtopography to form,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplam areas, and
within the wetland areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater —�
runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and m- stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments
during the monitoring period
Table ES.1 St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
h
CJ
W
o
U
c
Reach
A Q
W a
A a
Gn a
a
Comment
Unnamed Tributaries (Reaches
UT2 and UT3)
Restoration will consist of fillmg the
hannelized portions of stream and restoring
12 +57 to
valley topography The system will be allowed
UT2
R
2,660
2,133
1 1
2,133
33 +91
to form on its own, as a multi- thread channel
headwater stream within the valley (DA
tream type)
Restoration will consist of filling the
11 +02 to
channelized portions of stream and restoring
UT3
R
1,075
1,141
1 1
1,141
18 +57 and
valley topography The system will be allowe
18 +91 to
to form on its own, as a multi- thread channel
22 +78
headwater stream witlun the valley (DA
tream type)
Total
3,735
3,274
3,274
*Existing Reach lengths are approximate and calculated by measuring the lengths of the main ditches that convey the
UT2 and UT3 drainages
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE IV 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Table ES.2 St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands)
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan — EEP Project No 95015
A a
Comments
Wetland Along UT2
Riparian wetland restoration will involve removal of the ditches that
currently direct surface and subsurface drainage directly to the
hannelized stream Wetland hydrology will be reintroduced to drained
R
0 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
areas of hydnc soil and overbank flooding regimes will be restored
Planted pines and invasive species vegetation will be removed and
ppropriate wetland hardwood species will be planted
Wetland Along UT3
Riparian wetland restoration will involve removal of the ditches that
currently direct surface and subsurface drainage directly to the
hannelized stream Wetland hydrology will be reintroduced to drained
R
0 0
1 7
1 1
1 7
areas of hydnc soil and overbank flooding regimes will be restored
Planted pines and invasive species vegetation will be removed and
ppropriate wetland hardwood species will be planted
TOTALS
0.0
2.8
1:1
2.8
This mitigation plan was developed in conformance with the requirements of the following
- •' Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332 8, paragraphs (c)(2) through
(c)(14)
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
t
These documents govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE V 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

This page left intentionally blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................... ............................... 1 -1
2.0 SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................. ............................... 2 -1
2 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE
2 -1
22 SITE SELECTION
2 -1
2 2 1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
2 -2
222 Successional Trends
2 -2
23 VICINITY MAP
24
24 WATERSHED MAP
2 -5
25 SOILS MAP
2 -6
26 CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP
2 -7
27 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS MAP
2 -8
28 LIDAR MAP
2 -9
29 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
2 -10
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ............................................................................. ...............................
3 -1
3 1 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT SUMMARY INFORMATION
3 -1
3 1 1 Potential Constraints
3 -1
32 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FIGURE
3 -1
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ........................................................................................... ...............................
4 -1
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS .................................................................................. ...............................
5 -1
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .................................................................................... ............................... 6 -1
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN .......................................................................................... ............................... 7 -1
7 1 TARGET STREAM TYPE(S), WETLAND TYPE(S), AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
7 -1
71 1 Target Stream Types
7 -1
71 2 Target Wetland Types
7 -1
— 71 3 Target Plant Communities
7 -2
72 DESIGN PARAMETERS
7 -2
73 DATA ANALYSES
7 -4
- 8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................................................... ...............................
8 -1
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ..................................................................................... ............................... 9 -1
_ 91 STREAM MONITORING - REACH UT2 & UT3
9 -1
' 9 1 1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
9 -1
_ 912 Photo Reference Stations
9 -1
913 Bed Material Analyses
9 -2
- 92 WETLAND MONITORING
9 -2
9 2 1 Groundwater Data Collection
9 -2
9 2 2 Hydrology
9 -2
923 Photo Reference Stations
9 -3
93 VEGETATION MONITORING
9 -3
i 94 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING
9 -4
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... ...............................
10 -1
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................ ...............................
11 -1
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................ ............................... 12 -1
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 -1
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE VI 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

141 DEFINITIONS
14 -1
142 REFERENCES
14 -3
15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................ ...............................
15 -1
16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA .................................................. ...............................
16 -1
161 USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS - PER REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT TO 1987 MANUAL
16 -2
162 NCWAM FORMS - EXISTING WETLANDS
16 -3
163 NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
16 -4
164 FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORM
16 -5
165 FEMA COMPLIANCE - EEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST
16 -6
166 BUFFER RULES COMPLIANCE
16 -7
17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES ................. ...............................
17 -1
171 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY (ROSGEN ANALYSIS )
17 -1
1711 Existing Conditions
17 -1
1712 Proposed Morphological Conditions
17 -5
1713 Reference Reach Data Indicators
17 -8
172 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
17 -9
1721 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
17 -9
1722 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves)
17 -10
173 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
17-11
1731 Methodology
17 -11
1732 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge
17 -13
174 EXISTING VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
17 -13
175 SITE WETLANDS
17 -13
1751 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment
17 -13
1752 Wetland Impacts and Considerations
17 -14
1753 Climatic Conditions
17-15
1754 Hydrological Characterization
17 -16
1755 Soil Characterization
17 -0
1756 Plant Community Characterization
17 -0
176 REFERENCE WETLANDS
17 -0
1761 Wetland Descriptions
17 -0
1762 Hydrological Characterization
17 -1
1763 Soil Characterization
17 -3
1764 Plant Community Characterization
17 -3
177 RESTORATION OF WETLAND HYDROLOGY
17 -5
1771 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
17 -5
178 SITE CONSTRUCTION
17 -8
1781 Construction Sequence
17 -8
1782 Other Construction Elements
17 -9
18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS ................................................................. ............................... 18 -1
19.0 APPENDIX E — LICENSED SOIL SCIENTIST REPORT ......................................... ............................... 19 -1
20.0
APPENDIX F —
HEADWATER REFERENCE INFORMATION .............................. ...............................
20 -1
21.0
APPENDIX G
— JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION .................... ...............................
21 -1
22.0
APPENDIX H
— RESPONSE TO EEP COMMENTS ON DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN .....................
22 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE VII 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

LIST OF TABLES
— Table
ES 1
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
Table
ES 2
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands)
_ Table
3 1
Site Protection Instrument Summary
Table
4 1
Baseline Information
Table
5 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
6 1
Credit Release Schedule
Table
7 1
Project Design Stream Types
Table
8 1
Routine Maintenance Components
Table
101
Monitoring Requirements
Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for UT Stream Channel Classification
Table
—i
17 1
Level II
Table
172
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
Table
173
Design Discharge and Sediment Transport Data Summary
Table
174
Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs Long -term Averages
Table
175
NRCS Soil Series (Beaufort County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1995)
Table
176
Reference Wetland Hydrologic Parameters — Hoffman Forest Site
J Table
177
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Table
178
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE VIII 7/1/2013
MTIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
21
Vicinity Map
Figure
22
Watershed Map
Figure
23
Soils Map
Figure
24
Current Conditions Plan View
Figure
25
Historical Conditions Plan View
Figure
26
LiDAR Map
Figure
3 1
Site Protection Instrument Map
Figure
171
Existing Ditch Cross - Sections for Reach UT2 and UT3
Figure
172
Mitigation Work Plan
Figure
173
Channel Form Data Comparisons for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream References
Figure
174
Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Figure
175
Monitoring Well Locations Map
Figure
176
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 1 -3 Compared to Local Rainfall
(April 2012 through January 2013)
Figure
177
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 4 -5 Compared to Local Rainfall
(April 2012 through January 2013)
Figure
178
Reference Wetland Location Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE IX 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A
Site Protection Instruments
Appendix
B
Baseline Information Data
Appendix
C
Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix
D
Project Plan Sheets
Appendix
E
Licensed Soil Scientist Report
Appendix
F
Headwater Reference Information
Appendix
G
Jurisdictional Wetland Determination
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE X 7/112013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

This page left intentionally blank
. J
I �
J
,I
i
I�
i
4 �
I�
i
i
I'
J
i I
i
I
9

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) develops River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRPs) to guide its mitigation activities within each of the state's 17 major river basins.
RBRPs designate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and
riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds, designated as Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs), receive
priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds. The 2010 Tar - Pamlico River Basin RBRP
identified cataloguing unit (HUC) 03020104 - 040040 as a TLW
(hqp: / /www.nceep. net / services /restt)lans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2OTar - Pamlico %2020110523.pdfl.
The Pamlico and Pungo Rivers sub - watershed is located in HUC 03020104 - 040040. The sub - watershed
covers 70 square miles, including 130 miles of stream. Approximately 54 percent of stream reaches
within the sub - watershed lack adequate riparian buffers. Over half of the sub - watershed is open water
mostly comprised of the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers. The remainder of the sub - watershed is characterized
by forested wetlands (33 percent of total area), agriculture (14 percent of total area), and developed land
(2 percent of the total area) (EEP, 2010).
Agricultural development, disturbance of natural riparian buffers (timber harvesting) and other various
land - disturbing activities in the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers sub - watershed have negatively impacted both
water quality and bank stability along the mouths of the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers and there various
tributaries. To improve watershed health, one of the 2010 Tar - Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities
emphasized the need for increased implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in
the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers sub - watershed. Nutrients, sedimentation, streambank erosion, channel
modification and loss of wetlands and riparian buffers are major stressors within this TLW.
Additionally, water quality monitoring conducted by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality found
high levels of Chlorophyll a in the Pamlico River near the mouth of St. Clair Creek (DWQ Tar - Pamlico
River Basin Water Quality Plan, 2010). The nearest assessed reach downstream of the proposed project is
the Pamlico River at Hickory Point near South Creek (Station ID 09059000). The Pamlico River in this
reach is classified as SB; NSW (SB -Primary Recreation, Salt Water; NSW- Nutrient Sensitive Water)
(http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /c /document library/get file ?uuid= abc27fa8- 73ae- 4a8l -a6c3-
5 cdb213 d3d2a &groupld =3 8364).
The proposed project aligns with RBRP goals, which focus on restoring wetland and riparian area values
such as maintaining and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of floodwaters, and improving fish
and wildlife habitat.
The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project provides an opportunity to improve water quality and ecological
functions within the TLW. The primary restoration goals of the project are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries on the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement,
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

• Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and providing access
to their floodplams,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by creating naturally formed nucrotopography,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas,
protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity,
decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and m- stream cover, addition
of woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments
during the monitoring period
The project goals will directly address stressors identified in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin RBRP, namely
degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs The '
proposed natural channel design approach will result in a stable riparian headwater stream and wetland -
system that will reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the Pamlico and Pungo River sub - watershed,
while improving water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic species
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 1 -2 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
t
I
_ _i

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Project Description and Directions to Project Site
The St Clair Creek Restoration Project site (site) is located in Beaufort County, NC, approximately
} five miles east of the Town of Bath, as shown on the Project Site Vicinity Map (Figure 2 1) To
1 access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40 east to Interstate 440 west and take the US Highway
264 east exit Near the city of Greenville, NC, take exit 73B to stay on US 264 east towards
Washington, NC From Washington, stay on US 264 east until NC 92/99 splits to the right from US
264 east Take NC 92/99 for approximately 11 miles and turn left onto Peoples Road Continue on
Peoples Road for approximately 2 miles Access to the site is via the farm road on the right
2.2 Site Selection
The site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) subbasm 03 -03 -07 of the Tar -
Pamlico River Basin (Figure 2 2) The site includes two unnamed headwater tributaries (UTs) to St
Clair Creek and areas of previously disturbed wetlands Soils and topographic information (Figures
2 2, 2 3, 2 4, 2 5, and 2 6) indicate that the area once supported a headwater stream and wetland
( I complex Like many headwater systems in the Mid - Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic region, the
4y area was drained for agricultural and silvicultural production Drainage ditches along the UTs have
disconnected the stream from their historic floodplams The relic valley signatures for the UTs are
1 visible from LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) imagery of the site (Figure 2 6), and were
verified during field investigations
The UT2 project reach is shown as a solid blue -line stream on the USGS topographic quadrangle
map UT2 is also shown as a perennial stream along the lower portions of the site on the Beaufort
County Soil Survey UT3 1s not shown on the USGS or County Soil Survey, however, the presence
of historic valleys can be seen from LIDAR imagery for the site and observed during field
I
i investigations
Field evaluations of mternuttent/ perennial status and use of NCDWQ stream assessment protocols
were difficult for UT2 since the channels on site were all maintained with an excavator during the late
summer of 2010 As a result, no geomorphic or vegetation characteristics were evident along the
reach However, NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included in Appendix B Field
investigations and photographs taken during March 2010, prior to clean -out, were used to assist in
�! determining jurisdictional status, however, the channels at that time had been impacted by recent
timber harvest The NCDWQ Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams
and Their Origins Manual, Version 4 11 indicates that in situations with ditching and modified natural
streams, contour crenulations and the presence of linear soil mapping units can be used to determine
the presence of a natural stream channel The LIDAR imagery for the site shows a distinct
topographic valley signature along much of UT2, and the county soil survey shows a linear soil
mapping unit just downstream of the project limits, as well as a steam feature that extends into the
project site In addition, the landowner provided information regarding observations of biological life
during the cleaning of the channelized stream system He had observed fish and turtles in the
channel, along with submerged aquatic vegetation Based on these observations and the available
drainage area of the UT (89 acres), the stream was determined to be a perennial stream channel and
appropriate for use with the Coastal Plain headwater stream guidance Due to its channelized nature,
the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this
classification system on this channel is questionable due to its highly altered state
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 2 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Like UT2, the UT3 channel was maintained during the summer of 2010, therefore, geomorphic and
vegetation characteristics were difficult to assess to deterrmne junsd>ct>onal status However,
NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included in Appendix B The same analysis as
described for UT2 was conducted for UT3 The LiDAR data for the site indicates the presence of a
valley, but the county soil survey did not indicate the presence of a stream feature The drainage area
for UT3 is smaller than that for UT2 (30 acres), but this drainage area is consistent with the drainages
of small headwater reference sites that have been identified and surveyed in the same region The
landowner did not recall as extensive of a variety of aquatic life observations in the UT3 channel prior
to the most recent maintenance work Therefore, the reach was determined to be an intermittent
stream channel, but appropriate for use with the Coastal Plain headwater stream guidance due to the
defined valley signature Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be
classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this channel is
questionable due to its highly altered state Drainage areas for both UT2 and UT3 were delineated
using USGS topographic maps and LiDAR data
Historically, it is likely that the area functioned as a headwater stream and wetland system, with
diffuse flow and no clearly defined channel throughout the reaches A more defined channel more
likely existed near the confluence with St Clair Creek towards the bottom reaches of the tributaries,
due to the increased drainage area and steeper valley slopes By restoring historic stream, wetland,
and riparian buffer functions to the site, the area will provide unproved habitat for biota, and
improved water quality to receiving waters
2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Land use in the watersheds is approximately 73 percent forested (silviculture), and 27 percent
agricultural Recent land use of the site includes silviculture (managed pine plantation for timber
production), agricultural production, and small parts are managed as waterfowl impoundments
Potential for land use change or future development in the area adjacent and upstream to the
conservation easement is low, given the rural setting of the project location
Through channelization, the project area was drained many years ago for agricultural purposes The
channels are currently disconnected from their historic floodplam In addition, the ditched channels
have also served to drain wetlands at the site Over time, these practices have contributed to habitat
degradation and nutrient loading to the UTs and their receiving waters St Clair Creek, and the
Pamlico River
2.2.2 Successional Trends
To convert the land for agricultural use, early settlers excavated ditches to dram the wetlands for
use as fields and plantation areas Over time, the drainage ditches incised and connectivity with the
floodplam became further reduced Additionally, landowners cleared some of the riparian area
within the project area to provide additional land for recreational purposes For example, to
develop waterfowl impoundments on UT2 and UT3
UT2 and UT3 flow into the project limits as a channelized headwater stream systems, receiving
their drainage from parallel ditches on upstream agricultural fields and timberlands Due to the
small drainage and very low slopes, the channels are not actively incising While active channel
incision is not contributing large amounts of sediment to the receiving waters, the lowered water
table, degraded buffers, and drained wetlands have negatively impacted the water quality and
ecology of the St Clair Creek watershed and the Pamlico River
UT2 and UT3 currently exist as ditched channels with wooded buffers largely absent directly
adjacent to the channel banks These areas are maintained for farm roads, access to the ditches for
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 2 -2 7/112013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

! periodic maintenance, and waterfowl impoundments Outside of the maintained areas, wooded
riparian buffers exist along UT2 and UT3 Wlule these buffers do exist, they consist of planted
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) except for a small area along upper UT3 on the left bank that consist of
mature Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip poplar (Driodendron tulipifera), Loblolly pine
Ll (Pinus taeda), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and various oaks
(Quercus spp )
lJ
{- -)
J
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 2 -3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

2.3 Vicinity Map
264
---Bet avcn
264
J
Jacks n swarnp
1J I
Bath 99,
A
Y/
92 a Project Location
4'1
Pamlico River
71
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03020104040040.
Figure 2.1
17 Project Vicinity Map
32 St. Clair Creek Site
33
Beaufort County Project 0 05 1 2 3
Location
it( Miles
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-4 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

2.4 Watershed Map
t } Potential Conservation Easement
Existing Streams
41 Drainage Area - 30 acres
_ 01 O � Drainage Area - 89 acres
UT 2
ffi' y UT 3
1 y_ •
At Jf
Figure 2.2
0 500 1,000
,\ Watershed Map
Feet N
St. Clair Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2.5 Soils Map
Existing Streams
Potential Conservation Easement
Soil Types
- At - Augusta fine sandy loam
- Cf - Cape Fear fine sandy loam
Hy - Hyde loam
Me - Muckalee loam, fequently flooded
- Pt - Portsmouth loam
r _ _ Ro - Roanoke fine sandy loam
- To - Tomotley fine sandy loam
Ro -
UT 2
Ro
k
UT 3
At
- ....�.....�, k- N Figure 2.3
ker 0 250 500 Soils Map
• v Feet
I �rh�,tcu St. Clair Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -6 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

2.6 Current Conditions Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -7 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

2.7 Historical Conditions Map
UT 2
r
It
Existing Streams
Potential ConservationEasement
UT 3
1993 Orthoimagery
N Figure 2.5
0 250 500 It Historical Condition
N
�c I cin��ti eet
° F Plan View
St. Clair Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

2.8 UDAR Map
i.
Existing Streams
Potential Conservation Easement
Elevation
" High : 14
Low: 0
UT 2
e
UT 3
- E-M.•� N Figure 2.6
0 250 500
-• r._�,�°'°�'; "'° Feet n LIDAR Map
o
. ° °•°�� �'kYrystell ry St. Clair Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -9 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

2.9 Site Photographs
View looking downstream from the proposed beginning of
UT3
��+,
r_ y
View looking upstream at the proposed beginning of UT2
View looking up valley along the existing farm road on UT3
and proposed wetland restoration area along UT3
View looking downstream along existing ditches at the
proposed beginning of UT2
View looking downstream at the existing culverts at the
proposed end of UT2
Existing planted pine timber throughout project site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -10 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix A
Table 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project 95015
Instrument
Deed Book
Acreage
Landowner
PIN
County
Number
and Page
Protected
Numbers
Stephen R Poole, III, and
Chad A Poole
15005359
Beaufort
2013003692
1821,53-64
17 443
I Baker has obtained a conservation easement from the current landowners for the St Clair Creek Restoration
Project area The easement and survey plat (Easement Deed Book 1821, Page Numbers 53 -64, Plat Plat
Cabinet I, Slide 4 -5 through 4 -7) is held by the State of North Carolina and has been recorded at the Beaufort
County Courthouse The secured easement allows Baker to proceed with the restoration project and restricts
- the land use in perpetuity
3.1.1 Potential Constraints
No fatal flaws have been identified at the time of this mitigation plan A farm path crosses UT3 where the
easement is broken The stream will be piped under the path with new, appropriately sized culverts No
exiting or proposed easements for power and telephone utilities are located within the conservation
easement Riparian buffer widths will be at least 50 feet perpendicular from the stream centerline in both
directions (100 -foot mmmmum total buffer width) for all of the proposed stream reaches The project area is
located in a special flood hazard area and the Beaufort County Floodplamn Manager has venfied that no
action needs to be taken to fulfill additional floodplam permitting requirements Hydraulic trespass will not
result from the implementation of the proposed project Other regulatory factors discussed in Section 16,
Appendix B were also not determined to pose potential site constraints Construction access and staging
areas have been identified and exact locations will be determined during final design
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
The conservation easement for the project area is shown in Figure 3 1 and copies of the recorded survey plat
are included in Section 15, Appendix A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 3 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -2 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

l
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 4.1 Baseline Information
St Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No 95015
Project Information
Project Name
St Clair Creek Restoration Project
County
Beaufort
Project Area acres
175
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35 452835 N, -76 76726215 W
Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin
Tar - Pamlico
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14 -dirt
03020104 / 03020104040040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -03 -07
Drainage Area AC
89 (UT2), 30 T3
-Project
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
3 02, Passively Managed Forest Stands, 2 01 01 07, Annual Row Crop
Rotation,
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UT2
Reach UT3
Length of Reach (LF)
2,133 (proposed) 2,660 (existing)
1,141 (proposed) 1,075 (existing)
Valley Classification Ros en
X
X
Drainage Area AC
89
30
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
36
20
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C, Sw, NSW
C, Sw, NSW
Morphological Description Ros en stream type)*
Channelized Headwater System
Perennial
Channelized Headwater System
Intermittent
Evolutionary Trend **
N/A
N/A
Mapped Soils
To, Hy, Ro
To, At
-Underlying
Drainage Class
Very poorly drained, poorly
drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly
drained
Soil H dnc Status
H dnc
H dnc
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft )
00006
00009
FEMA Classification
SFHA, AE
SFHA, AE
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swam
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland Along UT2
Size of Wetland (AC)
1 1 (proposed) 0 0 (existing)
Wetland Type
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil H dric Status
H dnc
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im ai ment
Disconnected flood lam from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plan Small Stream Swam
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Parameters
Wetland Along UT3
Size of Wetland AC
17 (proposed), 0 0 (existing)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 4 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Table 4.1 Baseline Information
St Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No 95015
Wetland Type
Riparian
-Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil H dnc Status
H dnc
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
-Hydrologic Im airment
Disconnected flood lam from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
-Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Suppord g Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
(Appendix B
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
(Appendix B
-Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
(Appendix B
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
(Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
-Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
(Appendix B
FEMA Flood lam Compliance
Yes
Yes
(Appendix B
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
(Appendix B
Notes
* Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but
use of this classification system on this channel is questionable due to its highly altered state
** Due to the low channel slopes and small watersheds, the headwater coastal plain systems are not actively
evolving
See Figure 2 3 for key to soil series symbols
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 4 -2 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

I `
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
St Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No 95015
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Tvve
R
R
Totals
3,274 SMU
2 7 WMU
Project Com onents
Project Component or
Reach ID
Stationing/ oning/
Location
Existing
Footage * /
Acreage
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach UT2
12 +57 —33+91
2,660 LF
Headwater
Restoration
2,133 SMU
2,133 LF
1 1
Reach UT3
11 +02 - 18 +57 and
18 +91 - 22 +78
1,075 LF
Headwater
Restoration
1,141 SMU
1,141 LF
1 1
Wetland along UT2
See plan sheets
0 0 AC
Restoration
1 1 WMU
1 1 AC
1 1
Wetland along UT3
See plan sheets
1 0 0 AC
Restoration
1 1 7 WMU
17 AC
1 1
*Existing Reach lengths are approximate and calculated by measuring the lengths of the main ditches that convey the UT2 and UT3
drainages
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
AC
Non - riparian Wetland
AC
Buffer
SF
Upland
AC
Mvenne
Non -
Rivenne
Restoration
3,274
2 8
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements BR= Bioretention Cell, SF= Sand Filter, SW= Stormwater Wetland, WDP= Wet Detention Pond, DDP= Dry Detention
Pond, FS= Filter Strip, S= Grassed Swale, LS= Level Spreader, NI= Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 5 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

This page left intentionally blank

6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
_ All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
t _ t Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements
of the release schedules below In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may
m still be released depending on the specifics of the case Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard The release of
project credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 6 1 as follows
Table 6.1 Credit Release Schedule
St Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No 95015
Forested Wetland Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
1
are being met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
2
are being met
10%
50%
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
3
are being met
10%
60%
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
4
are being met
10%
70%
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
met, Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may allow the
5
NCEEP to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth year, vegetation
monitoring must continue for an additional two years after the fifth year for
a total of seven years
10%
80%
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
6
are being met
10%
90%
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
7
being met and project has received closeout approval
10%
100%
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 6 -1 7/1/2013
_} MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
I

I
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
50%
are being met
10%
(65 % *)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates perfonnance standards
60%
are being met
10%
(75 % *)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
70%
are being met
10%
(85 % *)
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met and project has received closeout approval
15%
100%
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the nutigation plan can be released by the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities
a Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
b Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the mitigation
site) pursuant to the mitigation plan, Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction means that a mitigation
site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has been produced
As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project closeout, if appropriate but not prior to
the imtial allocation of released credits
d Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit
issuance is not required
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved For stream projects a reserve of 15
percent of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met In the event that less than
two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the
discretion of the IRT As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCEEP will submit
a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required
for release to occur This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 6 -2 7/112013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Stream Type(s), Wetland Type(s), and Plant Communities
7.1.1 Target Stream Types
The primary goal when targeting a stream type was to select a site - specific design approach that would
return Coastal Plain headwater stream functions to a stable state prior to past disturbances as described
in the guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal
Plain of North Carolina " (USACE, DWQ 2005) Current assessment methods and data analyses were
utilized for identifying lost or impaired functions at the site and to determine overall mitigation
potential Among these are reviewing existing hydrogeomorphic conditions, historical aerials and
LiDAR mapping, evaluating stable reference reaches, and a comparison of results from smular past
projects in Coastal Plain headwater systems
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for restoration, an
approach to the site was developed, that would address restoration of stream, wetland and buffer
functions within the project area Topography and soils at the site indicate that the project area most
likely functioned in the past as headwater tributary stream system with associated wetlands, eventually
flowing downstream into the larger St Clair Creek system Assigning an appropriate stream type for
the corresponding valley that accommodates the existing and future hydrologic conditions and sediment
supply was considered prior to selecting the proposed design approach This was primarily based on
the range of the reference reach data available and the desired performance of the site
t Previous research performed by Baker in the Croatan National Forest examined the point at which
smaller (zero to first order) Coastal Plain streams develop into defined channels (Tweedy, 2008) As
described further in Section 17 13, and with supplemental information presented in Section 20 0,
Appendix F, data collected suggest that for small tributary drainages, single thread channels are often
S found when drainage areas approach one square mile and slope is 0 001 foot/foot or greater For
smaller drainages and decreased slopes, multi- thread systems that function more like headwater
-, wetlands are more common These data, along with successful project implementation by Baker,
j helped to provide a basis for evaluating the valley topography of the site and determining how these
stream and wetland systems may have functioned historically
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
—' The restoration approach for the riparian wetland areas targets a "Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp"
(Blackwater subtype), as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) and a Headwater Forest as
identified by the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) Hydrology of this system
will be palustrine, "intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded"
The goal of the wetland design component of the project is to restore functions in areas where evidence
i of hydric soil conditions are present The wetland restoration approach is based on a detailed soil
analyses by a licensed soil scientist, hydrologic monitoring using rainfall data and groundwater level
" monitoring wells, as well as other assessment data collected at the site Four main activities will be
j employed to restore on -site wetlands
• Minor grading to remove overburden and spoil piles from buried hydric soil layers in limited
areas, this gradmg is anticipated to be less than 6 inches in all proposed wetland restoration areas
• Re- establishing hydrology by filling existing ditches and raising of the local water table,
-, Planting native wetland species vegetation to establish buffer vegetation,
• Connecting channels to their relic floodplains
't
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
R1

As a result of raising the streambeds and reconnecting the streams to their relic floodplains, significant
hydrologic lift will occur across the project area, raising the local water table and restoring wetland
hydrology to drained hydric soils adjacent to the steam and wetland system Much of this wetland
uplift and restoration will occur within the 50 -foot restored buffers of the stream system, and therefore
is unavailable for wetland mitigation credits
However, there are two areas of drained and impacted hydric soils adjacent to UT2 and UT3 that lie
outside the proposed 50 -foot buffers of the stream restoration and are available for wetland restoration
The areas are approximately 1 1 AC (UT2) and 1 7 AC (UT3) in size, and soil conditions have been
independently confirmed as hydric by a licensed soil scientist (see Section 19, Appendix E) These
soils have been modified by a series of ditches that were installed in the past for agricultural and timber
production The area consists of planted pines, raised farm paths, and small sections of an existing
waterfowl impoundment
A jurisdictional determination conducted in 2008 found that there is a small area of existing wetland at
the downstream end of UT3 (See Section 21, Appendix G) However, the only construction activities
planned will be to minimally grade an area where an old farm path had been built to restore the relic
valley Any temporary impacts to marginal or fringe wetlands associated with the restoration activities
would be considered minimal and would involve minor surface excavation or roughening, re-
establishment of native species wetland vegetation, and adjustments to drainage patterns as necessary to
restore historic channel pattern to the system Exposed soils will be ripped and tilled to reduce
compaction from past farming practices and further soils tests will be conducted to determine
appropriate Inning and fertilization rates appropriate for the targeted vegetation types Thus, stream and
wetland restoration activities would improve the existing hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions
throughout the site Additional information regarding the design approach for wetland restoration
activities is located in Section 17, Appendix C
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities
Native species riparian vegetation will be established in both the restored headwater stream valley,
restored buffer and wetland complexes throughout the site Schafale and Weakley's (1990) guidance
on vegetation communities as well as the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note
VN -RS -4 1 (1997) were referenced during the development of riparian and wetland planting lists for
the site In general, bare root vegetation will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre
Existing mvasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), will be removed to
allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement Planted pines will be
removed within the conservation easement, however native tree species will be preserved whenever
possible and harvested woody material will be utilized to provide cover and/or nesting habitat Wetland
hardwood species will be planted to provide the appropriate vegetation for the restored headwater
stream, riparian wetland, and riparian buffer areas Species will include Green Ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxi/), Laurel
Oak (Quercus laurifoha), Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), Willow Oak (Quercus phellos), Bald Cypress
(Taxodium distichum), and American Elm (Ulmus americana) Understory species will include Sweet
Pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), Ironwood (Carpinus carolamana), Titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), Sweetbay
Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), Swamp Bay (Persea palustris), Swamp Doghobble (Leucothoe
racemosa), Fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and Virginia Sweetspire (Itea virginica)
7.2 Design Parameters
Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference reach
data, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from past projects, and best professional
judgment Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from multiple Baker ~�
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -2
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
7/1/2013

