20181275 Ver 1_UT to Magness Cr_100081_MP_2021_20210830

UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Mitigation Plan — Final
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Broad River Basin: 03050105
DMS Project ID No. 100081, DMS RFP # 16-007400 (Issued: 12/7/2017)
DEQ ContractNo. 7604, USACE Action ID SAW-2018-01759, DWR# 20181275
dw -
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
217 West Jones St. Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
July 2021

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
July 30, 2021
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
/ Cleveland Co./ SAW-2018-01759/ NCDMS Project # 100081
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the UT to Magness Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on May 29, 2021. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
USACE Mitigation Office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily
addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does
not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you
are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may
require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Kimberly
Kimberly Danielle Danielle Browning
Browning Date: 2021.07.30 13:15:06
-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Mickey Clemmons, Scott King—MBI

July 27, 2021
Kim Browning, Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division
US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Subject: Response tolRTComments for Final Draft Mitigation Plan review
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project, Cleveland County, Broad River Basin,
CU# 03050105, DMS Project #100081, DEQ Contract #7604, USACE #SAW-2018-01759
Ms. Browning:
Please find enclosed our responses to the IRT review comments dated July 14, 2021 in reference to the
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project's Final Draft Mitigation Plan. We have revised the document in
response to the referenced review comments as outlined below.
NCWRC Comments. Olivia Munzer:
1. Pg. 3-6 — italicize "Diospyros virginiana"
Response: Correction made.
2. Pg. 3-7, Section 3.1.3 —Fix "Reach 1'sbuffers"
Response: Revision made to final text.
3. Planting list: I recommend using the following website to make sure the species is native to
the area/County(https://authl.dpr.ncparks.gov/flora/index.php)
- Shingle Oak is found in the mountains — find an alternative present in Cleveland Co.
- Overcup and cherrybark oak are not found in Cleveland Co, rather they are found more east.
- Redtop is non-native. Please find alternative that is native to NC and found in Cleveland Co.
- I recommend adding another native pollinator species to the seed mix.
Response: The recommended website was used in the evaluation of the proposed planted
species. For the bare root mix, the cited Shingle, Overcup, and Cherrybark oaks were replaced
with a mix of Water Oak (Quercus nigra) and Pin Oak (Quercus palustris). For the seed mix,
Redtop has been replaced with the native Autumn bentgrass (Agrostis perennans), and
spotted beebalm (Monarda punctata) was added as an additional native pollinator species.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Appendix I, Categorical Exclusions: Please note that NCWRC requested to be alerted if the
Broad River spiny crayfish is observed during construction so theycan be relocated (letterdated
August 17, 2018).

Response: Baker will look for this species during our construction inspection field days and if
discovered will alert NCWRC as per their request.
2. Figure 11 and Section 6.5.1: It's noted in Section 3.2.3 that Wetlands F, E and D are not
proposed for credit generation. If you anticipate that these wetlands may be needed to meet
contract amounts should other parts of the site not meet success, please monitor these areas
so data is available, if needed.
Response: Absolutely. If it is ever even a consideration that these wetlands might ultimately
be needed for credits Baker will quickly begin monitoring them using appropriate measures.
3. Figure 11: Please ensure that the portion of stream that runs through the crossing is shown
as "not for credit" on the figure.
Response: Figure 11 was revised as requested, though Figure 12 is the formal Project Asset
and Credit Map and shows that section of stream within the crossing as being `not for credit'
as do the plan sheets and the digital files.
a. Please add a temporary veg plot or transect to Reach 1A near cross-section 1, to include
some of the area where the berms/spoil piles are removed.
Response: Baker will include temporary veg transects along the berm/spoil removal area of
upper Reach 1A for both the As -Built and MY1 reports to help demonstrate vegetation
establishment in this location.
b. Please shift one of the wetland gauges in the southeastern wetland closer to the boundary
of the wetland re-establishment area boundary.
Response: The upper gauge location was shifted closer to the boundary as requested.
4. Figures 11 & 12: Please label the three wetland re-establishment polygons for clarity.
Response: Figures revised as requested.
5. Section 4.1, page 4-1: The textstates that the crossing will allow livestock access to an area
of shade on the other side of the easement. Do you anticipate that livestock will create
wallowing areas in the wooded area and create the need for a BMP to filter runoff into the
easement?
Response: This shaded area is located along the slope of a dry upland hill adjacent to the
project. Since this area will not have any grazing opportunity (with very little in the way of
grass) and has no water, it is anticipated that it will only be used during very hot weather.
Thus, it is not expected to develop any areas of significant cattle impacts. Also, the vegetated
buffer will act as a filter for any potential sediment movement, but again, since there is no
running water coming from this area this should be limited.
6. Table 6.1: The reference reach parameter for the reach near Toney Rd has a BHR listed as
3.3, which indicates the channel is incised. I would expectthis number to be less than 1.2 for a
reference reach.

Response: This reach was selected for several important reasons; it has a very similar
drainage area to the main stem; it is located quite close to the project within the same
Magness Creek watershed, ecoregion, and geology; and it provided a good confirmation for
bankfull depth as it had strong bankfull indicators present. With a BHR of 3.3 it is clearly
incised but has also clearly developed a new channel geometry within its incised system.
Thus, it was still able to provide good stream data that contributed to the confirmation of
design parameters, particularly confirmation of the regional curve describing this site and the
accurate bankfull cross -sectional area.
7. Section 6.1 and Appendix K: Thankyou for including the information that a rotational grazing
plan was developed with NRCS. This information supports the potential success of long-term
stewardship of the conservation easement. Two questions arise when looking at the NRCS
Conservation Plan Map: Will the eastern side of the easement be fenced through the woods for
livestock exclusion? Will the waterline for the cattle watering tanks be co -located with the
culverted or ford crossing? Currently it is shown bisecting the stream, south of UT2, and
potentially going through portions of the existing wetlands in the conservation easement.
Response: We're glad we were able to obtain an NRCS grazing plan as part of this project and
that you appreciated its inclusion to the mitigation plan. The maps within it were assembled
by the NRCS agent and intended as more `big -picture' schematics to show the number and
general field locations of features. The pipe for the watering tank will not go through the
easement itself but through the crossing at the easement break. The NRCS map primarily just
showed new fencing, but new or updated/improved fencing will be installed along the
entirety of the easement (and also around the section of the main stem located outside the
easement just downstream ofthe project) as shown inthe plan sheets, to include that eastern
section through the woods.
8. Page 6-6, UT2: It is understood that the channel is currently perennial and is deeply incised.
Do you anticipate that the channel may lose perennial flow when the channel is raised 1-3 feet,
especially given the small 31-acre drainage area?
Response: Baker is very confident that flow will be maintained. The bottommost section of
Reach UT2 is very steep as it had to cut down to meet the highly incised main stem. This is
the area where the greatest channel Iiftwill occur. The majority of the channel will only have
comparatively minor lift, which should not cause any concern regarding loss of hydrology.
Additionally, flow has been strong throughout the site assessment; never once having been
absent in our field visits. It appears to have significant contributions to hydrology from
seeps/springs on the adjacent hill slope and in the upstream area.
9. Table 6.2c, page 6-7: The current BHR for UT2 is listed as 7.62 and proposed as 1.0. Will this
proposed BHR be attainable considering the reach is described as deeply incised with a BHR
greater than 10 in the text on page 6-6, and the channel will only be raised 1-3 feet?
Response: In addition to raising the channel (as discussed above), significant grading of the
side slopes will be conducted along this reach to reduce the BHR to the proposed 1.0. The
existing stream channel has the top of bank defined by the valley floor that is several feet
above the channel. There is no floodplain that can be accessed by this stream flow, even in

extreme flooding. By grading and raising the channel anew top of bank and narrow floodplain
will be established below this existing valley floor, at the proper bankfull elevation. We will
create a channel with the correct dimension, pattern, and profile, and with a floodplain within
the existing deeply incised and overwide channel. This approach mimics what the channel
would do naturally over an extended period of time, and if there were no continuing livestock
impacts.
10. Section 6.6.2: 1 suggest that you add the proposed planting date window. You may want to
consider listing your planting season to November 15-March 22, or something that coincides
with the WETS table information on page 7-3.
Response: A planting date window was provided in Section 6.6.2 (towards the end of the
second paragraph) of between November 15t" and March 15t". This was taken from the 2016
IRT guidance document. Using the WETS table dates is certainly a good, logical
recommendation (and one we might pursue on future projects with IRT consent) but at this
point in the review process Baker would prefer to stick with the currently stated dates.
11. Page 8-2: The as-built/baseline report should also include confirmation of easement
markings.
Response: Baker will include a confirmation that the entire conservation easement has been
appropriately marked with the as -built report.
12. General note: Thank you for the inclusion of site photos to show pre -construction
conditions, and for the level of detail in the existing and proposed conditions of the site.
Response: We're glad you appreciated them. We'll try to provide similar information on
future projects.
13. Design Sheet 6: Please provide a detail of the proposed BMP, specifically wherethe stone
weir outletties into the channel. Will there be an area of concentrated flow that entersthe BMP
from the adjacent field?
Response: Baker has added a BMP detail as Sheet 12. The BMP outfall will be a rock -lined
outlet protection structure, which will tie into the channel of the mainstem, within a riffle as
shown in the new detail and on the plans (Sheet6). There is an existing swale upslope of the
proposed BMP where concentrated flow will enter into the BMP's forebay. The BMP is being
constructed in the deeply scoured bottommost section of the swale where a headcut
currently exists, as shown in the plans on Sheet 6.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 6-7, Stormwater BMP — Please state whetherthe designed wet pond BMP necessitates
long term maintenance (beyond the 7-yr monitoring period).
Response: There is no expectation of long-term maintenance for the BMP beyond the 7-year
monitoring period. The drainage area is vegetated and stable but steep, producing a
significant volume of high -velocity runoff (and certainly nutrient -laden from livestock),
though not particularly highly sediment -laden runoff. This has resulted in a large headcut

(that does generate significant erosion) near the stream, which will be replaced by the BMP
designed to slow down the flow and treat the estimated volume of runoff. From past
experience Baker believes the potential for forebay cleanout is relegated to the immediate
post -construction period before vegetation establishment, which we will correct should it
arise. Baker will ensure that the BMP is stable and functioning properly throughout the
monitoring period. Similar BMPs have been successfully installed by Baker on previous
projects.
2. Page 7-2, Section 7.2 — Based on the planting plan (Sheets 12 & 13) there does not appear
to be any undisturbed wooded areas within the site, so the number and locations of veg plots
should be representative of the entire project area.
Response: Baker is planning on planting the entirety of the easement and will monitor
accordingly with the proposed device installation and performance criteria. However, there
are some wooded areas along the left bank of the lower portion of the project where we hope
to keep as many of the existing mature trees as possible and where we hope to only plant
shrub and understory species. While of course these relatively small areas would still be
monitored, a permanent veg plot seems less appropriate here than do random veg plots (two
of which are proposed per year) or temporary transects (which Baker routinely collects and
provides in the annual reports). The text referenced in Section 7.2 is really just part of a
general description of our planting practices.
3. Page 7-3, Section 7.2 — DWR is ok with the requested exclusion of specified shrub and
understory species from the vigor performance standard.
Response: Thank you for the confirmation.
4. Page 7-3, Section 7.3 — Please explain why an onsite rain gauge is not being proposed. Given
the distance to the weatherstation, do you expectthatthe data will accurately represent onsite
rainfall events?
Response: In addition to the primary rain gauge being used for the project (the historic
`Shelby 2NW' gauge, and has been in operation since 1893, and from which the WETS table
data for the County was derived) there are also several newer weather stations collecting
precipitation data forthe area. There are rain gauges located 2.0 miles NW, 3.6 miles SE, and
4.4 miles due South from the site and which can be used to corroborate data collected from
the primary gauge. Baker has chosen to use the Shelby 2NW as the primary gauge as it is the
most sophisticated of all the station arrays, collecting the largest range of data, presumably
receiving the most maintenance and internal data review (as it is the official weather station
for the County), and to allow for direct comparisons of annual versus historic rainfall data.
This portion of Cleveland County is not mountainous and does not contain the type of high
elevation terrain that can cause difficulties with rainfall estimates using nearby gauges. Baker
is confident that the gauges present are more than adequate to obtain the rainfall data
needed to determine if conditions are wetter or dryer than `normal' in order to determine
wetland success.

5. Figure 4 — Please show the location of the pre -construction groundwater well mentioned in
DMS' comments. DWR is interested to review available data included in the Final Mit Plan.
Response: The location of the pre -construction groundwater wells were added to Figure 4 as
requested, while the well data is provided in Appendix A.
6. Figure 11 — DWR requests that the two groundwater wells in the southern wetland credit
area be shifted sothat one is closerto the stream channel and the othercloser to the easement
boundary, since these are the zones that we are most concerned with meeting the minimum
hydroperiod performance standard.
Response: In conjunction with the well location shift requested by the Corps in their comment
3b, the monitoring wells were adjusted a bit further. Baker is confident this entire area will
meet the hydroperiod performance standard.
7. Sheet 6 — If possible, please include a detail/section for the Wet Pond BM P for review.
Response: A BMP detail has been added as Sheet 12 to the plans.
8. Sheet 7 — This sheet shows boulder/log steps proposed within constructed riffles. Won't
installing a step create a pool? Are these three riffle sections expected to maintain their
construction elevation and remain stable long term?
Response: This is a good question. The purpose of the boulder and log steps being placed
within the riffles is primarily to help hold grade and improve stability where the riffles are
steeper. These will have smaller pools formed in association with them, but these are not
geomorphic pools but rather pools dependent on the structures themselves. They will be
built lower in the riffle profile and at a relatively flat angle as compared to the typical vanes
whose purpose is to turn the water at channel bends and protect the banks, contributing to
the developmentofgeomorphic pools. Small, localized pools will form within the riffle below
these structures, though they will function as simply a small habitat variation within the riffle.
The depth and size of rock being placed in the constructed riffles is more than sufficient to
hold these mini -pools to a stable size and shape. This design feature has been used
successfully on many previous projects.
9. Sheet 9 — DWR is glad to see the geolift brush toe proposed along the Reach 1 meanderand
UT2 right bank near the confluence as this may be an area particularly susceptible to erosive
forces.
Response: Indeed. Baker will keep a close watch on this confluence to ensure it remains
stable throughout the monitoring period. However, the other mitigating factor is that when
the flow in UT2 is high, the flow within the mainstem will also likely be high. This mainstem
flow is likelyto "dampen" any affect of the tributary on the mainstem.
10. Sheet 10 — DWR appreciates the installation of a gated ford crossing proposed south of the
mitigation site in an effort to limit water quality impacts immediately downstream of the
p roj e ct.
Response: Thank you for the positive feedback.