I Coastal Plain headwater stream and wetland projects provided pertinent background information to
determme the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and overall site potential The
design parameters for the site (shown in Section 17, Appendix C) also considered current guidelines from
the USACE and NCDWQ guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the
I' Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina " ( USACE, DWQ 2005)
The restoration activities are justified for the following reasons
Site streams have been channelized during the conversion of the surrounding area for agricultural
use Re- establishing the historic stream, valley, and wetland conditions will allow stream flow to
spread onto the historic floodplam, dissipating flow energies and forming multi- thread flow
patterns, improve water quality, and improve wetland hydrology,
Past agricultural and silvicultural activities, such as timber production, have resulted in lowered
water tables and monoculture vegetation within the historic riparian zone,
Enhancement or preservation measures would not achieve the highest possible level of functional
lift for the degraded stream and wetland system
Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for reaches UT2
and UT3 The approaches were based on the potential for restoration as determined during the site
assessment and the specific design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross - section
dimensions, and profile could be described for developing construction documents The design
philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the selected stream types and to
allow natural variability in stream dimension and bed features to form over long periods of time under the
processes of flooding, re- colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences
Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No
95015
Proposed
Stream
Stream
Approach/Rationale
Type
Coastal Plain Headwater Stream Restoration will consist of
grading the historic valley topography, returning the flow to this
valley, and filling the channelized portions of stream and ditches
UT2 to St
The system will be allowed to form a multi- thread channel on its
Clair
DA
own This approach will allow for restoration of historic flow
Creek
patterns Riparian buffers at least 50 feet wide (100 -foot total
minimum width) will be established or protected along both sides
of the centerlme of the restored valley and all buffer areas will be
protected by a perpetual conservation easement
Coastal Plain Headwater Stream Restoration will consist of
grading the historic valley topography, returning the flow to this
valley, and filling the channelized portions of stream and ditches
UT3 to St
The system will be allowed to form a multi - thread channel on its
Clair
DA
own This approach will allow for restoration of historic flow
Creek
patterns Riparian buffers at least 50 feet wide (100 -foot total
minimum width) will be established or protected along both sides
of the centerline of the restored valley and all buffer areas will be
protected by a perpetual conservation easement
Due to the small drainage and very low slopes, the channels are not actively mcismg While active
channel incision is not contributing large amounts of sediment to the receiving waters, the lowered water
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

table, degraded buffers, and drained wetlands have negatively impacted the water quality and ecology of
the St Clair Creek watershed and the Pamlico River Excess nutrients are currently entering the system
from upstream farm fields where buffers are either minimal or non - existent Ecological uplift will come
from the restoration of diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and
landscape setting By raising the stream bed and reconnecting the relic floodplams, the maximum degree
of potential uplift will be provided, restoring stream, buffer, and wetland functions Uplift will also be
provided to the system by restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect with existing wetlands
and wooded areas near the downstream extents of the reaches The water quality of receiving waters will
be unproved by reduced nutrient inputs Approximately 17 5 acres of riparian buffer will be protected by
a perpetual conservation easement
7.3 Data Analyses
Both UT2 and UT3 have been straightened/channelized and dredged in the past and this manipulation has
created a single- thread channel that is overly deep for the given drainage area which, along with adjacent
parallel ditching, has lowered the water table Both UT2 and UT3 most likely existed prior to conversion
as a multi- thread channel (DA stream type) This is evidenced by the presence of small remnant
headwater valleys and soil features in the areas and described further in Section 17, Appendix C
Additionally, detailed topographic surveys were conducted to determine the elevations of the existing
ditches and to validate the headwater valley signatures shown on the LiDAR imagery The valley slopes
are generally uniform and very flat along both UT2 and UT3
Under Coastal Plain headwater reference conditions where channel formation is poor, unregulated flows
are often conveyed through multiple small channels across a relatively well- defined floodpaamn These
stream and wetland systems flood regularly and their associated floodplams are typically characterized as
depositional, which provide sediment storage during higher flow events Microtopography that develops
across these broad bottomlands is quite variable, because of tree roots, tip mounds, and debris dams
Debris appears to be a critical component in maintaining the characteristics of diffuse flow, as stream
energy is not sufficient to provide excess scour and movement of large debris Shear stress and stream
power relationships developed for these reference sites are shown in Appendix C
Since both UT2 and UT3 most likely previously existed as multi- thread headwater stream and wetland
systems and have now been channelized/ditched, the use of Rosgen's stream classification system
( Rosgen, 1996) is questionable but UT2 and UT3 would most closely classify as a Rosgen G stream type
Additionally, feature formation throughout the channelized reaches are poor with minimal habitat
diversity or woody debris The riparian buffer vegetation is absent or consist mostly of planted pines The
stream displays no measurable meander geometry due to its channelized condition These conditions
generally lead to lateral instability over tune, however, small watersheds and very low stream gradients
have served to prevent any significant bed or bank erosion
Automated groundwater well data collected from April 2012 through March 2013 indicate that the site
currently exhibits hydrologic conditions drier than Jurisdictional wetland conditions The data were
collected during both dormant and growing season, and jurisdictional wetland hydrology was not
observed across the project site The ditches and channelized streams on the site transport surface and
shallow, subsurface drainage from the farms fields, lowering the water table and keeping soil conditions
favorable for agricultural production Examination of the available hydrology and hydric soil data
indicate that there is good potential for the restoration of a productive wetland and stream ecosystem
The proposed design approach will restore hydrologic conditions prior to channelization by raising the
local water table, base flow levels and introducing a natural flooding regime The existing conditions data
indicates that proposed mitigation activities will result in re- establishment of functional stream, floodplam
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7-4 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

r-
LI and wetland ecosystem The restoration efforts, including site protection from a conservation easement,
will promote the greatest ecological benefit, a rapid recovery period, and ajustifiable and reduced
)r-, environmental impact
L
i�
Li
I- r
tl
�i
Z_
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 7 -5
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
I,
t
7/1/2013

This page left intentionally blank

8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis, to include physical inspection of the site at least once a year
throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance standards are met These site
inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance Routine maintenance
will be most likely in the first two years following site construction and may include the following
components as described in Table 8 1
Table 8.1 Routine Maintenance Components
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include stabilizing any significant
nlling or erosional areas and supplemental installations of target vegetation along the project
reaches Areas of concentrated stonmwater and floodplam flows that intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head - cutting until vegetation
becomes established
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental installations of
target vegetation within the wetland Areas of concentrated stonmwater and floodplam
flows that intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour
Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
planting, pruning, and fertilizing Exotic /invasive plant species will controlled by
mechanical and/or chemical methods Any invasive plant species control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
CDA rules and regulations
Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an
as needed basis
Culverted Farm Road
The road crossing within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Crossings
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 8 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for several Coastal Plain
stream and wetland mitigation plans The success criteria for the project site will follow the mitigation plans
developed for these projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE 2003 and NCDWQ 2003)
and EEP's recent supplemental guidance document Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation dated November 7, 2011 Additionally, the USACE and NCDWQ
Guidance Document Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina
will be referenced for monitoring purposes All monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years
unless the site demonstrates complete success by Year 5 and no concerns have been identified An early
closure provision may be requested by the provider for some or all of the monitoring components Early
closure may only be obtained through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the NCIRT
For reaches UT2 and UT3, which involve the restoration of the historic flow pattern as a multi- thread
headwater stream system to be constructed as a broad valley with shallow flow paths, monitoring will focus
primarily on visual assessments and flow documentation It shall be consistent with the requirements
described in the Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation sites in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation
and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) Specific success criteria
components and evaluation methods are described below
9.1 Stream Monitoring — Reach UT2 & UT3
Geomorphic monitoring of reaches UT2 and UT3 will conducted once a year for seven years following
the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices Since this
approach involves the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a multi- thread
headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to document stability and
the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding functions The methods
used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter
9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events and flooding functions within the monitoring period will be
documented by the use of automated water level gauges and photographs Groundwater levels within
the restored headwater valley should approximate the wetland hydropenods of similar reference sites
_ At least four automated gauges on UT2 and two on UT3 will be installed approximately 500 feet apart
within the restored systems to document flow duration The automated loggers will be programmed to
4- collect data at a nummum of every 6 hours to capture flow frequency and duration Installation of
monitoring stations will follow the standard methods found in Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE
and NCDWQ 2006)
A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum
of 30 days Two surface water flow events must be documented within a five -year monitoring period,
otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in
separate years The automated gauges should document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow
- surface pondmg, indicative of flow Additional monitoring or alternative analyses may be necessary in
the event of abnormal climatic conditions
9.1.2 Photo Reference Stations
Visual monitoring of both stream reaches will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five
months in between each site visit Photographs will be used to visually- document system performance
Reference stations will be photographed annually for a minimum of seven years following construction
Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet Permanent markers will be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are documented in each 7
monitoring period
The reaches will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of the restoration site
and moving upstream to the end of the site Photographs will be taken looking upstream at delineated
locations throughout the restored stream valley Points will be close enough together to provide an
overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations The angle of the shot will depend on what
angle provides the best view and will be noted and continued in future shots
Lateral photographs will also be used to evaluate channel development, erosion, success of riparian
vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively Photo reference stations will be
marked and described for future reference to document the development of appropriate vegetation
A series of photos over time should demonstrate successional maturation of riparian vegetation When
modifications to photo position must be made due to obstructions or other reasons, the position will be
noted along with any landmarks and the same position will used in the future Additional photographs
and/or video footage may be taken to document any observed evidence of flooding patterns such as
debns /leaf litter, wrack lines, water marks, diffuse flow features, sediment sorting/deposits, shelving,
etc —�
9.1.3 Bed Material Analyses
Since the streams through the project site are dominated by silt or sand -size particles, pebble count
procedures would not show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the monitoring
period, therefore, bed material analyses are not recommended for this project
9.2 Wetland Monitoring
9.2.1 Groundwater Data Collection
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in the wetland nutigation areas to document hydrologic
conditions of the restored wetland area Up to four groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to
evaluate hydrology during each growing season for seven years of hydrologic monitoring, or until
success criteria have been met, whichever occurs later To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the
monitoring gauge data must show that for each normal year within the monitoring period, the site has
been inundated or saturated for a certain hydroperod The targeted hydropenod will be based on the
range of wetness conditions for the type of wetland system to be restored and comparable hydrology of
a nearby reference wetland site
9.2.2 Hydrology
In order to determine if the hydrologic success criteria are achieved, automated groundwater -
monitoring stations will be installed across the restored site and monitored year -round Groundwater
monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in the WRP Technical Notes
ERDC TN- WRAP- 00 -02, (July 2000) In the event that there are years of normal precipitation during
the monitoring period, and the data for those years do not show that the site has been inundated or
saturated for the appropriate hydropenod during the normal precipitation year, the review agencies may
require remedial action Baker will provide any required remedial action and continue to monitor
hydrology on the site until it displays that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate
hydropenod
The objective is for the monitoring data to show the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding
Groundwater levels will be compared to pre - restoration conditions and reference conditions The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -2 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

success criteria for wetland hydrology will be met when the site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil
t� surface for 12% of the growing season (NCEEP, 2009b)
UIn order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will be installed on the
site to compare precipitation amounts using tallied data for the Pamlico Aquaculture Field Lab station,
obtained from the CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website
The Pamlico Aquaculture Field Lab station is approximately 6 5 miles from the project site If a normal
year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, Baker will continue to
monitor hydrology on the site until it documents that the site has been inundated or saturated for the
appropriate hydropenod
w_
If the rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring period are abnormal, it is possible that the
desired hydrology for the site may not meet specific success criteria However, reference wetland data
`S will be assessed to determine if there is a positive correlation between the underperforimance of the
project site and the natural hydrology of the reference site(s)
�I
9.2.3 Photo Reference Stations
_ Visual monitoring of all wetland areas will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five
months in between each site visit Photographs will be used to visually document system performance
and identify areas of low stem density, invasive species vegetation, beaver activity, or other areas of
_ concern Reference stations will be photographed twice a year for a nummum of seven years following
construction Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet Permanent
markers will be established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are
documented in each monitoring period
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community In order to
' —' determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants will be installed and monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
t ' Version 4 1 (2007) The vegetation monitoring plots shall be a minimum of 2 percent of the planted
i_ portion of the site with a nummum of nine plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer
areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2 The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for
woody tree species
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities Relative values will
be calculated, and importance values will be determined Individual seedlings will be marked such that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings
` - At the end of the first full growing season (baseline /year 0) or after 180 days between March 1 S` and
November 30`'', species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated For each subsequent
year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success
criteria are achieved The restored site will be evaluated between March and November The interim
_ measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period At Year five, density must be no less than 260,
5 -year old, planted trees per acre The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210, 7 -year
old, planted trees per acre at the end of the seven -year monitoring period, which must average 10 feet in
height However, if the performance standard is met by Year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260, 5-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9 -3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

year old stems /acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE and
Interagency review Team (IRT)
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating
vegetation success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for
assessing plant community health For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the
evaluation of additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive
species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success
Baker will provide any required remedial action on a case -by -case basis, such as replanting more
wet/drought tolerant species, beaver management/dam removal, or removing undesirable /invasive species
vegetation, and continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate that
the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses and forbs, will be seeded/planted
throughout the site During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the
project site must comply with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements
9.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
No stormwater BMPs are proposed at the site therefore no such monitoring will be included
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 9-4 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
tAnnual monitoring reports containing the information defined within Table 10 1 below will be submitted to
EEP by December 31" of the each year during which the monitoring was conducted The monitoring report
shall provide a project data chronology for EEP to document the project status and trends Project success
criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until
' unmet criteria are successfully met
Table 10.1 Monitoring Requirements
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Re
P arameter
uanti
Fre uenc
Notes
ruired
As per April 2003 USACE
A Crest Gauge and/or Pressure Transducers will
Surface Water
Wilmington District
Annuall y
be installed on site, the device will be inspected
Hydrology
Stream Mitigation
on a quarterly /semi- annual basis to document the
Guidelines
occurrence of bankfull events on the project
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Will be determined in
recording devices will be installed on site as
X
Groundwater
consultation with EEP as
Annually
in
necessary to characterize the degree of attament
H drolo
y
applicable
of the reference hydrology The data will be
downloaded on a monthly basis during the
growing season
X
Vegetation
EEP -CVS Guidance
Annually
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols
Exotic and
Twice
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will
X
Nuisance
Annuall y
be visually assessed and mapped a minimum of 5
Vegetation
months apart
X
Project
As- Needed
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
Boundary
boundary encroachments, etc will be mapped
Photo stations will be established to capture the
Digital
state of the channel and for vegetation plots
X
Annually
Stream photos will be preferably taken when the
Photos
vegetation is minimal and within the same 2-
month window between monitoring ears
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 10 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the IRT the site will be transferred to the EEP This party shall be responsible
for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed
restriction document(s) are upheld Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall
be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 11 -1
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
J
fIt _i
1
I
1 `
f
�_J
f -'
�J
1
7/1/2013

12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, EEP will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this
document If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action The Plan of Corrective Acton may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services Once the Corrective Acton Plan is prepared and finalized EEP
will
1 Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions
2 Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE
3 Obtain other permits as necessary
4 Implement the Corrective Action Plan
5 Provide the USACE a Record Drawmg of Corrective Actions This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 12 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided the
USACE - Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements
assumed by EEP This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by
the program
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 13 -1
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
7/1/2013
i 1
1

14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
This document is consistent with the requirements of the federal rule for compensatory mitigation sites as
described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section
I § 332 8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14) Specifically the document addresses the following
requirements of the federal mule
(2) Objectives A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of
compensation (i e , restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in
which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the
watershed, ecoregion, physiographmc province, or other geographic area of interest
– (3) Site selection A description of the factors considered during the site selection process This should
include consideration of watershed needs, onsmte alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of
accomplishing ecologically self - sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement,
and/or preservation at the compensatory nutigatlon site (See § 332 3(d) )
—' (4) Site protection instrument A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site
ownership, that will be used to ensure the long -term protection of the compensatory mitigation site (see §
332 7(a))
(5) Baseline information A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory
`j mitigation site and, in the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site This may include
descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a
map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those
site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation The
baseline information should also include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed
compensatory mitigation site A prospective permmttee planning to secure credits from an approved
-� mitigation bank or inn -lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline information about the impact site,
I not the mitigation bank or in -lieu fee site
(6) Determination of credits A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief
explanation of the rationale for this determination (See § 332 3(f) )
(7) Mitigation work plan Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory
~, mitigation project, including, but not limited to, the geographic boundaries of the project, construction
methods, timing, and sequence, source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands,
methods for establishing the desired plant community, plans to control invasive plant species, the
proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate, soil management, and erosion
control measures For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mmtmgatlon work plan may also
include other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e g typical channel cross-
- sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings
(8) Maintenance plan A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued
viability of the resource once initial construction is completed
(9) Performance standards Ecologically -based standards that will be used to determine whether the
compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives (See § 332 5 )
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

(10) Monitoring requirements A description of parameters to be monitored in order to deterlmne if the
compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is
needed A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be
included (See § 332 6 )
(11) Long -term management plan A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be
managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long -term sustamability of the
resource, including long -term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long -term
management (See § 332 7(d) )
(12) Adaptive management plan A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site
conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties
responsible for implementing adaptive management measures The adaptive management plan will guide
decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both
foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success (See §
332 7(c) )
-1
r-
(13) Financial assurances A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are
sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be
successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (see § 332 3(n)) 2) Objectives A
description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i e ,
restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource
functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion,
physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -2
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
�a
I,
J
I
t
I
f
i
7/1/2013

i
14.2 References
�- - Bratton, S P 1976 Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community Responses to Temporal and
Microtopographic Gradients The American Naturalist 110 (974) 679 -693
Dunne, T and Leopold, L B 1978 Water in Environmental Planning W H Freeman Co San Francisco
CA
Faber - Langendoen, D , Rocchio, J , Schafale, M , Nordman, C , Pyne, M , Teague, J , Foti, T , Comer, P
' ! (2006), Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) 1998 Stream corridor restoration
Principles, processes and practices National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA
Hardm, J W 1977 Vascular plants In Cooper, J E , S S Robinson, and J B Funderburg (eds )
Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina North Carolina State Museum
of Natural History, Raleigh
Harman, W A, G D Jennings, J M Patterson, D R Clinton, L O Slate, A G Jessup, J R Everhart, and
R E Smith 1999 Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams Wildland
r
Hydrology AWRA Symposium Proceedings D S Olsen and J P Potyondy, eds American Water
1 Resources Association June 30 -July 2, 1999 Bozeman, MT
Henson, T H 1990 Bald eagle In Lee, D S and J F Parnell (eds ) Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Fauna of North Carolina, Part III A Re- evaluation of the Birds Occasional Papers of the North
Carolina Biological Survey North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh
Johnson, P A and Heil, T M 1996 Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 32(6) 1283 -1291
r —� Kilpatrick, F A and Barnes, H H 1964 Channel Geometry of Piedmont Streams as Related to Frequency
of Floods Professional Paper 422 -E US Geological Survey, Washington, DC
Knighton, D 1984 Fluvial Forms and Processes London, UK
Lane, E W 1955 Design of stable channels Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Paper No 2776 1234 -1279
Lee, M, Peet R, Roberts, S, Wentworth, T CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4 1, 2007
Leopold, L B and T Maddock Jr, 1953 The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some
Physiographic Implications U S Geological Survey Professional Paper 252 57
Leopold, Luna B , M Gordon Wolman, and John P Miller 1964 Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology
San Francisco, CA (15 1)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14 -3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
t

Leopold, L.B., 1994. A view of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
Merigliano, M.F. 1997. Hydraulic Geometry and Stream Channel Behavior: An Uncertain Link. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association. 33(6): 1327 -1336.
Nixon, M. 1959. A Study of Bankfull Discharges of Rivers in England and Wales. In Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol 12: 157 -175.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2013. Drought Monitor History,
Beaufort County, NC. NC Division of Water Resources
hl!p://www.ncwater.ora/Drought Monitoring /dmhistory
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2012. NC Water Quality
Classifications, Tar - Pamlico River Basin. NC Division of Water Quality
http:Hportal.ncdenr.ora /web /wg/ps /csu/classi fications
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2010. Tar - Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
[Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /www.nceep. net / services /restplans/ FINAL %2ORBRP %20Tar - Pamlico %2020110523.pdf .
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.ncfloodmaps.com.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 2011. [Online WWW].
Available URL: http:H149.168.1.196 /nhp .
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape ofAlluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 352 -B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 14(1):11 -26.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113 -116.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(4):861-
871.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14-4 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Tweedy, K. L. 2008. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Conference Proceedings. Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and
Practice.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y -87 -1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN- rs -4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
_. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
1995. Beaufort County Soil Survey, [Online WWW]. Available URL:
(http: / /soildatam art. nres.usda. gov/ manuscripts /NC013 /0/beaufort.pdo.
_. 2002. Climate Information- Wetlands Retrieval for North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Beaufort County, Aurora 6 N WETS Station:NC0375. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
(http: / /www.wcc. nres .usda.gov / ftref /support/climate /wetlands /nc /3 7013.txt).
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Beaufort County, North
Carolina (County Listing). Beaufort County. 2012. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.fws.jzov/raleigh/st)ecies/cntylistibeaufort.html.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover Data. 2002. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /seamless.usgs.gov/.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Technical standard for water -table monitoring
of potential wetland sites. ERDC TN- WRAP -05 -2, Vicksburg, MS.
http://ei.erdc.usace.anny.mil/wEap/pdf/tnwrapO5-2.pd f
Williams, G. P. 1978. Bank -Full Discharge of Rivers. Water Resources Research. Vol 14. No. 6: 1141-
1154.
Wolman, M.G. 1957. River Floodplains: Some Observations on their Formation. USGS Professional
Paper 282 -C. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
Young, T.F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological
condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. EPA Science
Advisory Board. Washington, DC.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -5 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

This page intentionally left blank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 14-6 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
i
1

�J
i
Lv�
t^ -
I
1 J
Li
i
15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 15 -1
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
7/1/2013

This page left intentionally blank

9K1821PC053
FOR REGISTRRTION REGISTER OF DEEDS
Jennifer Leggett Whitehurst
Beaufort County, NC
June 27, 2013 09;56 :08 AM
Book 1821 Page 53 -64
BEW.TMT Cot2m LAbm ncopms FEE $26 00
NC REVENUE STAMP; $640 00
ROUTING FO INSTRUMENT # 2013003692
r -�3
Land Reaor official Date
Prepared by and return to
Robert H Merritt, Jr INSIPONENI # 2013003692
, Bailey &Dixon, LLP
P O Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
Excise Tax $ q6- 00
_ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
BEAUFORT COUNTY FULL DELIVERY MITIGATION CONTRACT
CONTRACT 003986
SPO# 007 -K
EEP SITE ID #. 95015
-r1k
- THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this ;2-*/ day of 7-tmo ,
2013, by CHAD ASHLEY POOLE (unmarried) and STEPHEN RICHARD POOLE, III and
wife, JENNIE C POOLE, (hereinafter collectively "Grantor "), to the State of North Carolina,
( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration,
State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321 The designations
Grantor and Grantee as used herem shall include said parties, theu heirs, successors, and assigns,
and shall include singular, pluial, masculine, feminine, of neuter as required by context
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N C. Gen Stat § 143 -214 8 et sec , the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly iuiown as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
' and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources purchase and Services Contract Number 003986

gK1821PC05`f
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N C Gen Stat § 121 -35, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (the "MOA ") duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8a' day of February 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
the Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee supple a certain parcel of real property situated, lying
and being in Bath Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, which parcel is identified by
PIN- 15- 005359 (GP1N 6672 -78 -3003) containing approximately 125 57 acres having been
conveyed to Grantor by deed recorded in Deed Book 1235, Page 0484, Beaufort County
Registry, North Carolina and which parcel is described in said recorded deed as Tract One and
Tract Two, but is treated in the Beaufort County tax records as one parcel under the PIN 15-
005359 (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement (as hereinafter
defined) over portions of the Property referred to above, thereby restricting and limiting the use
of the included portions of the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set
forth, and Grantee is willing to accept such Conservation Easement for the protection and benefit
of the waters and the other portions of the Saint Clair Creek Restoration Project, Beaufort
County, North Carolina;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth and othei good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby
grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a
Conservation Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows.
The Easement Area consists of the following
All of the land identified as follows
2

A1821PC055
Conservation Easements identified as CE-1, CE -2, and CE -3, as shown on
a Plat entitled "Saint Clair Creek Restoration Project for State of North
Carolina — Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property of Richard
Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley Poole, Bath Township — Beaufort
County —North Carolina" dated June 17, 2013, prepared by Gaskuis Land
Surveying, P A and recorded at Plat or Map Book ,
5,we Page q — S thR j i , Beaufort County Registry
TOGETHER WITH easements and rights for access, ingress, egress and
regress as described on the above - referenced recorded plat and this
Conservation Easement Deed
The Conservation Easements described above are hereinafter referred to as
Li the `Basement Area' or the "Conservation Easement" and are further set
forth in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and
incorporated herein by reference
The purposes of the Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, create and
preserve wetland and/or rrpanan resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the protection
`— and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat,
and recreational opportunities, to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes, and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
—J significantly impair or interfere with these purposes To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, lessees, agents and licensees
R. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor are hereby and have been acquired by the Grantee Any rights
not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits,
including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from
each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are

BK1821Pc056
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A Recreational Uses Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped
recreational uses, including hilang, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the
Easement Area for the purposes thereof
B Motorized Vehicle Use Usage of motorized vehicles in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
C. Educational Uses The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others
to engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations Educational uses of the Conservation
Easement shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site
D Vegetation Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants,
diseased or damaged trees, and vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area
to persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees
and vegetation in the Easement Area is prohibited
E. Industrial. Residential and Commercial Uses All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area.
F Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Easement Area,
including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna,
utility pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area
H Roads and Trails There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or
paving in the Easement Area
I. Signs No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Easement Area, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area
J. Dumping or Storing Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or other material in the Easement Area is prohibited
K Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or
other materials in the Easement Area
4

BK1821PC057
L Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or
permitting the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticides or biocides in the
Easement Area is prohibited In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other
water sources, water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause
shown as needed for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property
M Subdivision and Conye, ante, Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple (`fee ")
that is subject to this Easement is allowed Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future
conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property Any future transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and
repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes
set forth herein
i
N Development Rights All development rights are permanently removed from the
I Easement Area and are non - transferrable
O Disturbance of Natural Features Any change, disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N C Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is currently 1652 Marl Services Center, Raleigh,
I_ NC 27699 -1652
1 III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
t'
A Right of Access, Construction and Inspection The Grantee, its employees and
agents, successors and assigns, receive the perpetual Right of Access to the Easement Area over
the Property, as further described below, at reasonable times to undertake any activities to
restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and other
riparian resources in the Easement Area in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights
The permanent Right of Access set forth herein shall be over that certain five foot
(5') access easement shown on Plat Book /ft / , Page 4 9 ' leading from the western
boundary of the Property to and between each of Conservation Easements CE -1, CE -2 and CE -3
5

BK1821PC05 8
as shown on said,Plat.
In addition to the five foot (5') permanent Right of Access set forth above,
Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its agents and invitees, access for ingress, egress and regress
over that certain thirty foot (30') right -of -way described in Book 800, Page 361, Beaufort County
Registry (except the portion of said right -of -way running from point "a" to point "b ") and as
necessary, over the Property for the purpose of accessing said conservation easements CE -1, CE-
2 and CE -3, or either of them, in the event of extraordinary circumstances requiring such access,
provided the landowner is given ten (10) days' notice of such need by Grantee
B Restoration Activities These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and
herbaceous vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade,
fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subteiraneous water flow
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be
permitted to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following
describe the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the
project boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement
D. Fences The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall
be permitted to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access Although the Grantee
is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its
sole discretion.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A Enforcement To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement,
Grantee is allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the
purposes of tlus Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in
the Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthoiized activity or use Upon any
breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as
provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach, and the Grantor shall have ninety
(90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach If the breach
and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation
Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as
well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority,
consistent with its statutory authority (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by
acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement, (b) to otherwise
preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate
person or entity Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right,
without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if
the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially unpair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would
m

gK1821Pd05 9
be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate The rights and remedies of the Grantee
provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies
available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement
B Ins ep ction. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have
the right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
tunes for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the
terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control Nothing contained in this Conservation
Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any uijury
to or change in the Easement Area caused by third parties or resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes
D Costs of Enforcement Beyond regular and typical monitoring, any costs incurred
by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor including,
without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions in
j violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor
E. No Waiver Enforcement of this Conservation Easement shall be at the discretion
_ l of the Grantee and any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder
_I in the event of any breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by
Grantee
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement If any provision is found to be invalid, the
(I remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
_I to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby
1'
B Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges
levied upon the Property Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind
related to the ownerslup, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the
Property are the sole responsibility of the Grantor Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of
the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply
to the exercise of the Reserved Rights
C Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified marl, return receipt requested

BK1821PG060
to the parties at their addresses shown above or to such other address(es) as such party
establishes in writing upon notification to the other
D Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to
whom the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is
made Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which
any interest in the Property is conveyed shall be subject to the Conservation Easement herein
created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall
survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in a
writing signed by all parties hereto, or their successors and/or assigns, and provided such
amendment does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the
Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation
Easement. The owner of the Property shall notify the U S Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property Such
notification shall be addressed to. Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of
Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
G The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement
are in gross and assignable, provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees,
that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N C Gen Stat § 121 -34 et seq and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said piemnses in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted, that the same are free from

I
r'
I�
a "K1821PG061
encumbrances except the easements, leases, restrictions and rights -of -way reserved or granted
herein or otherwise of record and described below and that Grantor will warrant and defend title
to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever The easements, leases, restrictions
and rights -of -way reserved herein or of record constituting exceptions to title are as follows
1 Reservation of rights as set forth in Article II, above
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunder set its hand and seal, the day and
year first above written.
P 12 t� (SEAL)
Step en Richard Poole, III
.(3 SEAL
J e C Poole
(SEAL)
Chad Ashley Po le
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, lAet-),A do certify that Stephen Richard Poole, III and wife, Jennie C
Poole, personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging that they voluntarily signed the
foregoing document for the purposes therein expressed I have received satisfactory evidence of the
prmcrpals' identity in the form of A2ro,-5 LiG�sa
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal this 2 j�dra­y of Jo ✓ 9 , 201
N ary Public
Printed or typed notary name
My Commission Expires -7 LlG
W
T hornas E Archie
Notary Public
Beaufort County
North Carolina iyli&
4f,Nl�,.,missio gyres

BK1821PC062
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF a t—?9v F- 1z=
I, RE—�11.25' do certify that Chad Ashley Poole, personally appeared before
me this day, each acknowledging that they voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purposes
therein expressed I have received satisfactory evidence of the principals' identity in the form of
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal this 2� y of 20.13
ary Public
Printed or typed notary name
My Commission Expires
00351628A - _ _, __ ='__
jr
l3t?al!`sJrt 4c ^lI" 2t�l a1
Nor.•. Carcl�,��. W
TYromas E Archie
Notary Public a
Beaufort County
North Carolina
My Cor,mission l=xoires
10

gK1821PG063
Exhibit 1
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Saint Clair Creek Restoration Project
Beaufort County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 15005359) (CE -1)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Bath Township, Beaufort
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Saint Clair Creek Restoration
Project for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property
of Stephen Richard Poole, III add Chad Ashley Poole, dated June 17, 2013, and recorded
in Plat Book --,,rI �- 5 4A&d 7 , of the Beaufort County Registry,
and being a portion of the parcel owned by Richard Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley
Poole (PIN- 15005359), more particularly described as follows.
Commencing at an existing 1" iron pipe with NC Grid coordinates of N 628175.8383, E
2674618 4510, and identified as Control Point # 2 on the above referenced plat and
running S 26 °12'38" E 68 43', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING, thence continuing the following courses and distances:
} N00° 12'24 "W 113 71'; thence
N73 022'26 "E 1177 01'; thence
56603 F07E 150 49' ;thence
S39 °39'31 "E 605.53'; thence
S61 036'54 "E 422.03'; thence
S28 023'35 "E 36 59', thence
S80 057'22 "W 335 24', thence
N61 ° 13' 14 "W 453 80', thence
N36 °34'12 "W 205.42', thence
f N24 043'19 "W 207 22'; thence
S71 °44'06 "W 608 27; thence
S87 049'56 "W 525 44', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent
conservation easement containing 1155 acres, more or less
2. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 15005359) (CE -2)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Bath Township, Beaufort
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Saint Clair Creek Restoration
Project for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property
of Stephen Richard Poole, III nd Chad Ashley Poole, dated June 17, 2013, and recorded
in Plat Book T , ke 11 - 5'Wky 7 of the Beaufort County Registry,

sK1821PC06`i
and being a portion of the parcel owned by Richard Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley
Poole (PIN 15005359), more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of N 627778 5460,
2676800 1700, and identified as Control Point # 3 on the above referenced plat and
running N 14° 06'35" W 299 24', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING, thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N13 056'12 "W 718.86'; thence
N84 005'38 "E 233.03'; thence
S30 053'00 "E 200.07', thence
S10 021'12 "E 331.20'; thence
S27 039'10 "W 326.86'; thence
N46 037'24 "W 95.17', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent
conservation easement containing 4.19 acres, more or less
3. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 15005359) (CE -3)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Bath Township, Beaufort
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Saint Clair Creek Restoration
Project for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property
of Stephen Richard Poole, II,T4a d.Chad Ashley Poole, dated June 17, 2013, and recorded
m Plat Book ._ �f — S�Jwld i of the Beaufort County Registry,
and being a portion of the parcel owned by Richard Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley
Poole (PIN- 15005359), more particularly described as follows
Commencing at an icon bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of N 627778.5460,
2676800.1700, and identified as Control Point # 3 on the above referenced plat and
running N 170 31'30" E 403 84', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances
N16 016'47 "E 80 54', thence
N30 054'08 "E 115 11' ; thence
S52 013'28 "E 170 24', thence
S34 025'19 "E 267 28'; thence
S50 054'54 "W 155.60', thence
N44 °58'41 "W 349.03', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent
conservation easement containing 1.69 acres, more or less
r-�
_�

!_
16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
I

16.1 USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms — per regional
supplement to 1987 Manual
(USACE Routine Wetland Forms were not completed for this project, as the potential
wetland areas investigated did not meet necessary criteria)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -2
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
1�
7/1/2013
_i

i
16.2 NCWAM Forms — Existing Wetlands
(NC Wetland Assessment Method (WAM) Forms were not provided for this project, as
the NC Division of Water Quality did not require them at the time this project was
' contracted )
'I
f
i
r
i
i
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -3 7/112013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

16.3 NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16-3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: t'ta z.�� b j,IC Project: )� ,C� L,uIc Yta c i Latitude:
Evaluator: / Site: (� 7-Z Longitude:
(, '(ec
Total Points: 11 , Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: ��<<t , .�
if t 19 or perennial if? 30 14. e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = SJ
Absent
.Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank
0
717-
2
3
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
C1 ti
3
5. Active /relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
i A,,
3
7. Braided channel
0,�
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2 '
3
9 a Natural levees
0'
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
(3D
2
3
11. Grade controls
-d7'
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence,
No .
Yes = 3
man -mane ancnes are not rated; see discussions In manual
R. Hvrlrnlnnv [Ri ihtntal = // 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2
0
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growinq season
0
1
2
C
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
C1 ti
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes 1.5
C. Bioloav ( Subtotal = 1, "� 1
20b Fibrous roots in channel
C3 ';
2
1
0
21b Rooted plants in channel
3
72 7-
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
i a
25. Amphibians
Co '
0.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1 `
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
0,5
1
L 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV 2.0•; Other = 0
Items zu and zi locus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
)(j, r- ' IIlyll u ki_, rcc.-J w(. Cate
rte 14 �,n S'� #4A
Sketch:
,ZT ilµCF J(

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: '11� Project: S �Q�, C��t� ifo .�� Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
�t CLc
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent County: nn (( Other
if z 19 or perennial ifs 30 O I EGtV4, e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank
CQ`
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
W'
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1)
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1 %
2
3
5. Active /relic floodplain
0
1
1 `
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
c `
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2,
3
11. Grade controls
0
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No l;'
Yes = 3
man -mane oncnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = S 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1 ;
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
L%
3
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
iT
17. Sediment on plants or debris
)
0.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
(15-11
1
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes 1.5
C. Bioloav ( Suhtotal = 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
21 . Rooted plants in channel
3 ,'
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
C>Z 5'
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
6
1
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5)
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
0.5
1 `
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
'0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
0 '-
0.5
1
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
FAC ; 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other 0
items eu ano z tocus on the presence or upiana plants, item za focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: /(use( backf side of this form for additional ketch: l l notes.) r I
�r�Si C b ltzrl i \ �4a j fTtea.i �y 6r_: �'�cc�► S �t�i r•1
Lv<Qttit{ ���crc art �t,3�1�, rl, �;urLe�l

i
J 16.4 FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
I�
✓;
i I
I I
� J
1
J
Y ,
J
f f
r `
a
I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -5 7/1/2013
_ MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT
Z,

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Project Part 1: General • •
Project Name: T. Clair Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Count Name: Beaufort County
EEP Number: 16.003570
Project Sponsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Jake Byers, El
Project Contact Address: 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Project Contact E -mail: jbyers @mbakercorp.com
EEP Project Manager: Heather Smith
Project Description
The St. Clair Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation project seeks to restore approximately 3,000 linear feet (LF) of
stream, 3,000 LF of riparian buffer and 2 acres of wetlands for the purpose of obtaining mitigation credits in the Tar -
Pamlico River Basin. In addition, this project will accomplish significant ecological improvements through habitat
restoration and a decrease in nonpoint source pollution. The project is located in DENR sub -basin 03 -03 -07 and the
local watershed 03020104, approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. Project designs include Rosgen
Priority I restoration of two unnamed tributaries to St. Clair Creek, and restoration of two acres of wetlands.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date tEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
j-3o I I f
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Reg Ll latiOt1/QLJCStiO1) Response
Coastal Zone Mana ement 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
El Yes
Program?
❑ No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit 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
0 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?
0 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
LJ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
✓ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO /THPO concur?
El
Yes
❑
No
✓
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
El Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acciuisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full- delivery " project?
Ld Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
El Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
El Yes
0 No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
0 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
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: GrOUnd-Disturbing Activities
Reg ulatiOrl/Q Liestion 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?
LJ 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?
El 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?
El Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
LJ Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
Archaeolo ical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
El 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
Endan ered 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
L1 Yes
Habitat?
✓❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and /or "likely to adversely modify"
Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
✓ N/A
5. Does the USFWS /NOAH- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
0 Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
6. Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
U 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
Ld Yes
water body?
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
✓ Yes
❑ No
El N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
El Yes
outdoor recreation?
✓ No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
0 Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Mana ement Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
0 Yes
✓❑ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
0 Yes
❑ No
✓ I N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
0 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?
0 Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Miaratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
Yes
❑✓ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
El Yes
El No
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

16.5 FEMA Compliance - EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
The topography of the site supports the design without creating the potential for hydrologic trespass
The site is located in a FEMA mapped AE zone due to backwater from the Pamlico River However, i!
since St Clair Creek is not listed on the FIS Report an extensive hydraulic analysis is not required to
obtain a "No- Rise/No- Impact" certification as discussed with the Local Floodplam Administrator
(Brandon Hayes) on October 4`h, 2012 The project will also not require a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMB) following construction in order to document changes (reductions) to Base Flood Elevations I
(BFEs) The EEP Floodplam Checklist was provided to the Beaufort County Floodplam Manager along
with this report -I
'J
y
I.
i
Y 1
� I
H
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16-6 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Ecosystem
rtzoe�ennn
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain Mapping
program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects. The form is
intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The
form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to
NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
UT2 and UT3 to St. Clair Creek
County:
Beaufort
Name of river basin:
Tar - Pamlico
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Beaufort County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
6662
Consultant name:
Jacob Byers, PE
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Phone number:
919 - 463 -5488
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
FEMA Compliance—EEP Checklist StGair.doc Page 1 of 4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference
orthophotograph at a scale of I"= 500 ". The project site includes two unnamed tributaries to
St. Clair Creek, east of the Town of Bath off Peoples Road (see Figure 1). The site lies within
NC Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -03 -07 and local watershed unit 03020104040040.
Currently, the project reaches (see Figure 3) are impacted by the historic draining of area
wetlands for agricultural use and the lack of adequate riparian buffers. Project goals include
approximately 3,200 linear feet (LF) of headwater stream restoration, and approximately 2.0
acres of riparian wetland restoration to improve area water quality and the surrounding
ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Reach / Wetland
Linear Feet / Acreage
Priority
UT2
2,200 LF
Headwater Restoration
UT3
1,000 LF
Headwater Restoration
UT2 Wetland
1.0 AC
Riparian Wetland Restoration
UT3 Wetland
1 1.0 AC I
Riparian Wetland Restoration
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)7
V Yes I- No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r- Redelineation
F Detailed Study
r% Limited Detail Study
1- Approximate Study
F Don't know
Located in AF "Lone fi-om back\vater from the Pamlico River. l lowever St Clair Creek is not
listed in the F1S Re>ort.
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
1V AE Zone
F- Floodway
r- Non - Encroachment
ry None
I- A Zone
r Local Setbacks Required
F No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: No specific setbacks required for areas not requiring a
CAMA permit. We've coordinated with CAMA and are not required to obtain a CAMA ermit.
FEMA Compliancc_EEP Checklist_StClair.doc Page 2 of
I

Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non- encroachment /setbacks?
r" Yes Io No
Land Acquisition (Check)
• State owned (fee simple)
• Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
17 Conservation Easement (Full Dehvery Project)
Note if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to the Department
of Administration, State Construction Office attn Herbert Nell , 919- 807 -4101
Is community /county participating in the NFIP program?
1/ Yes f No
Note if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to NFTP (attn Edward
Curtis, 919 715 -8000 x369
Name of Local Floodplarn Administrator Brandon Hayes
Phone Number 252- 946 -7182
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
I✓ No Action
1— No Rise
r Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements
Comments Per conversation with Beaufort County LFPA, Brandon Hayes
Name Saco b Byers, Pe
Title Dc5iJA 41)Q1'neer
Signature
Date to Y-z
i
FEMA Comphamc_EEP Checklist StClair doe Page 3 of 4

Criteria for Flooding Requirements
Grading iess than 5ac:
Notify LFPA
Not Regulated, No Community Grading more
N.11 ,C) Set -backs
than 5 ac:
Site BFE not < Establish
Defined W /Community BFE data.
Set -backs
Regulated
(SFHA)
BFE defined
\I 01
No Floodway
(1 ft No -Rise)
Floodway defined
(0 ft No -Rise)
Non- Encroachme
Area (0 ft No-l'
J
- No Impact Study
- LOMR if-
Oft < Rise < 1 ft
- CLOMR & LOMR if:
Rise > 1 ft
- No Impact Study
- CLOMR, LOMR if Rise not met
- LOMR, if Rise < 0.1 ft
Summary of Scenarios
Zornc
SFHA
BFE
Floodway
Comm.
Floodplain Criteria
(map)
Or Non-
Set -back
Encroachment
X,B,C
No
No
No
No
a. Notify Floodplain Administration
b. FP Dev. Permit maybe required
A
Yes
No
No
No
a. If grading < 5 ac, notify LFPA.
A
Yes
No
No
Yes
a. If No -Rise = 0 ft, LOMR not required
b. If Rise > 0 ft, LOMB is Required
c. If Rise > 1 ft, CLOMR is required
E,
Yes
Yes
No
/a
a. No -Rise Study
1 -A30
b. CLOMR if > 1ft
LOMR
EFW
es
es
Yes
/a
a. No -Rise Study
Al -A30
CLOMR if > 0 ft
LOMR
f EMA Compliame_EEP Checklist_StClaindoc Page 4 of 4

Byers, Jake
From: Brandon Hayes < bran don. hayes @co.beaufort.nc.us>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:16 AM
To: Byers, Jake
Subject: Re: St Clair Creek Restoration Project
Mr. Byers
As per our conversation, since the restoration work you are doing is very minimal you will not need anything from
Beaufort County.
Thanks
Brandon Hayes
CFM
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Byers, Jake [mailto:ibyers @mbakercorp.com]
Sent: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:45:25 +0000
To: brandon.haves @co.beaufort.nc.us
Subject: St Clair Creek Restoration Project
> Mr. Hayes,
> Please see the attached documents for the location of the
> proposed stream restoration project in Beaufort County and for
> the FEMA FIRM map with the proposed conservation easement in
> red. As per our discussion on October 4, 2012, please
> re- confirm that no action is needed in regards to a flood study
> in this area since our work in this zone will be minimal. This
> area is in a SFHA due to backwater from the Pamlico River.
> Please feel free to call or email with any concerns or questions.
> Thanks,
> -Jake
> Jacob "Jake" Byers, PE
> Civil Engineer
> Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
> 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 600

> Cary, NC 27518
> 919 - 463 -5488 Main
> 919 - 463 -5490 Fax
> 919 - 481 -5748 Direct
> 919 - 259 -4814 Mobile
> jbyers@ mbakercorp. com <mailto:ibyers @mbakercorp.com>
• From: Byers, Jake
• Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:48 AM
• To:[e-mail]
• Subject: FW: St Clair Creek Restoration Project
• From: Byers, Jake
• Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:46 AM
> To: 'brandon.hayes @co.beaufor.nc.us'
> Subject: St Clair Creek Restoration Project
> Please see attached.
> Thanks
> Jacob "Jake" Byers, PE
> Civil Engineer
> Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
> 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 600
> Cary, NC 27518
> 919 - 463 -5488 Main
> 919 - 463 -5490 Fax
> 919 - 481 -5748 Direct
> 919 - 259 -4814 Mobile
> jbyers@ mbakercorp. com <mailto:ibyers @mbakercorp.com>
E -Mail correspondence to and from this sender may be subject to the State of North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to Third Parties.
N

16.6 Buffer Rules Compliance
i
1
Il
�I
t� k
t
�JI
I
1
7y 1
J I
I
1
11
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 16 -7 7/1/2013
z
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
I 1
1-j

���
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
January 22, 2010
DWQ EXPH 10 -0062
Beaufort County
Mr Stephen Poole, Jr
4847 Sidney Road
Belhaven, NC 27810
Subject Property Property. Located off(NCSR 1738) People Road
2 Drainage features to St Clair Creek, 1 ar- Pamlico River Basin
On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Tar - Pamlico Rit cr Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A
NCAC 2B.0259)-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Mr Poole
On January 20, 2010 at the request of Mr Hal Bain of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, l conducted an on -site determination to
rcw tew two drainage features located on the subject properties for applicability to the Tar - Pamlico Buffer Rules (I SA
NCAC 2B 0259) 1 he features are labeled as `SCIA and SC2B^ on the attached maps initialed by me on January 22,
2010
The Dit ision of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the features labeled as "SCIA and SC2I3" on the
attached maps, and highlighted in blue are subject to the Tar - Pamlico Buffer Rules. The subject features (SCIA)
starts at the culvert crossing on People Road SR 1738, (N 35° 27 370', W 76° 44 361'), marked on the ground with yellow
DWQ nagging, and follows the drainage downstream to the cast comer of the field at N 35° 27 216' W 76143 651' and
marked on the ground with yellow D%YQ flagging (see maps for SCIA) The second feature SC213 is 1 023 miles north of
SC I A on People Road The subject feature starts nt the inlet of culvert, marked on the ground with yellow DWQ
nagging, at N 35° 28 056 , W 76° 43 702' and goes upstream west, northwest to end at point N 35° 28 140' W 76° 43 880'
and marked on the ground with yellow nagging as show% n on the attached maps 1'hc owner (or future owners) should
notify the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any future correspondences conccmmg this propert)
This on -sue determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a
surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request n determination by the Director A request for a
determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in %writing c/o John Domey, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321
Crobtrcc Blvd . Raleigh. NC 27604 -2260 Individuals that dispute a dctcmiinaton by the DWQ or Delegated Local
N0M can na ovsYln o1 Weser oua:ty
941 VlasA'rg= Square 1.189
WaSK11 n A'C27869
Phase 25254644511 FAX [phone]
IvemeL mnv nCN3'emua''ty aq
nlEq+a1O,;vL- ylAflawhokta,Em,'Oyw
NorthCarohna
Naturally

Authority that "c\empts a surface water from the buffer ride may ask for an ndludncatory hearing You must act within
60 days of the date that you receive this letter Applicants arc hereby notified that the 60-da) statutory appeal time does
not start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified or tin., decision DWQ
recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely
manner To ask for a hearing, send a%% nuen petition, %% Inch conforms to Chapter I SOB of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N C 27699 -6714 This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer riles and does not approve any activity ivnhm the buffers Nor
does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Wntcrs of tlic State Ifyou have any additional
questions or require additional information please call Roberto Scheller in the Washington Regional Office at (252) 948-
1 3940
Attachments Beaufort County Sod Survey map
USGS Ransomville Quad map
Goggle Earth map
cc Hal Bain, Rummcl, Klepper & Kahl
DWQ 401 /Wetland Lepress Unit
rdc copy
Sincerely,
ror
I ikaanv 10-0062

T �!.•
n kw i
>i �- t•,3ti.. ;,tom ���' r lh+ �� �> �'>4: �8
t �I`T11�481 }l Lip i:'
t al
.. _:_:�•�i>, S J ` tii�� -�"v :,ar i►.,, aif

I IN Ca
nt
POP fri Ion
ell.
Wav�d by \-1
X.
10, w
N:nne: RANSOMVILLE Location: 035.27'34.31" N 078'44'07.48" W
Date: 1/2212010 Caption: Express Stream Call for Poole Property, Beaufort Co.
Scale: 1 Inch equals 1667 feet
X
X
A,
.- —Z lx�
SC21111
-z:
SC28
4-
t
W A Wliisinp
SCIA
SCIA
x
I IN Ca
nt
POP fri Ion
ell.
Wav�d by \-1
X.
10, w
N:nne: RANSOMVILLE Location: 035.27'34.31" N 078'44'07.48" W
Date: 1/2212010 Caption: Express Stream Call for Poole Property, Beaufort Co.
Scale: 1 Inch equals 1667 feet

:®fin 1.1 +; >.va r.,.r.. (, 1J
Wtl I'm Yom Yy. mm Sham 4cb —,-
Goy ,Sle maps
kdtueu�
StLEt1i4lc[z:•S�
Rein N:ea: e.rs4e u4 Mme
Nolh CUOLM E-10 —en!"
�Yf170YhIM Com4aion
� ewtir
FIWIM 0 D/
1•. �
1hVISgrM

17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND
ANALYSES
17.1 Channel Morphology (Rosgen Analysis)
17.1.1 Existing Conditions
17.1.1.1 Channel Classification
UT2 and UT3 to St Clair Creek are small headwater streams with total drainage areas of
approximately 89 and 30 acres respectively (Figure 2 2) Historically, the areas have
been extensively drained for silvicultural and agricultural production The UTs were
ditched and moved from their historic flow paths to promote drainage from the adjacent
farm fields and forested areas, which has resulted in a disconnection from their relic
floodplain and headwater valleys These conditions generally lead to a lowered water
table and were observed throughout the site The riparian vegetation throughout the site
is a mix of planted pine areas and herbaceous grasses that are regularly maintained by
mowing
For analysis purposes, Baker labeled the existing unnamed tributaries UT2 and UT3
respectively The existing UT reach locations are shown on Figures 2 2, 2 3, 2 4, 2 5, 2 6,
3 1, and 17 2 UT2 begins at the most northwestern project boundary and flows east then
south towards a farm access road Field evaluations of intermittent/ perennial status and
use of NCDWQ stream assessment protocols were difficult for UT2 since the channels on
site were all maintained with an excavator during the late summer of 2010 As a result, no
geomorphic or vegetation characteristics were evident along the reach However,
NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included in Appendix B Field
investigations and photographs taken during March 2010, prior to clean -out, were used to
assist in determining jurisdictional status, however, the channels at that time had been
impacted by recent timber harvest
The NCDWQ Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and
Their Origins Manual, Version 4 11 indicates that in situations with ditching and
modified natural streams, contour crenulations and the presence of linear soil mapping
units can be used to determine the presence of a natural stream channel The LIDAR
imagery for the site shows a distinct topographic valley signature along much of UT2,
and the county soil survey shows a linear soil mapping unit dust downstream of the
project limits, as well as a steam feature that extends up into the project site In addition,
the landowner had observed fish and turtles in the channel, along with submerged aquatic
vegetation Based on these observations and its available drainage area (89 acres), the
stream was determined to be a perennial stream channel and appropriate for use with the
Coastal Plain headwater stream guidance
Like UT2, the UT3 channel was maintained during the summer of 2010, therefore,
geomorphic and vegetation characteristics were difficult to assess to determine
jurisdictional status However, NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included
in Appendix B UT3 is an intermittent stream that flows south from the most northeast
project boundary The same analysis as described for UT2 was conducted for UT3 The
LIDAR data for the site indicates the presence of a valley, but the county soil survey does
not indicate the presence of a stream feature The drainage area for UT3 is smaller than
that for UT2 (30 acres), but this drainage area is consistent with the drainages of small
headwater reference sites that have been identified and surveyed in the same region The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -1 7!1!2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

landowner also did not recall as extensive of a variety of aquatic life being present in the i +
UT3 channel prior to the most recent maintenance work Therefore, the reach was
determined to be an intermittent stream channel, but appropriate for use with the Coastal
Plain headwater stream guidance due to the defined valley signature The total current G
length of the existing streams (UT2 and UT3) on the site is 3,735 LF This number is
approximate due to the highly altered flow path and is approximately measured along the
main ditches that convey the drainage from each UTs watershed Due to their
channelized nature, the streams would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G
stream type but use of this classification system is questionable due to the highly altered
states of the channels Table 17 1 represents geomorphic data compiled from the existing l
condition survey
Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for UT2 and UT3:
Stream Channel Classification Level U
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Parameter
Reach UT2
Reach UT3
Existing Reach Length (ft)
2,660
1,075
Drainage Area (sq mi )
014
005
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (as),
196
09
Feature Type
Perennial
Intermittent
Channelized Stream
Channelized Stream
Rosgen Stream Type
G
G
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)3
3 1
21
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)3
068
045
Width to Depth Ratio (WbktJdbkf)3
45
48
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)'
21
1 0
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)3
092
061
Floodprone Width (Wfpa) (ft)3
43
125
Entrenchment Ratio (W fpa /Wbkf) (ft)3
1 39
14
Bank Height Ratio4
33
53
Approximate Longitudinal Stationing of Cross - Section
12 +00
13 +00
Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf— (Qbkf/Abkf) (ft/s)
093
08
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index — d50) — Based on Bulk Samples
d16 / d35 / dso / d&4 / d95 (mm)
008/015/02/11/
008/015/02/07/
24
1 5
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0 001
0 001
Average Water Surface Slope (S) ( ft/ft)
00009
000085
Average Channel Sinuosity (K)6
N/A
N/A
Bankfull discharge and area estimated using NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz,
2003)
2Due to their channelized nature, the streams would most appropriately be classified as Rosgen G stream type but use
of this classification system is questionable due to the highly altered states of the channels
3 N bankfull indicators were present inside the ditches so all bankf ill parameters are based on bankfull cross -
sectional area determined from the NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
°High bank height ratios (values greater than 2 0 indicate system -wide self - recovery is unlikely
5Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure not applicable for sand -bed streams
6 Meander geometry information such as sinuosity, meander width, meander length, and radius of curvature were not
measured because the channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has been straightened/channelized
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -2 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

17.1.1.2 Valley Classification
The St. Clair Creek Site is located in eastern Beaufort County in the Outer Coastal Plain
physiographic region of North Carolina. Undisturbed Coastal Plain valleys in this region are
generally classified as Valley Type `X' (Rosgen, 2006). These low gradient landforms are typically
characterized as large areas of broad, level flatlands (interstream terraces) with extensive
floodplains intersected by anastomosed stream and wetland complexes. The underlying geology in
this area is identified as Surficial Deposits and formed during the Quaternary Period. The Surficial
Deposits formation consists primarily of lake or marine deposit (non - glacial) and varying amounts
of eolian material and sand, clay, gravel and (Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geological
Survey, 1998).
17.1.1.3 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
Baker performed general topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and
produced contour mapping based on survey data in order to create plan set base mapping
(see Section 18.0, Appendix D). Two representative cross - sections (one on UT2 and one
on UT3) were also cut along the two main ditches to assess the current condition and
overall stability of the stream channels. The existing cross - section data are shown in
Figure 17.1.
Since consistent bankfull indicators could not be identified in the field, bankfull cross -
sectional areas were estimated using the EcoScience NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve to
compare stability ratings. The representative cross - sections have a typical Bank Height
Ratio (BHR) greater than 2.0. The cross - section data illustrate the channelized nature of
the streams and the lack of a natural floodplain. The collected topography data showed
UT2 and UT3 have average valley slopes of 0.001 foot /foot. Sinuosity and other pattern
measurements for these existing ditches are inappropriate due to the straightened/
channelized nature of the ditches. Both reaches are entrenched but are stable due to the
very low gradients and small watersheds.
Figure 17.1 Existing Ditch Cross - Sections for Reach UT2 and UT3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev
TOB Elev
UT2
N/A
G
2.1
3.1
0.68
0.92
4.5
3.3
1.39
3.66
6.26
Cross - section
8
6
4
°—'
2
w
0
0
10
20 30
40
50 60
Station
-
Bankfull - -- -- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

17.1.1.4 Channel Stability
Sedimentation from bank erosion is a significant pollutant to water quality and aquatic habitat.
Predicting stream bank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for
Non -point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001a) is not
applicable to the coastal plain of North Carolina. Due to the very low gradients and small
watersheds neither UT2 nor UT3 are contributing quantifiable sediment to the downstream
watershed. This was visually verified in the field. No distinct erosion or sediment accumulation
was observed along either UT.
Though both UT2 and UT3 are laterally and vertically stable, neither provide significant habitat nor
function as a headwater stream and wetland complex as they most likely did in the past.
17.1.1.5 Channel Evolution
Channel stability is defined as the stream's ability to transport incoming flows and
sediment loads supplied by the watershed without undergoing significant changes over a
geologically short time - scale. A generalized relationship of stream stability was
proposed by Lane (1955); it states that the product of sediment load and sediment size is
in balance with the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream power. A change in
any one of these variables induces physical adjustment of one or more of the other
variables to compensate and maintain the proportionality.
Longitudinally, the water and sediment flows delivered to each subsequent section are the
result of the watershed and upstream or backwater (downstream) conditions. Water and
sediment pass through the channel, which is defined by its shape, material, and vegetative
condition. Flow and sediment are either stored or passed through at each section along
the reach. The resulting physical changes are a balancing act between gravity, friction,
and the sediment and water being delivered into the system (Leopold et al., 1964).
Observed stream response to induced instability, as described by Simon's (1989) Channel
Evolution Model, involve extensive modifications to channel form resulting in profile,
cross - sectional, and plan form changes, which often take decades or longer to achieve
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-4 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev
TOB Elev
UT3
N/A
G
1.0
2.1
0.45
0.61
4.8
5.3
1.4
4.09
6.39
Cross - section
10
8
0
6
4
w
2
0
0
20
40 60 80
100 120
140
Station
- - -& -- Bankfull -- P -- Floodprone
17.1.1.4 Channel Stability
Sedimentation from bank erosion is a significant pollutant to water quality and aquatic habitat.
Predicting stream bank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for
Non -point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001a) is not
applicable to the coastal plain of North Carolina. Due to the very low gradients and small
watersheds neither UT2 nor UT3 are contributing quantifiable sediment to the downstream
watershed. This was visually verified in the field. No distinct erosion or sediment accumulation
was observed along either UT.
Though both UT2 and UT3 are laterally and vertically stable, neither provide significant habitat nor
function as a headwater stream and wetland complex as they most likely did in the past.
17.1.1.5 Channel Evolution
Channel stability is defined as the stream's ability to transport incoming flows and
sediment loads supplied by the watershed without undergoing significant changes over a
geologically short time - scale. A generalized relationship of stream stability was
proposed by Lane (1955); it states that the product of sediment load and sediment size is
in balance with the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream power. A change in
any one of these variables induces physical adjustment of one or more of the other
variables to compensate and maintain the proportionality.
Longitudinally, the water and sediment flows delivered to each subsequent section are the
result of the watershed and upstream or backwater (downstream) conditions. Water and
sediment pass through the channel, which is defined by its shape, material, and vegetative
condition. Flow and sediment are either stored or passed through at each section along
the reach. The resulting physical changes are a balancing act between gravity, friction,
and the sediment and water being delivered into the system (Leopold et al., 1964).
Observed stream response to induced instability, as described by Simon's (1989) Channel
Evolution Model, involve extensive modifications to channel form resulting in profile,
cross - sectional, and plan form changes, which often take decades or longer to achieve
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-4 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