11. Design Details — Since a ford crossing is proposed for construction (although not within the
project easement area) can a typical detail please be included for review?
Response: A typical detail of a rock ford crossing was added to the plan sheets.
12. Overall, DWR is pleased that the draft mitigation plan addressed so many IRT comments/
questions made on previous projects (e.g. vernal pool depth, soil restoration, species diversity,
limiting crossings, access gates). Additionally, the level of detail provided in the soils report,
including the mapped boring points and photos, was very helpful. DWR also appreciated all of
DMS' initial comments.
Response: Thank you for noting this. We'll try to provide a similar level of detailed
information on future projects.
We hope these responses adequately address the IRT comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me
should you have any further questions regarding our responses ubmittaI.
Sincerely,
141#- 14-
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Project Manager

UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Mitigation Plan — Final
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Broad River Basin: 03050105
DMS Project ID No. 100081, DMS RFP # 16-007400 (Issued: 12/7/2017),
DEQ Contract No. 7604, USACE Action ID SAW-2018-01759, DWR# 20181275
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
217 West Jones St. — Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Prepared by:
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal
Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
• DEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28,
2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
July 2021
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DMS NO. 100081
MIT GAT ON PLAN (FINAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1-1
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION............................................................................2-1
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................3-1
3.1 WATERSHED PROCESSES AND RESOURCE CONDITIONS................................................................................
3-2
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics........................................................................................................................
3-2
3.1.2 Land Use /Land Cover Impacts, Historic, Current and Future............................................................
3-6
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response.....................................................................................................
3-7
3.2 REGULATORY REVIEW....................................................................................................................................3-7
3.2.1 Categorical Exclusion...............................................................................................................................3-7
3.2.2 FEMA Regulated Floodplain Compliance...............................................................................................
3-7
3.2.3 Section 4041401 Permitting.....................................................................................................................
3-8
4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................
4-1
5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES......................................................................... 5-1
6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN.................................................................... 6-1
6.1 PROJECT DESIGN APPROACH..........................................................................................................................
6-1
6.2 DESIGN MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS.......................................................................................................
6-2
6.3 DESIGN DISCHARGE ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................
6-8
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage Discharge..........................................................................................................................
6-8
6.3.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions) .........................................
6-8
6.3.3 Bankfull Discharge Summary ...................................................................................................................
6-9
6.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................
6-9
6.4.1 Sediment ConpetencyAnalysis ..............................................................................................................6-10
6.5 WETLAND MITIGATION DESIGN APPROACH................................................................................................6-12
6.5.1 Wetland Restoration................................................................................................................................6-12
6.5.2 Target Wetland Types..............................................................................................................................6-12
6.6 VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN.............................................................................................................6-13
6.6.1 Existing Vegetation and Proposed Plant Community Characterization..............................................
6-13
6.6.2 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings..............................................................................................
6-13
6.7 PROJECT WORK PLAN...................................................................................................................................6-16
6.8 PROJECT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES..........................................................................................................6-16
7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..................................................................................................................7-1
7.1 STREAM MONITORING....................................................................................................................................7-1
7.1.1 BankfullEvents andFloodingFunctions .................................................................................................7-1
7.1.2 Cross Sections............................................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile and Pattern.............................................................................................................. 7-2
7.1.4 Visual Assessment...................................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2 VEGETATION MONITORING............................................................................................................................ 7-2
7.3
WETLAND MONITORING.................................................................................................................................
7-3
7.4
STORMWATER BMP MONITORING.................................................................................................................
7-4
8.0
MONITORING PLAN.....................................................................................................................................8-1
9.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN...........................................................................................................9-1
10.0
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................................10-1
11.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................................11-1
12.0
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................12-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGI NEERI NG, INC. PAGE III
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DIMS NO. 100081
M I T GATION PLAN (FINAL)

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
FIGURES, PHOTOS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
APPENDIX B:
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX C:
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
APPENDIX D:
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
APPENDIX E:
MAINTENANCE PLAN
APPENDIX F:
DWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS
APPENDIX G:
NC-SAM AND NC-WAM ASSESSMENT FORMS
APPENDIX H:
APPROVED JD AND WETLAND FORMS
APPENDIX L•
APPROVED FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORMS
APPENDIX J:
HYDRIC SOILS REPORT
APPENDIX K:
CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX L:
PLAN SHEETS
M I CHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
Table 3.2 Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Table 3.3 Summary of Field Investigations for Jurisdictional Wetlands
Table 3.4 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
Table 5.1 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
Tables 6.1 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
Tables 6.2a-c Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Table 6.3 NC Rural Regional Curve Equations
Table 6.4 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Table 6.5 Bankfull Discharge and Velocity Analysis Summary
Table 6.6 Sediment Competence Analysis
Table 6.7 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Table 6.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
Table 11.1 Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Table 11.2 Project Credits
Table B.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
Table C.1 Stream Credit Release Schedule
Table E.1 Routine Maintenance Components
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE V
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Map
Figure 3. Adjacent and Proximal Planning Elements Map
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Features
Figure 5. Geologic Features
Figure 6. Drainage Area and Land Use Map
Figure 7. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 8. FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 9A. Historical Aerial —1947
Figure 913. Historical Aerial — 1961
Figure 9C. Historical Aerial —1979
Figure 9D. Historical Aerial — 1993
Figure 10. LiDAR Map
Figure 11. Proposed Monitoring Features
Figure 12. Project Asset and Credit Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project (proj ect) is located on four adjacent parcels of an active cattle
farm in Cleveland County, North Carolina, roughly halfway between the communities of Fallston and
Lawndale as shown on the Project Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The project farm entrance is located at 2803
Selkirk Drive (State Rd 1803), on the left about 0.6 miles south of the origin of Selkirk Drive at Falls St
The coordinates for the approximate center of the project are 35.406463 N Latitude,-81.528866 W
Longitude.
The project area lies within the Broad River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050105-080060 (the
Big Harris/Magness Creek Watershed), which is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the
NC Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS) 2009 Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report.
The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Region, within the Southern Outer Piedmont Level
IV ecoregion. The project watershed drains into Magness Creek approximately 0.5 miles below the project
easement. Magness Creek then flows for approximately 1.5 miles to its confluence with the First Broad
River. Both of these receiving streams are designated as WS-IV waters by the DWR surface water
classification.
The project will restore 3,174.48 linear feet (LF) and enhance an additional 325.21 LF of stream along three
proj ect reaches. Additionally, the proj ect will restore -by -reestablishment or restore -by -rehabilitation atotal
of 1.891 acres of riparian wetlands. All of these resources will be protected within a permanent
conservation easement.
Current and historic agricultural use on the project site has predominantly been livestock pasture. These
activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the project stream
reaches. The resulting observed stressors include streambank erosion, sedimentation, excess nutrient input,
channel modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.
To address the observed stressors, the goals of this project include:
• Reconnect stream reaches to their floodplains,
• Restore or improve hydrology to adjacent hydric soils and riparian wetlands,
• Improve stream stability,
• Improve aquatic habitat,
• Reestablish forested riparian buffers, and
• Permanently protect the project in a conservation easement.
The proj ect is anticipated to generate a total of 3,391.287 warm -water stream mitigation credits (contracted
for 3,000) along with 1.879 wetland mitigation credits (contracted for 1.7), and the site will be protected by
an 11.66 acre permanent conservation easement (Appendix B).
M I CHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
M I TT GATT ON PLAN (FINAL)

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The UT to Magness Creek project is located in Cleveland County within the Big Harris/Magness Creek
subwatershed (03050105-080060) of the Broad River Basin (Figure 1), which is identified as a TLW in
DMS' 2009 Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report. This report indicates that this
watershed contains a portion of the First Broad River that is impaired due to high turbidity levels. Other
issues associated with the watershed include high fecal coliform bacteria counts and degraded aquatic
habitat. Although there are no 303(d) listed streams found in this watershed, it does contain many degraded
streams. Of all the Broad River TLWs, this watershed has 49% of land dedicated to some form of
agricultural production, the second greatest percentage among all the TLWs. This report also states that
many streams in this TLW are highly unstable, having eroding banks and limited aquatic habitat. At the
time the RBRP was produced the Cleveland County Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) had
established the watershed as a priority for water quality improvement.
The NC Division of Water Resources' (formerly Division of Water Quality) 2008 Broad River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan (DWR 2008) identifies five specific stressors as impacting the monitored streams found
in the project watershed: fecal coliform bacteria, habitat degradation, turbidity, nutrient impacts, and low
pH. It subsequently makes several recommendations to address those stressors and improve water quality,
which include reducing erosion along streams (to reduce sedimentation and turbidity), improving habitat in
degraded streams, fencing livestock out of streams, and the restoration of riparian buffers. The UT to
Magness Creek project will directly implement all four of those recommendations.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) 2015 Wildlife Action Plan (WRC 2015) identifies the
project as being located within a Tier 2 Priority watershed for wildlife conservation. The plan notes that
there are eight Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the basin, including two crayfish species
and six freshwater fish species. The plan also makes several management practice recommendations for
this basin including reducing of high rates of erosion and sedimentation, restoring riparian vegetation,
protecting water supply watersheds, and protecting headwaters throughout the basin. Further, the plan
encourages working with conservation programs and partnerships, and specifically promotes the land
conservation efforts of DMS' 2009 RBRP report.
In addition, the protection and restoration of the UT to Magness Creek site will assist in providing a
geographical connection with surrounding conservation features such as the Big Harris Creek Mitigation
Site, First Broad Leatherwood Slope Natural Area, Hicks Hills Bluffs and Forests Natural Area, Catawba
Lands Conservation Easement, Knob Creek Natural Area, and Buffalo Creek Rare Plant Site (Figure 3).
Thus, the UT to Magness Creek proj ect will directly and/or indirectly address many of the priority stressors
identified in the watershed planning documents discussed above, through the implementation of many of
their recommended management practices, and will permanently protect the entire project area within a
conservation easement. Therefore, the proposed project location and restoration approaches align well with
the overall goals and implementation needs outlined by DMS.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following sections will describe the existing conditions found on the UT to Magness Creek project and
include a description and history of the surrounding landscape and overall watershed land use and
conditions, as well as a discussion of the specific environmental impacts and responses produced on the
proj ect site.
Table 3.1 below provides a summary of the key prof ect attributes and individual reach parameters for the
existing conditions on site. Existing stream lengths listed below include only those sections within the
conservation easement.
Table 3.1. Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
UTtoMagness CreekMiti ationProject—DMSProjectNo.100081
Project Information
ProjectName
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect
County
Cleveland
Project Area within Easement (acres)
11.66
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
3 5.40 6463 N, -81.5 28866 W
Project Watershed Summary Info rmatio n
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
RiverBasin
Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03 05 0105
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
397 acres / 0.62 square miles
Project Thermal Regime
Warm
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
2.35% impervious area
Land Use Classification'
48. 1 % pasture/hay, 25.7%forested, 9.2%open space, 8.9%
cultivated crops, 4.9%developed, 2.6%herbaceous, 0.6%
scrub/shrub.
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1A
Reach 1B
UT2
Pre -project lengthwithin CE (feet)
2,141
932
320
Post -project lengthwithin CE (feet)
2,249
925
325
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined)
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
confined
Moderately
confined
Drainage area (acres)
330
397
31
Perennial, Intermittent Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
Dominant Stream Classification (existing)
B4
B4
F4
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
C4
C4
B4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

Table 3.1. Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project — DM S Proj ect No .100081
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon)
IV—
Degradation
andWidening
IV—
Degradation
and Widenin
III —
Degrading
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland
Group W1
(REE)
Wetland
Group W2
(RII)
Pre-proj ect size (acres) within CE
0.0
0.035
Post-proj ect size (acres) within CE
1.856
0.035
Wetland Type (riparian, non -riparian)
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla
loam
Chewacla
loam
Soil Hydric Status
Yes
Yes
Regulatory
Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Does?
Water of the United States -Section 404
Yes
Yes
PCN
Water of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
PCN
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Historic PreservationAct
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Co a stal Zone Management Act (CZMAor
CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
1 Source: USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2016
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics
The UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project (project) is located on an active cattle farm in Cleveland
County. The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Region, within the Level IV Ecoregion 45b:
Southern Outer Piedmont. This ecoregion is described as a complex mosaic of metamorphic and igneous
rocks with moderately dissected irregular plains and hills. Once largely cultivated, much of the region is
now in planted pine or has reverted to successional pine and hardwood forest. The Southern Outer Piedmont
is typified by lower elevations (this project site is located at —900 feet), less precipitation, and less general
relief than the rest of the Piedmont. Pine (mostly loblolly and shortleaf) dominates old fields, with mixed
oak forests found scattered in the less -altered landscapes. Gneiss, schist, and granite are typical bedrock
types, with deep saprolite and mostly red, clayey subsoils dominating (Griffith et al., 2002).
Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
Field evaluations for the presence of j urisdictional features on the prof ect were conducted in February and
November of 2018 and included the determination of stream intermittent/perennial status, wetland
delineations, and both stream and wetland qualitative assessments. These evaluations were based on the
most recent guidance documents (NCDEQ 2010, USACE 1987 and 2012, NC- SAM 2015, and NC-WAM
2016). Results from these field reviews indicate that there are approximately 3,700 total linear feet of
jurisdictional stream and approximately 0.189 acres of existing jurisdictional wetlands located within the
proposed project boundary (Figure 4). Tables 3.2 and 3.3 below present the summary findings of the stream
and wetland classifications and assessment ratings. These field assessments were subsequently confirmed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

by USACE in the Preliminary JD received on June 17, 2019. Copies of all the completed assessment fora s
and PJD confirmation can be found in Appendices F, G, and H.
Project Reach 1 is the main UT to Magness Creek comprising the project and is denoted as a "blue -line"
stream on the USGS Topographic Map (Lawndale Quadrangle, Figure 2). The upstream portion of this
reach is referred to as Reach IA with Reach 1 below the proposed crossing designated as Reach 113. The
additional tributaries UTl, UT2, and UT3 were identified in the field flowing fromeast of the project, onto
the left bank of Reach 1. It should be noted that the IRT did not accept UTl or UT3 (was not proposed) as
jurisdictional in the field (and thus are not available for mitigation credit) during their post -contract site
review. DWR stream forms were completed for all stream reaches in the project area, and Reach 1 and
UT2 were identified as perennial systems, while the remaining reaches were intermittent.
Reach 1 has been straightened and dredged in the past for agricultural use and currently has full access by
livestock. As a result, it is deeply incised and has long sections of very steep, eroding banks as well as long
sections of overly wide channel. The resulting incision and sediment loss have significantly impacted
channel bed features. Reaches UTl, UT2, and UT3 also have unlimited access by livestock and have all cut
down in their lower sections as a result of the receiving stream (Reach 1) being significantly incised
Additionally, all the reaches lack appropriate riparian buffers, with either sections of absent or narrow
buffers or buffers lacking any subcanopy / understory or herbaceous layers due to livestock pressure.
Invasive species on the project include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), and trifoliate orange (Poncimus trifoliate) found scattered throughout the buffer. Thus, given
the level of degradation observed, all reaches rated as `Low' in the NC-SAM assessment.
Nine separate wetland areas were also found scattered throughout the project floodplain totaling 0.191
acres. With the exception of one wetland, all are found entirely within the easement for a total of 0.189
acres within the project area. They all are classified as headwater forest in the NC-WAM methodology,
though they have all been almost entirely cleared for agricultural use as pasture, with current livestock
access to each one. Due to this clearing, they classify as emergent wetlands in the Cowardin system. Most
of the wetlands have been hydrologically impacted as well, either from the deep incision of the adjacent
stream, and/or through some degree of shallow ditching. Wetland areas D, H, I and J are located within the
stream top -of -banks and are wet inner berms, appearing more as wetlands due to the heavy and continuous
impact from livestock. Thus, given the significant level of degradation observed in the wetlands, they all
rated as `Low' in the NC-WAM assessment. Further information and discussion of the project's
jurisdictional features can be found in Section 3.2.3.
Table 3.2. Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
UTtoMagness CreekMitigation PrQj t—DMSProjectNo.100081
Project Reach
Existing Project
NCDWR Stream
NC-SAM
Watershed
Reach Length
DrainageArea
Stream Status
Designation
(ft)1
Classification Score
Rating
(acres)2
Reachl
31073
49
Low
379
Perennial
UT1
180
27.5
Low
21
Intermittent
UT2
320
38
Low
31
Perennial
UT3
110
25.5
Low
20
Intermittent
Notes: 'Existing Reach length within the Conservation Easement only, 2Watershed drainage area was estimated using the
online USGSStreamStats program, as well as topographic andLiDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