-1
resolution The Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes typical evolution
in six steps
' 1 Pre - modified
J 2 Channelized
3 Degradation
c ; 4 Degradation and widening
5 Aggradation and widening
6 Quasi - equilibrium
` The channel evolution process is initiated when a stable, well- vegetated stream that
- interacts frequently with its floodplam is disturbed Channelization, dredging, changing
land use, removal of streamside vegetation, upstream or downstream channel
~f modifications, and/or change in other hydrologic variables result in adjustments in
channel morphology to compensate for the new condition(s) Disturbance commonly
results in an increase in stream power that can cause degradation, often referred to as
r—, channel incision (Lane, 1955) Incision eventually leads to over - steepenmg of the banks
and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of
soil and rock leads to channel widening Incision and widening continue moving
' upstream in the form of a head -cut Eventually the mass wastmg slows, and the stream
I begins to aggrade A new, low -flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits By
the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile
similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium The new
channel is at a lower elevation than its original form, with a new floodplam constructed
of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998)
The channel stability assessment incorporated qualitative site observations Conclusions
reached were used to define overall channel stability and determine appropriate
L� restoration approaches for the site UT2 and UT3 originate from watersheds in which the
land use is predominantly agriculture and silviculture A change in land use within the
watersheds is not anticipated Due to past channelization and straightening, both UT2
and UT3 are incised as evidenced by entrenchment ratios greater than 2 0
Both UT2 and UT3 currently exist in Step 2 of the Simon Channel Evolution Model
Due to very low gradients and small contributing watersheds, further degradation is not
anticipated
17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for
restoration, an approach was developed that would address restoration of both stream and
wetland functions within the project area Prior to impacts from past channelization,
topography and soils on the site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the
_ past as a headwater tributary stream and wetland system, eventually flowing into the larger
St Clair Creek system
Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore this type of riparian headwater
system First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired stream and
wetland functions was selected and designed to restore historic flow paths Then a gradmg
plan was developed in order restore the historic valleys and adjacent wetland hydrology by
filling existing ditches, removing past ditch spoil and other agricultural land manipulations
17.1.2.1 Proposed Design Approach and Criteria Selection
_I Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria
for reaches UT2 and UT3 The approach was based on the potential for restoration as
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -5 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

determined during the site assessment Next, the specific design parameters were
developed so that plan view layout, cross - section dimensions, and a longitudinal profile
could be described for developing construction documents The design philosophy is to
use these design parameters as conservative values for the selected stream types and to
allow natural variability of flow paths and bed features to form over long periods of time
under the processes of flooding, re- colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences
within the restored valley
The design plans have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is
constructible, using a level of detail that corresponds to the tools of construction The
design also reflects a philosophy that the stream will adapt to the inherent uniformity of
the restoration project This will allow the system to adjust over long periods of time
under the natural flood processes, re- colonization of vegetation, and local topographic
influences
UT2 and UT3 Restoration
The restoration of both UT2 and UT3 will consider the USACE and NCDWQ guidance
document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain
of North Carolina " Rather than the construction of a defined single thread channel, the
current channelized stream will be filled and graded back to topographic contours that
approximate the pre - dramed condition Field surveys were conducted to determine the
elevation of the stream where it comes onto the project property, and the valley
topographic elevations downstream
As discussed in Section 7, the tributaries have been channelized through an existing
riparian headwater system The channelization has disrupted the historic flow and
flooding patterns of the site Restoration of these reaches will seek to restore historic
flow and flooding processes Based on average valley slopes (UT2 0 001 foot/foot, UT3
0 001 foot /foot) and catchment areas (UT2 89 AC, UT3 30 AC), this area most likely
functioned prior to disturbance as a headwater stream and wetland system (Rosgen `DA'
stream type) Restoration will focus on filling in the drainage ditches, and restoring the
pre - disturbed topography of the valley The valley bottom will then be graded to restore
the natural mtcrotopographic variability that is common within multi- thread headwater
systems The system will be allowed to form multi- thread channels and diffuse flow
patterns on its own over time
The restoration of UT2 will end near the existing culverted crossing at approximately
Station 36 +50 At this location, the UT2 channel will flow through the proposed culverts
and connect with the existing, stable single thread channel prior to its confluence with the
larger St Clair Creek system
The restoration of UT3 will end near the existing culverted crossing at approximately
Station 22 +78 The restored stream within this area flows through a previously identified
jurisdictional wetland (See Section 21, Appendix G) where prior to disturbance the
historic flow path was located Only the minor grading will performed in this area A
high spot in the existing topography where a past farm road once existed will be removed
and blended in to the surrounding topography At the end of UT3, the channel will be
allowed to flow into the existing headwater stream and wetland system prior to the
system's confluence with the larger St Clair Creek system
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17-6 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.2 Mitigation Work Plan
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -7 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators
Reference reach surveys are valuable tools for comparison The morphologic data obtained
such as dimension, pattern, and profile can be used as a template for design of a stable stream
in a sinular valley type with similar bed material In order to extract the morphological
relationships observed in a stable system, dimensionless ratios are developed from the
surveyed reference reach These ratios can be applied to a stream design to allow the
designer to `mimic' the natural, stable form of the target channel type
Often the best reference data are from adjacent stable stream reaches, or reaches within the
same watershed Many local headwater valleys have been identified with similar drainage
areas, soils, and topography, however, most that were investigated had been drained and any
stream and/or wetland features that may have been present had been channelized or modified
Therefore, reference data and past projects from other Coastal Plain stream systems were
evaluated to help in the development of design criteria
Baker conducted research in the Croatan National Forest to exanune the landscape position at
which small Coastal Plain headwater tributaries develop defined stream channels Data
collected indicate that for small tributary drainages, single thread channels are often found
when drainage areas approach one square mile and slope is 0 001 foot/foot or greater For
smaller drainages and decreased slopes, muth- thread systems that function more like
headwater stream and wetland complexes are more common These data help to provide a
basis for evaluating the valley slope and topography of the project site and determining the
stream systems that may have been present historically
While reference reaches can be used as an aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and
profile, there are limitations in smaller coastal plain headwater streams The flow patterns
and channel formation for most reference reach quality streams is often controlled by slope,
drainage areas and large trees and other deep rooted vegetation
Collectively, the data provide valuable information regarding the range of conditions
documented for similar headwater stream systems Figure 17 3 illustrates the data
comparison for Coastal Plain headwater streams as a reference for design considerations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17-8 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.3 Channel Form Data Comparisons for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream References
17.2 Bankfull Verification Analysis
17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a
natural channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankf ill stage in the field
can be difficult and subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1984; and Johnson and Heil,
1996). Numerous definitions exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the
field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes,
1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankf ill stage in the humid Southeast is
especially difficult because of dense understory vegetation and a long history of channel
modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology. It is generally accepted that
bankf ill stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the elevation of the active
floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation and
floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant
discharge or effective discharge, is thought to be the flow that moves the most sediment over
time in stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in
vegetation, the highest scour line, or the top of the bank (Leopold, 1994). The most
consistent bankfull indicators for streams in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina are the backs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -9 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

of point bars, breaks in slope at the front of flat bankfull benches, or the top of bank (Sweet
and Geratz, 2003)
An accurate identification of bankfull stage could not be made throughout the site due to
channelized conditions For this reason, bankfull stage was identified by using regional curve
information Regional curve equations developed from the NC Coastal Plain study are
provided by EcoScience (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) and are shown in Table 17 2 Due to man-
made alterations, normal channel forming processes do not to occur at the site
17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves)
Hydraulic geometry relationships are often used to predict channel morphology features and
their corresponding dimensions The stream channel hydraulic geometry theory developed
by Leopold and Maddock (1953) describes the interrelations between dependent variables
such as width, depth, and area as functions of independent variables such as watershed area or
discharge These relationships can be developed at a single cross - section or across many
stations along a reach (Mengliano, 1997) Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically
derived and can be developed for a specific river or extrapolated to a watershed in the same
physiographic region with similar rainfall /runoff relationships (FISRWG, 1998)
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankf ill channel dimensions
to drainage area A primary purpose for developing regional curves is to aid in identifying
bankfull stage and dimension in un -gaged watersheds, as well as to help estimate the bankfull
dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994) Gage station analyses
throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return
interval of 1 5 years or 66 7% annual exceedence probability on the maximum annual series
(Dunne and Leopold, 1978, Leopold, 1994) However, it should be noted that in comparison
to the NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve, the recurrence of bankf ill events is much shorter
(average 0 61 years) likely due to higher rainfall amounts, elevated water tables, and
increased floodplam storage
Table 17.2 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
EcoScience Data Sweet and Geratz, 2003
Qbkf = 8 79 AW 016
RZ =O 92
Abkf = 9 43 AW 074
RZ =O 96
Wbkf = 9 64 A,,, 038
R2 =0 95
Dbkf = 0 98 AW 0 36
Rz =O 92
The NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve estimates a bankfull cross - sectional area of
approximately 2 1 square feet and a bankfull discharge of approximately 2 0 cfs for a 0 14
square mile watershed though it should be noted that this drainage area is much smaller than
any of the streams used to develop this curve The existing channel has cross - sectional areas
at the top -of -banks that is approximately 19 square feet As described in in Section 7 3, the
Rosgen stream classification system (Rosgen, 1996) depends on the proper field
identification of consistent geomorphic features related to the active floodplain, therefore
bankfull verification was not possible in the field under these conditions
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -10 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

17.3 Sediment Transport Analysis
17.3.1 Methodology
J The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time The overriding assumption is that the project
I" reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources, thereby being a
"transport" reach and classified as a Rosgen "C" or "E" type channel However, under headwater
stream and wetland reference conditions where channel formation is poor, flows are often conveyed
I through multiple small channels across a relatively well defined floodplain Microtopography in these
headwater systems is quite variable, as a result of tree roots, tip mounds, and debris dams Debris
- appears to be a critical component in maintaining the characteristics of diffuse flow, as stream energy is
not sufficient to provide scour and movement of large debris
The design for reaches UT2 and UT3 involves the construction of broad/shallow flow paths along the
valley bottom and allowing the system to form as a multi- thread channel, in essence, the restoration of a
I
-� headwater stream and wetland system Under normal conditions, sediment deposits in these systems
and they are aggradational in nature, due to low flow velocities and scour stresses Furthermore,
sediment supply is typically limited, such that over time, these systems remain stable and deposited
sediment becomes part of the natural processes of soil formation Field observations from the project
%i site and upper watershed such as a lack of depositional features confirm that sediment supply from
upstream sources are limited, therefore sediment transport relationships are predicted to function
normally in the restored reaches of UT2 and UT3
— It should be noted that the modified Wolman pebble count ( Rosgen, 1994) is not appropriate for sand-
bed streams, therefore, a bulk sampling procedure was used to characterize the bed material The
majority of the reach contains sand and silt stream bottom due to the parent soil Bed material samples
f were collected to confirm these initial observations The samples collected were taken to a lab and dry
sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution The sieve data shown in Figure 17 4 indicate that the UTs
to St Clair Creek have an approximate D50 of 0 2 -mm indicating that under current conditions, the
' dominant bed material in the stream channel is fine sand
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -11 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.4 Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution - UT2
100 -
I
90
80
80
-f- Cumulative Pecent
-0-Cumulative Percent
70
a Class Percent
70
■ Class Percent
60
60
50
d
E50
a
-- - -
- - --
- - - —
i
- -
-
I
30
-1-
30
-
20
-- --
20
10
10
0
001 0 1 1 10
Particle Size Class (mm)
0
001 01 1 10
Particle Size Class (mm)
Particle Size Distribution - UM
100
90
80
-f- Cumulative Pecent
70
a Class Percent
60
50
d
40
30
20
10
0
001 0 1 1 10
Particle Size Class (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -12 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

17.3.2 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge
Table 17 3 provides a bankfull discharge analysis and sediment transport data summary based on the
bankfull regional curve flows, the Manning's equation discharges calculated from the representative
cross - sections for each reach, and the bankf ill design discharge calculated based on the proposed
design valley cross - sections for UT2 and UT3
Table 17.3 Design Discharge and Sediment Transport Data Summary
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Downstream
Bankfull Q,
Bankfull Q,
Bankfull
Shear
Stream
Stream
Drainage Area
NC Coastal
Manning's
Velocity3
Stress
Power
(miz)
Plain Regional
Formula
(ft/sec)
(Ibs /ftZ)
(W /mZ)
Curve (cfs)
(cfs)
UT2
014
20
09
0 43 -0 95
0 014
0 091
UT3
005
09
03
0 26 -0 9
0 009
0 042
Bankfull discharge estimate is based on Manning's Equation for the design valley cross - section and an assumed n -value
of 0 04
2 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve bankfull discharge estimates (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
3 A range of flows is provided to account for variability of the calculation methods as well as to account for conditional
changes within the project reaches due to increased drainage area
17.4 Existing Vegetation Assessment
Limited wooded riparian buffers exist along UT2 and UT3 While these buffers do exist, they consist
of planted Loblolly pine (Panus taeda) except for a small area of successional deciduous forest along
upper UT3 on the left bank that consist of mature Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), Loblolly pine (Panus taeda), Red maple (Ater rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and various oaks (Quercus spp ) Woody shrub and vine species include Blackberry
(Rubus spp ), Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifoha), and Muscadine (Vitas rotundifolia) Herbaceous species
consist of Dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Giant cane (Arundanaria gcgantea), and Netted
chainfem (Woodwardia areolata) Historic land management surrounding the project area has been
primarily for agricultural and silvicultural purposes through the alteration of drainage patterns and the
removal of native vegetation in the riparian zone All riparian buffer areas have been significantly
disturbed The primary invasive species vegetation present on the project site is Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) which is sparsely found throughout the riparian buffer areas
17.5 Site Wetlands
17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal
regulations Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR 328 3(b)
and 40 CFR 230 3 (t)) The areas in the project boundaries that displayed one or more wetland
characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands The wetland characteristics
included
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -13 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

I Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation
2 Permanent of periodic inundation or saturation
3 Hydrnc soils
On June 5, 2007, the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued joint guidance
for their field offices for Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations in response to the Supreme
Court's decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v United States and Carabell v United States
(USEPA and USACE, 2007) Based on this guidance, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the
following waters
• Traditional navigable waters (TNWs)
• Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
• Non - navigable tributaries of TNWs that are considered relatively permanent waters (RPWs)
Such tributaries flow year -round or exhibit continuous flow for at least 3 months
• Wetlands that directly abut RPWs
The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a standardized analysis to
determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water
Non - navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent waters (non -RPWs)
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs
Wetlands that are adjacent to but do not directly abut an RPW
The significant nexus analysis is fact - specific and assesses the flow characteristics of a tributary and the
functions performed by all its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the physical,
chenucal, and biological integrity of downstream TNWs A significant nexus exists when a tributary,
in combination with its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the
physical, chemical, or biological integrity of a TNW
The USACE and USEPA will apply the significant nexus standard within the limits of jurisdiction
specified by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
( SWANCC) v US Army Corps of Engineers Under the SWANCC decision, the USACE and USEPA
cannot regulate isolated wetlands and waters that lack links to interstate commerce sufficient to serve as
a basis for jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act Though isolated wetlands and waters are not
regulated by the USACE, within the state of North Carolina isolated wetlands and waters are
considered "waters of the state" and are regulated by the NCDWQ under the isolated wetlands rules
(15A NCAC 2H 1300)
Following a desktop review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), NRCS soil survey and USGS
quadrangle maps, a licensed soil scientist from The Catena Group performed a hydric soils delineation
in February 2011 (see Section 19, Appendix E) A field survey of the project area was conducted by
Baker wetland scientists in January 2012 to investigate potential wetlands throughout the hydnc soils
area and confirm perennial and intermittent streams in the project area Excluding the known
jurisdictional wetland delineated by a third party at the end of UT3 the fmdmgs during the subsequent
wetland investigation determined that there were small wetland areas adjacent to the project boundaries
at the upper ends of both UT 2 and UT3 However, any temporary impacts to the marginal or fringe
wetlands associated with the restoration activities would be considered minimal and would involve
minor surface excavation or roughening, re- establishment of native wetland vegetation, and adjustments
to drainage patterns as necessary to restore historic channel pattern to the system
17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations
However, it is likely that wetlands were historically present in some of these locations by evaluating
existing soils, hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation within the project reaches The original plant
community located in these wetlands was most likely indicative of other wetlands in the region, but past
agricultural land use practices have altered the composition of the plant community currently present
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -14 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

These wetland conditions have been altered and the hydrological connection between the historic
wetlands, streams and ground water has been partially lost due to a series of ditches that runs through
the project area
Information on hydnc soils located during investigations, data from groundwater wells currently being
monitored on -site, and topographic information have provided Baker with enough data to propose
approximate boundaries for an additional total of 2 8 acres of wetlands to be restored under this project
_ After completing the proposed stream and wetland restoration practices, these areas will experience a
more natural hydrology and flooding regime and the riparian buffer area will be planted with native
I species woody wetland vegetation that is tolerant of flooded conditions The design approach for the
headwater stream and wetland system will also enhance any potential areas of adjacent fringe or
marginal wetlands through higher water table conditions (elevated stream profile) and a more frequent
_ over -bank flooding regime
�I
;l
17.5.3 Climatic Conditions
The average growing season (defined as the period in which air temperatures are maintained above 28°
Fahrenheit at a frequency of 5 years in 10) for the project locale is 282 days, beginning on February 281h
and ending December 6th (MRCS Beaufort County WETS Station Aurora 6 N, NC0375, 2002) The
area experiences an average annual rainfall of 50 01 inches as shown on Table 17 4 In much of the
southeastern US, average rainfall exceeds average evapotranspiration losses and these areas experience
a moisture excess during most years Excess water leaves a site by groundwater flow, surface runoff,
channelized surface flow, or deep seepage Annual losses due to deep seepage, or percolation of water
to confined aquifer systems, are usually small and are not considered a significant loss pathway for
excess water Although groundwater flow can be significant in some systems, most excess water is lost
via surface and shallow subsurface flow
Table 17.4 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Month
Observed 2012 Monthly
Precipitation (in)
WETS Table Average
Monthly Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed from
Average (in)
January
244
435
-191
February
266
305
-039
March
3 12
420
-108
April
249
327
-078
May
5 86
418
168
June
1 19
475
-356
July
557
583
-026
August
767
645
122
September
399
458
-059
October
419
308
1 11
November
043
287
-244
December
454
340
1 14
Sum
44.15
50.01
-5.86
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -15
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
7/1/2013

17.5.4 Hydrological Characterization
The presence of hydric soils over the project site is evidence that the site historically supported a
wetland ecosystem Like other rural areas in the state, drainage patterns on -site were historically
altered to maximize the availability of arable lands or lands to support livestock Man -made drainage
patterns were added to further dram wetland complexes on -site Evidence of these ditches still exist
today and exert varying degrees of influence on water table hydrology
A total of five pre - restoration groundwater monitoring wells are installed on the Site (see Figure 17 5
for well locations) Three wells (SCAW 1, SCAW2 and SCAW3) are installed along UT2 and two
wells (SCAW4 and SCAW5) are installed along UT3 The five monitoring wells are InfinitiesTM
automated pressure transducers and record groundwater levels four tunes per day All wells were
installed within 50 feet of the existing ditches
Groundwater well data were collected from April 2012 through May 2013, and data for all wells are
presented in Figure 17 6 According to the observed well data, groundwater levels on the Site (SCAW 1
- SCAW5) remained mostly below the existing ground surface during the dormant and growing
seasons The pre - restoration well data indicate that all five monitoring wells did experience variable
fluctuations of groundwater levels during and after measurable ram events After data observations
were completed, these fluctuations were noted to be attributed to a deeper water table where even minor
rainfall inputs have a significant impact on the groundwater levels, which cause the wells to rise and
fall promptly back to pre -storm levels These sensitive reactions to rain events indicate that local
groundwater levels are too deep and have relatively infrequent access to ground surface interaction
It was also noted, during a storm event from May 29 through May 30, 2012 approximately 3.55 inches
of rain fell in the Bath, NC area (reference gauge) According to the on -site well data following this
event, groundwater levels in SCAW2 and SCAW5 exceeded the ground surface by 19 inches and 10 8
inches, respectively It was also noted that the three remaining monitoring wells also recorded an
increase in groundwater levels during this storm event, however, the well data indicate that water levels
in wells SCAW 1, SCAW3 and SCAW4 did not exceed the ground surface
According to the well data for SCAW 1 located on UT2, the data logger recorded water levels
throughout the 2012 growing season mostly below 12 inches from the ground surface During the 2012
dormant season when groundwater levels are normally highest, the SCAW 1 well data were shown to be
below 12 inches from the ground surface from August 2012 until February 2013 Well data recorded
in wells SCAW2 and SCAW3 were found to be similar to well SCAW 1, with the exception that these
wells exhibited higher groundwater levels throughout the 2012 growing season, but also displayed a
relatively dry dormant season
According to the well data for SCAW4 located on UT3, the data logger recorded water levels
throughout the 2012 growing season mostly below 12 inches from the ground surface During the 2012
dormant season when groundwater levels are normally highest, the SCAW4 data logger recorded
groundwater levels to be below 12 inches from the ground surface from August 2012 through
December 2012 Groundwater data recorded in well SCAW5 exhibited higher levels throughout the
2012 growing season, but also displayed a somewhat dry dormant season
In general, the wells exhibited smular trends in water table depth throughout the pre - restoration
monitoring period that reflect seasonal changes in rainfall as well the interaction between the disturbed
stream and man -made drainage ways on -site Average water table levels were at their lowest between
September 2012 and December 2012 when rainfall was average to below average and
evapotranspiration rates began to decrease Water table levels were observed to have spiked in
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -16 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

1
response to significant rainfall events or smaller events that occurred over multiple days The
channelization of the existing streams has kept ground water levels deep in the upstream area of UT2
and UT3, as is demonstrated in the upstream well data
�I
�J
t�
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -17 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.5 Locations of Pre - restoration Monitoring Wells
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -18 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.6 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 1 -3 Compared to Local Rainfall (April 2012 through January 2013)
St. Clair Water Levels Vs. Rain (UT2)
411/2012 5/1/2012 513112012 6/30/2012 7002012 82912012 92 &2012 100 812012 1112'(/2012 1212712012 1202013 2252013 3272013 4262013 5/26/2013
c 0
m
`c 2
a 3
A
1Du
50
C
d
O
N
7
-50
y
r
C
7
-150
3
_O
-250
C
O
m
W
350
450 I -
-55 0
J JJ J J
+GJ�J., J�J� J�J? J? •y J1 J1 J2 J2 �`�J2 ��`�J� �J3 �J3 �J�J �J3 J3
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -23 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.7 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 4 -5 Compared to Local Rainfall (April 2012 through January 2013)
St. Clair Water Levels Vs. Rain (UT3)
4/112012 5/1/2012 Y3112012 6/30/2012 7/30/2012 Or2 9/2012 9128!2012 10!28/2012 11/27(2012 12/27/2012 1/262013 22512013 3727/2013 426/2013 5/26/2013
c 0
C 2
3
4
100 SCAW4 - --SCANS Ground Surface - -12 inches
C
m 00
IN
Z
7
U)
,o
e
0
V
-200
3
O
m
C
-300 —
O
.7
A
W -400
-500
1
-w 0
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -24 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

i
17.5.5 Soil Characterization
Soils at the St Clair Creek Restoration Project site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey
data for Beaufort County The areas proposed for wetland restoration are mapped as hydric soils and
are all mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam Most of UT2 is underlain by Tomotley and Roanoke fine
sandy loamy, which are classified as nearly level, poorly drained soils that are found on depressions on
stream and marine terraces and flats on marine terraces Most of UT3 is also underlain by Tomotley
I i fine sandy loam There are also small fringe areas of Hyde loam and Augusta fine sandy loam Figure
2 3 shows soil conditions throughout the project area and the Soil Series are shown on Table 17 5
U
r
Table 17.5 NRCS Soil Series (Beaufort County Soil Survey, NRCS, 1995)
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Soil Name
Landform
Hydric
Soil
Description
Poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine alluvial
Tomotley fine sandy
Depressions on stream terraces,
yes
sediments Slope ranges from 0 to 1
loam
flats on marine terraces
Permeability is moderate
Poorly drained soils formed in loamy and clayey
Roanoke fine sandy
Broad flats in shallow
yes
marine and fluvial sediments Slope ranges from 0
loam
depressions on stream terraces
to 1 Permeability is slow
/o
Marne terraces and in shallow
Very poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine
Hyde loam
depressions
yes
and fluvial sediments Slope ranges from 0 to 1 %
Permeability is moderately slow
Somewhat poorly drained soils formed in loamy
Augusta fine sandy
Depressions on marine terraces,
yes
marine and fluvial sediments Slope ranges from 0
loam
flats on marine terraces
to 2% Permeability is moderate
To further investigate the soil conditions present on the site, Baker contracted with the Catena Group,
LLC to perform a detailed soils evaluation of the site to determine the depth of hydric soil conditions
and the presence of buried hydric soil layers in the project area A licensed soil scientist conducted a
hydric soils investigation on February 4, 2011 (see Section 19, Appendix E) The report findings
indicate the presence of hydric soils throughout the site, based on boring information and presence of at
least one hydric indicator and observed inclusions
17.5.6 Plant Community Characterization
Currently the majority of the proposed wetland restoration area is comprised of planted Loblolly pine
timber (Pinus taeda) Historically, the project areas have been used as agriculture lands and timber
lands Woody shrub and vine species include Blackberry (Rubus spp ), Greenbrier (Smilax
rotundafoha), and Muscadine (Vitas rotundifolia) Herbaceous species consist of Dog fennel
(Eupatoraum capillifolium), Giant cane (Arundinaraa gigantea), and Netted chainfern (Woodwardia
areolata)
17.6 Reference Wetlands
17.6.1 Wetland Descriptions
Two existing wetland and stream systems that are representative of the system to be restored at the St
Clair Creek Restoration Project site were identified The sites fall within the same climatic,
physiographic, and ecological region as the restoration site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -0
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT
7/1/2013

The first reference site (on -site reference wetland) is located downstream or UT3 along the previously
identified jurisdictional wetland (see Figure 17 10) The reference site is an example of a "Coastal
Plain small stream swamp," as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) These systems exist as the
floodplams of small blackwater or brownwater streams in which separate fluvial features and associated
vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish Hydrology of these systems is palustrine —
interimittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded Stream flows tend to be highly variable, with floods
of short duration, and periods of very low flow Just downstream of the area proposed for the reference
wetland (approximately 400 feet) is National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands along the
same system
The reference site has experienced disturbances in the past, primarily due to timber harvest, however,
cutting of timber occurred long ago, and a mature canopy of vegetation exists across the site, especially
surrounding the stream channel itself Visual evidence also suggests that the hydrology of the site was
minimally affected by timber harvest
Two locations within the reference site were chosen to serve as reference monitoring comparisons for
the St Clair Creek Restoration Project Both sites are located along the downstream wooded wetland
floodplam section of UT3 (see Figure 17 10) This reference site was chosen to represent reference
hydrologic conditions for the riparian wetland areas that will be restored adjacent to the restored
headwater streams
The second reference site (Back Creek reference wetland) is located approximately 2 4 miles from the
St Clair Creek Restoration Project site along wooded wetland floodplam areas of the South Prong of
Back Creek This reference site was chosen to represent reference hydrologic condition for the riparian '
wetland areas that will be restored adjacent to UT2 and UT3 on the St Clair Creek Restoration Project
site This reference site is also an example of a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp," as described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) These systems exist as the floodplams of small blackwater or
brownwater streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly
developed to distinguish Hydrology of these systems is palustrine — intermittently, temporarily, or
seasonally flooded Stream flows tend to be highly variable, with floods of short duration, and periods
of very low flow Reference wells installed at this site fall inside the NWI wetland boundary
This reference site has also been timbered in the distant past, however, a mature canopy exists on the 1
site Visual evidence also suggests that the hydrology of the site was minimally affected by timber
harvest
Two groundwater monitoring wells were installed in this reference wetland in 2008 The wells were
installed in locations to show a range of ground water levels throughout the wetland The following -
sections describe the soils, hydrology, and vegetation for each of these sites
17.6.2 Hydrological Characterization
Both reference sites classify as jurisdictional wetlands, utilizing criteria identified in the USACE 1987
Wetlands Delineation Manual These criteria include the FAC- Neutral Test, oxidized root channels,
and local soil survey data Climatic conditions of the reference site are the same as those described for
the project site (Section 17 5 3) Site hydrology for the on -site reference wetland is controlled primarily
by UT3 that flows through the site and site hydrology for the Back Creek reference wetland is
controlled primarily by the South Prong of Back Creek that also flows through the reference wetland
site Due to the shallow, stable condition of the streams through the sites, high water table conditions
are maintained across the active floodplam for prolonged hydropenods
Ground water monitoring wells will be installed in the on -site reference wetland in April 2013 This
data and data from the Back Creek reference site will be used to compare monitoring results of the
restored wetland areas along UT2 and UT3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Ground water monitoring wells were installed in the Back Creek reference wetland in 2008 Baker has
collected five years (2008 through 2012) of water table hydrology data Water table monitoring wells
+ (RDS WL40 logging units) were installed along the South Prong of Back Creek Table 17 6
summarizes the hydrologic conditions observed at each of the two well locations
As expected, the data indicate that the two monitored locations vary in regards to their hydrologic
IL _' wetness Reference Well 1 was installed near the wetland boundary while Reference Well 2 was
installed well within wetland boundary At the Reference Well 1 area, hydroperiods (defined as a
consecutive period of saturation within the growing season, expressed as a percentage of the growing
season) ranged from 5 7 percent to 23 percent for the data collected For the Reference Well 2 area,
hydropenods ranged from 5 7 percent to 35 8 percent with the years of 2009 through 2011 showing a
greater difference in hydroperiods The hydroperiods documented for both reference wells area are
similar to those that have been collected from other, similar reference systems in the Coastal Plain
� J
i -�
` J
1
'I
i
1 ,
Table 17.6 Reference Wetland Hydrologic Parameters — Back Creek Site
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Percentage of
Most Consecutive
Cumulative
Number of
Gauge ID
Consecutive Days
Days Meeting
Days Meeting
Instances
Meeting
Drought Conditions
During Growing Season s
<12 inches from
Criteria2
Criteria 3
Ground Surface'
Criteria
2008
Reference Well 1
57%
16
57
9
16 7% Normal
214% Abnormally Dry
57 1% Moderate Drought
0
5 7 /0
16
71
12
Reference Well
4 8% Severe Drought
2009
Reference Well 1
89%
25
97
19
45 2% Normal
52 4% Abnormally Dry
Reference Well 2
106%
30
178
11
2 4% Moderate Drought
2010
Reference Well 1
135%
38
47
2
52 4% Normal
38 1% Abnormally Dry
Reference Well 2
167%
47
97
4
9 5% Moderate Drought
2011
Reference Well 1
110%
31
114
11
314% Normal
20 0% Abnormally Dry
114% Moderate Drought
Reference Well 2
35 8%
101
164
2
37 1 /o Severe Drought
2012
23 0% (includes
Reference Well 1
data gap of 26
65
175
12
610% Normal
days) in 2012
22 0% Abnormally Dry
17 1 %Moderate Drought
Reference Well 2
234%
66
187
9
Notes
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -2
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT
7/1/2013

inches or less from the soil surface
'Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches
less from the soil surface
3Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less
from the soil surface
4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 Inches or
less from the soil surface
513rought conditions determined from the NCDENR Division of Water Resources Drought Monitor History
Growing season for Beaufort County is from February 28 to December 6 and is 282 days long
17.6.3 Soil Characterization
The soils found within the on -site reference wetland are mapped primarily of Augusta and Tomotley
fine sandy loams As described in Section 17 5 5, Augusta fine sandy loam soils are classified as
hydric, sandy loam, somewhat poorly drained, and formed in loamy marine and fluvial sediments
Tomotely fine sandy loam soils are classified as hydnc, sandy loam, poorly drained, and formed in
loamy manne alluvial sediments
The soils found within the Back Creek reference wetland are mapped as Augusta fine sandy loam As
descnbed previously, soils are classified as hydric, sandy loam, somewhat poorly drained, and formed
in loamy manne and fluvial sediments
The areas along UT2 and UT3 on the St Clair Creek Restoration Project site proposed for wetland
restoration are also mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam
17.6.4 Plant Community Characterization
Both reference wetland sites exhibit similar vegetation communities Since both sites have been
timbered in the past, both successional species and climax species are present Canopy species include
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa
sylvatica) and various oaks (Quercus spp ) The sub - canopy of the wetland system is often an
expression of the native seed bank Understory species primarily consist of Giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), Wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), Ironwood (Carpinus carohniana), Cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), Fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and Greenbrier (Smilax spp ) The reference sites are
comprised of greater than 50 percent facultative or wetter species, and therefore meet the hydrophytic
vegetation requirement
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -3 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.8 Reference Wetlands Location Map
Jackson
L-
RC
�p
Back Creek
9".E r
. .
v
v
ti
N
Q
Q'
n.'
A Reference Wetland Location
Project Location
On Site
1,J
e.
A
p mli� o Ri' _,
N Figure 17.8
0 3,000 6,000 Reference Wetlands
oFeet Location Map
St. Clair Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-4 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