Table 3.3. Summary of Field Investigations for Jurisdictional Wetlands
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect - DM S Proj ect No .100081
Project Wetland
Designation
Existing
Wetland Area
Classification
Total (ac)
Within
Conservation
Easement (ac)
NC-WAM Classification
NGWAM
Rating
Cowardin
W-A
0.009
0.009
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-B
0.026
0.026
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-C
0.019
0.019
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-D
0.014
0.014
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-E
0.018
0.015
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-F
0.048
0.048
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-H
0.013
0.013
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-I
0.014
0.014
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
W-J
0.030
0.030
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM
0.191
0.189
Climatic Conditions
The Shelby 2 NW, NC weather station in Cleveland County is located approximately 7 miles south of the
project site. As reported in the AgACIS (Agricultural Applied Climate Information System) data generated
for this station, the WETS table (Appendix A) lists the average annual rainfall for the surrounding area as
49.39 inches, based on data collected from 1990 - 2016 as shown below in Table 3.4 along with the monthly
historic averages. This station will be used to determine departures from normal rainfall amounts
throughout the project. The WETS table also reports the growing season for the site as 226 days in length
beginning on March 23 and ending on November 4, using the 50% probability data for a temperature of
28' F or higher (http://agacis.rcc-acis. org/?fips=37045).
Table 3.4. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
UT to Magness Mitigation Proj ect - DM S Proj ect No .100081
Month
Shelby 2 NW Station
Average Monthly
Precipitation in
30% Probability
Precipitation is less
than in
30% Probability
Precipitation is more
than in
January
4.47
3.09
5.32
February
3.32
2.41
3.90
March
4.62
3.12
5.52
April
3.92
2.47
4.73
May
4.20
2.82
5.03
June
4.42
2.54
5.3 8
July
4.61
2.92
5.56
August
4.31
2.43
5.26
September
3.90
2.05
4.77
October
3.70
1.76
4.44
November
3.67
1.89
4.48
December
4.24
3.16
4.96
Total
49.39
Annual Avera es
41.58
53.16
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

Geology and Soils
Geologically, the Magness Creek Site lies within the Inner Piedmont Belt, consisting of metamorphic
rock primarily in the mica schist formation. Lenses and layers of quartz schist, micaceous quartzite,
calc-silicate rock, biotite gneiss, amphibolite, and phyllite are also found throughout this formation,
with garnet, staurolite, kyanite, or sillimanite occurring locally (NCGS, 1985). The NE Shelby
Quadrangle for Cleveland County, (USGS, 1962) further indicates that the Magness Creek Site is
located above lightto dark -gray, foliated, layered, finetomediumgrained, inequigranularbiotitegneiss
and schist, with deeply weathered brassy to red -colored saprolite commonly found in thin to thick
layers, usually warped into broad open folds.
The project site is located within the Felsic Crystalline Soil System of the Piedmont Soil Region of
North Carolina (Daniels et al., 1999), formed primarily in residium saprolite from the underlying
bedrock metamorphic or igneous parent materials. Topographically, broad gently sloping uplands are
common with moderately to steeply sloping areas with narrow convex ridges and steep valley slopes
along branching, dendritic stream patterns. Finer -textured soils such as Cecil and Pacolet typically
dominate the uplands, while more coarse -loamy soils such as Chewacla and Toccoa are commonly
found throughout the floodplains.
The specific soils found in the general surrounding area of the Magness Creek site are dominated by a
classic Piedmont soil transitional landscape with Cecil clay loam soils (2-8% slopes) found in the broad
interstream divides, with Pacolet sandy clay loam soils (8-15% slopes) found on the steeper slopes
along the stream channels, with Chewacla loams (0-2% slopes) found throughout the floodplains (See
Figure 7). These Chewacla loams dominate the proposed project site itself, and are very deep,
somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils formed in alluvium and commonly found in river
valleys throughout the Piedmont and Coastal Plain (NRCS, 2006). Their formal taxonomic
classification is: fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts. Chewacla soils are
listed by the NRCS as being hydric for Cleveland County, NC.
Topography
The general topography within the project's 0.62 square mile drainage area is fairly typical of this
portion of the Piedmont region. The surrounding terrain consists of steep hills overlooking narrow
stream valleys. The average elevation of the drainage area is —940 feet, with a minimum elevation of
—840 feet and a maximum elevation of —1,030 feet. The topography of the project site itself and its
immediate surrounding area is very similar, with adjacent moderate to steeply sloped hills overlooking
the project streams and narrow floodplain. The project valley slopes vary significantly for each of the
two main project reaches. The valley slope for Reach 1 is approximately 1.9%, while the UT2 valley
has a 11.1 % slope. The steepness of UT2 is a result of the significant downcutting observed in its lower
section as it eroded to meet the incised channel of Reach 1. The project area within the easement has
a high -point elevation of —920 feet and a low -point elevation of —850 feet. Figures 2 and 10 depict the
topography for the proj ect site and immediate surrounding area.
Existing Vegetation:
Vegetation on the project has been heavily disturbed from years of use in agriculture, in particular from
livestock. The project stream buffers are currently used for livestock grazing and subsequently much
of the buffers consist of a range of typical pasture grasses (fescues and clovers) with scattered weeds
and other common herbaceous species present such as docks (Rumex spp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), common violet (Viola sororia), buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.),
horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), plantains (Plantago spp.), and dandelions (Taraxacum officiniale),
with smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvatica), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.), and
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) found in wetter areas. Mature trees are found scattered throughout the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

buffers of the middle portion of Reach 1 and along UT2. They primarily consist of red maple (Acer
rubmm), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), with some
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and American holly (Ilex opaca) also
present. There is a notable lack of any understory/subcanopy layer on the project, as well as heavily
impacted shrub and herbaceous layers, all likely the result of livestock grazing pressure.
Notable invasive species found on the site include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multi -flora rose
(Rosa multiflora), and trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliate), all are found thinly scattered within the
project buffer.
3.1.2 Land Use / Land Cover, Impacts, Historic, Current and Future
Relevant land use / land cover and their impacts were investigated for the project and surrounding
watershed through landowner discussions, a review of historic aerial photographs, GIS analysis using
historic datasets, and field reconnaissance.
Based on landowner conversations historic agricultural uses on the project site itself have included the
current livestock pasture as well as the adjacent turkey houses for well over forty years (1979 aerial
shows established turkey houses and pastureland). These activities have negatively impacted both water
quality and streambank stability along the project streams and their tributaries. The resulting stressors
include excess nutrient input, streambank erosion and sedimentation, channel modification, and the loss
of riparian buffers.
The USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2016 shows that the entire 0.62 square mile
(397 acres) project drainage area was 48.1% pasture/hay, 25.7% forested, 9.2% open space, 8.9%
cultivated crops, 4.9% developed, 2.6% herbaceous, and 0.6% scrub/shrub. For comparison, the 2009
Broad RBRP describes the overall Big Harris / Magness Creek watershed (51 square miles) as being
somewhat similar with approximately 49% total agriculture, 39% forested, and 12% developed.
Historic aerial photographs from 1947, 1961, 1979, and 1993 were reviewed for the project and its
immediate surrounding area (Figures 9A — 9D). The aerials all show the recognizable project area in
various stages of agricultural development and use, as is the surrounding area. The adjacent fields to
the project itself are cleared and used for pasture in each photo. The 1947 aerial reveals that the proj ect
area was once largely cleared, with trees primarily observable only along the lower section of Readi 1
in the right buffer. Reach 1 is only faintly visible in the photo though it does appear to have been
straightened and impacted from the adjacent agricultural activity (e.g. field terracing and vehicle paths)
in both the upper and lower sections. The 1961 aerial reveals the project was further cleared orthinned
by this date, especially in the upper portion of Reach 1. Reach 1 is also much more visible in this photo
and has clearly been straightened. The 1979 aerial shows that reforestation is occurring within the
project area, though it is clearly still thin along upper Reach 1. The reach is still visible in several
sections (particularly in the upper portion) and shows some migration from its previously straightened
condition as the stream has carved itself a new pattern. The turkey houses still located on the farm are
now visible in this photo as well. The 1993 aerial reveals no additional reforestation from that
previously observed on the project (though no new clearing observed either) along with continued
significant stream pattern migration. Numerous sections of Reach 1 are visible and appear similar to
their present condition, with an overly torturous sinuosity. By comparison, the most recent aerial from
2019 shows a project landscape quite similar to the 1993 aerial, with the continued maturity of the
forested areas, though not appearing any larger in extent. Reach 1 is clearly visible and has migrated
significantly from its previously observed straightened alignment seen in the earlier aerials.
Overall, the historic aerial assessment reveals that the project area itself appears to have been highly
impacted since at least 1947 with straightened channels and the clearing of substantial portions of buffer
for pasture utilization. The larger project watershed area has always been shown to be dominated by
agriculture and remains as such to the present day. The only notable change observed over time is the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

reforestation of the riparian buffer on the farm immediately upstream of the project (upstream of Readi
1). Shown as completely bare in 1947 and 1961, and partially cleared in 1979, it has since slowly
reforested.
Thus, the history of the land use and land cover of the site and surrounding area indicates that significant
impacts to water quality have occurred, certainly resulting in increases in erosion, sedimentation, and
nutrient inputs to the streams, and decreases in stream and riparian habitat and function. The future for
the project and its watershed will also likely remain largely undeveloped and agricultural in nature
within a general rural landscape through the proj ect's lifespan.
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response
The watershed disturbances are described above and include the straightening/channelization of project
reaches, livestock impacts, and the removal or degradation of forested buffers. The proj ect reaches have
been heavily impacted from these modifications and land use practices. Reach 1's buffers are mostly
cleared and planted in pasture grasses, though there are some scattered mature trees present. The
remaining buffer areas do have a somewhat sparse layer of mature trees, though they completely lack
a subcanopy and have heavily degraded shrub and herbaceous layers due to livestock impacts.
The reaches have responded to these disturbances by becoming increasingly incised; Reach 1 has cut
down to bedrock in several locations and is now becoming increasingly overwide, while UT2 has cut
down to meet the incised channel elevation of the receiving Reach 1. Large sections of the reaches are
laterally eroding, as streambanks are mostly vertical with large areas of scour and with some isolated
mass wasting, all of which is exacerbated by livestock hoof shear. The lack of protective woody and
deep rooting vegetation along the majority of the project reaches has also contributed to accelerated
bank erosion and migration. While there are sections of reach with established trees and root mass
along the banks, they are still experiencing erosion (as evidenced by the number of fallen trees noted
along the bank) and their roots are increasingly exposed. The channel incision and associated decrease
in overbank flooding frequency has also likely resulted in a lowered water table in the adjacent
floodplain. Thus, the cumulative effects of the watershed disturbance have severely impacted the
functioning of the project reaches and buffers.
3.2 Regulatory Review
3.2.1 Categorical Exclusion
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies to use an interdisciplinary
approach in planning and decision -making for actions that will have an impact on the environment. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have
determined that DMS projects will not involve significant impacts and therefore a Categorical
Exclusion (Cat -Ex) is the appropriate type of environmental document for this project. FHWA hasalso
determined that stream restoration projects are considered land disturbing activities; therefore, Parts 2
and 3 of the DMS Cat -Ex checklist and a summary of the findings applicable to the environmental
regulations associated for this project are included.
The Cat -Ex for the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project was approved by FHWA and DMS on
May 22, 2019. The Cat -Ex summarized impacts to natural, cultural, and historical resources and
documented coordination with stakeholders and federal and state agencies. All documentation for the
Cat -Ex is included in Appendix I.
3.2.2 FENIA Regulated Floodplain Compliance
The UT to Magness Creek proj ect is located within FEMA Zone X as noted on the Cleveland County
Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 3710264100J (Figure 8). The topography of the site (valley slope and
proposed slope) supports the design without creating the potential for hydrologic trespass. The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-7
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

streambed will not be raised within the first 120 feet from the conservation easement and ties into
existing ground approximately 70 feet upstream of the culvert below Selkirk Drive.
3.2.3 Section 404 / 401 Permitting
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the
United States in accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and
subsequent federal regulations and guidance. In fulfillment of the proj ect's Section 404 / 401 permitting
requirement, a Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) will be submitted for aNationwide Permit (NWP)
27: Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities. As discussed previously
in Section 3.1.1, the project area was evaluated in the field for the presence of these resource features
in February and November 2018 and the results were subsequently confirmed in the field by the
USACE and a PJD was received on June 17, 2019 (Appendix H).
The proposed mitigation design will avoid or minimize all disturbance or impacts to the existing stream
and wetland features during project construction wherever practicable. Due to the inherent nature of
the project, a complete avoidance of all impacts to jurisdictional features is not possible. However, arty
impacts to stream or wetland resources from construction (both temporary and permanent) will be more
than offset by the ultimate restoration and/or enhancement of stream and wetland resources both in their
overall length or area and in the resource functional uplift. As part of the project, approximately 1.8
acres of wetlands will be restored through both the hydrologic reestablishment of hydric soils and from
the rehabilitation of two existing j urisdictional wetlands. Though no wetland credits are being sought
for the remainder of the existing wetlands, they will be enhanced (except as noted below) through the
restoration of a more natural flooding regime, by raising their water table, and by planting native
wetland vegetation. All existing streams are currently rated as `Low' in NC-SAM, and all existing
wetlands are rated as `Low' in NC-WAM. Ultimately, the project will restore resource function such
that all features will be rated higher than their current respective assessments. Approximately 0.07
acres of wetlands found on wet inner berms within the stream top -of -banks of Reach 1 will be impacted
during construction, along with an additional 0.01 acres from the filling of a drainage ditch. A copy of
the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) will be provided with the Final Mitigation Plan, which will
include figures detailing the areas of temporary and permanent impacts.
M I CHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-8
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
Current stream and watershed conditions within the proj ect site, as well as throughout the Magness Creek
watershed as described in previous sections, allow for functional improvements. Channel incision, removal of
riparian buffer, and livestock impacts are the predominant impairments within the project reaches, and have
contributed to the overall degradation of the local ecosystem due to a lack of floodplain connectivity, minimal
bedform variation, poorly functioning riparian buffers, and high amounts of sediment inputs from bank erosion.
The uplift for these proj ect reaches will primarily be achieved at the hydraulic and geomorphological functional
levels. Hydraulic improvements will come from the reintroduction of bankfull flows to the historic floodplain
through a Priority 1 Restoration of Reach 1. The approach will elevate the stream beds and add an appropriate
meandering pattern to the channel. Priority I restoration will also reestablish floodplain connectivity and retum
a hydraulic routing regime allowing flood stages to access a broader flood prone area. The restoration will
allow frequent flood flows to spread out instead of containing them within the existing confined channel.
Raising the streambed should also raise the adjacent groundwater table, which will improve the hydrology of
the adjacent pockets of existing wetlands found alongside project streams.
Geomorphological functional uplift will be achieved through channels sized to the bankfull flow, a planform
and profile design emphasizing improved bedform variation with high amounts of woody debris for bank
protection and habitat, and the reestablishment of a forested riparian corridor. These improvements will be
achieved through both the Restoration of Reach 1 and the Level I Enhancement of UT2. As a result, bank
migration and lateral stability will be restored to a sustainable level and the banks and bed will accommodate
design flows in a stable manner. Sediment inputs will decrease due to reduced bank erosion and sediment
transport can return to a stable level that will accommodate watershed inputs. Riparian plantings will further
support geomorphological functionality by increasing bank stability.
Consideration of future impacts to the area that could limit functional uplift opportunities is important when
assessing project potential. As mentioned in previous sections, the project exists within a predominantly rural
area where agriculture is the primary land use. Substantial changes to the surrounding area are not expected as
the watershed is not likely to experience a significant increase in development in the future based on previous
land use changes over time, and the area is most likely to remain dominantly rural. Therefore, the hydrology
of the site will likely remain relatively unchanged as well. However, the restoration effort will allow the stream
to remain stable during any potential future development as the project work includes improved access to the
floodplain, significant bank stabilization, restored buffers, and numerous in -stream grade control structures.
4.1 Project Constraints
The principle constraints to achieve maximum uplift potential for the project are related to upstream and off -
site issues, as these existing upstream conditions within the project watershed couldhave significant impacts to
potential physicochemical and biological improvements. Examples of upstream of off -site water quality issues
include nutrient and sediment loading, and the presence of diverse biology near the site to ultimately repopulate
the improved habitat post -construction. An additional project constraint is the necessity of an easement break
for a culverted crossing located in the lower section of Reach 1. The crossing will allow livestock access to an
area of shade on the other side of the easement and to rotate livestock without disturbing the restored stream or
adjacent riparian areas. Though no credit is being sought for this section, restoration or enhancement measures
will continue as practicable through the break to maintain project continuity and ensure the long-term success
of the proj ect.
4.2 Functional Uplift Summary
Substantial functional uplift for the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation project is expected and is described in
detail above. Improvements to site hydraulics and geomorphology will be clear and measurable post-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-1
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