17.7 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology
The project area is currently drained by the channelized streams UT2 and UT3 along with multiple other
drainage ditches To improve wetland hydrology functions to the site, existing channels will be filled up
to the floodplain elevation thereby restoring its historical connection and improve flow dynamics between
the stream and wetland complex Fill material will be generated on -site from the excavation necessary to
restore the headwater valleys The abandoned sections of channelized stream will be fully to partially
filled to eliminate the drainage effect caused by these features Likewise, any drain tiles and spoil piles
within the fields will be excavated and removed where possible to disrupt drainage from the field When
complete filling of the stream and ditches is not possible, ditch plugs will be installed from compacted
earth Ditch plugs will also be used in locations where the restored stream channel will cross the existing
stream channel
Baker has used these practices on numerous other projects with excellent results Some sections of
existing channel may be only partially filled depending on the amount of fill material that can be
produced These partially filled areas will be discontinuous and will mimic small floodplain pools or tree
throws within the wetland areas that will add to the diversity of habitat on the project site
Grading activities will focus on restoring pre - disturbance valley topography by removing any bedding,
field crowns, surface drains, spoil piles, or swales that were installed during conversion of the land for
agriculture and silviculture In general, grading activities will be minor, with the primary goal of filling
the drainage features on the site back to natural ground elevations and redefining the relic headwater
valley
The topography of the restored site will be patterned after natural riparian wetland reference sites, and
will include the restoration of minor depressions that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and
habitats common to natural wetland areas These techniques will be instrumental to the restoration of site
hydrology by promoting surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing
higher water table conditions across the site In order to improve drainage and increase agricultural
production, farmed wetland soils are often graded to a smooth surface and crowned to enhance runoff
(Lilly, 1981) Wetland mrcrotopography contributes to the properties of forest soils and to the diversity
and patterns of plant communities (Lutz, 1940, Stephens, 1956, Bratton, 1976, Ehrnfeld, 1995)
The restoration design for the wetland is based on a targeted "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" riparian
wetland type, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) Hydrology of this system will be palustrine,
"intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded" The revegetatron plan for the overall riparian system
will native riparian communities identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) that include "Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp" and "Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood"
17.7.1 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetative components of this project include headwater valley, riparian buffer, and riparian
wetland All areas within the conservation easement including the headwater valleys, riparian wetland,
and riparian buffer will planted with the same mix of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation as shown
on the project revegetatron plan sheets (Section 18, Appendix D)
The small area of successional hard wood trees on the left bank at the top of UT3 will be
supplementally planted due to the presence of some mature native vegetation
Bare -root trees will be planted within the conservation easement A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be
established along both sides of the headwater stream centerlme (100 -foot total minimum width) for all
of the proposed stream reaches within the project boundary In many areas, the buffer width will be in
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -5 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

excess of 50 feet along one or both sides of the stream centerline (more than 100 -foot total width) and
will encompass adjacent wetland restoration 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 installed between the last week of November and the third week of March
Selected species for woody revegetation planting are presented in Table 17 7 Tree species selected for
restoration areas will be tolerant of flooding with varying degrees of tolerance Weakly tolerant species
are able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of
time Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil
is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997)
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted as compared to the revegetation plan Specific planting areas will be determined based on these
comparisons, and planted species will be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the
anticipated wetness of the planting area
' Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days Soils across the site will be
prepared by sufficiently disking and/or loosened prior to planting Trees 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 ".1-rooting " Soil will be
loosely compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent roots from drying out
I'
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site Table 17 8 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used A mixture is provided that is suitable for
I headwater stream valley, buffer, and wetland areas Mixtures will also include temporary seeding
(cereal rye or browntop millet) to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders To
provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value, the permanent seed
mixture specified will be applied to all disturbed within the conservation easement The species
provided are deep- rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored streams and in wetlands
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion
These areas include access roads, filled ditches, and spoil piles If temporary seeding is applied from
September through March, cereal rye will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre If
applied from April through August, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate
of 40 pounds per acre
Table 17.7 Proposed Bare -Root Species
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Botanical Name
Common Name _F
% Planted by
Wetland Tolerance
Species
Tree Species
8' X 8" spacing - 408 stems /Acre
Fraxinus pennsylvanlca
Green Ash
6%
FACW
Nyssa sylvatica var
biflora
Swamp Tupelo
9%
FACW+
Quercus michauxit
Swamp Chestnut Oak
12%
FACW-
Quercus laurifoha
Laurel Oak
9%
FACW
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -6 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
6%
OBL
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
6%
FACW -
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
6%
OBL
Ulmus americana
American Elm
6%
FACW
Understory Species
8' x 8' spacing - 272 stems /Acre
Clethra alnifolia
Sweet Pepperbush
4%
FACW
Carpinus carolamana
Ironwood
4%
FAC
Cyrilla racemiflora
Titi
6%
FACW
Magnolia virgimana
Sweetbay Magnolia
6%
FAC -
Persea palustris
Swamp Bay
4%
FACW
Leucothoe racemosa
Swamp Doghobble
6%
FACW
Lyonia lucida
Fetterbush
6%
FACW
Itea virginica
Virginia Sweetspire
4%
FACW+
Note Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting If species
substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the
procurement of plant stock
Table 17.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
St Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No 95015
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Density
lbs /ac
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardn
Big blue stem
10%
1 75
FAC
Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy blue stem
10%
175
FACW+
Carex lupulina
Hop sedge
10%
1 0
OBL
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
10%
10
OBL
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
10%
175
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
15%
1 75
FACW+
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
10%
15
FAC+
Polygonum pennsylvanicum
Smartweed
5%
15
FACW
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
10%
1 5
FACU
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
1 5
FACU
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -7 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

Total 1 100% 1 15
Note Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting If species
substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior
to the procurement of plant stock
17.8 Site Construction
17.8.1 Construction Sequence
A general construction sequence is provided below and included on the plan set for the St Clair Creek
Restoration Project
1 Prior to beginning any land disturbing activities, notification and approval must be granted from
NCDENR Division of Land Resources - Land Quality Section, US Army Corp of Engineers, and
NC Division of Water Quality
2 The Contractor shall contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1 800 632 4949) before any
excavation
3 The Contractor will mobilize equipment and materials to the site using the construction entrances
(shown on the plans) along the farm roads off of Peoples Road Two temporary gravel
construction entrances will be installed
4 The Contractor will utilize existing farm roads and ditch crossings to the extent possible Any
new ditch crossings to be installed will consist of temporary wood mats and shall be approved by
the Engineer prior to installation
5 Contractor will store all equipment and materials in staging/stockpile areas as shown on the plans
6 Silt fence will be installed in locations shown on the plans prior to beginning any land disturbing
activities in that area
7 Contractor shall only clear and grub within the linuts of disturbance and only to the extent
necessary for construction
8 Contractor shall begin construction on UT2 by first installing a temporary rock dam at
approximate station 37 +00
9 Contractor shall then dewater the area upstream of the temporary rock dam using the typical
pump around operation as shown in the details
10 Contractor shall then install the proposed culverts as shown on the plans and repair the farm road
11 Contractor shall then begin valley grading at the downstream end of UT2 and work up valley
disturbing no more area than can be stabilized in one day Contractor shall utilize pump around
operation as necessary in this area and continue grading to approximate station 27 +50
12 Contractor shall then install ditch plug #1 at the upstream end of UT2 to divert water around the
work area
13 Contractor shall continue grading activities working upstream filling ditches and dewatenng as
necessary until approximate station 13 +00
14 Contractor shall then utilize pump around operations as necessary to complete grading activities
15 Immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch per the construction
specifications The Contractor shall not discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley
has been seeded and mulched After the new graded valley has been constructed, stabilized, and
approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then plug and fill the remaining ditches and turn
water into the new graded valley
16 Contractor shall then begin construction on UT3 by mstalling ditch plug #2 as shown on the
plans This ditch plug is temporary and will be used to divert flow around the work area
17 Then the Contractor shall grade the high area as shown at approximate station 21 +40
18 Next, the Contractor shall install the RCP culverts as shown on the plans and repair the farm road
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17-8 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT
I I

19 Contractor shall then begin grading the valley and filling ditches as shown on the plans working
upstream dewatering as necessary to approximate station 10 +50
20 Immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch per the construction
specifications The Contractor shall not discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley
has been seeded and mulched After the new graded valley has been constructed, stabilized, and
approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then install ditch plug #3, plug and fill the
remaining ditches, remove ditch plug #2, and turn water into the new graded valley
21 Any excess excavated material shall be used to elevate the existing farm roads as directed by the
Engineer
22 All areas should be seeded and mulched prior leaving the project reach Remove all temporary
stream crossings All waste material must be removed from the project site
23 The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation, according to planting details and specifications
Reforestation shall be completed at the appropriate time of the year
24 The Contractor shall treat areas of invasive species within the conservation easement boundary
25 The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to
demobilization of equipment from the site
17.8.2 Other Construction Elements
Ditch Plug / Channel Block
A compacted earth plug will be installed by filling the existing ditch to prevent subsurface flows and
improve site hydrology The fill material used for ditch plugs shall come from a nearby borrow area and
be free of debris, rocks, trash, etc and shall consist of compactable soil material
Transplants
Vegetation transplants will be identified before starting construction as viable candidates (species and
size) for uprooting and relocation Areas that must be cleared will maximize the harvesting of
transplants, transplants will be taken from other areas as suitable to enhance the rapid development of
vegetative growth along the constructed channel
Emergency Overflow
Stabilized emergency overflows will be constructed along the existing farm roads in the vicinities of the
proposed culverts to allow large storm flows to overtop the farm roads in a stabilized concentrated area
to prevent damage to the farm roads
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 17 -9 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

,i
18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 18 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT

This page left intentionally blank

ti
N
0 0
Jackson Swamp
PROJECT
AREA
d0l'. E
00
River
VICINITY MAP
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
ST. CLAIR CREEK
RESTORATION PROJECT
_i!
1
i�
i�
1\
111
1;
LOCATION: BEAUFORT COUNTY
OFF OF PEOPLES ROAD NEAR BATH, NC
TYPE OF WORD: STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND
MITIGATION
SHEET 4
if
`UT 2
jk \
SHEET 6
J +1 / OFDGRADE
GRAPHIC SCALES
INDEX OF SHEETS
1
TITLE SHEET
1 -A
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
1 -13
NCDOT CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 - 2 -A
DETAILS
3
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
4 - 7
PLAN VIEW
8 - 9
PROFILE VIEW
10 -11
REVEGETATION PLAN
ECA - EC -6
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
1,141
BEGIN I ONSTRUCTION
OF GRADED VALLEY
PROPOSED RIPARIAN WETLAND CREDITS = 11
UT2 STA 11 +45 78
WMU
_
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA = 11.6
59
ACRES
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
ST. CLAIR CREEK
RESTORATION PROJECT
_i!
1
i�
i�
1\
111
1;
LOCATION: BEAUFORT COUNTY
OFF OF PEOPLES ROAD NEAR BATH, NC
TYPE OF WORD: STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND
MITIGATION
SHEET 4
if
`UT 2
jk \
SHEET 6
J +1 / OFDGRADE
GRAPHIC SCALES
PROJECT DATA
40 20 0 40 80
UT2
UT3
PLANS
DESIGN REACH LENGTH = 2,494
1,278
FEET
40 20 0 40 80
J.
PROPOSED STREAM CREDITS = 2,133
1,141
SMU
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
PROPOSED RIPARIAN WETLAND CREDITS = 11
17
WMU
_
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA = 11.6
59
ACRES
RAW RAW aaIGRA.r RYgoiO "a Nn' 611esi9
INCI 125116 1 1 120111
UT 3 STA 10 +50 00
UT3 STA. 18 +50 00
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF
r�
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
217 WEST JONES STREET
A osystem RALEIGH, NC 27603
a� "�:e�C;RAM
PROGRAM
CONTACT. • HEATHER SMITH
PROJECT MANAGER
S
\\\\11111///77/
C A&
�_� • F� S S io ���
��r3
03 1
I
00
aD
Q
Z
UT 3
N�\
----- - - - - --
�C
UT 2 STA 38 +48 00
PREPARED IN TXE OFFICE OF
Micheal Bakor EnDinoollnp Inc
—R— Pa y S.I. 600
Cory NORTNCAROIINA97516
1 Fhw 010.4635196
F- 919163 5190
U.— 9 F 1091
FALL 2013 I JACOB BYERS, PE
LETTING DATE PROJECT ENGMEER
P ``t
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
BOILS
SUPERCEDES SHEET lE
ROOT WAD
0G0 LOG J -HOOK
® LOG VANE
t LOG WEIR
r� LOG CROSS VANE
FOOT BRIDGE
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
u PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
LOG STEP POOL
—A—
SAFETY FENCE
—TF—
TAPE FENCE
—FP—
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
--{c}—
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— — — — —
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
— — — — —
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
(9 TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
)K TREE REMOVAL
25`
TREE PROTECTION
Percent Planted
by Species
CHANNELBLOCK
®
TRANSPLANTS
10%
CHANNEL FILL
"NOTE ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
GENERAL NOTES r -✓ 'PROJECT ENGINEER
1 WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN PRELIMINARY PLANS
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE Bo Nor U58 POR CONsmucr10N
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK
2 CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN FALL 2013
3 CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE- CALL" BEFORE
EXCAVATION STARTS (1- 800 - 632 -4949) 611ch66l Baker EnBinearin8 in,
8 Rp. Pa y 5.1.800
Cvy IIORTHC OUNA07516
PNm.01Y1055188
F-0104 8190
Lk—. F 1061
O�'F ES S� p'`l
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ; 2.. 1 � / . "
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL= U 3/ 0 ,y�
MARCH 2009 ,� j • .6��
6 06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE / o ®,M
6 62 SILT FENCE
VEGETATION SELECTION
The following table lists the legetatlon selection for the project site Total planting area is approximately 17 5 acres Exact placement of
species shall be determined In the field and based on apparent wetness of planting locations and per the %egetation specialist The entire
easement area shall be planted All bare -root species shall be planted at a density of 680 stems per acre at an 8' )G' spacing
670 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures for the restoration site shall be planted throughout the ffoodplain, the graded valley and buffer areas
Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures shall be applied with temporary seed as defined In the construction specifications Permanent seed
shall be applied at a rate of 1 5 Ibs /acre
Permanent Seed
Botanical Name
Tree Species
Percent Planted
by Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardn
Big blue stem
10%
FAC
Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy blue stem
Approx Number
FACW+
Carex lupulina
Hop sedge
10%
Percent Planted
of Stems Per
Fox sedge
10%
Botanical Name
Common Name
by Species
Acre
Wetland Tolerance
Juncus effusus
Fruxmus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
6%
41
FACW
10%
Nyssa sylvatica var bi lora
Swamp Tupelo
9%
61
FACW+
Schizachynum scopanum
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
12%
81
FACW -
10%
Quercus launfolia
Laurel Oak
9%
61
FACW
Quercus lyrata
O%ercup Oak
6%
41
OBL
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
6%
41
FACW -
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
6%
41
OBL
Ulmus amencana
American Elm
6%
41
FACW
Total
60%
408
Understory Species
C
Approx Number
v
a
Percent Planted
of Stems Per
o
Botanical Name
Common Name
by Species
Acre
Wetland Tolerance
X
Clethra alnifolia
Sweet Pepperbush
4%
27
FACW
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
4%
27
FAC
Cynlla racemdlora
Titr
6%
41
FACW
N
Magnolia virginiana
Sweelbay Magnolia
6%
41
FAC -
cParsee
palustas
Swamp Bay
4%
27
FACW
a
Leucolhoe racemosa
Swamp Doghobble
6%
41
FACW
C
Lyonia lucide
Fetterbush
6%
41
FACW
Itea wrgmica
Virginia Sweetsplre
4%
27
FACW+
n
M
Total
40%
272
670 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures for the restoration site shall be planted throughout the ffoodplain, the graded valley and buffer areas
Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures shall be applied with temporary seed as defined In the construction specifications Permanent seed
shall be applied at a rate of 1 5 Ibs /acre
Permanent Seed
Botanical Name
Common Name
Percent Planted
by Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardn
Big blue stem
10%
FAC
Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy blue stem
10%
FACW+
Carex lupulina
Hop sedge
10%
OBL
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
10%
OBL
Elymus wrgimcus
Virginia wild rye
10%
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
15%
FACW+
Panicum wrgatum
Switchgrass
10%
FAC+
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Smartweed
5%
FACW
Schizachynum scopanum
Little blue stem
10%
FACU
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
FACU
Total
100%
The following table lists temporary seed species for the project site
Botanical Name Common Name Rate Dates
Secale cereal Cereal Rye 130 Ibs /acre September to March
Pamcum remosum Browntop Millet 40 Ibs /acre April to August

a
*S U E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
ROADS & RELATED ITEMS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBO
Edge of Pavement
— — — -
MINOR
Curb
_ _ _ _
Head & End Wall
Prop Slope Stakes Cut
_ _ _ C _ _ _
Pipe Culvert
Prop Slope Stakes Fill
_ _ - F _ - -
Footbridge
Prop. Woven Wire Fence
E) E)--
Drainage Boxes
Prop Chain Link Fence
B —B--
Paved Ditch Gutter
Prop Barbed Wire Fence
— — _ - Recorded Gas Line _
_ —G------ - C
Prop Wheelchair Ramp
CAj
Designated Gas Line (S U E *) -
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp
cr
UTILITIES
Exist. Guardrail
—S—s P
Exist Pole
Prop Guardrail
Recorded Power Line C
Exist. Power Pole
Equality Symbol
}
Prop Power Pole
Pavement Removal
Exist Telephone Pole
®
Prop Telephone Pole
RIGHT OF WAY
Exist Joint Use Pole
Baseline Control Point
A
Prop Joint Use Pole
Existing Right of Way Marker
Telephone Pedestal _
Exist Right of Way Line w/Marker
UVG Telephone Cable Hand Hold
Cable TV Pedestal
Prop Right of Way Line with Proposed
UiG N Cable Hand Hold
R/W Marker (Iron Pin & Cap)
U/G Power Cable Hand Hold
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
Hydrant
(Concrete or Granite) R/W Marker
Satellite Dish
Exist Control of Access Line
Exist Water Valve
---------
���%
Sewer Clean Out
Prop. Control of Access Line
��
Power Manhole
Exist Easement Line
_ _ _ _E_ _ _ _
Telephone Booth
Prop Temp. Construction Easement Line
E
Cellular Telephone Tower
Prop Temp Drainage Easement Line
—IDE—
Water Manhole
Light Pole
Prop Perm. Drainage Easement Line
—PK—
H -Frame Pole
HYDROLOGY
Power Line Tower
Pole with Base
Stream or Body of Water
- -
Gas Valve
River Basin Buffer
— RBB—
Gas Meter
Flow Arrow
- -
Telephone Manhole
Disappearing Stream
}- -
Power Transformer
Spring
0--/
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Swamp Marsh
&
Storm Sewer Manhole
Shoreline-
- - - - - - -
Tank, Water, Gas, Oil
Falls, Rapids
-- - i ----
Water Tank With Legs
Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches
Traffic Signal Junction Box
e FYA
Fiber Optic Splice Box
STRUCTURES
Television or Radio Tower
MAJOR
Utility Power Line Connects to Traffic
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert
caNC
C ]
Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall
and End Wall
)CONC WW(
® ® %jild1111.4/ rLaNb ro
;C, VAC r:
LS , 9.0--f
. NQ1 5 vy ILDINGS & OTHER CULTURE
Recorded Water Line �
�/1f �O- 8` ings
co,-� Designated Water Line (SUE *) o
off I '
% Foundations r
rJ
-- = _ ; Sanitary Sewer —
— ss—ss— A
Area Outline �
�^?
>- - - - _ _ _ < Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main -
-mss -rss— G
Gate
cu Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.0 E
E *) —,ss -rss— G
Gas Pump Vent or UIG Tank Cap o
o
— — _ - Recorded Gas Line _
_ —G------ - C
Church C
CAj
Designated Gas Line (S U E *) -
--0- -o- _ S
School
Storm Sewer —
—S—s P
Park —
—
Recorded Power Line C
Cemetery }
}
® Desi Hated P o
+ Sign
b Recorded Telephone Cable
-0. Designated Designated Telephone Cable (S U E *) Well
� Recorded U/G T.I. hone Conduit Small Mine
11 -- TC —Ic-
4. Designated L /G Telephone Conduit (S U E. *) _ _Tt__,c- -
-& Unknown Utility (S U E *) — TLITL -9UIL-
111 Recorded Television Cable
c
Designated Television Cable (S U E. *)
Recorded Fiber Optics Cable — ro —ro-
® Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.0 E
Exist Water Meter 0
YJ USG Test Hole (S U E *)
O Abandoned According to UIG Record ATTUR
End of Information E."
b
O
0
0
O
8
O
P9
pug
0
BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES
State Line
County Line
Township Line
City Line
Reservation Line
Property Line
Property Line Symbol
Exist. Iron Pin
Property Corner
Property Monument
Property Number
Parcel Number
Fence Line
Existing Wetland Boundaries
High Quality Wetland Boundary
Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries
Proposed Wetland Boundaries
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries
n
0
1123
6
—x X—X-
WW 8 ISeW
— —WLB— —
—HO WLB—
—fro WLB-
-LO WLB--
WLB
- EAB — -
-EPB— —
Swimming Pool
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface
Hard Surface
Change in Road Surface
Curb
Right of Way Symbol
Guard Post
Paved Walk
Bridge
Box Culvert or Tunnel
Ferry
Culvert
Footbridge
Trail, Footpath
Light House
Single Tree
Single Shrub
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard
Vineyard
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost
Switch
VEGETATION
RAILROADS
0
O
W
it
R/W I
O GP
..............
0
0
00,DOOa
F— VINEYARD 1
f5f iN1YSlg9fAfA11
Yl(0 u
O
b
O
0
0
O
8
O
P9
pug
0
BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES
State Line
County Line
Township Line
City Line
Reservation Line
Property Line
Property Line Symbol
Exist. Iron Pin
Property Corner
Property Monument
Property Number
Parcel Number
Fence Line
Existing Wetland Boundaries
High Quality Wetland Boundary
Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries
Proposed Wetland Boundaries
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries
n
0
1123
6
—x X—X-
WW 8 ISeW
— —WLB— —
—HO WLB—
—fro WLB-
-LO WLB--
WLB
- EAB — -
-EPB— —
Swimming Pool
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface
Hard Surface
Change in Road Surface
Curb
Right of Way Symbol
Guard Post
Paved Walk
Bridge
Box Culvert or Tunnel
Ferry
Culvert
Footbridge
Trail, Footpath
Light House
Single Tree
Single Shrub
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard
Vineyard
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost
Switch
VEGETATION
RAILROADS
0
O
W
it
R/W I
O GP
..............
0
0
00,DOOa
F— VINEYARD 1
f5f iN1YSlg9fAfA11
Yl(0 u
O

01
v
N
m
x
N
a
GRADED VALLEY
PERMANENT ROAD CULVERT CROSSING
FARM PATH
(2) 36' RCP
FLOW _
FARM PATH SIDE SLOPES TO BE 3 1 OR LESS
AND MATTED WITH EROSION CONTROL MATTING
EXISTING DITCH
EMERGENCYOVERFLOW LINED WITH
FILTER FABRIC AND 2' THICK LAYER OF
WELL GRADED A11X OF CLASS A AND
FARM PATH SIDE SLOPES CLASS B RIP RAP SEE DETAIL
TO BE 31 OR LESS
PLAN VIEW
Imc
NOTES
1 CULVERTS TO BE SET TO THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN & PROFILE
2 CULVERTS MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 2 OF COVER ADJUST ROAD GRADE TO ENSURE
THE COVER REQUIREMENT IS MET
SECTION VIEW
P
TYPICAL GRADED VALLEY
e'p111111 /j/
CARD �irr
—
SE(AL3 r;
:E t 0„3920
VALLEY WIDTH 40' 60'
�1
05 5 (MIN)
SECTION VIEW
ROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT USE FOR CONSIAUCTION
Michael Baker Engln66ring Inc
a000R.a..1Yp_y CWb600
SO C.ry NORUI tAROIINA ]1616
r EI n. a1a1a161aa
F.c 91910.1 UN
Ixenu • F 1061
NOTES
1 GRADE VALLEY TO DESIGN GRADES SHOWN ON PROFILE
2 MICROTOPOGRAPGHY IS ALLOWED TO FORM NATURALLY
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
INVERT ELEVATION TO
BE 1 ABOVE TOP OF PIPE
FARM PATH 1, ELEVATION FARM PATH
2. THICK LAYER OF WELL `-
GRADED MIX OF CLASS A= �;_l -::)j rroJu I�-
AND CLASS B RIP RAP
TYPE II FILTER FABRIC PIPE

i
C
E
e
C
m
a
m
x
a
m
to
N
i
O
a
m
0
0
0
10
T� -
ot0
c'"
moo:
PROJECT REFERENCE NO I SHEET NO
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
11 -A
PLAtITINYS
PROJECT ENGINEER
NOTES.
1 PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE (MOTH OF THE
BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS
2 ALLOW FOR 8-10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS DEPENDING ON SIZE
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION ROOTASS AND SOIL MATERIAL
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NtYT uaR FOR COxbTRUCI7ON
TOP OF STREAMBANK 4 PLANT N HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE PLANTING BAR
OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS
5 PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND MADE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TOP OF STREAMBANK
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J ROOTING
6 KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLAT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS BURLAP OR STRAW
7 HEEL IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE
1
Mic gal Baker Inc
(
- woo 11 O - P.M.' 800
�vno . ote "i aunt ^:JSie
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION ROOTAASS AND SOIL
MATERIAL
Fv ete stea
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
\ \ TOE OF BANK
�w
U.—r F coat
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
`- -- — —
NOTES
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANKTO BE STABILIZED THAT
1 ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TOB BE LL
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK
2 EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER
EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CANNOT BE
CROSS SECTION VIEW
EXCAVATE IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE
AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED
3 STABILIZED 50 THAT
LA n GS NOTES
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY
1 WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED PLAT OR SHRUB
4 FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT
5 ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED
DIG THE HOLE 8.12 INCHES LARGER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE
POT AND THE SAME DEPTH AS THE POT
6 PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
2 REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT LAY THE PLANT ON ITS SIDE
IF NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTSS
A
THEY TOUCH
3 IF THE PLAT IS ROOTBOUND (ROOTS GROWING IN A SPIRAL
_
AROUND THE ROOT BALL) MAKE VERTICAL CUTS WITH A KNIFE
TOP OF STREAMBANK OR SPADE JUST DEEP ENOUGH TO CUT THE NET OF ROOTS
ALSO MAKE A CRISS -CROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL
4 PLACE THE PLANT IN THE HOLE
5 FILL HALF OF THE HOLE WITH SOIL (SAME SOIL REMOVED FOR BACKFILL)
® `
6 WATER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL THE REST
OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL
/ ® ®
TOP OF BANK
®
TOE OF BANK
_® —
i
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
PLAN VIEW
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING
CHANNEL BLOCK
DITCH PLUG
DITCH TO BE PLUGGED
NEW CHANNEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED
NOTE.
FLOW
COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT
IN 10 INCH LIFTS
9 ?s
CAR����i,
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL �
�`
®'_'ei®
y
tea\\ ®�����
\
PLAN VIEW
�\
PLAN VIEW
a O 2
'
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL o'A a
`
COMPACTED BACKFILL 16'MINIMUM B m1,•
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1 5• MINIMUM
FINISH GRADE
1 ,
•
FINISH GRCE
, .
NEW STREAMBANK SHALL BE
1
t `
TREATED AS SPECIFIED IN PLANS
-
`
DITCH INVERT
-
r FLOW
�•
CHANNEL INVERT
`
COMPACTED BACKFILL
SECTION A - R
COMPACTED BACKFILL
PROFILE VIEW

CONSTRUCTION SIEGU ENC E
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
A Baker Engineering Ptoject Manager will piovtde construction observation during the construction phase of this pi oject The following
construction sequence shall be used during implementation of the plan
1 Prior to beginning any land disturbing activities, notification and approval must be granted fiom NCDENR Division of Land
Resouices - Land Quality Section, US Army 61 of Engineers, and NC Division of Water Quality
2 The Contractor shall contact North Caiolma "One Call" Center (1 800 632 4949) before any excavation
3 The Contractor will mobilize equipment and materials to the site using the construction entrances (shown on the plans) along
the farm roads off of Peoples Road Two temporary gravel construction entrances will be installed
4 The Conhactoi will utilize existing farm roads and ditch etossi ngs to the extent possible Any new ditch crossings to be
installed will consist of temporary wood mats and shall be approved by the Engmee► prior to installation
5 Contractor will store all equipment and mateiials in staging/stockpile aicas as shown on the plans
6 Silt fence will be installed in locations shown on the plans prior to beginning any land disturbmg activities in that aica
7 Contractor shall only clear and grub within the limits of disturbance and only to the extent necessary for construction
8 Conhactor shall begin construction on UT2 by first installing a temporary rock ddnn at approximate station 37 +00
9 Contractor shall then dewatci the arca upsticam of the tcmpoiaiy rock dam using the typical pump around operation as shown
m the details
10 Contractor shall then install the RCP culverts as shown on the plans and iepau the firm road
11 Contractor shall then begin valley grading at the downstream end of UT2 and work up valley disturbing no mote aced than can
be stabilized in one day Contractor shall utilize pump around operation as necessary in this area and continue grading to
approxmiate station 27 +50
12 Contractor shall then install ditch plug #1 at the upstream end of UT2 to divert water around the work area
13 Contractor shall continue grading activities working upstream filling ditches and dewatetrng as necessary until approximate
station 13 +00
14 Contractor shall then utilize pump around operations as necessary to complete grading activities
15 immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch pci the construction specifications The Contractor shall not
discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley has been seeded and mulched After the new graded valley has been
constructed, stabilized, and approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then plug and fill the remaining ditches and turn
water into the new graded valley
16 Contractor shall then begun construction on UT3 by installing ditch plug #2 as shown on the plans This ditch plug is
temporary and will be used to divert flow around the work area
17 Then the Conti actor shall glade the high area as shown at approximate station 21 +40
18 Next, the Contractor Slndll install the RCP culverts as shown on the plans and iepair the faiin load
19 Contractor shall then begin grading the valley and filling ditches as shown on the plans working upstream dewatering as
necessary to appi oximate station 10 +50
20 immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch pci the construction specifications The Contractor shall not
discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley has been seeded and mulched After the new graded valley has been
constructed, stabilized, and approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then install ditch plug #3, plug and fill the
remaining ditches, remove ditch plug #2, and turn water into the new graded valley
21 Any excess excavated material shall be used to elevate the existing fame roads as duected by the Engmect
22 All areas should be seeded and mulched prior leaving the project reach Remove all temporary stream crossings All waste
material must be removed from the project site
23 The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation, according to planting details and specifications Reforestation shall be
completed at the appropriate time of the year
24 The Contractor shall ti eat areas of invasive species within the conservation casement boundary
25 The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of equipment from the
site
0W IM R 11�oi
O!
;4 E/ ,
;Q• A13
0 920
Illt

if
M
co
0
z
10+00 INV. • CK
1
�' ptit REMOVE
EXISTING
115" CMP-'
� 11�1�11 1 1 IIII
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 ,
11
1,
•CARD
s
0 9
%may' . Q• E .• Qy`�
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOP USE POR MISIRUMON
Mlehael 91keT Englneering Inc
- tc00 RN P•Mal summ
t•y NORTH CNOIINA PSNe
s PM 9104 .
1-9Ie1e16 w
U.—r v Im
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF GRADED VALLEY UT2 STA 11 +45 78/� Ok00 x y
FLARE OUT UNTIL THE ENTIRE VALLEY WIDTH IS CONSTRUCTED,
AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS AT APPROXIMATE STA 12 +15 00 "� �` o
FILL EXISTING
DITCH _ a
i
i 17 +00
16XI3D
DITCH PLUG
14 *00 i G�
13-00 \ E
DI7CHPL-UG - - - - - -- — = -- __S—
DITCH PLUG
NOTES,
1 UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND
WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING
DIFFUSE FLOW
2 TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE
RESTORED VALLEY
3 USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING
FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
4 CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED
CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS
5 TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY
O FILL EXISTING DITCH
® DITCH PLUG
PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

FILL EXISTING
REMOVE EXISTING
18" PLASTIC PIPE-
32' PP
INV, 3.09 -
INV2' 3P
r
12' PR
�
INV 3.591
REMOVE EXISTING
PLASTIC PIPE'
IP '
� 1
24 +00
I. A7 23,030 = �� -)
x
'9
�x'y�
000 �
O Q
i
1AR,
�/ 1
/ DITCH PLUG
1 3 G4' O
II �
W
— TIE EXISTING DITCH TO
GRADED VALLEY AS DIRECTED
B THE ENGINEER
\/ 25 *00 \ \ DIITCHXISTING
r
'.
z FILL E)�ISTING
\ \ DI ,
l t„� DITCH PLUG �12' PP ` `
NV, 3 53� OVE EXISTING
REMOVECIS- G RE f �N,n \� M
o� �� t \ 12" PLASfIO PIP �s '� `l`3 12 PLASTIC PIPE
\t1 \�►� \ \ X� FILL EXISTING
DITCH \
INV. 2 37 INV. 2.34' a
FILL EXISTING i �\ 2
1 / �i �'" \ �� 1i�P r
DITCH / � / ^m ��`,. �\�\� 29.} O- INV. 2.3 O \
INV. 2.27'\
12' PP
INV 193'
_ _ x
NOTES
1 UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND
WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING
DIFFUSE FLOW
2 TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE
RESTORED VALLEY
3 USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING
FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
4 CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF T OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED
CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS
5 TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY
0!Z� ®®1;.��gg j • , /yip
•- 0 2
O • 1
%ems/ ``��•� , �.y w'rxO - ��6
cz
FILL EXISTING, �` \f��i 32+
DITCH 1 REMOVE EXISTING o, ;� 00 [
12" PLASTIC PIPES j Kati
D Z
rn
PROPOSED WETLAND �' `��
RESTORATION AREA o
m
IF
FILL EXISTING DITCH
DITCH PLUG
Rem PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
E
CE

}
{
l �
I�
c'
P
I
c
t
PROPOSED WETLAND
RESTORATION AREA
INSTALL (2) 40' - 36" RCP'S
INVERT IN ELEV 3 7'
INVERT OUT ELEV 3 6'
SET RCP'S 0 & BELOW THE BED ELEVATION
END CONSTRUCTION
OF GRADED VALLEY
UT3 STA 18 +50 00
h
2 0°
C'j �36'7C 'L
M ` V, Z I9'
Z M �34�` I O �f v Rep v REf�110VE- EXISTING
`_ Jf N 18L' CMP
Z Co ' 4 QQ
35+ �3 18- CMP\ \
Ci �_ �` �— `�INV 199' 2' all �- � INV 0.22
3 �
J REMOVE `tX I� / ce C
6. ,too
'AR A _ J
`` �J TIEff XISTING DITCH TO ���� ^= 1��GEdI
I
�—g G DIRECTED
BYTHE ENGINEER
_2� M
REMOVE [STING
32" CMP'S-
�`1
NOTES
1 UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND
WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING
DIFFUSE FLOW
2 TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE
RESTORED VALLEY
3 USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING
FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
4 CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED
CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS
5 TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY
6 UT3 FROM APPROXIMATELY STA 19 +50 TO STA 22 +78 SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED EXCEPT
TO GRADE THE HIGH AREA AT APPROXIMATE STA 21 +40 TO FILL THE EXISTING DITCH
M
vracST NES E
�? o 00 1
I 00 PROPOSED
1 -F /� REfLOCATRD
O ' / FARM PATH
_ O
INSTALL 20' WIDE
EMERGENCY OVFFLOW
I _ Xp- —� AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS
I �l F
ICI 15\�\` \``o� �jk\
P
END CONST6 CTION s
OF GRADEDO&LEY
UT2 STA 36V 00
INST L I (2) 40' - 36" RCP'S
INVE T N ELEV 0 1'
�\ JNVE�T UT ELEV 0 0' \ \
-SET �S 0 6' BELOW THE BED ELEVATION
\ I�
INSTALL 20' WIDE EMERGENCY \
OVERFLOW AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS
/ 32' CMP\
32' CHIP INV 0.10' t�
INV. 0.87'
1 �
f
I
I
1
\ CAR��� /i
O
;Eea
0 2
I
M
00
Q
Z
GRADE HIGH AREA AND
BLEND INTO SURROUNDING
TOPOGRAPHY
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USB POR CONBrROf.T
I 200CRq.,-YP Engineering lnc I
- 6000 RepRM AROLII 6275 000
Pe. NORM CMot i15f6
• 1- 91010.t616t66
Pas PIP t6J M
uceve r P fau
EXISTING VIETLAND DELINEATED BY OTHERS
NO PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY IMPACTS
ARE ANTICIPATED
O FILL EXISTING DITCH
® DITCH PLUG
�! PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

1
TEMPORARY
DITCH PLUG
04V7
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
OF GRADED VALLEY
UT3 STA 10 +50 00
CE
\ FILL EXISTING
\ DITCH
ILL
EXISTING 00
DITCH
�`0 ®`tt t rI ►►►ii
ANN A c4 O i
°d
'�
0 2
a
e
REMOVE EXISTING 15" CMP
REPAIR FARM ROAD BACK TO
15, clip THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION
INV 3 21'- CONDITION OR BETTER
DITCH PLUG 15' (.MP
r INV. 3.36'
E \\ \ \-\
r \\A
\�\ REMOVE EXISTING 32" RCP
REPAIR FARM ROAD BACK TO
THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION
dONDITION OR BETTER
'I. RCP
INV, 2 83'
\ \ FILL EXISTING
\ DITC} � \
.* 1 4 �k I A .4:
a
4 t
�k I
4m
32* RCP
INV 3 42'
lb
\ r
O FILL EXISTING DITCH
EM DITCH PLUG
PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
PROPOSED WETLAND
RESTORATION AREA
9Jf
NOTES
1 UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND
/
WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING
DIFFUSE FLOW
2 TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE
RESTORED VALLEY
3 USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING
FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
'
q
4 CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED
CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS
'
5 TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
�y
EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY
a
4 t
�k I
4m
32* RCP
INV 3 42'
lb
\ r
O FILL EXISTING DITCH
EM DITCH PLUG
PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION

r
-a
rs
s
U
a
n
i
r
c
a
i
c
e
C
dD
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
1195116
PROJECT ENGINEER
12
_ _ "`ly
-II-L)
i i
-�
GRADE (DITCH
- -10_ ±zl5
ELF =F6 �0' .7`I"'_
0i
I
LBOTTOM_
L
L 1_I 1J
rl
l
�I�y_
-' L
1 -=I
.t T
I
Fw
f
�_
1
- `l]"'
_1iL
-- -
_
I
_
rI I
- - -
%I
_� F I - ]�l^`F
} IIJ
'�-'
I F
_ I J
-f
"_ _ } -1_�_
1 -[I
1
I,,
I
�jFl_
I•
I-I
y ; -i-N
1_ 1_
- --- -i -�
-
_
- 1 i _
}_ �I
r---
I 'r --
f-
_
I
IT} I
-
LF,-�
--..
; r
1�.
I
--
}
"F
-r
_i
'FI r
..L _
ri,TI,mL„r,•�
c
_ _ #_
-- -' I_F-i
, �`
�
I
'_�"'
-} -}.t
-
I�
I_I
;-
F"I
��I �,TTr-,*
I r'-f
f,.._-��}
1,-•
'
I , !!,f
" t
-�
+' i31
-' - cJx.
'- I
-I I- II-
I
--,�
_L
- 1
i
!-I
I
i 1�
I
I 1
r,t
-{.. }
I
-
le
_ _I_i
.: --
1
=
-
J
i
,I
I
�.L
f
���
1
- -f
-�) =t
1_
�'-I-'-
t-
'
�
}-
-i
-
-^fiT
t
�
-1-r
i
I -
I
--
-
_
-
_
_`•1_
-�j ,
-
} -Ft.
F --
_=
F
_
L i
J r
:-•
I
�`
_
_� _
t
���
_
IJ
_
-L
,
--
I`
1
-
ARY PLANS
DO NOT U56 POR CONMUMON
i
i,.�
�I.-
t- --'
t
-- --
-
I t
I
L
L
Lt- -I
�I
i
_t
k 1
_
$ �LL
" _ «t
��IIt�
F -;
I
rr �`I
T I-#'IIiT
_ f' 1 1 1�,.
�t -r t
I-
r
i
1��
�r'4
�-If1I
-TII-
4
_� I
'-
_� «�I
_F fT
I I I^
tel
In1_J1LII(_111
F �If
1 - I -I� } -7
-rl_'f — rrrr'r
f -1 I_- tt�-
1_I_!_I�!,.r��1-
1
111 -{
(�- �!�_}�°_�II1-- �r}�I,-
S
-=
-
L-m.
-1-
SIT
i- IIL�tL�_t�1_
-tl .1•�-
-r
1
I_a_
-1� I - _r
! 1._L_L
r i I -�I l�•
rr,
i I
L.- rl�`�-�
+1 -7 _1J_!__'
Tt I t
-r ^, - 1-r
LL
}�
i- rr
LLL
T I_
^ °,
f
I 3f
-1
i- i-t-f��T�'I
(-
_ =
[
� I-�
6 ,_�'=
f 1!
I
Issue
, _ 1
,
LI.,
��
} -}` 11"x`,
��CISTINGiG
'
-41�.
r_I-
-�
L;.,t.l
1 Lt_
I
�
°
1 �
(Trl`y
l-
�,
-}j
I ' rI
_
_ ��,
��F-i- t-i-
'j'T IyI
-IlTi I
-.��
I -IJ.�_
i,,,_
C-H
,
=I
I
I�-
I_L�
I-
4-i�1-
I I
I
l
( rl
1
�l
I,�-i
_LEI
!-r-1
��}--
��yy
--
I i_����-II
i- i-
1-
-�-��I
'-
d
1--t-
, �
i -F=-F
I ��J�_L[1_i_
I
�
70,
' '
}-I
i
[
'
irk
_
_
�'
f`-�-
1-5�I
I A
_ -IJ
IF' -}
I_
T'
L
I I
-
-
_�
-
_
-
-
I�
[�
'
c
-
�1-1�'7-
r
_�'�
GL:J=
J_
i�L�_}
I,,,[f
F
-
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
pv0d 5.l Boo
}_
4 _ ,
- --
1 I
,_ , �=
(,I __
yi L
�..� �
�YtTi
}'
I_I
1 _I-
L
-�rl --
I- '`�-
J L IJ__
}
1
r� -��-
J_ _
I -t Tit-,
1 - ,��+i -ri-r - --
_ITT- I— '�=
I l T t L,
r LI__ i I r r
=LL -r-i� -
l�LL�� � I
r
`�!fT
I I'i_
- _
}
Fl
TL
,
,
I
r
,
-I I I
=�=��-
1 f JJ �_LL4
�_ J a�_
- -' - --
1 I _ I d
.� =s
LI I
_�- i
-I
I r I
i'1
-
;- !I=
DESIGNLUALLEY
1!"'
-
1- ! _�
I- ,= {- ' -ti
-;
_I_
(✓
I�_
I J_
1 i_ _
_r�-L1
_
_ T_
1_
'
I _
__I
i-
"I_
ty- �-tp
_4
-f
S�__
1 -ri-
-i-i-}
-`-
-
-
J_
--C___
r +�
__
I+I
---
f I-I
--
rJ__I_
}`r�
--
-
}
I --
-
--
_
I_
_I_
-
__
„L
-'
}_ I
--
,
. �.,. nonT'i,cuto iiu
alp, 919 GQls.ae
al�ae.err,oa.
-
0�_.�
-r
-
�
I'
I _�
_
r?_
-I --
L
- �-
CONSTRUCTION
OF; GRADED- ALLEY,--
UT3 =ST 11 ±45`78r
,
i rt- -
I T
�_ r = -t- --
r t 1 --
-'- -�x
_i riz` -L l_
--
{ I- f'-
--r
I ..I
t I t -
^1=
! -�
J-'
f - -
T�
-f =l�
-
-- i -I
- -I
I_
---1-
-
-
I��-
�!__��_!
�- 1-
-
-r -I
I���
- - - I _
L
-- �--I•�'-
-
IyL
r
�
-1 I -Fr�F
i
}
LL`
L
A�
} 3
-F-
_- I I
_�I
rI--
i
} -)-
f----
� -
-
- - -_�-
!
- -
t`L ('I
- _
-
�
! i
-
} f �-
�,
�t
-
��l�I
=1
-
`II
f
- -
�_
}-
-
�`
I'
- }
i
- {{`L- .{II'`
--
-j_ 1
I -
--
!
_
-
_
t-
I
�I
- -I
!
_L
}
--
_
l
_ _
�
.-
r
t
# ►-
-I
r_L=
f
h
,
- - I
!
I
-)
I-
f
�I
i
i -
-
- -
-
�
--
_[
-,.+
I Ida
��
�� �: �' -'' 1 I �`
_'•r•;, {-# % _
3
�j• t�r �_�� � Z /
��'' jai r I -' �'L
-4
7
tn
a}al
-
I
--
I _1.11_
I� rl
I-
_
,Y
r i'
'
!
1
`
I_ _
1
f�r!-
-
I i _
i r1
F-j 1��
I- -}-
I_ t-
_
r -�_
-
LLI � a r-
- }�� rr�_3''C''1_�I.
' -F LTI�
- _I �_I
I yLL_IT
F
{.
_L
_..f`
,.��r_
1 r
-�-} ��Jt,��.�
,��
I r I _
_� -i - __j
` 1
1�_�, sC
^lyl I_1 f
t -' -1� =t_
;' ��
- -Ij
I�rl
I
_#_�__.,�.
-{-17-
- t_I�IJ_
I
I-
I.I_
I_rI`
L` ti�
- -
-
I r�a_I
-t I
}�l
_ = j='•-�
!
-If -I�
J I_I_I,.1
# --'_
}
-�I_ _
tip}
_�L
} i ,
�'-
_ I
! -- -
I_
--
fi_
I
I 1 i•!
- -I-1
)
_ }
I r
- -
i I �
1
r-
I _'_
I
-I- �
L J
i L
I
_I-
I_e �1
!- -�
I '
`�
! f
-��
Ij�
- -#-'-
- 1-I
_ Lf
I}
I I r
-��
1
I
I_, -�-
--
_ f�
P
-
I --
L
F
I
I
-
-t
i _L
-
-
I
I t
rl. ���_
�-
}_
I
-- -°
I f!
i
I
I
I_
- -I
I
_�
_-
t
�i_�
-
-
-I-
-
-1
ali_I
I
-
I_}
-I-
r
)f1I
I}
-
f 1 f
I• _t_
't�
' �--
I -
(r
1 I
11 -
r
_
-
i
I! L[�r
-
a
1{11
!_�I
—
T
--
-
�_
_ -
-
L�1
t-I I1
J'
-��- �-
-`-i'
-
-
�',
�i•l! -I
.� �_
- 4
�A;--
-O ' - ' }� J
--�� 9L } -• }-�
;
00
o Q'J�
-� a °n.
r
r -I-
(
I—
O^ -I
F _ N CO I }I-�III
Lr -+ 10 -1'i7
__
11
i -�+
r`
Op
p O1
U7
f
-
1I
I�i-i
rTi
i OM
'T N
,-Y -+
I_
F -
f0 L O r.L��1I(i�1iL�T�
T Op—
N -;- I-i I + 1[)-�-I-r
"1��i�f -pp
"Co
I-+
-'� -
FI ON
III' -{�t 10,D
N I-1_I- -7J�+ fO�
f- _ -_i I_
-r�T ; -I
-i-� �i-I
O'O
,11
-+
f_}1
't)
IOi
-; I-ii
_
It_ r0
-'+
"'I
N t
-I' O�`
-
I , I-I-t
IfJ
f
�ilr')
I- I t -I
_
I" O1
L �
I t fO
1
-r
1 r I
t- -i
,
I On
} ,A
I i t
N
,O -i'I'
_IL
IITI11r
1'I
I-
I
00
_`OM
rl=
1i
i-I
;_
I
-_O�
i1I
001
f
�O
r
ON
�
_
I_- IIrt,O
O'O
m
-
F
1ltt'1IIIIO
_
I 1
OM
n
-_
t I1
L (fiLii�'-
i a��
T,i,i�i�o
. r , 1 1:�—�
e1 -=-1 I-
•� p
-O
10 +00 11 +00 12 +00 13 +00 14 +00 15 +00 16 +00 17 +00 18 +00 19 +00 ®i�� ® ®.� •���,Q`\��
-
12
-
L
' -I
{ -
1
PURR
�
l
1 r
1 1
I
_}
I f,
4
T
I }
{
I _Lt ,
t I I _f
{
-I
�I- i
EXISTING
-~ �L-
G_RO
�
D
-I
I i
-
I`A�T,
j"�
"�
=-
Fa_ ,_
}
_I-.L
- I'�L
-L
-1 1
} -!fi
Tr�jL`J
-I
I_ _
}11
_ �I
__; --.t
_
t
I_�,
- -I L'-'
- Ti
1 -[�1
I L, ti
T 1
1-
,�j
t - -
111 v
�-�-
)fir`
O.L,
r'I'
i =
1
'-
_
#� s-T
=_
I1
r
'
4
-_
�F
L#
_.I
I-
I
I�
r
r -I-
_
� ��
-_
J
_
�
t
FL�L_
L—
_
_
_-
r}
{_(-1-
I l_L..f
- _ - =l-i
I
-jly -j
�L�
I_
I
Ir
,_r���
1_f
[
-�'�
I'i
- -
�r-
1
-
1
' "7
I-r
�I-r��-I
��J
, -I-
L7_
-
I_
_I
} -��
�•1�
__-
L 1
I
I I__9_lJ_
_ `F�-�
_ _Ii
��'
I
-IS
I_I_!
- i
_
1-
l =Ia
t l_
Lj_
Ii
-_I
I_ �1l
{-}
r
I �J_
I _
{
_L{
1,
(
_
_
L111 III���
-#G
_
__`-
1
IIJ
I
L L -
- - -
_
I
�I T
}�
_�
-
_
_
J
-I_
(
--
12
-- -
8 }-
� �_�
i _�
_
,
_ _L
t
l I
- -
�} 'Llir
-'�'
- '
((I_
i
- - -I-
L --
1-
- -
L-
-fi
-
- - -
}
-I 1
- I�'1'I+
I
T�
i
r
��
(
}
I
I1,
�A I
#L
'! I
1
i I I
i
-I _
l j
f
- I iTI r
rr
I -
I, (- -!
f 9, i
- 1--
L� -
T'-
t �
r
I 1_I-
I_ C
~ �,
'
!
'L-
I I�-
-,_,
I f
_
Fi # r
� ,_I
-
S
-
!
I �_
_
-Fr
- '_
J -
�'T
-�F
r~ '
I rrr#jj�
-"r
•1
-1
�t
- -
I_
�iTrl
- - -
f
��_'
I ��
-LTL
t : _
f 1
� ^LL�
' ( -
r. ,
Tom.
d
f i-
I
1
i
-I I
Lam[
r_ a
-rt=`
�4
,_
I-
w
J
J-`
-
a
-L
_ --
L
-
{-
I
Trr_�
'.a
TT`
-
_
�' I_
r
- -"
��
I I
G_ -
i
I I
LI
-
�I
jj
-�-}-
`I
I -# r, -C
z1-,
- I rrj
t I -F {-
I f
`\�_-
Tr�-y
�_r�T
-}-
-I1
�}
i�
+
-
��
l"
I_
- }_
I
I�
#,
- -
-tT`
_ _7_I
!
FI
--
I -i /�
L
_
I =k�L�
I
`"
L
i a_
I
-�
}.
}�1-f
—
I L.
� Tr,�
i
7-�
Tt-
r
IEXISTINGGROU
I
1 _
-�
T
l l I
-
-
-
-1
f 9
'
t l
_ -_
1
D_
„
r
_
I
�
LL`
Tl .I
rl
rl_t_t
i
'
1
"f^
i-
�r
_
µ'ms
;
L
_ ,
?LI
t
1
1
, L
�J
= 8 --
4 _ _r
I{ Ti i
T
-
0 I
rrn
t
I
=+
#
l _
11
_!
r_rI
_
-_-
I
_
-
I rl
I
_
I L
___-
I�
')
1,Ll
I
r -I-
IJ Jam'
_[_
- - T
'1_
-
U 2
l' I
_ _L
b =.'
1
_
I -
1 "'
-I
%
I_l"_
-
-i-rt-r
r
J_
�i
1� -i
�'
I T
._
_--I-
i I
i
-i- - -
I
I
t-
I I -I ! (E
�4�7_
,, I,
'- i I.
# L Ti
_
- F -1 i-
T"_
iT } 1 }fir
117 -.tab
- i Y I 1 i
' - -
L -
}
I �
_d_? =t r +1+
t_
f 1�-
-I -�
L
' 1_
I Tf
-I
--
-
rw
i
(
I
I -
�(I_�
1
t�l
7 -f-_
r
} -
,DESIGfd
t T k
(#L±j±a-1=i'L�1
Ff
I
_t
VALLEY
i
-
�
[
- J�'
1 ��;`
1
-
BO170M
_ I i f
!
J
-t I-
o
I
= 1
LL
�_
�
_
-
-
I
- -L-
L
I
_
I
rI
-
TI
► t
IT
I
-� -
�)
I I1
-�
�
1
,.1�_
�J
h
-
! }
/r•'
I I } i -
_j
I l I�
- -�'
I
-
i�
-
�J
-
---
(
I IJ t
I --
�L�-
LL1L,
I
I
-
I
-
I-
-
y�
-lam
�—'
'
4
m-_
0
-4
= dW
,
_
-
'
L
_- ,C -�.r�
t
s J_
-_
t I
=
r Li1rLI�
1
r
�1,1'
1_LT
}
T
_
- +
_
T I I
��
1
--
(I`I�
T -
1 1-
r
..
I' _I-I
-! -)z - �`�-
I �_ I
+ -,
i L
r
LL
_ _rli_L`
I
T
_I -i
I 1 =_`I
_
TJ } 1
-��I
-_L_
i
-I
�
��
{� -,-
I J-
}_I_'�,
1 -
1
'If_ i-LI
�
- - I -1 '_
_r
r;-
I
L
�
I
- �I_'
I '
I
#
�
'
-
I
TI-
,
1 } --
- -
T _
1
- _ _
-r k
i 81-
��yz
`i",
I
T
-L
-' -L�
--
(` -
-I
-
i- _-
I_ °^
I
e
-
1
'
_ �-
1 -1
-
1
-
_ -
1
-
-
- I-
F
t I
- -I-
_
1 i 1 I
_ - l
r' I
�- -
--
t J
I
} - -
L L I 1 I
1
�-
i I L
I -
!+
} =1
I ' I =
J�
-
-
_r
._--
-4
I
1---
N'W_
- _Wo-,
= I-�
t
1 I
F -
=F
I"
=�
I
�J_,
-I_ I
I_
-L '
L�
-1
L
�'
I
l =_'
r_-
r
-
�I I
== q'�I-,
4
{-
!1 I I
_ -
I{ - }
- f___F_� =_
-
I{ =
t - =- _ I•
TL
I�
}i--r
_
1
r
' m_
L
I7=
-L
1
-'I
I_ -- _.. --
riF L
L
i _
1_ ,L
I "a
1 __L
-
I-
!_T- `s_
L
i
j-
{
, r
T
1��
Lst
-; -
I'� =r =
i
-F -
f-
}-
t --
I
T�L�'A
f
IJ IL--
'
,���
-
l -
L.1
1
IJ -
i j
r-LI
-i -I�
Jf
_-
r
-
-
-T
1
r
'-
=1-
�I
L' -� -
�_'
- -' -
_1�i -I
JJ
= I.
#F-
F'
-..}`-
rl =�l-
1 I i
L
O
-
- -tLI
- -I- L-�=
7
__y_
-
t -
r
- -
1 _
t
'
T
_
-�-
_
_
-
-
O O
Q�'] �tO'
-CJ 1
as
=
-I-l�I
_�-
o ^-
U)
+a
I =1
I
O
- +vFl,
_FL
II
�T
T'�
NGI`LL
'f_tr- l' - +v1
I
t }
'_`
Opt
O'n
+v���I
__ -___
- O d 1
I l0� _
- +�t�
p `_
I 1 0OM
l -i ,+ V I-
I
'I
1r'
(�-
�N
+ �Y
_-
I
'-
I
}
O
ON
r r
I +vr
-F
an
{ i+
d
�� I 1
O a0
00
I + �I
r
it
4r',
O
p01
� I+ M
-�
-
-I�
N0111
-F +
M
I
I ,
O
Op
+Mr-
N
l i
r
O
�n0
+M
l�'II'
Tr
-1 - r-+
1
Mr
_O
1,nUO
-�1'
M
+M
1r
i}
,�- ,
O
rp00r___i
�1 + M
i�
-}
,p1n
- T
M -
- -i+
nt
M
I
_J
—
I
Nh
'+ M
L
- Y
f0 -$
Q
M
19 +00 20 +00 21 +00 22 +00 23 +00 24 +00 25 +00 26 +00 27 +00 28 +00 29 +00 30 +00
12
--
8
�i�_�-
I-
}
1
_ 1_
r , I
_ y
I
--}
f
_I
} --
_}
1_ _
-
, -
I
_
J
- --
I
-
I-
_ -
I
--
_`
-
-(`
`
--f-
-
-�
_ -
I
1 �t-i
If -�
-_-
-y
-}-
II ' -_-
--
Il -
1qr_`
- -
I_
- -�
I I
]
-tw
i Frl
-
i
f
, }=
r -r
`}
I -I
�-
I -I:,
-,
I_�}
^
I
t
, t-}
J_, -q-
�slJ�
°
o -,
iTl'r
-r
�-
i " -il=
^-
1
--
H-F�'
-
rl�
1
I_
-r
I ,
r�-Lir
'-
I
-}
-LL7����
_�1__�I
L
I
t I
I
--
-,
_-
`I�}�-
T _i�(i
►_
l_
1- -I- -
-
T{
_
'
L
- �
LL
r
i
t- ` - - =iS
T}T
r r
_F_j =1- _
T
t_
-,��
t
" -I
f_r
-I _r
I I-Lr�
r
i
-
-I
I
�-rL�t
- r
1 I!
-1 }}- -1
_ , - -I
I
I
(-
r
-__C
_
I e.,
1('r�
i 11=
_
-'-��
_
=
�
IJ_ �(
f
�2-_-
1=1 -I
-L
I- -�
i`_-
f
. r 1 -
_i_
-r -
_ _
-
-,`-
I ' 't
_ _
_ �
�l p_w
}
}UtQ°
_,�
_ZI
] -O'¢O
LU
aw
I� °L
°°FI
@
QI�
K
--
r_��
-
�_
_=
-'
(
J =� -
LL
_ L_'
i r
i'� b
_
i_
=r__
I t
- -L
� -
-���I
I--
-�-�T
f t r
I- -'
_
i -��-
_ I
i-
'___1
t
-
FLI
I_
1
:L
I-
,
1 '
T
`LI
-)-F-
�_} =�__r
1
I )
--
�)�
--
_ 1
_
-_
_
�r{r
I+
__
--
`�-
-!
-
F-
I-
I---
-r
-_
- }--I-
, -
-
-�
r
_ {-
_
'-
�-
I-
} f_
--j
_
-
1-
-
2
-
—y-- -
_
4
I
I
-
i --
I
--�-
tT
rIY
-r
1
�,
t
#
�i�`'
�-
_
`
_ _
-_
_►_
_
-' _
I
-
- ff
�I__,n.
-}
-
I-
-
-
'- - -
-
I -I
--
`'
j J(
-Ij
I -�r
1
I
-
4
0
_r
— - - -
�-
1
-I-
-
I I
r `
_
I I
,
1
I
1
i
!-
1
1
-
1r_
F
-�--
1
I --
­17
r
I'
1
--
- -i
,
_ --
I-
---f'
I
I
= - -I-
-
1
I
_�
�a
I--
-
�
_L
1 I
,
I -7''
rTtrt`,.'>_
_ ,
�
- =i —`
=r
I ��
_r—
T
I 1
�,
f' --I_T
, _,
-r.I_ i
I t
-1 iTl=
, �.
- -tt-
Ls
r7
a
LLr
-t rt
�-
_
--
Fr}-L�
-[i#
1
-� �
, L.,
'
L�
i_
I
LL
-�
.J tSJ
1
=
-FL^
--Y
T--r
_Lj
-
—I
1=
�:I-
(J._i_-
-' 1-
i�ifJ7�_,
� _
lf!!_L
_L�..FL1
Fl-,
_I-
-F�
r-
#�I
NV
-
Q
�'
l -
-
_
T L
- ' �-d�
J- L"1- I_�%��L
I '
-..}_
LLL- IJJ��I-
L�
t-'°
j--
-r-F
}- ,-i
1�I
I
#"�'
�ly
-�
-r-
I _-
I_[ I
I�
-L-r-
'
I-
li_LZ
=11
-I,_
}_r1rlt
_ -
1 `_
-
�Ti
_-L-
;L- �}�-- t}I�
-
1
-=
�`J1L-
-L
--
I
1
I
11L_r�-
I
-
�
1
1
r-
1_��
I
L
,
�_
jL
L
- -, --
__�j_T,
�
' --�
_
1rr
,
-I
--
�
1 ,
_1�.
-_
1cL
--t
}_
_T,
�r
r -I
r1
�-
__
-
--)
I -r
4
--
_iLT�
-
r i I
1 -I'i
�--�-
-
0
--
Co
--#
uJ
_ -I•
-
-
-{` -
I -
--
-F
-F-
-
I
-�
�- -
-
- -
_►=�
-
-F"T-
-
_—
'-
_F
-
--
---
-
- _
-
-T'
- I
-
=_-
_
=t- -
I -J=
-
i -}
d
�'
�
t
L�1
-
—
_I" _C
I-_
-- {'
1� -�
"1_
�
-'F
r
L I
i'"`C'Ir
--_''---__
F
} --
E
-
.,
__I iJ
_I�I-
_=
L _,
1'
_�"--_L
- }-
"I' -I'f
-t-
j-i
ice-
IT
�yLO
J
'�
_'
j' _'-
L
�
,i
Ii
-L"_
�Lt
fL- -'_
,
�-
ztx
I
_
'_
-�
�
ri =.
fff_ 1-
J_ -F'i
_ _
a
jgJtrjTLl�
-�
__ _I
-r
r
j
T_+_
-
r
i-__Jk
---r
, 1
Irr
�_
_L
=
Lf,�
{-
L "
__
_1
"I�
Lj�Tr
�i
�_
I
I�I'L,
L
_} _
-4
4 __ _
00
- =1
- --
Ij'
I
t
I
I-
1
i
p
-
I
1
,
- -I-
r
_
-i-
_ _
i-
I
I
11r C
°'_�
--
Cp
-'
-
- - --
-_
I{
1
�fj�
t -
- -!
-
--
Ijff -; -
-��
Ij-ij--
- -
Q
-8 ,l
-
d-r
-t
- -
1-
'
O�
+ M
-
I -
pM
T�
Ch
I I
'+
I I
M
-t'
r(
-i`�
M
; ,
+
M
i
M
-U+J
NN
-
1
-I 'r} I•
rn
-p+ N
I(
t"
-�
- I
r +
rn
N t (- }-
,
{-
°
M -
N ', �'1-
'I -�
p>0
I
t + N i
_
T
} f O+
N I
__
i }
- I
�'+ O
i
OM
1
_I i p+
O -i
- -
+
I'I
-
I _
_
_ .�
-
I
j'��jr1Trrr
f-t i I`r
=
-- j��j'iT�r
I f
-�[I
1 i
I
- -�
1
1-
T�
-�
I
IFS
I-
�1
I
I
} I
_
I -I
t —1
-yir(--
I
Q
- -8
30 +00 31 +00 32 +00 33 +00 34 +00 35 +00 36 +00 37 +00