construction, while improvements to other functions such as physicochemical and biological may not be as
easily determined and can be greatly affected by offsite conditions. Since only the hydraulics and
geomorphology of the project streams are being directly measured, project goals are primarily linked to these
functions. While project vegetation will also be monitored and can be linked to biological and physicochemical
uplift, these parameters are more difficult to directly measure. Table 5.1 summarizes the project goals and
objectives that will lead to functional improvements and the monitoring tools that will be used to track these
changes to the site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-2
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJ ECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives for the UT to Magness Creek project are detailed below in Table 5.1. They represent
the logical conclusion to the previous discussions of current site conditions and historic use, watershed
disturbance and response, and the functional uplift potential for the project. The listed goals are broad
statements about intended project accomplishments and are consistent with the identified watershed priorities
as outlined in the Watershed Approach and Site Selection discussion in Section 2. By comparison, the
objectives and outcomes are intended to be more specific, measurable, and represent direct steps towards
accomplishing the associated goal. The project objectives will have performance standards and success criteria
associated with them as described later in Section 7 of this report and will be evaluated throughout the
monitoring phase of the prcj ect.
Table 5.1 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project — DMS Project No. 100081
Goals
Objectives
Functional
Monitoring Measurement
Level
Tool
To raise channelbeds and/or excavate
slopingvegetatedfloodplains
Reconnect stream
appropriate for stream type, by utilizing
Flood Frequency
reaches totheir
either a Priority I Restoration approach
Hydraulics
Cross -Sectional Survey
floodplains
for Reach I (C-type), or an
Enhancement Level approachforUT2
- e.
Restore or
improve
hydrology to
To raise adjacent channel beds and
adjacenthydric
remove drainage ditches to raise
Hydraulics
Groundwater Wells
soils and riparian
groundwater tables within the buffer.
wetlands
To construct streams of appropriate
dimensions, pattern, andprofile in
Improvestream
restored reaches, slope stream banks on
Cross -Sectional Survey
stability
enhanced streams, install grade control
Geomorphology
Visual Inspection
with plunge pools, andutilize bio-
Photo Points
engineeringto providelongterm
stability.
Construct an appropriate channel
morphology to allstreams increasingthe
Ibitat aquatic
number and depths of pools, increasing
Cross -Sectional Survey
habitat
the amount of woody debris with
Geomorphology
Visual Inspection
structures including geo-lifts with brush
Photo Points
toe, woody riffles, log vanes/weirs,
cross -vanes, and/orJ-hooks.
Reestablish
Establish riparianbuffers at a 50-ft
VegetationPlots
forested riparian
minimum widthalongall stream
Geomorphology
Visual Inspection
buffers
reaches, planted with native tree and
Photo Points
shrub species.
Establish a permanent conservation
Permanently
easement restricting landuse in
protect the project
perpetuity. This will prevent site
Geomorphology
Visual Inspection
disturbance and allow the project to
mature and stabilize.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GATON PLAN (FINAL)

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Project Design Approach
The selection of project design criteria was based on a combination of approaches, including a review of
information from reference streams within the geographic area, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring
results from numerous past projects, and best professional judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach
surveys and the monitoring results from multiple NC projects provided the most pertinent background
information to determine the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and overall site
functional uplift potential. The design parameters for the site also took into consideration current guidelines
from the USACE and DMS. Additionally, a Grazing Plan was completed for the farm by the NRCS and
landowner, with input from Baker. This Plan was developed as guidance for the landowner regarding how to
maximize his pasture of grazing by his cattle herd. The pasture was separated into multiple paddocks, a
livestock watering system was laid out showing a well location, the appropriate number and general locations
of watering tanks, as well as the appropriate type and location of livestock fencing. The needs and
requirements for the stream restoration prof ect were included in this analysis and plan preparation. The grazing
plan overview information can be found in Appendix K.
While reference reach data can be a useful aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are
limitations in smaller stream systems. The flow patterns and channel formation for most reference reach
quality streams is often controlled by slope, drainage areas, and larger trees and/or other deep-rooted
vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are particularly affected by
vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be applicable or are often adjusted in
the design criteria to create more conservative designs that are less likely to erode after construction, before
the permanent vegetation is established. Reference reach data was used to provide additional confidence in
the design parameters chosen but not used as the only basis for design parameter selection.
Two reference reaches were selected from stable locations within''/z mile of the proj ect location. One reference
reach is located further downstream of Reach 1 itself (but off the proj ect site), while the second was located
on another nearby UT to Magness Creek found above the intersection of Toney Road and Ball Park Road
southwest of the project. A third reference reach selected was an unnamed tributary that was part of the Puzzle
Creek project in adjacent Rutherford County. Additionally, reference parameters from Baker's internal
database based on successful past projects were consulted and analyzed. The data shown on Table 6.1 helped
to provide a basis for evaluating the proj ect site and determining the stream systems that may have been present
historically with consideration for how they may have been influenced by changes within the watershed.
Table 6.1 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Parameter
Reach near Toney
Rd (Y2 Mile SW of
Project)
Downstream of
Reach 1 (Off
Project Site)
UT to Puzzle
Creek
Baker
Composite
Reference Data
Valley Width ft
120
140
—
Contributing Drainage Area (ac)
275
621
1,024
Channel/Reach Classification
B4
B4
C4
C4
Discharge Width (ft)
9.4
13.7
14 — 18
Discharge Depth (ft)
1.2
1.3
1.5 —1.6
Discharge Area (ft2)
10.9
17.5
24 — 28
Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
2.6
3.1
5.0 — 5.8
3.5 — 5.0
Discharge (cfs)
1 28.5
54.0
140
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.1 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect — DMS Proj ect No.
100081
Reach near Toney
Downstream of
UT to Puzzle
Baker
0Parameter
Rd (Y2 Mile SW of
Reach 1 (Off
Creek
Composite
Project
Project Site
Reference Data
Water Surface Slope'
—
—
0.0085
Sinuosity
low
low
1.21
1.2 —1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
8.1
10.7
8.2 —12.0
10 — 15
Bank Height Ratio
3.3
1.28
1.0 —1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.77
1.83
>2.8
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /
disp (mm)'
—
—
—
1. Water Surface Slope is not reportedbecause profile information was nottaken at this site; neitherwere pebble counts.
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for functional upli$,
specific approaches were developed for each reach that would address the restoration or enhancement of
stream functions within the project area. Prior to impacts from past channel manipulation, the topography,
elevation, adjacent vegetation, and soils on site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the past
as a Piedmont Alluvial Forest system. Therefore, overall design approaches were formulated to best restore
and/or enhance this type of system. First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired
stream functions was selected and designed for each reach. Then a design plan was developed to improve the
hydrology, geomorphology, and habitat of the Proj ect streams.
6.2 Design Morphological Parameters
For design purposes, the selected approaches chosen for each reach were based on the maximum potential for
functional uplift as determined during the site field assessments as previously described in Section 4. The
specific design parameters were developed based on those approaches so that appropriate planform geometry,
cross-section dimensions, and reach profiles could be accurately described for developing construction plan
documents. The overall design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the
selected stream types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension, facet slope, and bed features to
form over longer periods of time under the processes of flooding, re -colonization of vegetation, sediment
deposition, and other watershed influences.
The following tables present the design stream morphology parameters proposed for Restoration and
Enhancement reaches, as needed. The proposed stream design values and design criteria were selected using
existing conditions surveys and bankfull identification, sediment collection and analysis, regional curve
analysis, nearby reference reach data, and Baker's internal reference ratios proven to be successful on
numerous past projects. Following the initial application of the design criteria, detailed refinements were
made to accommodate the existing valley and channel morphology. This step minimizes unnecessary
disturbance of the riparian area and wetlands, makes adjustments around specific features in the field,
maximizes the uplift to the ecological resources, and allows for some natural channel adjustment following
construction.
Reach 1: Restoration
Reach 1 consists of the mainstem of the UT to Magness Creek within the project area, which extends from the
upstream northern terminus of the project at an existing property line that is fenced and flows south then
southwest approximately 3,205 feet to the end of the project reach. The project ends approximately 203 feet
upstream of a culverted road crossing at Selkirk Drive (SR 1803). The project ending point is just upstream
of where the FEMA designated floodplain begins. The project ending point was selected to avoid conflicts
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-2
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

with this jurisdictional area and potential costly FEMA permitting. Reach 1 is a perennial channel with a
valley slope of approximately 0.01 percent and a drainage area of 0.38 square miles (245 acres) at the
beginning of the reach and grows to 0.62 square miles (397 acres) at Selkirk Drive. Flow has been consistent
within the project limits for the last two years of site identification andfield activities. Reach 1 is very incised
with bank height ratios (BHR) of 2.0 or greater throughout most of its length and significantly more on many
sections. This reach is exhibiting bank scour over more than 80% of the channel, on both banks. Mass wasting
is occurring at multiple locations along the reach and this significant erosion has resulted in multiple trees
being undercut and falling into the channel. Many large poplar trees have their root systems exposed on the
stream bank (see front cover) and will be falling into the creek in short order unless this situation can be
addressed.
The bed material of Rl is predominantly composed of medium gravel (d50 = 10.2 mm), but with extensive
sections of high sand deposition, particularly in locations where the channel has significant lateral erosion,
causing the channel to become overly wide. This sand is due to extensive bank erosion within the reach. The
reach lacks deep pools except in a few areas were bedrock is exposed and creates a knickpoint with a drop
that causes scour and deeper pool formation. Much of the remaining sand and gravel dominated channel is
almost entirely composed of riffles or deeper runs. As a result, habitat is fairly homogenous throughout the
reach with little diversity of bedform. Reach 1 is difficult to classify using Rosgen classification terminology
given the extreme instability and can be called an incised B, C or F stream type depending on the existing
condition cross section used to do the classification. We are calling the upper end of the reach a B and the
lower reach a C. These designations are because of the three stream types our cross sections indicated are
present and these two are generally the more stable forms. However, more than entrenchment, width/depth
ratio and sinuosity, the parameters used to determine stream type, indicate that this prof ect reach is unstable.
Reach 1 has a riparian buffer that varies from being primarily pasture grasses and other weedy herbaceous
vegetation with only scattered trees in the upper and lower sections, to having a stand of larger trees present
within the buffer of the middle section of the reach. Aside from these mature canopy trees (primarily tulip
poplar), the buffer lacks any significant understory vegetation with no smaller subcanopy, shrub, or native
herbaceous species present. This lack of understory is certainly due to grazing pressure and shade. There are
scattered invasive species found within the buffer but there are no thick stands. Invasive vegetation consists
of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and trifoliate orange (Poncirus
trifoliate).
There is no one specific existing crossing along Rl, but rather a number of locations where livestock and
possibly past stream bank alteration, have created areas of unstable stream bank. These low stream bank
locations are used by livestock as crossings, as watering areas, and as general loafing areas during hot weather.
A couple of these low bank areas are also used by the landowner as crossing locations for his tractor or 4-
wheeler if he needs to cross the stream. There are no utility crossings of the stream within the project reach
Atone location approximately 1,500 feet down Rl on the right bank, there is significant overland flow coming
down a stormwater conveyance and entering the stream. At the location where it enters the stream a significant
headcut has developed on the stream bank. This is the proposed location of a Best Management Practice
(BMP) installation.
A Priority Level I restoration approach was selected to fully restore stream and associated buffer functions to
Rl. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain. This will promote more
frequent over bank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events greater than the
bankfull discharge and will improve adjacent groundwater hydrology. The floodplain area will also act as a
sediment sink providing storage of sediment from upstream sources instead of sending all the sediment load
downstream. The very top of the reach will include a relatively short transitional section of channel where the
stream bed elevation is being raised to a point where the existing valley floor (the new floodplain) can be
accessed at a bankfull flow. Between the beginning of the conservation easement and the point where the
stream can fully access the floodplain, the stream banks will be lowered to the planned flood plain elevation.
This flood plain bench will gradually slope to the existing ground elevation, thus providing improved access
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-3
UT TO MAG NESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJ ECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIT GAT ON PLAN (FINAL)

to the floodplain until the bed elevation can be fully raised. The bench will be held to as Iowa slope as possible
At its downstream end, another transitional section will begin approximately 200 feet upstream of the project
terminus by dropping the bed elevation relative to the floodplain, with stream bank sloping again being
conducted as described above. Soil amendments will be applied as appropriate to the exposed subsoil on the
sloped banks, which will be loosened prior to having stockpiled topsoil replaced on the surface. It is likely
topsoil and significant amendments will not be required as excavation may expose a buried A horizon which
is rich in organic matter.
The reach will be designed as a Rosgen C4 stream type and will be restored using appropriate riffle -pool
morphology, which will restore a proper channel meander geometry and incorporate deep pools. This will
greatly improve habitat throughout this reach. For design purposes, Reach 1 has been divided into an upper,
Reach 1 A, and lower, Reach 1 B, sections to account for the increase in drainage area over the entire length of
RI. Each sub -reach will have the channel dimensions sized appropriately. Reach IA will run from the
beginning of the project to Station 33+51.77 and Reach 1B will run from Station 33+81.98 to the end of the
project. There will be a break in the conservation easement between IA and 1B where a culverted crossing
will be installed. The design width -to -depth ratio for the channel will be 14.2 and 15.2 for IA and 113,
respectively, though over time the channel may narrow due to deposition of sediment and growth of
streambank vegetation. Channel narrowing should not risk downcutting because any narrowing would be in
response to stabilizing processes (i. e., vegetation establishment, point bar formation, etc.). The entrenchment
ratio will be significantly greater than 2.2 on both sub -reaches as the adjacent flood -prone width allows, while
the sinuosity for both will be 1.2. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and will provide floodplain
access, promote stability, and provide sediment storage.
Table 6.2a Reach 1A Stream Design Morphology Parameters.
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Project No.100081
Parameter LJ
Existing
Condition
Reference
Conditions
Proposed
Valley Width (ft)
110 - 150
120 / 130
110 - 150
Contributing Drainage Areas acres
251 - 293
275 / 621
245 - 330
Channel/Reach Classificationz
134c
B4 / C4
C4
Discharge Width (ft)
11.32 - 29.0
9.4 / 14.4
12.5
Discharge Depth (ft)
0.90 - 0.44
0.84 / 1.16
0.9
Discharge Area (ft2)
10.2 - 12.6
10.5 / 13.7
11.0
Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
2.7 - 2.9
2.5 / 2.7
2.5
Discharge (cfs)
26.9 - 36.0
26.9 / 37.0
27
Water Surface Slope
0.0124 - 0.0076
0.011
0.0110
Sinuosity
1.14 - 1.23
1.2
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
12.58 - 65.9
8.14 / 15.2
14.2
Bank Height Ratio
3.09 - 6.25
1.0/ 3.28
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.96 - 1.07
1.8 / 3.2
3.2
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp
mm
2.11/6.81/10.16/
17.32/30.02/90
2.11/6.81/10.16/
19.34/48.71/90
1. Existing and Reference Condition drainage areas were taken from the surveyed cross-section locations, while the Proposed
drainage areas shown are from the top and bottom of the reach.
2. Stream type varied with each cross-section and we could have chosen an existing stream type as B or C. B was selected
because it came from a more stable reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-4
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.2b Reach 1B Stream Design Morphology Parameters.
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Project No.100081
Parameter
Existing
Condition
Reference
Condition
Proposed
Valley Width (ft)
110 -150
120 / 130
200
Contributing Drainage Areas acres
371
275 / 621
352 - 397
Channel/Reach Classification2
C4
B4 / C4
C4
Discharge Width (ft)
11.32 - 29.0
9.4 / 14.4
14.5
Discharge Depth (ft)
0.90 - 0.44
0.84 / 1.16
1.0
Discharge Area (ft2)
10.2 - 12.6
10.5 / 13.7
13.8
Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
2.7 - 2.9
2.5 / 2.7
2.7
Discharge (cfs)
26.9 - 36.0
26.9 / 37.0
37
Water Surface Slope
0.0124 - 0.0076
0.011
0.0110
Sinuosity
1.14 - 1.23
1.2
1.20
Width/Depth Ratio
12.58 - 65.9
8.14 / 15.2
15.2
Bank Height Ratio
3.09 - 6.25
1.0/ 3.28
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.96 - 1.07
1.8 / 3.2
2.8
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp
(MM)
0.33/2.66/7.65/
19.34/48.71/90
1
2.11/6.81/10.16/
19.34/48.71/90
1. Existing and Reference Condition drainage areas were taken from the surveyed cross-section locations, while the Proposed
drainage areas shown are from the top and bottom of the reach.
2. Stream type varied with each cross-section and we could have chosen an existing stream type as C or F. C was selected
because it came from a more stable reach.
In -stream structures such as constructed riffles, cross -vanes, log jams, and j-hooks will be constructed using
boulder, stone, brush, and log materials. This technique will provide the appropriate bedform morphology,
protect stream banks, improve aquatic habitat, and ensure grade control along this reach. Bioengineering
techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes are also proposed to protect
restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. Sections of the old
channel not incorporated into the new channel alignment will be completely filled using suitable material up
to the floodplain elevation. Where possible and appropriate, some small vernal pools may also be constructed
within the alignment of the old channel. These will be small depressions that are a foot or less lower than
bankfull to allow for temporary ponding of water and additional habitat diversity.
Mature trees within the riparian buffer of RI have been avoided in the design plan form to the extent possible,
so that as few as possible will have to be removed. Any trees and native brush removed will be used within
the channel to the extent possible. Riparian buffers 50 feet or greater will be established throughout the reach
and will be planted with appropriate native species. The invasive vegetation will be mechanically removed
during construction and will be chemically treated thereafter throughout the monitoring phase. Removed
invasive vegetation will not be used in the channel.
There is one break in the project conservation easement along RI and it is between RI and RIB as described
above. There will be a culverted crossing installed at this location to allow livestock to use the forested area
to the east of the easement in the heat of the summer. This opening is also required by the State Property
Office so that we do not create a landlocked area of the landowner's property with the easement. There will
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-5
UTTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