51\e R \1 -- \P1en\125116_PSH -09 d-
'
i
PROP
STA
O
+
ODI pi
PROP STA ^
.k=
O
��- --
��
Y �'�'
��
OD1
'
N
° '
O
+
II � �
OD �� �O GP iOD Nf
PROP STA I I G
PROPS ELEV � '-
I
-r
PROP''
I
-ELEV'
'
1
I
--
r
p
PROP7 ELEV
, --
_TI'f
-7--�L
I
i /t
IT-1
; 1T
a
1
_ r i—
O
J..�� -Ti -I —' , ;1,1 _ I 11rri -i1=r
•-rf 1 �- -'T-� i .1 I ' 1 IIJ I, i
L T'ri
I
r l l
i
l
1 -
,
O
� r
��it
_-r-r,
BEGIN-'CONSTRUCTION-
i +
1
I,
+50
i � t
11
T-�
I
/ i
i
I I
_ ��� ((( ��i
495 i-1
TI
I---
I-
I
1 1 1 1
-r 1 -r I -r
1��.�
�- r—
�1�) :
--
1 I
�T `i
—I
1
Trr"OF�GRADED.rVALLEY%I-
I -r i UT3 STA: ',0+50
I E �1= 4 95', T� I 'TI
00 1 Ti
11
-
1
1
I -
1
1
-
I
i
I I
{ -1
1
'-
_�
I 1
I
p
�"
F�
-
I -_
I
- -
J--F_
O
1,
I
1
` T
-
I
(�
1
'
-1T-1
1 ^j r
all
I I t 1
11
t
_
J_fJ -rl _I-
1 r/ , rl I 11 1 1 I I
O
t 1 I
+5t)
1_
I
fi-T—
�
11�If
- -� i-
-r-
-�T
-rr --
, --
I'
_ �I -' {
-a_{�
I
�-rf-
486 i rk'i �= j"�i "I�a I_ _i_ -- j- I-n'_t'
', -�`
tr-z—
_r` i-f-�_
-
-
T
- I
-
1
T
-,
-��I
-
1 � "�" I
i L, e
+
-001: �
"
�I,
.:
+
-
+
1
1
=r'�'r
1 I i i 1
IT (_t_ 1
e; —rc- 1-f , r; r� -1 r
O
O
3 97 -r �_
1 1 r�
{—! r
r I , I
_
-rH-
p'
j-'t -�
} ^r—
- � �
��
-7,
_
1
_
-_- '- I—F
I 1
ice'
y —_r"
- f —
1
-' 1 r i
p
O
+50-
-
I
��
=�=
1 1 I 1
`
'ry
I
1�L�IL�TI.
1 1
1��
, I= I
�,
�- 1 I 1�
j T
1 ri-r- I I
3 92 -; �-'�'—
-r ' 1 i�
1 1 1�_"
-�
1
_ err,
-}mr1
I 1 1
r r 1 f i
_
-
477-
-I
Im
_
,
�--
t
-J-
; ✓`-t
t
-I
_` �-1
;�'
IM
1 1
_I
1 1 , 1
r
+
I
+oo,�l
�TI
;
_'I__�>_.�,_,c�k�
L _i°Ij_
L 1 -
'{
+
;�
, -T "Y
4 72 , h ,-i , f i r
�_ -r I t J.
I--
1
i_
_ �
-
1 "
tt�__
TI
- `I
1
li 1
( I ✓ l , ITI, I"f 1 1
O
1�
#4-TI I t
r (r
T�i
1.}L�.�..y
�-1 I
.,
t-�
'TT_
O
T r�rl I ITT'{' f- T'I'r -I
t�
is
z
LIP
I"
1
-i-
--
i
f
1
rrl�l
I
1
-r
�I
rrYTr
_
- i��Y
I I
1 1
1 it l -I I
1 rf-"-'-rr-r-
I i J
� I
- r -
-,
383T- r
T- ,
-�_-
I
�
�`t-I-�
_�-i�
ND -GRAD
I -rr t t-
��_I r -i
J
T
'�50 -�^ i 1 � w 1✓�
1
467 �- �-- 1- u- -�I ^ -- dal -+--F�
T�
I
- �f-
! 1 1
,-
, 1
I ,
_t- ,-
-
TT { -- i
L
1
I a-t r. —�
GJ
O���i
,
_
_ �
cT
.I{_.�
- -I-
-1�1 -_
O�
I,�- ��1� -"T' i {I --
-�
�
I i
�i
T
I 1
--
}- �7_._,_,__L
� —ava'
I
`TI
I
o
-
1
—� lu
0
-r
-fl
rI
-I-L
-'1',
I�
-I-- I {
T
1i-
1 , I I ! I , II 1 I, `ri ,-I 1
1 I I I
j,.�.�
-Ir -,
1 I
1T -_i-
1
-1
,
7-',T
��� T��� JJJ
1
I_,
1 r - --
_
1 1�
-1- -�.
_
- } -
I- I-
-_r,
-
,
- _ I•� 1 I rr T --r'�
+50 i I 1_ I. iI -�-
-J— 1 ( r
458- I I I ,1 rr -I� � =ITM1 �"1 , —, I
It 111 1 I 11
i i' ' 1, 1 i
-j
i 1^
I l I-r
r
- �' 1�
i T
1'
O
— i �( r1'1'J�1It1- =--I
' r I 1 !1
4 p
IF I
I
] 1,
�
T
I � -
- � i�
,
R�
- ��
» 1
4�48Y'
1
1
I
t
�J
�.�I
I,
II�T
1
1 1 1 I
_I
I
��'�
1 1�-
_
I
r�-�
_
-'
V�Ir�I.,
� 1 1
7
_ _
I i ��_�r � :_I • I I �-'i I�I
L�'�T
I - -�-
-
r�T�T"
- ('I"',
��
1 1"�r1
-[ f
It 1�
JI,
»q=
p
401
"-
i -r
1 � hi
-
'
-rTti
(�"' rl
It
I—
t ,
_ I
1 1 { 1 1
' i
1 -rl 1
I I
I'
_ _
1
'_� '
I !_�li
1 f 1
'J��
- -L
I I
1 1
439
tl-
1
_ff 1
-
-
err_
�I�'��
l�
,
�_
I I ' 1 I I rl 1
i ITi-
r
� 1 I , I '
ff I I
' L
� r�- -T.
+
I. '
I
�I
-
,�_-I---
IF
1 I
1 1
_Li
�T
+
O
O
I I I �j_`H
1 =1 ; a I'j�i _Y
1�1 , I _ 1 ' I T
-r ^ -, I��- ' 1 1--1 I � I� -- I I-1 q 1 'll T
If -� �I
�_jL-- -.':�� I 1�1 , I ���� -;���-
^I
-
i t
R t
1 1 I
TAI
r
1--
Y-
1�,I'
11
1Tj�
I.'
I I �
IT ,_f_ 1 1 1 J i I �T�
T 1 I
I
, I' r I
♦ , , _ rTI
I I
-_
1
1
1
, 1_r
!J 1
I
I
�T
1 1
-
I
r� 7
I 1
Ir� � I
1 Ir`I}T "_T-I_ i _i_'i1_�i ri T�;-I � I
1 �Jrl l 1 1 F1, I I 1 1
�,i�,��!��;,
I I
-
I
,
_
.
{� If I__
Ttl`i
, ,1 I
II
_%7- ''` -!mT'"
4 1111 11
,
I
I
;
- _
IIII
+
p
O
-
�1
TI 1
-1111
I
ilal
11 �,
�
N_<
— - 1
+50-1 � _' i i T -f'-w_v � I 1 END CONS i
L - -'— -I r(�OFIGRADED-VALL'EY
4 20 L� 1 - UT3 STA 18 +SO
I�f 1 y r , r �' �
_X I( i 1 1 T I--�-
-ZT
UGTION
OQ
}T
- -,_�I
I
1 I I r
I
I
I 1 1
1
co
1
I I 1 1_ -�
1 li
'
I I
II
1
I
,
�I
�
si • I
I i I'
11(
1' 1 I
I
,�l� 11 T—r l 1 1
I �i—„
1
�i' --
1
1
p
O
T_'- r(J... �! •_'1"�� -1 _ -_
,
f l l Hill
I
'1 1
It
1-
I
, I ,` I
1
,, i t_
1 '
�1 -
ter -r -r T 1
I I 1 1
-I
1 r I
I
--- r� - -rt -- 1111, I
1 I
11
I 1 I
I f
Ij
1
1
1
1
11 �' ILI.
1
1
_I
e l
_
I
_I f 1
1 I —T�t t
i-Ti4- �''� -__Ll
-
I
4 ail -1�
11 'I 1 1, 1 u '� 1 iT
-
1
i
T
r� 1-
I?T
1
�—
-I{-
rT
rr
`O
�_; Ir/,�_
•
, o `~
-
iZ
1 1,
Ir
I
1
i I'-
rl I
1 I 1
r'1 I
lT' - _
1 I. I 11.
��(J�� �-
�rr -r —�.J
I
I 1
_.
! -� —t_ 1
I_
1 I
1 �1
--
' 1 IyyV
•
.
_ 10. k I t
zz['
�. V1LI,�L_..�u .' r CPyj,
P
Qi m
I I
1 TI
-1 I� -�
I ! i J
1
1-
1—
, 1
t 1 1 I I 1
f'
-1 '— _L.
1
1 I-IT
='
j_
I
' 1 1
�' 1
I��IJJ._
I I
r-'rl
-'
1, t-1 1
�rl"'i —I "'I ,
LI 1
1 i 1 I 1
'' t I ' I
-- 1��- , 1 1
! yI. I I
T- 1 , -i -rT
k
� I
1
1 1
I L
I I
I I
_
I i
I� _� _
��
I i
— ~- I
,_t
� 11
. L
i ;
r
I �
1_ '
.
.
•/�
V�
I WI .` 'Y,
_ ID\��:I �i��� -rr a S
_� �_I y
_ •` `�f ' -H' a
'�1•_\
a
i
m
z
tt
,i
it 1 1
1
I'
I1
{-'
I
it
TiTI-f' -r
_'I'_._I_'
J
I
it
k
___L,�
1� �
I
T rl-I
I 1
1,
i T
/
/�•
g
�(•: -1- � \I tJ_ I ro�$3- my
m
r
k
1
f
o
A OD
f
d
I-'
;
N I
i
io use
CD � I 'gym
-
I
o

011111111/���
.CAIp� /i�%
N L ,...
0 92 1
IN
® G �
11111111
1
1
1
M
N
r.
11
1 1.
NOTES,
1 SEE VEGETATION SELECTION TABLES ON SHEET 1 -A
2 ALL AREAS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL BE PLANTED
3 TOTAL PLANTING AREA = 17 5 ACRES

c
u
t
i
c
a
n
i
i
I
n
M
OD
Q
Z
MIN
NOTES
1 SEE VEGETATION SELECTION TABLES ON SHEET 1 -A
2 ALL AREAS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL BE PLANTED
3 TOTAL PLANTING AREA =17 5 ACRES
w
J
-1,1
pO��y%
EAL y'
r;
0 2
�� /III1tCt
GRADE HIGH AREA AND
BLEND INTO SURROUNDING
TOPOGRAPHY
OEU'vA
TEVPOF

0 INDEX OF SHEETS
EC -1 TITLE SHEET
EC -2 - EC -3 DETAILS
EC -4 - EC -6 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK
V SEDIMENTATION & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
h
goo ®t$ 1 CA R ®� °,fi
0 2
1
M � 140, NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM NC 1251 6 C- 6
• 0
STD NO DFSCRIP710N
606 1LNIPORARY GRAVFI, CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
662 SILT FENCE
GRAPHIC SCALES
60 30 0 60 120
PLANS
SYNHIOI
THIS PROJECT CONTAINS
EROSION CONTROL PLANS
FOR ALL PHASES OF
CONSTRUCTION.
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 24 9 Acres
LOCATION: BEAUFORT COUNTY
OFF OF PEOPLES ROAD NEAR BATH, NC
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND
MITIGATION
PROJECT STANDARDS
THE FOI.LONLNG STANDARDS AS THEY APPEAR IN 1 HP
"NC EROSION CONTROL PLANNING AND DLSIGN NI ANUAL"
AND ARE APPLICABLT TO THIS PROJLCL AND BY RLFLRIINGL
HFRFRY ARF CONSIDFRFD PART OF THL PLANS
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONS1 RUIC110N ACCLSS
6.62 SILT FENCE
UT 2
`1
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
0000 Regency Paftvy E0Re 000
Cary NORPi CAROUNA0lei0
Pho algeeatNae
Fe gleua 5I90
Ueenu r F10114
FALL 2013 I JACOB BYERS, PE
LETTING DATE PROIBCT BNGINBBR
M
co
Q
Z
iN211"i
V`
�l \
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
RE
SIGNATURE.

r
6
e
n
C
N
m
i
w
S
N
o_
N
I-
I °
a
C
O
0
0
1°
Ir
&n
PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING - WOOD MAT
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IZ5
PROJECT ENGINEER
WOOD MAT
PRELIMINARY PLANS
CLASS B STONE
00 NOT USE MR CONSFRUCnON
PUBLIC ROAD
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
FILTER FABRIC
R =4d R =4d ee99ROM PuFU SJ+e15
can xaRrN CUlouru NS+e
• Plwir e1946061ee
F-91916164,0
CROSS SECTION
Uo e F 1064
s
SILT FENCE
CLASS B STONE RAMP
D ��� q� C A .9 �,�
'
12 MIN �``��.�++�''. S S
"0 '
PUBLIC ROAD
T
T
j
6' MINIMUM THICKNESS OF
I
WOOD MAT
WASHED CLASS A STONE
NOTES
1 CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW
STREAM CHANNEL
9209MEMEO//
2 HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS
3 MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS 00 NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM PLAN VIEW
4 LINE STREAMBANK ANDACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NON WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
FIL TER FABRIC
5 INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW
6 TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES FOR LATER USE
NOTES.
7 MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL
BY INSTALLING SILT FENCE ON ALL FOUR CORNERS ADJACENT TO THE STREAM SEE SILT FENCE DETAIL
SPECIFICATION NO 606 -CONSTRUCTION ACCESS *NC EROSION AND SEDIMENT
8 STABIL12E AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUD MAT
CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL MARCH 2009'
9 THE WOOD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL
10 CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED, RECOMMENDED AT A 5 1 SLOPE
COIR FIBER MATTING
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
2 51NCH
ROOFING
PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 61NCH DEEP
TRENCH STAKE BACKFILL, AND COMPACT
TOP OF BANK
8 MAX WITH WIRE
(6 MAX VATHOUT WIRE
70E OF SLOPE
WORE PLASTIC 21P TIES WITH
A MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH
REQUIRES USE OF EXTRA
STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC) T -POSTS SHALL BE 1 33 STEEL WITH A MINIMUM
LENGTH OF 5 FEET AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO
SHALL
OF 50 LB SHALL BE USED TO
(4 MAX WTHOUT WIRE, AS TO ALLOW FOR FASTENING OF THE FABRIC
CONSTRUCT THE FENCE
NORMAL STREN07H
FILTER FABRIC)
LARGESTAKE5
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
PLACE'COIR FIBER MATTING AT TOE OF SLOPE
MESH CONSISTING OF
WIRE
14 GAGECING AT MAX
LAIR
SECURE MATROG WITH LA MATTING STAKE
LEG LENGTH
17 00 IN 43 18 CM APERED TO POI
SPACING OFBkB'
16 IN 381 CM
CROSS SECTION VIEW
THICKNESS
I 15 IN 381 CM
TRENCH TRENCH
• TOP OF BANK
WIRE MESH
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STANDARD OR EXTRA
TOP OF BANK �— —� — — — — — —� — 0— — — ,
FILTER FABRIC
STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FIBER CERTIFIED BY THE
MANUFACTURER TO COMPLY WITH MATERIAL
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM STANDARDS D 6461, 4632 4491
4751 AND 4355
LARGE
MECHANICALLY COMPACTED FILL
STAKES , , • STAKES
2 PASSES OF A COMPACTION DEVICE
• • • , , , • , , ,
EXERTING AT LEAST 60 L9/1N' ON
BOTH SIDES OF FENCE
FENCE HEIGHT NOTES
COIR FIBER MATTING
TO BE EXTENDED TO
T
MAX
E 1 AVOID JOINTS, UNAVOIDABLE JOINTS MUST HAVE 4 FEET OF CLOTH OVERLAP
ABOVE GROUND
9 TOE OF SLOPE
AND SHOULD TIE INTO THE NEXTADJACENT POST
• • •
DIRECTION
2 PLACE ON CONTOUR EXCEPT ENDS WHICH SHOULD BE V ABOVE GRADE TO
•
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
—
PREVENT CUT AROUND
3 WRAP APPROX 6 OF FABRIC AROUND END POSTS AND SECURE WITH TIES
PLAN VIEW LARGE
_
III I I r I I 4 REMOVE ONCE AREA IS STABLE
STAKES
LEG LENGTH
1100 IN 27 94 CM
POST DEPTH
HE:ADWDTH
125 IN 318 CM
24* MINIMUM
4'
NOTES"
EADTHICKNESS
0 40IN 102C
1 BANKS SHOULD BE SEEDED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF MATTING
LEG WIDTH
060IN 1 52 CM [TAPERED TO POIN
FILTER FABRIC
2 USE COIR FIBER MATTING
LEG THICKNESS
O40 IN (1102 CM
3 LARGE STAKES SHOULD NOT BE SPACED FURTHER THAN 18' APART
4 PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL SEAMS IN THE CENTER OF BANK AND TOE OF SLOPE
TOTAL LENGTH
12 00 IN f3O 48 CM

TEMPORARI
TYPICAL PUMP AROUND OPERATION
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
TEMPORARY ROCK GAM � � I I STONE BACKFILL —r — GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
CROSS SECTION
STABILIZED
EXISTING GROUND
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
M
a
N
, EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY SECTIONS OF CHANNEL
2 TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS 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
4 THE PUMP AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY CONVEY, CFS (450 GALLONS PER MINUTE)
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND
, INSTALL STABILIZED OUTLET AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA
2 THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE THAT
WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE TO THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
OR STABILIZED OUTLET
3 INSTALL UPSTREAM TEMPORARY ROCK DAM AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION
4 INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY ROCK DAM AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER
THE ENTRAPPED AREA THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO
DEWATER THE WORK AREA THIS WATER WILL FLOW INTO A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
5 THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND
FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
6. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM REMOVE TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE
STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DAM FIRST
7 THE CONTRACTOR WILL COMPLETE ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION IN ONE DAY WITHIN THE PUMP
AROUND AREA BETWEEN THE TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS
8 ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED REMOVE THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTLET
AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH
r— SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
15- 20 FT
INSTALL 21NCH PAD OF STONE BACKFILL
BETWEEN SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND
COIR FIBER MATTING
PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
11
PROJECT ENGINEER
FLOW
z
m
PRELIMINARY PLANS
2
1I�
Q
DO NOT USE FOR CONSpRUCTIOV
rn
CONSTRUCTION AREA UPSTREAM
IY
H
r
\
/ STILLING BASIN
STONE BACKFILL
\ (2 FT MAX DEPTH) J\
Michaol Bakor Englnooring Inc
6000 R"m rNwry SAPS600
-
cl .0 D161.6161 NA 91616
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
F-010.{616190
uvms r F 1661
M -
CLASS 8 STONE
R v A RO
EXISTING CHANNEL
\��� /,�� //
�0� ®� • P(F �•v •� //
PLAN VIEW
r .•� (� L 7 f
r� C ► ►►
FLOW—►
2
TEMPORARY ROCK GAM � � I I STONE BACKFILL —r — GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
CROSS SECTION
STABILIZED
EXISTING GROUND
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
M
a
N
, EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY SECTIONS OF CHANNEL
2 TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS 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
4 THE PUMP AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY CONVEY, CFS (450 GALLONS PER MINUTE)
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND
, INSTALL STABILIZED OUTLET AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA
2 THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE THAT
WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE TO THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
OR STABILIZED OUTLET
3 INSTALL UPSTREAM TEMPORARY ROCK DAM AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION
4 INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY ROCK DAM AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER
THE ENTRAPPED AREA THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO
DEWATER THE WORK AREA THIS WATER WILL FLOW INTO A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
5 THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND
FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
6. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM REMOVE TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE
STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DAM FIRST
7 THE CONTRACTOR WILL COMPLETE ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION IN ONE DAY WITHIN THE PUMP
AROUND AREA BETWEEN THE TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS
8 ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED REMOVE THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTLET
AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH
r— SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
15- 20 FT
INSTALL 21NCH PAD OF STONE BACKFILL
BETWEEN SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND
COIR FIBER MATTING

1CARO�/i
NOTES
1 TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE
END OF EACH WORK DAY
2 CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB NO MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY
3 ALL EXISTING ROADS OR PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED,
IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER
4 GROUND STABILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN 7 DAYS ON PERIMETER AREAS AND SLOPES
GREATER THAN 3 1 AND IN 14 DAYS ON ALL OTHER AREAS
5 CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS THE SITE FROM PEOPLES ROAD BY THE TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND USE THE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS HAUL ROADS TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE
6 ALL STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED BY SILT FENCE
Ln
0
N
STFF"VIR FOOLE J9
LU01 OAT FOOLF

m
1�
STAGING /STOCKPILE
Z,
At
1 t 11 6OPOSED
1 1 SILT FENCE -
LIMITS OF
!11�;
it 1!
,1111
! 1,
l�g!
�lol,
111
1
i\ li
;11
1 \1
,11 1 1
1
,1 1,
i1 11
STREAM CROSSING
AS NEEDED
NOTES
1 TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE
END OF EACH WORK DAY
2 CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB NO MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY
3 ALL EXISTING ROADS OR PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED,
IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER
4 GROUND STABILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN 7 DAYS ON PERIMETER AREAS AND SLOPES
GREATER THAN 3 1 AND IN 14 DAYS ON ALL OTHER AREAS
5 CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS THE SITE FROM PEOPLES ROAD BY THE TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND USE THE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS HAUL ROADS TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE
6 ALL STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED BY SILT FENCE
/J
DITCH PLUG #3
STREAM CROSSING
AS NEEDED
ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSPRUCPION
Michael Oskar Engineering Inc
- e000 Ream P Ae 611000
Cs,, NORMCMOUM27318
pi_ ale te0 sees
v,>G eln.w s,eo
ueame r c mee
Xz
000 %9911111/1
CARO���i
)II11��
CONTROL PLAN
60 30 0 60 120
I ■�� ■SCALE (FT)

,
,
i
OL
H
�i
n
,
i
i
n
,
DITCH PLUG #2
1
STAGING /STOCKPILE AREA
PROPOSED SILT FENCE 1
NOTES
1 TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE
END OF EACH WORK DAY
2 CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB NO MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY
3 ALL EXISTING ROADS OR PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED,
IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER
4 GROUND STABILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN 7 DAYS ON PERIMETER AREAS AND SLOPES
GREATER THAN 3 1 AND IN 14 DAYS ON ALL OTHER AREAS
5 CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS THE SITE FROM PEOPLES ROAD BY THE TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND USE THE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS HAUL ROADS TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE
6 ALL STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED BY SILT FENCE
icy
�P J�
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
STAGING /STOCKPILE ARE
:;:--PROPOSED SILT FENCE
K ,
\ zif
,
,
N' +
i
I,
INSTALL (2) 40'- 36" RCP'S
INVERT IN ELEV 3 7'
INVERT OUT ELEV 36'
SET RCP'S 0 6' BELOW
THE BED ELEVATION-
STAGING/STOCKPILE AREA
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
INSTALL TEMPORARY
STREAM CROSSING
AS NEEDED
/ 11
Ln
c+n
00
\
rn
,y,r�
Eo j / I '•�
It
lizo
INSTALL (2) 40' - 36" RCP'S
INVERT IN ELEV 01'
INVERT OUT ELEV 0 0'
SET RCP'S 0 6' BELOW
THE BED ELEVATION
M
00
Z
GRADE HIGH AREA AND
BLEND INTO SURROUNDING
TOPOGRAPHY
1 \
7 1
E„POBARY
CARO���i
39

19.0 APPENDIX E - LICENSED SOIL SCIENTIST REPORT
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 19 -1 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT

J
'J
i
This page left intentionally blank _j

HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Poole Mitigation Site
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Scott Hunt, P.E.
Baker Engineering
800 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Prepared by:
The
Catena
Group
4108 Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
ID SOIL ScF
J L G. ;Y �f
..�n..,,�00
ea . q�
Michael G. Wood
1219
2tMOR1H
February 8, 2011

INTRODUCTION
Baker Engineering is proposing a mitigation site along two branches located in Beaufort County, NC The
approximately 208 74 -acre study area is comprised of two sites, located on the west and east sides of
Peoples Road Site 1 is located on the west side of Peoples Road and is comprised of active agricultural
fields Site 2 is located on the east side of Peoples Road and is comprised of a managed loblolly pine
stand As part of the site development process, The Catena Group (TCG) has been retained to perform a
detailed Hydric Soil Investigation that describes and classifies the soil throughout the study area and
make a determination as to its hydric status and the feasibility to provide wetland mitigation
METHODOLOGY
Prior to performing the evaluation, existing documentation was reviewed, including NRCS soils maps,
USGS topographic maps, etc The field investigation was performed on February 4, 2011 Eleven hand -
turned soil auger borings were advanced throughout sites 1 and 2 at predetermined locations (Figure 1)
Soil boring locations were located with a GPS Unit with sub -meter accuracy Hydric soil status is based
upon the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (2010)
RESULTS
All soil borings within sites 1 and 2 exhibited at least one hydric soil indicator and are placed into the
Hydric Soil Unit A soil boring log detailing each soil description, described using the USDA -NRCS
standard nomenclature, is included in the appendix Hydric soil determinations were based upon Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the Unities States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils
(Version 7 0, 2010) The results are summarized in Table 1
Table 1. List of all soil borings and corresponding hydric indicator
Soil Boring Hydric Soil Indicator
61, B2 F6
B3 All
B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, 611 F3
Hydric Soil Unit. All soils observed at the predetermined locations are classified as hydric by meeting
one or more of the following indicator(s)
All Depleted Below Dark Surface A layer with a depleted or gleyed matrix that has 60 percent or
more chroma of 2 or less, starting within 30 cm (12 inches) of the soil surface, and having a
minimum thickness of either
a 15 cm (6 inches), or
b 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm consists of fragmental soil material
Poole Mitigation Site - Hydric Soil Investigation February 8, 2011 _
TCG Job #4152 1

j F3 Depleted Matrix A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less
and that has a minimum thickness of either
a 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or5 cm (6
�i
inches), or
b 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface
F6 Redox Dark Surface A layer that is at least 10 cm (4 inches) thick, is entirely within the upper 30
cm (12 inches) of the mineral soil, and has
f a Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 1 or less and 2 percent or more distinct or prominent
redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings, or
b Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less and 5 percent of more distinct or prominent
redox concentrations o occurring as soft masses or pore linings
t'
CONCLUSION
All soils were identified as hydric by showing at least one hydric soil indicator The findings presented
herein represent TCG's professional opinion based on our Soil and Site Evaluation and knowledge of
the current regulations regarding wetland mitigation in North Carolina and national criteria for
determining hydric soil This investigation was done on a broad scale to generally identify the mayor
I soil units with regard to hydric status and mitigation potential If the project is to proceed,
-' additional soil borings are recommended in order to better delineate the soil units
i
�t
Poole Mitigation Site - Hydric Soil Investigation February 8, 2011
TCG Job #4152 2
f�
E

►�qB2 Y ` r p
._� �L art -titr
41�
- i
i
B5 B6
■ Baker Engineering Boring Placement B, B9 68
® Hydric Soil
The
Poole Mitigation Site
Dile
February 2011
Figure
Scale
0 250 500 Feet
Catena
Site and Soil Investigation
9
Group
P
Beaufort County, North Carolina
l
Job No 4152

�f
r
I ,
� I
1 ,
f
1
Appendix A
Soil Boring Log
Poole Mitigation Site - Hydric Soil Investigation February 8, 2011
TCG Job #4152 4