be gates installed, so that access to this crossing can be controlled. The culvert crossing will consist of an
appropriately sized primary culvert with secondary floodplain culverts installed higher to carry flow across
the floodplain (see Appendix A for pipe sizing summary). Below the project reach and outside of the easement
there will also be a ford crossing installed using NRCS standards, so that the banks will be stable. Below this
crossing livestock will be excluded from the stream with barbed wire fencing. The entire conservation
easement around Reach 1 will also be fenced using barbed wire to exclude livestock and reduce sediment,
fecal coliform, and nutrient inputs. Access gates (small 4' gates or larger) will be installed at various locations
to allow for monitoring activities and inspection of the easement. Since livestock are being excluded from the
stream as their water source, a groundwater well and a livestock drinker system is being installed to provide
water. These agricultural practices have been planned by NRCS and are detailed in the Yarboro Farm Plan
(see Appendix K).
UT2: Enhancement Level I
There is only one tributary to RI that is being improved through the restoration project, UT2. UT2 has a
confluence with the mainstem at approximately Station 38+90 on the left bank. This tributary is a perennial
stream that begins upslope of the project property, to the east of the mainstem, and flows west crossing the
property line approximately 325 feet upstream of the confluence. The channel has an existing slope from the
property line to the confluence of 0.0206. The channel is deeply incised with a bank height ratio much greater
than 10; however, the ratio gradually decreases as the channel approaches the mainstem and is slightly less
than 5 near the confluence. The soil banks along this reach, though quite steep, continue to be impacted by
livestock as they move across and through the channel, and there are numerous livestock crossing trails found
across this reach. As a result, the channel is experiencing active erosion for well over 80 percent of the
streambank length. The absence of vegetation along the majority of the bank of this project reach also
contributes to ongoing instability. The right (northern) buffer of the reach does have a good stand of hardwood
trees, though several of the trees located near the stream bank have recently fallen due to undermining from
the incised channel. The left (southern) buffer has a narrow, somewhat thin stand of trees with pasture coming
to within 10-20 feet of the stream's top of bank. Between station 11+00 and 12+50 of UT2 the channel drops
three feet and has a series of very tight meanders between trees. The roots are acting as a knickpoint for the
dropping channel, but it is aligned against a steep left bank and any soil eroding from the slope falls directly
into the stream.
An Enhancement Level 1 approach was selected for this reach. The stream banks are unstable due to livestock
use, and there is little woody or herbaceous vegetation on the steep banks which is causing sedimentation in
the stream. The Enhancement I approach will allow for addressing stream bank erosion issues by establishing
stable stream dimensions and reducing the slope of the high banks along the reach. This channel is a B type
stream and will need to be raised to meet the elevation of the proposed mainstem. The channel cannot be
raised to the valley surface given the high degree of incision; however, it can be raised 1 to 3 feet which will
significantly reduce the entrenchment of the channel and allow the development of a significantly wider
floodplain within the incised channel. Establishing an entrenchment value of at least 1.4 to 2.2 will be done
by bank grading and raising the channel. Grade control is limited to tree roots through this reach due to an
absence of bedrock. Vertical stability will be achieved, and habitat improved through the reach by installing
grade control structures at intervals across the reach and stabilizing meander bends with bioengineered bank
revetments. These structures will provide energy dissipation and grade control and will also provide a
diversity of habitat types as they support pools with connecting riffles. The in -stream structures selected will
be similar to those described above for Reach 1. The design width -to -depth ratio for the channel will be 12.3,
though over time the channel may narrow due to deposition of sediment and the growth of streambank
vegetation. Channel narrowing should not risk instability because any narrowing would be in response to
stabilizing processes (i.e., vegetation establishment, point bar formation, sequestering of sediment on the
floodplain, etc.). Steep channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and connected to sloping floodplains,
this will promote stability and provide sediment storage. The existing hardwood trees along the top of the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-6
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

steep banks will be protected as much as possible. Fallen trees will be removed and trees that must be removed
to conduct enhancement of the channel will be used as part of in -stream structures.
Riparian buffers at least 50 feet in width will be restored with native species and protected along all of UT2.
Any invasive species found scattered along the banks and within the riparian buffers of the reach will be
removed at construction and throughout the monitoring period. Additionally, barbed wire fencing will be
installed to exclude livestock and reduce sediment, fecal coliform, and nutrient inputs.
Table 6.2c Reach UT2 Stream Design Morphology Parameters.
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Project No.100081
Parameter
Existing
Condition
Reference
Condition
Proposed
Valley Width (ft)
80
120 / 80
80
Contributing Drainage Area' (acres)
30
275 / 31
31
Channel/Reach Classification
F4
134 / 134
134
Discharge Width (ft)
5.05
9.44 / 5.71
6.25
Discharge Depth (ft)
0.32
1.16 / 0.46
0.5
Discharge Area (ft2)
1.63
10.9 / 2.66
2.7
Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.16
2.61 / 1.94
1.9
Discharge (cfs)
5.15
28.5 / 5.15
5.15
Water Surface Slope
0.0206
-
0.0100
Sinuosity
1.18
N/A / 1.20
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
15.8
8.1 / 12.3
12.3
Bank Height Ratio
7.62
3.2 / 1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.33
1.8 / 2.2
2.2
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(mm)
0.06/0.17/2.37/
10.32/37.95/45
-
0.06/0.17/2.37/
10.32/37.95/45
'Existing Condition and Reference drainage areas were taken from the surveyed cross-section locations, while the Proposed
drainage area was taken from the downstream end of the reach.
Stormwater BMP on Reach IA
A wet pond type stormwater BMP is proposed on the west side of Reach IA of the UT to Magness proj ect
near station 25+00. This wet pond will receive stormwater runoff from 4.19 acres of drainage area, which
contains no impervious area; however, this area is a primary livestock gathering site with very compacted
ground. Sizing of the BMP was completed using a 1-inch design storm rainfall depth, and runoff was
calculated using the simple method. This BMP was designed to meet the stormwater design criteria of a wet
pond following the North Carolina Stormwater Design Guidance Manual. Almost all of the minimum design
criteria (MDC) were able to be accommodated; however, one criterion could not be met as outlined below.
Even with these limitations, the design will be able to provide water quality improvement benefits.
The BMP collects surface runoff along the western side of the proposed wet pond, and then discharges runoff
through an overflow weir along the northern side and is designed to detain the 1-inch storm for water quality.
The BMP meets the requirements for main pool surface area and volume (MDC-1), main pool depth (MDC-
2), sediment storage (MDC-3), location of inlet and outlet (MDC-4), forebay (MDC-5), vegetated shelf, and
protection of the receiving stream (MDC-8). The revegetation for the BMP will meet the requirements of
landscaping plan MDC-11. Peak attenuation is not proposed for this BMP.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-7
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

The BMP is unable to meet MDC-7, which requires a 2-5 day drawdown time between the temporary and
permanent pool elevations. For a BMP of this size, meeting this criterion would require an orifice that would
likely be subject to frequent clogging in the proposed application; therefore, the BMP was designed to
accommodate the required treatment volume of the permanent pool and the temporary pool below the outlet.
A stone weir structure is proposed for the wet pond outlet, which also eliminates the need for a trash rack
(MDC-10). No fountains are proposed, which eliminates MDC-9.
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage Discharge
Upon completion of the geomorphic field survey, identification of bankfull stages and corresponding
discharges were made at various locations along Reaches 1 and UT2. However, on degraded, incised streams
such as these, discernible indicators are often altered or not present, and the reliability of the indicators can be
inconsistent due to the altered condition of the stream channels. For this reason, regional curve relationships
(based on drainage areas) from two well developed curves were also used to develop the bankfull discharge
estimates for the project reaches. The curve relationships were compared to most stable representative cross
sections taken on site to confirm the bankfull field calls and to ultimately select an appropriate design discharge
estimate.
6.31 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions)
Regional curves are available for a range of stream types and physiographic provinces. The published NC
Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999) and the unpublished NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont
Regional Curve developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Walker, 2018) were used for
comparison with site -specific field methods of estimating bankfull discharge. The regional curve equations
developed from the studies are shown below in Table 6.3, while Table 6.4 compares the estimated regional
curve bankfull areas for the project reaches with those measured from bankfull indicators in the field. Baker
has successfully implemented a significant number of stream restoration projects in North Carolina using both
these regional curves, though the general design team preference is for the more recent NRCS equations as
they continue to be revised with the addition of new stream data.
Table 6.3 NC Rural Regional Curve Equations
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Pro]ect No. 100081
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
(Harman et al., 1999)
NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
Curve Equations, Revised (Walker, 2018)
bkf - 89.04 Aw 0.72
bkf - 55.33 Aw 0.79
Abkf - 21.43 Aw 0.68
Abkf - 19.13 Aw 0.65
Wbkf - 11. 89 Aw 0.43
Wbkf - 17.41 Aw 0.37
Dbkf - 1.5 Aw 0.32
Dbkf - 1. 10 Aw 0.28
Table 6.4 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
UT to Magness Creek Miti ation Pro* ect - DMS Prof ect No. 100081
DA
Bankfull Area Estimates
Bankfull Area Measured at
Design
Reach
from 1999 / 2018 Regional
Bankfull
(sq mi)
Curves (sq ft)
Bankfull Indicator (sq ft)
Area (sq ft)
Reach 1A
0.40*
11.50 / 10.51
10.2 (XS-1), 12.4 (XS-2), 10.9
11.0
REF XS-4
Reach 1B
0.62
15.48 / 14.00
12.6 (XS-5), 17.5 (REF XS-1)
13.8
UT2
0.05
2.75 / 2.66
1.6 (XS-4)
2.7
*Drainage Area for R1A taken from the selected design location towards the top of this reach around XS-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-8
UT TO MAG N ESS CREEK M ITI GATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

The results of the bankfull area comparison as shown above in Table 6.4 reveal that the regional curves are
very well aligned in their predictions of bankfull area, which subsequently also align well with the field
measured estimates. These values were then compared with the off -prof ect reference reach and stream proj ects
of similar size. Based on this evaluation, the final design values were then selected using designer experience
and best professional judgement.
6.33 Bankfull Discharge Summary
Table 6.5 provides a summary of the existing condition bankfull discharge and velocity analyses based on the
preferred regional curve (Walker, 2018) and the values derived fromthe Manning's `n' associated with Stream
Type, alongside the design values. The design velocity estimates were determined using the design bankfull
discharge with the design cross -sectional areas. The design values ultimately selected will provide for stable
stream channels, while during above bankfull flows the streams will have improved access to their floodplain,
thus reducing stream scour potential and improving streambank stability.
Table 6.5 Bankfull Discharge and Velocity Analysis Summary
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Project No. 100081
Bankfull Discharge
Design
Bankfull Velocity from
Design
Reach
DA
z
from Regional Curve /
Bankfull
Regional Curve /
Bankfull
Section
Manning's `n' (cfs)
Discharge
Manning's `n' (ft/sec)
Velocity
(cfs)
(ft/sec)
Reach lA
0.40*
26.9 / 24.6
27
2.6 / 2.4
2.5
Reach 1B
0.62
38.0 / 26.3
38
2.7 / 2.1
2.8
UT2
0.05
5.1 / 2.5
5.2
3.2 / 1.5
1.9
*Drainage Area for R1A taken from the selected design location towards the top of this reach around XS-1
6.4 Sediment Transport Analysis
For this project, a qualitative sediment supply analysis was conducted from visual inspections of the proj ect
reaches and from aerial photography of the greater watershed. Stream power can be calculated but does not
provide useful information since a sediment rating curve has not been developed for the site. Thus, the focus
of this proj ect's sediment transport analysis will be on competency to demonstratethe ability of the constructed
channels to pass the sediment present in the watershed.
Current sediment supply appears to be largely due to bank erosion from within the project reaches themselves.
The incised reaches, nearly vertical in most sections, are now in the process of eroding and widening.
Livestock access to the project reaches, along with their historic ditching and straightening, have clearly
accelerated this erosion. Field inspections reveal that aggradation is a problem for the site; primarily in those
sections of the stream where lateral migration and over -widening is a problem and notable bar formations are
observed. There are also long sections of channel that have sediment -filled pools and/or embedded riffles
found throughout Reaches 1 and UT2. Once the proj ect is complete, on -site sediment sources from bank
erosion along all reaches will be stabilized.
Additionally, some sediment is also being contributed to the project from off -site sources upstream of Reach
1. The watershed above the project was once largely cleared, had streams straightened, and was used for
agriculture, similar to the project site itself. Substantial portions of the riparian buffer upstream have since
reforested over time, but a visual inspection of channel sections in this upstream area reveal that they are still
quite incised, with some resulting sections of eroding banks, and one or more headcuts is/are present.
However, the observed bedload sediment supply found within it does not appear large enough to result in
capacity -limited stream channels on the project site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-9
UTTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

6.4.1 Sediment Competency Analysis
To conduct the sediment competency analyses, pebble count, pavement, and subpavement sediment samples
were taken at or near surveyed riffle cross sections on Reaches J A, 113, and UT2. The sediment samples were
weighed to generate cumulative frequency plots. The sediment competence analysis was conducted using the
methodologies presented in WARSSS (2006). Design mean depth and slope were checked against the
predicted required depths and slopes to provide confidence that the design streams will be able to transport
their sediment supplies. Analyses were conducted using a dimensional shear stress methodology, whidi
utilizes both the Shield's and Modified Shield's/CO Data curves to compare the shear stress value to the size
particle able to be entrained by that shear stress. The Modified Shield's curve is based on Colorado field data
(WARS SS, 2006) and the Shield's Curve is based on laboratory and field data compiled from various sources
(Leopold, Wolman, and Miller, 1964). The results from the analyses are presented below in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Sediment Competence Analysis
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Project No. 100081
Parameter
Reach 1A
Reach 1B
Reach UT2
Design Bankfull Slope, average (ft/ft)
0.0110
0.0110
0.0100
Design Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.0
0.5
D50 Pebble Count mm
10.2
7.7
2.4
D100 Pebble Count (mm)
90
90
45
D50 Pavement mm
6.9
23.6
5.6
D50 Subpavement (mm)
6.6
5.9
10.7
D100 Subpavement mm
35
38
27
Design Dimensional Shear (lbs./s -ft)
0.53
0.58
0.23
Largest Movable Particle (mm) (Mod.
Shield's Curve/CO Data
95
102
52
Largest Movable Particle (mm)
Shield's Curve
40
44
17
Predicted Shear Stress to move D100
(lbs./sq-ft) (Mod. Shield's Curve/CO
0.15
0.16
0.10
Data
Predicted Shear Stress to move D100
lbs./s -ft Shield's Curve
0.48
0.50
0.37
Predicted mean depth to move D 100 (ft)
(Mod. Shield's Curve/CO Data)
0.22
0.23
0.09
Predicted mean depth to move D 100 (ft)
(Shield's Curve)
0.70
0.73
0.33
Predicted slope to move D100 (ft/ft)
0.0027
0.0027
0.0032
Mod. Shield's Curve/CO Data
Predicted slope to move D100 (ft/ft)
Shield's Curve
0.0087
0.0084
0.0119
The sediment transport analysis using the design geometry and profile values were compared with their
predicted values. As can be seen from the figure below, design shear stress values plotted against the measured
D100 Subpavement values match quite well within the scatter of the data points, particularly for the Shield's
Curve data, lending confidence that the stream will be able to move the existing bed load that is currently
supplied (and which will be harvested and reused in the new channels). Using the estimated dimensional shear
for the design channels, the predicted largest moveable particles based on the curves match well with the
existing D100 subpavement and pebble count sizes for all three reaches. Further, the predicted shear stresses,
mean depths, and slopes required to move the D100 values are all within the actual design value ranges,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-10
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MIl1GAl10N PLAN (FINAL)

particularly for the Shield's curve predictions. All of this again indicates that the designed system should have
no difficulty moving the existing bed load.
The post -construction channels will include constructed riffles that will contain larger sized materials; a mix
of Class 1, Class B, Class A, and ABC stone, in addition to harvested native channel material (the existing
bed load noted above), for a combined D50 of approximately 100 mm (though only about 15% of the stone
will be larger than is expected to be actively transported and mobile). Thus, the analysis shows that the new
channels should not produce enough shear stress to entrain the largest particles in the system, consequently
Dowling the constructed channel beds to remain stable, while still allowing for the active movement and
transport of much of the bed load through the stream system.
100[
�Qo
30
�NI■■■EE"!N��N■■Ni■ ■■N■■NN■��■■■111 ■f!1!i'NN■� ■■N■■NN■�
■■F�IIn�� ■■■111�
■■■■111
Colorado
, Power
1 '
: ♦
A�
Mom
I
•
N��N■■wn
NN■N■N■■B■■
e
moll
-
ire
�w■■�n,
�►..•.�Leopold,
c"
Di,.
r
' I I I•
Tc= CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS Obslft25
Laboratory and field data on critical shear stress required to initiate
movement of grains (Leopold, Wolman, & Miller, 1964). The solid line is the
Shields curve of the threshold of motion; transposed from the 9 versus Rg
form into the present form, in which critical shear stress is plotted as a
function of grain diameter.
• Leopold, Wolman & Miller (1984)
Colorado Data (Wildland Hydrology)
(Adapted from WARSSS, rigure 5-49, Rosgen 2009)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-11
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MIl1GATON PLAN (FINAL)

6.5 Wetland Mitigation Design Approach
6.5.1 Wetland Restoration
The wetland mitigation design component of the project consists of two approaches: restoration by re-
establishment and restoration by rehabilitation, each conducted in accordance with the Federal Mitigation Rule
(33CFR Part 332.2/40 CFR 230.92) as described in DWR's wetland mitigation consistency guidance memo
(DWR 2013). The goal of wetland re-establishment is to restore natural historic functions in areas where
evidence of hydric soil conditions are present but appropriate wetland hydrology and vegetation are not, thus
resulting in again in both wetland resource area and in wetland functions. This restoration approach will not
be conducted in existing jurisdictional wetlands but is based on a detailed soil analysis and hydric soil
delineation conducted by a licensed soil scientist (Appendix J). Six main activities will be employed to restore
on -site wetlands:
• Connecting adjacent stream channels to their relic floodplains through Priority I stream restoration,
• Planting native wetland species to reforest the wetlands,
• Removing invasive species from wetlands,
• Exclude livestock from wetlands,
• Removal of drainage ditches from wetland areas along Reach Rl, and
• Permanently protect wetlands within a conservation easement.
As a result of raising the adjacent 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 adj acent to the stream and wetland system. Additionally, drainage ditches located within
the easement will be filled, further improving hydrology to the wetlands. All wetlands will be planted with
appropriate species to re-establish a wetland vegetation community, and all invasive plants will be treated or
removed. Thus, restoration by reestablishment approach will restore the appropriate wetland resource
hydrology and vegetation functions, and will expand the total wetland resource area present on the proj ect.
The goal of wetland restoration through rehabilitation is to restore or greatly improve most, if not all, the
historic natural functions to a heavily degraded, but still existing jurisdictional wetland resource. The areas
proposed for this approach (wetlands W-A and W-B) were determined to be jurisdictional by the USACE
(Appendix H), but are heavily degraded with clear impacts to both the hydrology and vegetation resource
functions. These wetlands are adjacent to incised streams, have nearby drainage ditches, and have had much
of their natural vegetation impacted through livestock grazing. Thus, this rehabilitation approach will result
in significant improvements to both the wetland hydrology and vegetation functions, but will not result in a
gain in wetland resource area.
Additionally, although not for credit, wetlands W-E and W-F located in the floodplain of lower Reach I on
the project will be enhanced. These wetlands were determined to be j urisdictional by the USACE, but have
experienced some level of degradation, in particular to their vegetation function. Enhancement of these
wetlands will primarily involve their revegetation with appropriate wetland community species, along with
livestock exclusion and the treatment or removal of all invasive vegetation present. Thus, this non -credited
enhancement will primarily result in an improvement to the wetland vegetation function, but will not result in
any gain in wetland resource area.
6.5.2 Target Wetland Types
The mitigation approaches described above for the riparian wetland restoration areas will target the ultimate
restoration of "Headwater Forest" or `Bottomland Hardwood Forest" wetland types as identified by the North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM 2016); a Palustrine, Forested, Broadleaved Deciduous
(PFO1) wetland type (Cowardin et al. 1979); and the wetlands found within the Piedmont Alluvial Forest and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-12
UTTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
M Ill GAIT ON PLAN (FINAL)

Piedmont Bottomland Forest communities as described by Schafale (2012). The hydrology of this riparian
system is expected to be intermittently to frequently flooded and inundated (NRCS, Web Soil Survey).
6.6 Vegetation and Planting Plan
6.6.1 Existing Vegetation and Proposed Plant Community Characterization
Existing vegetation on the project has been heavily disturbed from years of use in agriculture, in particular
from livestock. The project stream buffers are currently used for livestock grazing and subsequently muds of
the buffers consist of a range of typical pasture grasses (fescues and clovers) with scattered weeds and other
common herbaceous species present such as docks (Rumex spp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
common violet (Violasororia), buttercup (Ranunculusspp.), goldenrod (Solidagospp.), horsenettle (Solcffn#n
carolinense), plantains (Plantago spp. ), and dandelions (Taraxacum officiniale), with smartweed (Polygonum
pennsylvatica), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp. ), and j ewelweed (Impatiens capensis) found in
wetter areas. Mature trees are found scattered throughout the buffers of the middle portion of Reach 1 and
along UT2. Species primarily consist of red maple (Acer mbmm), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), with some persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), and American holly (Ilex opaca) also present. There is a notable lack of any understory/subcanopy
layer on the project, as well as heavily impacted shrub and herbaceous layers on the project, all likely the
result of livestock grazing pressure.
Notable invasive species found on the site include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multi -flora rose (Rosa
multiflora), and trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliate), all are thinly scattered within the project buffer.
However, the riparian areas along the project reaches and wetlands would naturally be comprised of species
more consistent with those of a Piedmont Alluvial Forest (Schafale 2012) and Southern Piedmont Small
Floodplain and Riparian Forest (CES202.323, NatureServe 2021) ecosystems. The wetland areas would also
likely include species found within the Piedmont Bottomland Forest ecosystem (Schafale, 2012).
6.6.2 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetative components of this restoration project include streambank, wetlands, and general riparian
planting zones within the buffer. These planting boundaries will be comprised of species found within native
plant communities as presented below in Table 6.7 and shown on the revegetation plan sheets in Appendix L.
In addition to the planting zones noted above, any areas of the site that are disturbed or adversely impacted by
the construction process will also be planted. Existing non-native grasses (such as fescue) within the easement
will be treated prior to or concurrent with construction, as appropriate.
Bare -root trees and live stakes will be planted within designated areas of the conservation easement, with the
objective of establishing a minimum 50-foot buffer along all proposed streambanks for all the stream reaches
within the project boundary. In many areas, the buffer width will be in excess of 50 feet along one or both
streambanks. In general, bare -root vegetation will be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre.
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees and shrubs installed between November
15th and March 15th. The anticipated planted area for the project is approximately 10.7 acres.
Selected species for hardwood revegetation planting are presented in Table 6.7. Riparian zone species wetness
tolerance will range from being at least somewhat tolerant of flooding to very tolerant. Observations will be
made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted as compared to the
revegetation plan, which will also incorporate the location of the jurisdictional wetlands to facilitate the
accurate planting of appropriate species in their correct planting zone.
Once the vegetative species are transported to the site, they should be planted within two days. Disturbed
soils across the site will be prepared by sufficiently loosening to a depth of four inches prior to planting as
described in the technical specifications. Heavily compacted soils (e.g., hardpans or areas that experienced
heavy equipment use) will be loosened to a depth of eight to ten inches by disking or ripping to prepare for
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-13
UTTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MIT GAT ON PLAN (FINAL)

tree planting. In any areas where excavation depths exceed ten inches, topsoil shall be separated from rocks,
brush, or roots, stockpiled, and placed back over these areas to achieve design grades and create a soil base
for vegetation. Trees and shrubs will be planted by manual labor using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or
other approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out
and down without ".1-rooting." Soil will be loosely compacted around trees once they have been planted to
prevent roots from drying out. Soil tests will be conducted in the riparian buffer areas during construction,
and soil amendments such as fertilizer or lime may be added as recommended to improve growing conditions
for plant establishment.
Live stakes will be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and stakes will be spaced two to
three feet apart around pools and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections using triangular spacing along the
streambanks between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly
different spacing as appropriate.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 6.8 lists the species,
mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided that is suitable for this project's
streambank, riparian, and wetland areas. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain 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 areas
within the conservation easement from the toe of the stream banks to the easement boundary excluding areas
that are already forested. The species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along
restored stream channels, providing long-term stability.
Final species selection may change due to a refinement of site -specific conditions during construction or
species availability at the time of planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will
submit a revised planting list for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
Table 6.7 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Project No. 100081
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Wetland Tolerance
All Buffer Plantings at 680 stems/acre using 8' X 8' spacing
General Riparian Zone — Overstory/Canopy Species
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
15%
FACU
Betula nigra
River Birch
15%
FACW
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
15%
FACW
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
10%
FAC
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
10%
FACW
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
5%
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
5%
FACW
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
5%
FAC
Ulmus americana
American Elm
5%
FACW
General Riparian Zone — Understory/Shrub Species
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
5%
FAC
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
2.5%
FAC
Asimina triloba
Pawpaw
2.5%
FAC
Magnolia tripetala
Umbrella Tree
2.5%
FACU
Halesia carolina
Carolina Silverbell
2.5%
FAC
Wetland Zone — Overstory/Canopy Species
Betula nigra
River Birch
1 15%
FACW
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-14
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMS NO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.7 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - DMS Project No. 100081
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Wetland Tolerance
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
15%
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
15%
FACW
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
10%
FACW
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
5%
FAC
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
5%
FAC
Acer negundo
Box Elder
5%
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
5%
FACW
Ulmus americana
American Elm
5%
FACW
Wetland Zone — Understory/Shrub
Species
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
5%
OBL
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
2.5%
FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2.5%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
2.5%
FACW
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2.5%
FACW
Streambank Live Stake Plantings
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
25%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
10%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
20%
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow
25%
OBL
Table 6.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project — DMS Project No. 100081
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted
by Species
Density
lbs/ac
Wetland
Tolerance
Agrostis perennans
Autumn Bentgrass
10%
1.5
FACW
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wildrye
15%
2.25
FACW
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
2.25
FAC
Tripsacum dactyloides
Eastern Gamma Grass
5%
0.75
FACW
Polygonumpennsylvanicum
Penn lvania Smartweed
5%
0.75
FACW
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little Blue Stem
5%
0.75
FACU
Juncus effusus
Soft Rush
5%
0.75
FACW
Bidens frondosa (or
aristosa
Beggars Tick
5%
0.75
FACW
Coreopsis lanceolata
Lance -Leaved Tick Seed
10%
1.5
FACU
Dichanthelium
clandestinum
Deer Tongue
10%
1.5
FAC
A ndropogon gerardii
Big Blue Stem
5%
0.75
1 FAC
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian Grass
5%
0.75
1 FACU
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-15
UTTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

Monarda punctata I Spotted Beebalm 1 5% 1 0.75 1 FACU
I Total 100% 1 15.00 1 1
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement of site conditions or to availability at the time
of planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to
Baker for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
6.7 Project Work Plan
The project work plan is included in the plan sheet set for the project and provides a detailed description of
proposed construction timing and sequencing, specific in -stream structure and other construction element
designs, as well as a description of all grading and planting activities. All work will be conducted using
common machinery, tools, equipment, and techniques for the successful implementation of the project. The
complete plan sheets can be found in Appendix L.
6.8 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Due to the rural nature of the project watershed, with established historic agriculture dominated by pasture
and hay production, the overall project risk for the UT to Magness Creek site is considered low. The
anticipated potential project risks are described below:
Land Use Development: There is the potential for increased land use development within the project
watershed that could alter the watershed hydrology, particularly to runoff quantity and quality. These
changes would be out of the control of the provider.
Methods to Address: While any potential future development within the project watershed is out of
the control of the provider, the stream restoration and enhancement techniques being applied to the
project reaches will help protect them from further degradation and reduce downstream impacts usually
associated with watershed development.
Easement Encroachment: Any encroachment to the conservation easement including livestock access,
mowing, utility easement violations, culvert maintenance, etc.
Methods to Address: The landowners are fully aware of the land use restrictions associated with the
conservation easement. The prof ect streams will be fenced to exclude livestock and the entire easement
boundary will be clearly marked using DMS-approved protocols. Any encroachments will be
appropriately remedied by the provider throughout the monitoring phase.
Drought and Floods: There is the potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring phase
of the project. These conditions would be out of the control of the provider.
Methods to Address: The provider will take appropriate measures to address any impacts to the proj ect
caused by the extreme climatic conditions. Such measures may include vegetation replanting, channel
or structure repair, soil amendments, etc.
Beavers: While there is no evidence of beaver activity currently present on the site, there is the potential
for beavers to move onto the project during the monitoring phase. This would be out of the control of the
provider.
Methods to Address: The provider will take appropriate steps to remove the beaver from the project
during the monitoring phase and repair any damage they may have caused.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-16
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MIl1GAl10N PLAN (FINAL)