SOIL /SITE EVALUATION
DEPARTMEN f OF ENVIRONMENT (Comm motion Sheet)
AND NATURAL RESOURCES /
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH )D001 °tom
Sheet_ 1 of 3
PROPERTY ID i
DATE OF EVALUATION 4—Zo//
COUNTY Pira,forjP
P
R
F
1
L
9
.1940
LANDSCAPE
POSITION/
SLOPE %
O �Riz
DEPTH
(IN)
SOIL MORPHOLOGY
(.1941)
OTHER
PROFILE FACTORS
PROFILE
CLASS
& LTAR
.1941
STRUCTURE/
TEXTURE
.I941
CONSISTENCE/
MINERALOGY
.I942
SOIL
WETNESS/
COLOR
.1943
SOIL
DEPTH
.1956
SAPRO
CLASS
.1944
RESTR
HORIZ
�y
N d,,� ��y
y•
No
r
�
�oY�z
14 `/2 /Z
Sys /z
' C, .P io
''�,P Z'5
YR
s /(O
4,r,P4
. A , a s
r
) l
Fr
/ t
t c sk Sol
F/'
8z
�L
c- 43
Ro
1 D Y 2 3/Z
lU YR 312-
(,/ P
)'C) 0 io
y2 5 /(,;
ox•�
141 ar'
,dos
- /
1, S l
-�
/% -
1, V�7 /o, S)
f , 's
g3
A
�g
�1r
o -1
2,7rS/1
Z,s���,,P
Z•
l0Yk
P /v
r/6
yle 5/6
- zo
51
f,
/h /u i0✓1S
SG jqackq�5
r
04jr
11,A„C
F3
1 -1
��
CoMMFNTC
1�yd�,c
F3
Z• 5 4/7
rn, F
y L,
� 1' ` /Lj�O► r
11 r►,. 5 of
,
; J
v
�I
,
7�
s
4�
4
i�

SOIL /SITE EVALUATION Sheet Z of 3
(Corurmrolron Sheet)
DEPARTMEN f OF ENVIRONMENT PROPERTY 1D;#
j AND NATURAL RESOURCES DATE OF EVALUATION z y 3 e[I
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COUNTY
P
R
F
1
E
N
1940
LANDSCAPE
POSITION/
SLOPE %
HORIZ
ON
DEPTH
(IN)
SOIL MORPHOLOGY
(.1941)
OTHER
PROFILE FACTORS
PROFILE
CLASS
& LTAR
.1941
STRUCTURE/
TEXTURE
.1941
CONSISTENCE/
MINERALOGY
1942
SOIL
WETNESS/
COLOR
.1943
SOIL
DEPTH
1956
SAPRO
CLASS
.1944
RESTR
HORIZ
4b
,4
�3
d -y
1 ,m i S/
vT,
Z7'F 3
5r y%2
Z-5 Y V,
j o, ,
+r. Z.
if ly +
2 5y 4�iv j
G. r
1 Z 4
1, L, S sG
r
A ,,'c
F3
v%
Z.5f Y /,1
ors
14
161`
nv�✓ it
0'y
1,,,,, si
V4
Z5y`� /�
7,s Y '112;
, Dz sr 4
-/Z
m 5-5k, 3�
B /jz
n,
Z, Y /
! /v,llvJ
a. �, ,v�,
rGtc/,
►D1Z�,!�/y
66 5 c-1
,'
l
► �- 54 C, sc
Sow To
o,'� ✓hovt�
pia
,4z
F3
yt1b,'
,
J

DEPARTMEN T OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OI' ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
SOIL /SITE EVALUATION
(Conitnuation Sheet)
Sheet 3_ oJ_.-�>
PROPERTY ID #
DATE OF EVALUATION 'X `L( Zof1
COUNTY f3eo
P
R
1
1
L
E
k
1940
LANDSCAPE
POSITION/
SLOPE %
HORI7.
ON
DEPTH
(IN)
SOIL MORPHOLOGY
(.1941)
OTHER
PROFILE FACTORS
PROFILE
CLASS
& LTAR
1941
STRljCTURE/
TEXTURE
.1941
CONSISTENCE/
MINERALOGY
.1942
SOIL
WETNESS/
COLOR
1943
SOIL
DEPTH
.1956
SAPRO
CLASS
.1944
RESTR
HORIZ
311
l
Q
d-/
f .� Sl
,�r
Z,�!'3
2 5Y 5/i
; o�
o, r,
m, P 2,5
Y 76
J
1,M S 1
V4-
y
-14L 5rl
COMMENTS

i
20.0 APPENDIX F - HEADWATER REFERENCE INFORMATION
i
I�
iA
j
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 20 -1 7/1/2013
-- MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

This page left intentionally blank

Conference Proceedings
Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice
November 3 - 6, 2008
Asheville, North Carolina
A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain
Headwater Systems
Kevin L Tweedy, PE
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
i�
Introduction
4 In 2007, an information paper was issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) that allowed for the restoration of Coastal
Plain riparian headwater wetland valleys to provide compensatory stream mitigation This
information paper recognizes that in the Coastal Plain many headwater stream systems have been
ditched and channelized to improve drainage In their pre - disturbance condition, it is unlikely that
these systems would have had defined channels, therefore, a restoration approach seeking to
construct a meandering channel would not be appropriate
Since few restoration projects have been implemented to date that make use of this information
paper, technical design information for these systems is very linuted To provide additional
design data, a study of Coastal Plain headwater reference sites was initiated with the following
goals
1) Identify reference sites that represent intact, functional systems
2) Describe the formation of channel features in headwater stream systems
3) Develop design guidance for determining when it is and is not appropriate to restore a
defined stream channel
The methods used to evaluate each goal are described in the sections that follow
Identification of Reference Sites
Because headwater sites in the Coastal Plain are small and easily manipulated, it is difficult to
locate systems that have not been altered or impacted by human activities Searches were aimed
at identifymg small catchments (< 300 acres in size) with a wooded canopy and no apparent
artificial drainage affecting the reference areas Assessments would then be conducted at the
most upstream point that showed a defined valley with periodic surface flow, and continuing
downstream until a perennial flow feature was identified Data collected from these assessments
would then used to determine the points at which headwater valleys form channel and fluvial
features
An extensive search was conducted in an attempt to locate reference stream systems Numerous
potential sites were identified, however, the majority of these sites had been drained for
agricultural purposes or local topography had been modified through forestry practices in the
past Initially, four reference reaches along two headwater drainages were identified in close

proximity to Aurora, NC To provide additional data, eight reference reaches were identified
along three headwater drainages within the Croatan National Forest, south of New Bern, NC
These reference sites are summarized as follows i
UT to Bailey Creek Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to Bailey
Creek Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches are 88 and 94 acres,
respectively The upstream reach (UTBA -IA) exhibits wrack lines, scour features, and a l
somewhat braided flow pattern In some locations, flow is confined but the channel is not well
defined Further downstream, the valley slope increases and the stream flow becomes confined to
a single thread, meandering channel This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach I
(UTBA -1B) Channel dimension is relatively consistent, with nffle and pools formed by both
channel meanders and woody debris
UT to South Creek Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to South f
Creek Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches are 215 and 250 acres,
respectively The upstream reach (UTSC -IA) was surveyed approximately 600 feet downstream
of NC Route 306 Along this upstream reach, flow patterns are diffuse and braided, with a
considerable amount of subsurface flow during field surveys Further downstream, the valley
slope increases and the stream flow becomes confined to a single thread, meandering channel
This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach (UTSC -1B), and is located
approximately 400 feet downstream from UTSC -IA, and 400 feet upstream of a powerline
transrrussion corridor Channel dimension along this downstream reach is relatively consistent,
with riffle and pools formed by both channel meanders and woody debris
r �
UTs to Brice Creek Eight reference reach sites were identified along three separate headwater
tributaries to Brice Creek in the Croatan National Forest, south of New Bern These sites were
identified as potential reference reaches through the help of NCDWQ staff who had reviewed the
sites in the past The three tributary drainages were labeled Sites 1, 2, and 3, Site 1 was the
northern most site and Site 3 was the southern most site
Three reference reaches were identified and surveyed along Site 1 Drainage areas for the three
reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR -1 A, UTBR -1 B, and UTBR -1 C) are 96, 160, and
230 acres, respectively UTBR -IA is the most upstream reach and exhibits diffuse flow patterns
across a wetland floodplam, with few distinct channel features UTBR -1B is the noddle reach
within the drainage and exhibits a more braided flow pattern with some sections of defined
channel bed and banks UTBR -1C is the further reach downstream and was located in an area
where overall valley slope increases The reach exists as a single thread, meandering stream
channel with well defined bed and banks and a relatively constant channel dimension 1
Three reference reaches were also identified along Site 2 Drainage areas were smaller than those -�
identified for Site 1 Drainage areas for the three reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR -
2A, UTBR -2B, and UTBR -2C) are 25, 42, and 61 acres, respectively The flow characteristics
for each reach were similar to Site 1, with the most upstream reach (UTBR -2A) exhibiting diffuse
flow with poorly defined channel features, the middle reach (UTBR -2B) exhibiting braided flows,
and the downstream reach (UTBR -2C) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel form
Two reference reaches were identified along Site 3, which is a separate drainage dust to the south
of Site 2 Drainage areas for the two reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR -3A and
UTBR -3B) are 45 and 58 acres, respectively The most upstream reach (UTBR -3A) exhibiting
braided and diffuse flow with some channel features that were not consistent and were not well
OA

defined along the reach length The downstream reach (UTBR -3B) exhibiting a single thread,
meandering channel form with well defined bed and banks
Determining the Factors Affecting Channel Formation
Most stream restoration projects that have been completed in the Coastal Plain have involved the
construction of a single- thread, meandering stream channel As discussed in Information
Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007), restoration of a
single- thread channel is likely not appropriate for many headwater systems In some situations,
formation of a wetland valley with braided, diffuse flow will be more appropriate By performing
assessments on a range of reference sites (i e varying drainage areas, valley slopes, and channel
definition), our goal was to determine the conditions under which different channel features (or
no channel features at all) are formed This understanding would allow for predicting the
conditions under which various channel forms are developed, which could then be applied to
future stream restoration projects in Coastal Plain headwater streams
As discussed previously, we identified several reference sites that began as defined valleys with
indications of periodic surface flows, and developed into more defined stream systems down
valley as drainage area increased Once these drainages were identified, specific reference
reaches were delineated along the fall of the valley and survey were conducted to document
channel form (or lack of channel form) Reference reaches were divided into three categories
based on visible channel form
Poorly Defined Channel - These systems exhibit a defined valley and evidence of periodic
surface flow, but lack defined channel features Channel bed and bank features cannot be
identified, or if they can be identified, are poorly defined and only evident for short distances
before their definition is lost These reaches were commonly found at the upper most portions of
the headwater drainage where flow events are not frequent and do not have sufficient energy to
form channel features
Moderately Defined Channel — These systems exhibit relatively constant bed and bank features,
but the channel dimensions (cross - sectional area and shape) are highly variable Flows are
confined to one variable size channel in some areas, and multiple thread channels in other areas
Channel form appears to be defined mostly through localized scour, small debris dams, and
vegetation
Well Defined Channel — These systems can be considered typical, single- thread reference reach
quality channels Channel banks are obvious and constant, and sandy bed material is common
Channel dimension is relatively constant, with alternating riffle and pool areas Some pools are
formed by stream meanders while others are formed by scour from woody debris Channel form
is defined primarily through fluvial processes
Each identified reference reach was surveyed along approximately 200 feet of its length Cross -
sections were surveyed at representative locations to document the dimension of any channel
features, the width of the valley, and the general topography of the valley bottom A longitudinal
profile was also surveyed along the apparent center of the flow pathway, to determine overall
slope, depth of a pools and riffles (if present), and variations in topography Along reference
reaches that exhibited well defined channels, surveys methods followed those used for traditional
reference reach stream surveys that document channel dimension, pattern, and profile
3

In simplest terms, the energy of flowing water is determined by its velocity and depth. Formation
of a defined stream channel begins when flowing water has sufficient energy to begin the
processes of scour, headcutting, and sediment transport. We used valley slope as a surrogate for
flow velocity: the higher the valley slope, the higher the velocity of flowing water in the stream
system during storm events. We used drainage area as a surrogate for flow depth and quantity:
the higher the drainage area, the higher the volume of water (and depth of flowing water) for a
given storm event. Each surveyed reference reach was classified as either a poorly defined,
moderately defined, or well defined channel, based on visual observations during field surveys.
Valley slope and drainage area data for each surveyed reference reach is provided in Chart 1
below.
Chart 1. Headwater reference reach data relating channel formation to drainage area and
slope.
0.016
• Poorly Defined
0.014 ■ Moderately Defined
Well Defined
0.012 -- - - — --
0.01
_
0.008
Well Defined
a
Channels
k
0.006
Moderately Defined _
Channels_.— —
■
0.004
0.002
Poorly Defined
Channels
0
10 100 1000
Drainage Area (acres)
The collected data indicate that channel form can be predicted by measurements of valley slope
and drainage area. As valley slope and drainage area increase, the energy of flowing water also
increases and tends to form more defined stream channels. While boundaries have been placed
on the graph to illustrate approximate ranges for each channel type, these boundaries should not
be considered as distinct thresholds that trigger a change from one channel form to another. The
data should be used to indicate ranges in which a particular channel form is likely to develop. In
fact, reference sites that fell near the boundary of two channel forms were often difficult to
classify distinctly as one of the three defined channel forms based on visual observations. For
example, a reference site that plots near the boundary between a well defined and a moderately
defined channel will usually display some characteristics of both.
Other results that were derived from this analysis are summarized below:
• Drainage area alone is not a good predictor of channel form. For example, at a drainage
area of approximately 100 acres, all three defined channel forms were identified on
reference sites.
4

• The document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal
Plain (2007) states that " According to data being assembled by NCDWQ ( Penann
Russell, DWQ, personal communication) watershed less than 25 acres in size will not
support a headwater system " Our data agree with this assessment All identified
reference sites were based on the presence of a defined valley and upstream drainage
area, and evidence of penodic surface flow The smallest drainage area of our evaluated
reference sites was approximately 25 acres
• The document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal
Plain (2007) also states that " Typically, sites with watersheds less than 100 acres
would not support a stream with defined bed and bank " Our data do not support this
assessment We identified two separate reference sites with drainage areas of 57 and 61
acres that displayed consistent bed and bank features, and well as fluvial bedform
features These sites were located within relatively steep valleys, where the small
headwater valley transitioned into a deeper valley of a larger stream system
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank PCS Phosphate, who sponsored the research presented in this
paper and provided access to field sites and past data CZR, Inc and specifically Ms Julia
Berger provided invaluable assistance with identification and review of potential reference sites,
and evaluation of collected data The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (Ms Penann
Russel) provided information regarding the location of reference sites within the Croatan National
Forest
References
US Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Quality April 4, 2007
Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain
5

J
This page left intentionally blank

I %
21.0 APPENDIX G - JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION
I�
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 21 -2 7/1/2013
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT

This page left intentionally blank

1
a
I
_J
_I
� J
I
i
I '
I
I
—I
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DIS7 RICT
Action Id SAW-2008 02655 County Beaufort U S G S Quad Rnnsomville
NOTIFICATION OFdURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
I'ropcnc Owner /Agent Chnd Poole
Address
4858 Sidney Road
hell ivcn, North Carnlino
27810
1clephone No
252 - 943.1932
Property dcscriptlon
Size (acres)
125 ec
Nearest Iowa I)ih,
Nearest Watcnviry
Sail Cl hire's Cncl,
River Basin Tor - Pamlico
USES I IUC
0302010
Coordinates N 5 43 52835 W -76 76.726215
Location dc%ripuon 125 nere tract Moll 15005359)
located on Peoples Road (SR 17381 nR Hielreny 99 ndlaeenl 1n
Swint (in lreitCre0ii in
Ilalhlicauton County. North t
aroma -
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Raced on preliminary information, there may be Wetlands on flit above described property WL strongly suggest you hate
this propdty inspected to dumnme the extent of Department of the Arm) (DA) jurisdiction I o be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by file Corps Ilits prehmmar) deiennmatton is not an appealable action
under flit Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Refirence 33 Cl R Pan 33 1)
It Approved Determination
There arc Navigable Waters of the United States mthm the above described propel) subject to the pemut requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is n change in the lass or
our published regulations, dus ddennmauon may be n lied upon for a period not to exceed five )cars from the date of this
notification
X There ore wetlands on the above described property subject to file phcrout requirements of %tction 404 of file Clean Wmtr
Act (LWA)(33 USC 4 1344) Unless there is d change in the law or our pubhshtd regulations this detcmunahon ma) be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five )cars from the date of this notification
_ We strongly suggest you have, the wetlands on your property delineated Due to the size of your property and/or our
prcstnt Workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish flit, wetland delineation in a timer) manner i or a more timely
delineation, )ou may Wish to obtain a consultant I o be tonsukred final, anv del ntation mn%t he scnficd by the Corps
X The wttland on your propert) have bttn delmtated and file dclmcauon has been %cnfrcd by tit Corps We strongly
suggest you have tlu %dclmcauon survt)Ld Upon completion, this survey should be rc%icwed and %tinfred by the( orps
Once verified, this survey w ill provide an accurate depiction of all meas subject to CWA jurisdiction on )our property
whith, provided there is no change in the fait or our published regulations, may he rchLd upon for a period not to exceed
live )tars
_ The Wdlands have been delineated and survL)ed and am accuralcl) dLpicttd on tit plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on_ Unless there is a change in tit lacy or our published ngudations, this
determination may bL pled upon for n period not to exceed live )cars from the date of this notificaurni
_ Ilhere are no Waters ofthe US. to include %%cllands, prevent on the above deunbed property Which arc subject to the
penult requirements of Section 401 of the Clcmh Wales Act (33 USC 1344) lialc„ there is n change in tit late or our
published nguLnuons, this ddcrmmation may lx n.led upon for a period not to exceed rive )cars from the dale of this
notification
l'hL property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under tit Coistal Area Managcmtnt Act
(CAMA) You should conlad the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] In ddemillle
their requirement%
mgc 1 of 2

Action Id SAW -2008 -02655
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands wglmul o Department of the Aim) permit may
Lo,inute a violation of 'section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311) if you have an) questions regarding this
dctennmauon and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Dn fit 1. Shaeffer it 252.975.1616 ext 30
C. Basis For Determination
This -;lie exhibits xetlnnd criteri i ns dewribed in the 1987 Corm Wetland Delineation Mnnunl and is part of n hrond
continuum of wetlands ennnected In Saint ClnirdsCreck o tribafnn of the Pamhco Rrver.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information ( rhis Information npphes only to approved Jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
D nbove)
—` ou ibjcct o this coritspondcnce tronstniitts mi npprocvd juiisdictinal dctrcnviniuon f6r the above 6ichlied sac i
daemvmatton, you may requtst an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CI R part 331 Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appcol Process (NAP) fact shed and request for appeal (RrA) form Iryou request to oppcol this
determination %ou must submit a completed RI A form to the following address
District Fngmecr, Wilmington Regulator) Division
Ann Da% id L Shaeffer, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory ricld Office
Post Oflice Roy 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
In order for an RrA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, thin it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CI R pan 331 5, and that it has been received by the District Office w ithin 60 da) s of Iite dnte of the NAP
Should you decide to submit an RI A form, it must bt rcctivcd at the above address by I I /16/200
• s It is not necessary to submu an Rf A form to the Dionct Office d) ou do not object to the determination in this
torrespondence'
Corps Regulatory Official�_
(late 09/1612008 L,,puation Date 09/16/2013
I he Wilmington Disinct Is committed to providing the lughtst lewd of support In the public to help us unsure we confmuc to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Suney located at our aebsuc at htjp /Irtgulaton.usaccsnr%Lv toid to
compk is the survey online
Copy furnished
Page 2 of 2

�i
L_
"I
Wetland as Flagged
on
Stephen and Chad Poole Tracts
Bath, NC
(Pin # 15005359)
o
Legend
Flagged Wetlands selection 2
Chad and Stephen Poole
0
N 0 700 1,400 2,800
w E Feet
S

This page left intentionally blank

I
Ll
,I
22.0 APPENDIX H - RESPONSE TO EEP COMMENTS ON DRAFT MITIGATION
PLAN
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC PAGE 22 -1
MITIGATION PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT
7/10/2013

This page left intentionally blank
1
s

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway
Swte 600
Cary North Carolina 27518
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
July 2, 2013
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Centei
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Attn Ms. Heather Smith, Project Managei
Subject: Response Letter to NCEEP Review Comments
St. Claii Creek Diaft Mitigation Plan
Service Contract No 003986
NCEEP Project 1D No 95015
RFP No. 16- 003570
Baker Project No 125116.
Deai Ms Smith,
Please find enclosed the Final Draft Mitigation Plan and oui responses to your review
comments dated May 20, 2013, regarding the St. Clair Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration
Project located in Beaufort County, NC We have revised the Draft Mitigation Plan
documents to produce the Final Draft Mitigation Plan in response to the referenced >eview
comments.
1. General: Change EEP Project 1D No. to 95015 everywhere and include Contract
Number as 003986.
Response Changed the NCEEP Project ID No to 95015 and included the Contract Number
on the Title Sheet
2. Executive Summary: 2nd paragraph, remove last two sentences.
Response Rennoved the last hvo sentences.
3. Executive Summary: 3rd paragraph, remove "although it is not located in a Local
Watershed Planning (LWP) area ".
Response Rennioved "although it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (L WP)
area
4. Executive Summary: 3rd paragraph, change NCEEP to RBRP.
Response Changed NCEEP to RBRP

5. Executive Summary: Table ES.2, remove references to microtopography.
Response - Removed references to microtopography from Table ES 2.
6. Section 1.0: 5th paragraph, change NCEEP to RBRP.
Response Changed NCEEP to RBRP
7. Section 2.0: Page 2 -2 remove period after 1st paragraph.
Response. Removed period after Ist paragraph
8. Section 2.0: Include a brief description of watershed assessment method and
discussion on any watershed hydrology calculations performed.
Response Included a brief statement in regards to using USGS quad maps and LiDAR data
to delineate the watersheds for both UT2 and UT3
9. Figure 2.5: Adjust figure so soil map abbreviation appears for the areas with UT3
and portions of UT2
Response Adjusted Figure 2 5 to lower the abbreviation for Toinotle), fine sandy loan?
(To) from underneath the legend
10. Section 6.0: Page 6 -1 & 6 -2, remove Non - forested Wetland Credits portion of the
table.
Response. Removed Non forested Wetland Credits portion of the table.
11. Section 7.1.2: Provide additional information on the proposed minor grading
activities. Note that the USACE may consider any grading of the surface in excess of
6" as wetland creation and not wetland restoration.
Response While deeper grading along the centerline of the valley will be required in
places in order to avoid any hydrologic trespass, the annournt of grading has been
minimized as in itch as possible Also, grading activities within the boundaries of the
proposed wetland restoration areas are anticipated to be less than six inches, thereby
reducing the concerns over possible wetland creation claims The proposed restored
headwater valley will tie into existing ground outside of the proposed wetland restoration
areas Only areas of unnatural topography such as hummocks or spoil piles will be
significantly graded within the proposed wetland restoration boundaries Some grading
may be required to smooth areas created during timbering activities within these areas. A
statenent has been added within Section 71 2 that all grading within the proposed wetland
restoration areas is anticipated to be less than 6 inches and will occur only in limited
areas.
12. Section 7.1.2: include NCWAM classification of Headwater Forest.
Response Included NCWAM classification oflleadwater Forest
13. Section 7.1.2: indicate wetland grading will not encompass the entire area.

Response See response to continent ]]above
14. Section 9.1.1: Indicate whether monitoring gauges will be on each tributary, to
document flow success.
i
Response Indicated that monitor ing gauges will be installed on UT2 and UT3 in order to
docuanent f low success
15. Section 9.2.2: Wetland hydrology success criteria need to be stated as a percent
of the growing season. The current description will generate comments similar to UT
to Mill Swamp during the IRT review.
Response- Changed the success criteria to be 12% of the growing season.
16. Table 10.1: The first three rows covering dimension, pattern, and profile, don't
seem to be relevant to this type of restoration, and were not mentioned in the
narrative. Unless these arc in some other way relevant to the project, please remove,
or explain their relevance in the narrative.
Response Removed the dunensron, pattern, and profile rows. The sedunent sampling roiv
was also removed
17. Section 16.0: On page 16 -6 — Include a letter or e-mail from Beaufort County
floodplain manages indicated that there was no action needed regarding FEMA
compliance
Response A copy of the email fr -oin the Beaufort Couno, Floodplain Manager stating that
no action is needed regarding FEMA compliance has been included in Section 16
18. Section 17.1.1: On page 17 -2 of Table 17.1— In the document, it indicated that
UT2 and UT3 are intermittent streams. However, the feature type for UT2 and UT3
in the table 17.1 stated as ditches. Double check and explain.
Response. Changed UT2 ratting to Perennial Channelized Stream and UT3 i ating to
Intermittent Channelized Streann The stream calls are described /explained in Section
17.1 1 and streani forms are included in the appendices.
19. Section 17.3.2: Page 17 -13, show data for UT3 in Table 17.3
Response Included data for UT3 in Table 17 3
20. Section 17.6.2: 4th paragraph highest hydroperiod for Ref. Well 2 is 35.8 %,
correct range and state whether rainfall was normal in the reviewed years.
Response Corr ected hydr operiod range and added a cohnnnn to Table 17 6 which
included the drought conditions during the gi owning season for the reviewed years This
information is broken into percentage of the growing season for each drought category
that occurred that year This information is fr -om the NCDENR Dlvlslon of YYater Quallo',
Drought Monitor History for Beaufort County
21. Construction Sheets: Correct EEP address on the title sheet, 217 West Jones St,
Raleigh, NC 27603.

Response Corrected the NCEEEP address on title sheet
22. Sheet 6- Explain grading outside of conservation easement.
Response • The construction of the graded valley will continue until the exi sting farm road
This proposed grading will be conducted to avoid the strewn being abruptly
farnneled /transitioned down and allow,far natural multi- thread channel formation
23. Show location of construction entrance, temporary stream crossings and
permanent stream crossings on the erosion control plan.
Response The locations of consh action entrances are currently shown on Sheet EC -4 off
of the public road (Peoples Road) The locations of the Temporary Stream Crossings have
been added Tl :ere are iio proposed Permanent Stream Crossings proposed, brit t17e
locations of the proposed culverts have been called out on Sheet EC -6
If you have any questions concerning the Final Di aft Mitigation Plan or Baker's responses
to your comments, please feel free to contact me at 919- 481 -5748 or via email at
Ibyers@mbakeicoip coin We look forward to the Mitigation Plan approval and Task 3
milestone completion.
/Since ely,
acoByers, P.E., Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc

{ , <x
r j
CE-1
11.55 ACRES
1.69 ACRES
TOTALAREA=
ACRES
Jill
El
xf,;
m
i
ATAwi
V
tt

F�WM �1%1=71
7 Mom, 0
9
JOE ED COX
DEED BOOK 993 PAGE 666
s 740".w E — °°1Q -6 - N
11107, TIE a 1
4ft PC a to ad
IT c%
1W RICK OF WAY
a EAS"m
D9 U5 PAGE 723
lQip ,�x
lNell: 77saw
pftter,!!�Zk
U
Ex_ r fp
Z
sumw,v
of FEAVUS FAW
AS CALLED FOR N
S36*33*07'W
Do 1756 Ps art
92,00' TIE P
W PEOFLES RIM
ae
AS CALLED F(R IN
w
Ex. r tp
Do 17" PC 07
mwsmw
I!
267&"6m-&W
F�WM �1%1=71
7 Mom, 0
9
JOE ED COX
DEED BOOK 993 PAGE 666
s 740".w E — °°1Q -6 - N
11107, TIE a 1
4ft PC a to ad
IT c%
1W RICK OF WAY
a EAS"m
D9 U5 PAGE 723
lQip ,�x
lNell: 77saw
pftter,!!�Zk
U
fal
Z
w,,m
f ski
ae
S 42°20'60' E
w
Ex. r tp
..........
F�WM �1%1=71
7 Mom, 0
9
JOE ED COX
DEED BOOK 993 PAGE 666
s 740".w E — °°1Q -6 - N
11107, TIE a 1
4ft PC a to ad
IT c%
1W RICK OF WAY
a EAS"m
D9 U5 PAGE 723
lQip ,�x
lNell: 77saw
pftter,!!�Zk
U
No
S 72*55'0W E I I x
X"* CIL OF WFERMANET
ACCM EASEMOff BMW I socr
INWT A V' ® 10011 PAGE 2 OF 3
-omb PC-—T 13-MG
fal
Z
w,,m
Polf"WT 2
ae
S 42°20'60' E
w
Ex. r tp
sty
mwsmw
I!
267&"6m-&W
17 29,W TIE & C& OF
No
S 72*55'0W E I I x
X"* CIL OF WFERMANET
ACCM EASEMOff BMW I socr
INWT A V' ® 10011 PAGE 2 OF 3
-omb PC-—T 13-MG
fal
sm
S 42°20'60' E
sty
I!
17 29,W TIE & C& OF
J%
Ie
cz-1
N 13'30*W E
257.16'
5* PERMANENT
ACCESS
VE 6 TO 13
s EASEMENT
I
C/L OF S'
STEPHEN RICHARD POOLE, III
PERMANENT
ACCE
w
19
i
--- COMM PmT 2
raw -WAS 6
mrfr
MR as CHAD A. POOLE
"6211 DEED SM 1325 PAGE 494
smom ON
PC 0 Sum 2"
EASEMENT
17A CE 3 C
.4
0
E z6746ts.4m PIN: 15-005359
3W DRAIIi
EASE"li AS
-4
Sm w Lim Am, mom ms m 6
Mom am ft a
6
"\
tote
PS 307 00 AS CALLED
SUDF 266
SEE KVM 7 04
20
FOR ORISWEAk- OM
SWET I
FROM "Y" TO W.W
lo—
No
S 72*55'0W E I I x
X"* CIL OF WFERMANET
ACCM EASEMOff BMW I socr
INWT A V' ® 10011 PAGE 2 OF 3
-omb PC-—T 13-MG

NOC*12*240E
STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR.
Lucom T. POOLE CANN.
DEM SOCK
406 PACE 211
SEE SHEET Z L12
mp
,9'- 'f C( - 1-3
BEAUFORT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
• "c
jg'l "A
EASEMENT
STEPHEN RICHARD
POOLE, JII AND
CHAD
LEGM E)L r
BATH TOWNSHIP
- BEAUFORT COUNTY
NORTH
gmsim am s 0203rw w
0 gw
Damn Am aw 56.00' TIE.
COMM POW I
&A
MON= ME
k NWR
&V
91020 G= AVARAW am
cm SHOUUMR
OF ROW
so
ffrwmnw
ON$
No pwr XT
" 626m.37m
=off dF my
o E 2673173.70M
OF CDMMftW
eftaum Fami= Raw
IN
C4 OF
§W CAPS AV= 0
camps=
16
4
'4�qft
Mowry &M SuAwmw
foommm we wr Affmw
37
4 •(ETCH
COMMMN EAMOff AWA
CANAL
im ED Cox
DEIM BOOK "3 PAGE
2%
&Off tV MV AIROW
C/L OF 5' ACCFM
PIC a sm 20
EASEMENT FROM SIR AT Rill TO
134V
Liao
CONTROL POIWr *2
- 4?
�.12�?
1z.
Jr ANK OF Wr - &SMOff
NOC*12*240E
STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR.
Lucom T. POOLE CANN.
DEM SOCK
406 PACE 211
SEE SHEET Z L12
mp
,9'- 'f C( - 1-3
BEAUFORT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
• "c
jg'l "A
EASEMENT
STEPHEN RICHARD
POOLE, JII AND
CHAD
ASHLEY POOLE
BATH TOWNSHIP
- BEAUFORT COUNTY
NORTH
CAROLINA
EEP CONTRACT NO. 003986
SPO NO. 007-K
IMS NO. 95015
w,
8E ?'k*JECf N-.#. 'IZ51-11-'4
DATE: 6-17�-13
100' 1
1 i