Hydrologic Trespass: Hydrologic trespass is an extremely unlikely issue for the project and is not
considered to be a reasonable project risk. For one, the stream floodplain is quite narrow and the adjacent
valley slopes are quite steep. Further, Reach 1 will not be backing water up at the upper project limit, while
the off -site areas upstream of Reach 1 are significantly incised wiith riparian buffers that are undeveloped and
largely forested. All these factors indicate that there should be no concern with hydrologic trespass.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-17
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The performance standards and success criteria for the project will follow the NCIRT guidance document
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update dated October 24, 2016.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years unless otherwise noted.
Based on the design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the prof ect reaches. Reaches
I and I will have a Priority I Restoration design approach implemented, while on UT2 we will implement
an Enhancement Level I approach. For all project reaches, geomorphic monitoring methods and specific
success criteria components and evaluations are described below. Report documentation will follow the
DMS's templates Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content Requirement (October 2020).
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted annually following the
completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. The methods used and
related success criteria for each monitored stream parameter are described below. Figure 11 shows the
approximate locations of the proposed monitoring devices throughout the project site.
7.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented using in -stream
continuous stage recorders (using pressure transducers) installed per the recent DMS guidance. Two
continuous stage recorders will be installed for the project; one each in Reaches I and UT2. Additionally,
photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Four bankfull events must be documented, in separate years, within the seven-year monitoring period
Otherwise, monitoring will continue until the required four bankfull events have been documented.
7.1.2 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at an approximate rate of one cross section per twenty bankfull
widths of restored stream, with approximately half of the cross sections located at riffles and half located at
pools. Fourteen total cross sections are proposed for this project. Each cross section will be marked on both
streambanks with permanent monuments using rebar cemented in place to establish the exact transect used.
A common benchmark will be used for cross sections and to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data
The cross section surveys will occur in years one, two, three, five, and seven, and must include measurements
of Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg,
if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System (Rosgen 1994 and 1996). The BHR cross section parameter will be calculated following the technical
workgroup guidance memo `Standard Measurement of the BHR Parameter' provided by DMS in 2018, which
will apply the as -built bankfull cross sectional area to the current monitoring year channel to determine
bankfull elevation. The Low Top of Bank (LTOB) depth will also be provided with the monitoring data.
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they will be documented in
the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition
(e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System, all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters plus or minus the standard
deviation (W/D +/- 2, BHR and ER +/- 0.2) i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2 for ` C' and 1.4
to 2.2 for `13% stream types defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller channel sizes
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pins will not be installed unless monitoring results
indicate active lateral erosion. The cross sections will document stability in the surveyed riffle or pool to
confirm they are maintaining appropriate form for that feature and are not eroding/scouring or
aggrading/filling with sediment, and thus are continuing to provide improved habitat as intended.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Lateral photos should not indicate
excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the streambanks. Photographers shall try to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
over time.
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile and Pattern
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of constructed channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and
measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements
will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal
profile should show that the bedform features installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The
longitudinal profile will not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability
has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
Pattern measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, and meander width ratio will be calculated on
newly constructed meanders using the plan views from the as -built plan sheets and reported in the as -built
baseline document. Subsequent visual monitoring will be conducted annually to document any changes or
excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the constructed channel.
7.1A Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted at least once per monitoring year
following the requirements described in the DMS monitoring guidance documents. Photographs will be used
to visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank stability, condition
of in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, channel aggradation (bar formation) or degradation, live
stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, riparian vegetation success, condition
of pools and riffles, culvert and crossing stability, any easement encroachments noted, and an overall stream
morphology assessment. All photo point locations and any areas of concern will be shown in the Current
Condition Plan View (CCPV) figure in the as-built/baseline and annual monitoring reports.
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration of the riparian vegetation on a site is dependent upon the successful planting and establishment of
native woody species, along with the volunteer regeneration of the plant community. To determine if the
success criteriaare achieved, vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and monitored across the restoration
site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee at al., 2008).
These vegetation plots shall consist of both permanent and random plots, totaling a minimum of 2% of the
planted portion of the site established within the planted riparian buffer areas per CVS Monitoring Levels 1
and 2. Six fixed plots and two random plots are proposed to monitor vegetation for this project. The size of
each individual plot will be 100 square meters. No plots will be established within any undisturbed wooded
areas found within the prof ect boundary.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Data from the permanent vegetation
plots will include: species, height, vigor, planted vs. volunteer, and age (based on the year the stem was
planted, or first observed if a volunteer). Data from the random plots will include only the species and height.
Both plot types will include invasive and exotic species data, if present. Plot densities will also be calculated
for each plot. Individual plant stems will be marked such that they can be found in succeeding monitoring
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

years in the permanent plots. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's
living, planted stems and the current year's living, planted stems.
At the end of the first full growing season from baseline (MYO), after a minimum of 180 days, species
composition, heights, stem density, and survival will be evaluated for monitoring year one (MY1). Vegetation
plots shall subsequently be monitored in Years 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success criteria are achieved
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320 stems per acre
at the end of the Year 3 monitoring period. At Year 5, density must be no less than 260 stems per acre. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 stems per acre at the end of the Year 7 monitoring
period. Volunteer plants may count towards the vegetation performance standard if they are on the approved
planted species list and are present for at least two growing seasons, or at the discretion of the IRT. A single
species should only account for up to 50% of the required number of stems to meet success criteria.
Additionally, the height of the vegetation at Year 5 should average 7 feet tall, while at Year 7 should average
10 feet tall. Certain native species, which are appropriate to plant on -site to provide a diverse vegetation
community, do not typically grow to these heights in 7 years and will be excluded from the height performance
standard. For this project, these excluded species include all of the understory/shrub species presented in
Table 6.7. Baker would also like to note that the overstory planting list contains numerous slower growing
species such as a mix of five oak species and persimmon at a combined total of 35% of the planted stems for
both the general riparian and wetland planted areas.
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation
success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant
community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan may incorporate the evaluation of
additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species vegetation
to assess overall vegetative success.
Required remedial action will be provided on a case -by -case basis, such as: replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species as appropriate, conducting beaver management/dam removal, and the treatment of
undesirable/ invasive species vegetation, etc. Any necessary remedial action will continue to be monitored as
part of the vegetation performance assessment until the corrective action demonstrates that it is trending
towards or again meeting the standard requirement. Invasive species will be treated such that they compose
no more than 5% of the easement area, and a visual inspection of the entire site for the presence of invasive
species will be conducted at least annually. Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored
during annual site visits to document any mortality due to construction activities or changes to the water table
that negatively impact existing forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native species grasses, will be seeded/planted throughout the
site. During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the proj ect site must follow
the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements.
7.3 Wetland Monitoring
All credited wetland restoration areas will be monitored for a minimum of seven years post -construction or
until final wetland success criteria are met. Hydroperiod performance criteria for restored wetland areas will
be met when the site is saturated within twelve inches of the soil surface for a consecutive period equal to
twelve percent of the growing season. The WETS table for the Shelby 2NW weather station located
approximately 7 miles south of the prcj ect site in Cleveland County reports that for the years 1990-2016, the
growing season for the site is 226 days in length and begins on March 23 and ends on November 4, using the
50% probability data for a temperature of 28' F or higher (generated in AgACIS database, http://agacis.rcc-
acis. org/?fips=37045). Twelve percent of 226 days is 27.1 days. To determine if the rainfall is normal for the
given year, monthly rainfall amounts will be tallied from an onsite rain gauge and compared to the Shelby
2NW weather station.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-3
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

After construction is complete, groundwater monitoring wells will be installed within the credited wetland
restoration areas and their coordinate locations and ground level elevations will be recorded. Four wells are
proposed for installation within the three wetland restoration areas (totaling — 1.7 acres), which will more than
adequately characterize the minor surface variations that are found across the wetlands. Installation and
monitoring of the groundwater stations will follow the USACE standard methods outlined in the ERDC
TNWRAP-05-2 (USACE, 2005). Water table depths will be recorded daily. See Figure 11 for locations of the
proposed post -construction monitoring wells.
The non -credited wetland areas (totaling just 0.063 acres) will still be enhanced through both the
reestablishment of a vegetated buffer consisting of appropriate native species, and through the exclusion of
livestock. Hydrologic improvement of these wetlands is also anticipated through the restoration of the
adjacent reaches, which will raise the stream bed and reestablish a floodplain connection, thus raising the
adjacent water tables and increasing flood frequency. It is also expected that through these same measures
additional floodplain wetlands will naturally reestablish so as to further offset the wetland impacts necessary
during construction.
Periodic visual inspections will be conducted for all wetlands, even those small areas not for credit. Visual
inspection of proposed wetland areas will be conducted to document any visual indicators that would be typical
of jurisdictional wetlands. This could include, but is not limited to, vegetation types present, surface flow
patterns, stained leaves, and ponded water. Wetland plant establishment will be documented along with other
visual indicators noted above, and as part of the general vegetation monitoring protocol as described
previously in Section 7.2.
7.4 Stormwater BMP Monitoring
A stormwater BMP will be constructed as part of the overall restoration approach for Reach 1 as described in
detail in Section 6.2. The BMP will be visually monitored for vegetative survivability, outlet stability, and
permanent pool storage capacity using photo documentation throughout the 7-Year monitoring period
Maintenance measures to be implemented during the monitoring may include the replacement of dead
vegetation (herbaceous and/or woody) as needed, and the removal of excess sedimentation from the permanent
pools, as needed. Additionally, should the outlet of the constructed wetland become unstable during the
monitoring period, corrective measures will be implemented to rectify the instability issues.
Please note that this BMP is not being installed for direct mitigation credit, but for the water quality
improvement of the adjacent receiving stream. As such, there are no formal performance standards or success
criteria being presented for the BMP.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-4
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

8.0 MONITORING PLAN
The monitoring plan for the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project is outlined below in Table 8.1 and
describes the measurable connections between the previously stated goals and objectives to the performance
standards and expected functional uplift. The approximate post -construction monitoring feature locations can
be found in Figure 11.
Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
UT to Magness Creek Miti ation Proi ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Goal
Treatment
Performance
Monitoring
Outcome
Likely Functional
Standards
Metric
Uplift
A dissipation of
Restore streams
Increased
damaginghigh flows
Reconnect
with appropriate
Fourbankfull
Continuous
bankfullevents,
duringflood events,
stream
channel
events during the
stage recorders
restoringa more
hydrologic
reaches to
dimensions and
7-year
used to record
naturalflooding
improvement of
their
raise stream bed
monitoring
bankfullevents.
regime to the
adjacent wetlands,
floodplains.
elevations.
period.
system.
and increased
floodplain access for
sediment storage.
Restored or
Restore or
To raise
Water table for
Established,
improvedwetland
a dj acent channel
restored
functioning
habitat increased
improve
hydrology to
bedsand
wetlandsraised
Groundwater
wetlands of
nitrogen removal by
adjacent
remove ditches
to within 12" of
monitoring
appropriate
dentrification,
hric soils
to raise
the surface fora
wells in restored
hydrology and
increasedcarbon
and riparian
groundwater
consecutive 12%
wetland areas
vegetatedwith
se que stration in soil,
wetlands.
tables within the
of the growing
appropriate wet
improvedflood
buffer.
season.
species.
water storage
capacity
Restored streams
Restore streams
will maintain
bank -height -
Areductionin
with appropriate
ratios of less
Stable stream
sedimentloss to
dimensions,
than 1.2 and
Cross section
banks with
streams from bank
Improve
pattern, and
entrenchment
surveys and
appropriate
erosion, along with
stream
profile, stabilize
ratios greater
visual
channel
the resulting nutrient
stability.
streambanks
than2.2 (C-
inspections with
dimensions and
loss, increased
provide
type)provided
photographic
sediment
woody debris and
floodplain
visual
documentation.
transport.
organic material in
access, utilize
inspections also
stream resulting in
bio-engineering.
reveal
improved habitat
stabilization.
Installa variety
Inventory
of in -stream
comparisons of
Increasednumber
structures,
in -stream
of pools and
An increase in the
Improve
mcreasingthe
structures and
woody structures
quantity and quality
aquatic
woody debris
NSA
featuresfrom
and debris
of aquatic habitat
habitat
and the number
existing
comparingedto the
featuresfor
and types of
conditions and
macroinvertebrates
pools. Reduce
as-builtproject
existing
conditions.
and fish.
sedimentation
surveys and
within riffles.
assessments.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-1
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
UT to Magness Creek Miti ation Proi ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Goal
Treatment
Performance
Monitoring
Outcome
Likely Functional
Standards
Metric
Uplift
Plant
appropriate
At the end of
native ha dwood
tree and shrub
Interim survival
monitoring, a
Improved riparian
rates of 320
vegetated
corridor habitat for
species on
streambanksand
stem s/acreat
riparian buffer
native species,
in the riparian
MY3 and 260
Vegetation
will be
improved
Reestablish
buffer at a50-
steams/acreat
monitoringplots
established at a
stabilizationof
forested
footminimum
MY5, with final
(100m2each
minimum50foot
stream floodplain
riparian
width in all
rate of210
covering2%of
width and ata
(reducing sediment
buffers.
areas within the
stems/acre at
the total planted
minimum 210
loss), increased
MY7. Average
area).
stems/acre of
woody and organic
conservation
e conservation
heights of 7feet
native species,
materialin
established
atMY5 and 10
including
buffer/stream
native trees and
feet at MY7
volunteers (with
system.
shrubs do not
IRT approval).
exist.
Establish a
Visual
Restored streams,
The functional uplift
Permanently
permanent
Conservation
inspectionsto
wetlands, and
improvements from
the proj ectare
protect the
Easement(CE)
N/A
confirm no
buffers protected
maintained and
project.
for the entire
encroachments
from damaging
protected in
into CE.
encroachments.
project.
e etui
The as -built / baseline report will be submitted within 90 days of the completion of project construction (to
include complete as -built record drawings with all vegetation planted and monitoring devices installed), and
will follow the most recent DMS guidance Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content
Requirements (October 2020). The subsequent annual monitoring reports will also follow this new document,
while the closeout report will follow the Closeout Report Template — ver. 2.2 (January 2016). There will be
at least a minimum of 6 months between the data collected for the As -Built Baseline (MYO) Report and the
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report.
The annual monitoring reports will provide the information defined below within Table 8.2 and will be
submitted to DMS by December 15t of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. The monitoring
reports will provide a project data chronology for DMS to document the project status and trends, will assist
with the population of DMS databases for analysis and research purposes, and will assist in decision making
regarding progress towards a successful project close-out. Project success criteria must be met by the final
monitoring year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met
as directed by DMS and NCIRT.
Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Required
Parameter
Frequency
Number/Locations
Notes
Pattern measurements will be
calculated as part of the as-
X
Pattern
Baseline/As-
Reach 1
built/baseline report. Additional
built (WO)
pattern data, such as bank erosion
pins/arrays, will be collected only if
there are visual indications or cross
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-2
UTTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Required
Parameter
Frequency
Number/Locations
Notes
section survey data that suggest
significant changes have occurred.
Monitoring
14 total cross sections:
Cross sections to be monitored over
X
Dimension
Years 1, 2,
12 on Reach 1 and 2
seven (7) years and shall include
3, 5 and 7
on UT2.
assessment of bank height ratio (BHR)
and entrenchment ratio (ER).
For the Restoration and Enhancement I
X
Longitudinal
Baseline/As-
Reaches 1 and UT2
components of this project, the entire
Profile
built (MYO)
channel length will be surveyed as part
of the as -built record drawings.
2 crest gauges
(continuous stage
The devices will be inspected on a
Surface
recorders using
quarterly/semi-annual basis to
X
Water
Annually
pressure transducers)
document the occurrence of bankfull
Hydrology
installed in -stream
events and flow duration.
within Reach I and
UT2.
4 groundwater
The devices will be inspected and
X
Groundwater
Annuallymonitoring
wells in
downloaded on a quarterly basis to
Hydrology
wetland restoration
document groundwater hydrology in
locations.
wetland restoration areas.
6 fixed vegetation
Monitoring
plots will be
established throughout
Vegetation will be monitored using the
X
Vegetation
Years 1, 2,
the planted area, with 2
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
3 5 and 7
additional random
protocols. Plots will be 100 m in size
plots each year (8 plots
and total 2% of the planted area.
total annually).
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Exotic and
Annually
vegetation will be visually assessed,
X
Nuisance
and
Project wide
photographed, and mapped. These
Vegetation
needas ed
ed
areas will be treated as needed. Beaver
and Animals
signs and damage will be noted and
beaver will be trapped if discovered.
Representative photographs will be
taken to capture the state of the
Annually
restored stream, wetland, and vegetated
X
Visual
and as
Project wide
buffer conditions. Stream photos will
Assessment
needed
be preferably taken in the same
location when the vegetation is
minimal to document any areas of
concern or to identify trends.
Proj ect
Complete easement
Locations of fence damage, vegetation
X
Boundary
Annually
boundary
damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
will be photographed and mapped.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-3
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Required
Parameter
Frequency
Number/Locations
Notes
Stormwater BMP will be visually
X
Stormwater
Semi-
BMP on Reach I
monitored for stability and
BMP
Annually
vegetation survival during the 7-year
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-4
UTTO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS NO. 100081
MIl1GAl10N PLAN (FINAL)

9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, the post -construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this
document will be implemented. Project maintenance will be performed as previously described in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, DMS will be notified of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective
Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in-house technical staff or may require
engineering and consulting services. Once the Plan of Corrective Action is prepared and finalized Michael
Baker will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Notify the NCDWR.
3. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary
and/or required by the USACE.
4. Obtain other permits as necessary.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and
nature of the work performed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-1
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The NC Department of Environmental Quality's Stewardship Program currently houses DMS stewardship
endowments within the non -reverting, interest -bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment
Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS
113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The DEQ Stewardship
Program intends to manage the account as a non -wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the
endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those
purposes will be re -invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation. The site -protection
instrument for the site is included in Appendix B.
The project site will be protected and managed under the agreed upon terms outlined in the recorded
conservation easement. The appropriate signage will be installed to mark the conservation easement
boundary. The long-term manager/steward will be responsible for inspecting the site easement and signage,
and for taking any corrective maintenance actions as needed. The landowner shall contact the long-term
manager/steward regarding any clarification about easement restrictions and is responsible for maintaining all
livestock -excluding fencing and/or permanent crossings. Should land use change in the future, the landowner
will be responsible for the installation and maintain of any additional fencing that might be required to fulfill
the conditions of the conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-1
UTTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
The determination of stream credits for the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project are detailed below in
Tables 11.1 and 11.2 and are shown in Figure 12. They have been calculated according to all applicable DMS,
IRT, and DEQ guidance documents. The Credit Release Table can be found in Appendix C.
Table 11.1 Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect - DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Project Segment
Original
Mitigation
Plan
Ft/Ac
As -Built
Ft/Ac
Original
Mitigation
Category
Original
Restoration
Level
Original
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Stream
61
Reach lA
2,249.60
N/A
Warm
R
1.0
2,249.600
Reach 113
924.88
N/A
Warm
R
1.0
924.880
Reach UT2
325.21
N/A
Warm
E1
1.5
216.807
Total:
3,391.287
Wetland
Wetland Group W1
1.856
N/A
R
REE
1.0
1.856
Wetland Group W2
0.035
N/A
R
RH
1.5
0.023
Total:
1.879
Table 11.2 Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non -Rip
Coastal
Warm
Cool
Cold
Wetland
Wetland
Marsh
Restoration
3,174.480
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Re-establishment
1.856
0.000
0.000
Rehabilitation
0.023
0.000
0.000
Enhancement
0.000
0.000
0.000
Enhancement I
216.807
0.000
0.000
Enhancement II
0.000
0.000
0.000
Creation
0.000
0.000
0.000
Preservation
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Totals
Total Stream Credit
Total Wetland Credit
3,391.287 0.000
3,391.287
1.879
0.000 1.879 0.000 0.000
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11-1
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITI GATONPROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

12.0 REFERENCES
Arcement, G.J., and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for
Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2339.
http://pubs. usgs. gov/wsp/2339/report.pdf
CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee at al., 2008).
Daniels et al. 1999. Soils Systems of North Carolina. Technical Bulletin 314. North Carolina State
University, Dept. of Soil Science. Raleigh, NC.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic
Data Committee and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Griffith, G. E., Omernik, J.M. , Comstock, J. A., Schafale, M. P. , McNab, W.H. , Lenat, D. R. , MacPherson, T.F.,
Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, V.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1: 1, 5 00, 000).
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Frameworkfor Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some
Physiographic Implications. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. US Dept of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Leopold, L. B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Francisco,
CA. (151).
US Department of Agriculture. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey.
Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Soil Survey of Cleveland County, North Carolina. 1997. Available online at
https://www.nres.usda.gov/hiternet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north—carohna/NC045/0/Cleveland.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 2019. Agricultural Applied Climate Information
System (AgACIS) for Cleveland County. WETS Station Shelby 2 NW, NC (Station ID 317845
Coop). (http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=37045)
NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Explorer web application. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
https://explorer.natureserve.org/(Accessed 1/29/21)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water Resources. 2008. Broad River
Basin -,vide Water Quality Plan, Raleigh, NC.
Broad River Basin Classification Schedule. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
Available at: https:Hdeg.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-schedule
2010. Methodologyforldentification oflntermittent andPerennial Streams and Their Origins, Version
4.11. Effective Date: September 1, 2010. Raleigh, NC
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12-1
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2009. Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009. NC
Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. 2020. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
www.ncfloodmaps.com Also available as ArcGIS Server feature at:
http://hazards. fema. gov/gis/nfhl/services.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section. Scale
1:500, 000.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC. Accessed January 2018 and September 2020.
Data Explorer (https:Hncnhde.natureserve. org/)
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. 2015. North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
V2.1, September 2015.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2016. North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
V5, February 2016.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 18-26, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV:
Subcommittee on Sedimentation.
2006. Watershed Assessment ofRiver Stability and Sediment Supply (WARS SS). Wildland Hydrology
Books, Fort Collins, CO. (648).
Schafale, M. P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, fourth approximation. North
Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. North Carolina.
Interagency Review Team -October 24, 2016. Wilmington District.
2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps ofEngineers WetlandDelineation Manual: Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region Version 2.0. ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Geological Survey. 2012. The StreamStats web program for North Carolina. Available online
at: https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streatnstats/north carolina.html.
. 2016. National Land Cover Database. Available online at: https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2Ol6.php.
Walker, A. 2018. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. Unpublished, NRCS. Personal
Communication.
Wolman, W. G., and L.B. Leopold. 1957. River Flood -plains - Some Observations on their Formation. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 282C: 87-109
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12-2
LITTO MAGNESSCREEK MITIGATONPROJECT, DMSNO.100081
MITGATON PLAN (FINAL)

APPENDIX A: FIGURES, PHOTOS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

0
a N,
a
o
0
0
Q
D
° 226
f
Kingstown
0
a
ABelwood
L
ao �
1
o � �
Cleveland County Cleveland County
a
0
O a
Falls on �\
d
Site Location
a
o
O
o a
a
Q 18
o � o
a °
0
1�0- Note: Site is located within Targeted Local
Watershed 03050105080060
0305 105080090
Site Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Location UT to Magness Creek
Mitigation Project
NC DMS Project No. 100081
GMichael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
l 0 0.5 1 2
-- Miles

� N
Conservation Easement Boundary T
5
Figure 2. USGS Map
Michael0 250 500 1,000 (Lawndale Quad)
Feet UT to Magness Creek Project
N T E R N A T 1❑ N A L Cleveland County

Conservation Easement
• DMS Projects • "
Conservation Easement ff
Natural Areas -Moderate'
Natural Areas -General d `"•
Streams
Water Supply Watershed -. � _ Catawba Lands
rr' ,� Conservation Easement -;
Leatherwood Slope
n
_Y � .4 Buffalo Creek
Rare Plant Site
20 5 Aerial Photograph-Sou`r`ce: NC�OneMap, NC Center for Geogra h c n "` io nd naTV iS
Figure 3. Adjacent and Proximal
Michael Baker 0 1 2 Planning Elements Map
Miles UT to Magness Creek Project
N T f R N A T I 0 H A L Cleveland County

Conservation Easement
0 Pre -Construction Groundwater Wells
O Sediment Sample Locations
Ditches
1 Headcut
Cross -Section
Existing JD Wetlands
Stream by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement 1
No Credit
Exposed Bedrock in Channel
Berms / Spoil Piles
Reach 1A S {
XS-2
UT1
0
FigureAP
IF
4. • Conditions
Michael Baker 0 250 500 a • Features

I
4
Aw
'V r
It
-'T. �A
. , .
-
f
}i r ' 1. - ", {i'
• . �- _
aL" is .4LGdk ..-
Project Location
Inner Piedmont,5
Mica schist formation
P4 1 Geologic Formation
Biotite gneiss and schist L
Cherryville Granite
T nY •
Michael

Conservation Easement
Project Streams
UT2 (31 acres, 0.05 sq. mi.)
Top of Reach 1 (245 ac, 0.38 sq. mi.)
1A (330 ac, 0.52 sq. mi.)
1 B (397 ac, 0.62 sq. mi.)
Project Watershed Land Use
(USGS National Land Cover Database 2016
Developed (impervious)
4.9% (2.35%)
Pasture/Hay
48.1%
Forest
25.7%
Open Space
9.2%
Cultivated Crops
8.9%
,A
Herbaceous
2.6%
Scrub/Shrub
0.6%
v.Nrl f
y i i
.;_ t
�. Lrg
rI" Ilk
20 5 Aerial Photograph Source: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geogra h c nr� ation n is r.
Figure 6. Drainage Area
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 and Land Use Map
Feet UT to Magness Creek Project
INTERNATIONAL Cleveland County

Conservation Easement
Project Streams
NRCS Soil Series
- ApC, Appling sandy laom
CaB2, Cecil sandy clay
CChA, Chewacla loam
- HeB, Helena -Worsham complex
- PaC2, Pacolet sandy clay loam (8-15%)
- PaD2, Pacolet sandy clay loam (15-25%)
- PsC2, Pacolet-Saw complex
N
INTERNATIONAL
urce: NC OneMap, NC Center fF'Geographic Information and Analysis
490 980 Figure 7. NRCS Soils Map
Feet UT to Magness Creek Project
Cleveland County

N
Conservation Easement
Project Streams
Flood Hazard Zones
Al
Zone Type
- 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
..
- Regulatory Floodway
" 5
Special Floodway
~' ,' .
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
w.�
,.:'•. .'
N
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
N Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee
izt
r
Figure 8
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 FEMA Floodplain Map
Feet UT to Magness Creek
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Stream Mitigation Project

E L'I I LOI I S-r L;;d 0 wl; I ilk;d
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
AM
41p
FAV
Approximate Conservation
Easement
Note: The historic aerial photograph is not georeferenced,
and the easement boundary location is approximate.
A p%,&47
Figure 9A
Historic Aerial 1947
Not to Scale UT to Magness Creek Project
Cleveland County

I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
.5
Approximate Conservation
5'-• Easement
ate: The historic aerial photograph is not georeferenced,
id the easement boundary location is approximate.
Sept-1961
Figure 9B
Historic Aerial 1961
Not to Scale UT to Magness Creek Project
Cleveland County

01
Approximate Conservation
Easement
Note: The historic aerial photograph is not georeferenced,
and the easement boundary location is approximate.
sforic C rial-Photograph Source::'USGS Apr-1979.
Figure 9C
MichaelHistoric Aerial 1979
Not to Scale UT to Magness Creek Project
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Cleveland County

F '*
h •L
A
}p s
a.40
. 4
-- 4
.i
Approximate Conservation
Easement
Note: The historic aerial photograph is not georeferenced,
and the easement boundary location is approximate.
Historic Aerial Photograph Source: U,SGS Mar-1993
0 300 600 Figure 9D
Michael Baker Feet Historic Aerial 1993
UT to Magness Creek Project
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 300 feet Cleveland County

Conservation Easement N
Project Streams
Cleveland County LiDAR
Elevation (ft)
==W High : 991
— Low: 791 OEM
ti
r
1 ti
NC GIA
Figure 10. LiDAR Map
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 UT to Magness
Feet Creek Project
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Cleveland County

UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project Photo -Log (2/19/18)
Top of Reach IA, looking upstream at start of project
Upper Reach IA, downstream
Upper Reach IA, downstream
Upper Reach IA, downstream
Upper Reach IA, downstream
r
Upper Reach IA, downstream

UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project Photo -Log (2/19/18)
.
'�'.
� T' , .�.s^a ri': fir'
F��• i >.�
r{
F
Middle Reach IA: BMP location at massive headcut on
right bank with soil auger for scale (2/21/18)
Lower Reach IA, downstream
Upper Reach 1B, upstream
Lower Reach IA, upstream
Lower Reach IA, right bank scour
Upper Reach 1B, downstream

UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project Photo -Log (2/19/18)
Upper Reach 1B, upstream
Middle Reach UT2, downstream
Lower Reach 1B, downstream
Top of Reach UT2, looking upstream
Lower Reach UT2, looking downstream to its
confluence with Reach 1B
h
Lower Reach 1B, downstream

UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project Photo -Log (2/19/18)
Lower Reach 1B, upstream
Lower Reach 1B, downstream
Cattle in the channel on Reach IA (2/28/18)
Lower Reach 1B: Buried A -horizon exposed along the
left bank
Lower Reach 1B, looking downstream at end of project
(pipe culvert under Selkirk Dr. visible)

El
N
O
r-1
II
44
X
i�
N
O
a
d
m
t
N
N
>t0
I
1,
CY)
r-
r-I
II
44
X
i�
O
n v
(4) u01}ena13

El
i
AM
W
O
N
Ch\/
x
N
.--1
II
44
X
r.
OD
II
44
X
A
Q
`O
m
`o
Y
t0
m
(4) u01}ena13

F-
i
AM
W
O
Ch\/
x
N
(+')
II
44
X
A
Q
(4) u01}ena13
m
0
v
v
0
0

N
.--1
44
X
A
a
a
d
m
t
d
>m
N
II
44
X
(4) u01}ena13

LO
r'I
44
X
i�
OD
N
r-I
44
X
A
A
44
(}j) uOi}enO13
0
N
O
V
0
0
O

0
r'I
44
X
N
O
a
d
m
t
d
m
3
11
44
X
()j) UOIJEn213
0
M
N
N
0
0
N
0

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
O
.3
4
N_
I_
N_
n
N
On
O
uN
r
�
a
a
c
0
U
a
p
p
1Ta
1
0
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
~ ;uaOJad anl;elmmno
�S
IPA"
6�
Of
�lS
'9S£
O
n9
N
f6
c.>
N
i
zv
c
o a
9r
3
L)
a
r
a
s
s
u
o�
v
�S.
J
S£
S£r
O
F
9�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
■
c E
o E
C N O N C t0 N N C tP0 N O R
IL
N
O C
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V CO W V' I- II M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O N N (O O O O O O O O O O
e N N 7 l!') c0 m 0)m m
O
O e
F V
Pr
v R C N
FO N O V W O W N N lD � y c-I N c-I 10 0 0� O
U
N
0
� N �
E E E N N
o N N bA bA N N O
ci ci Z , , a a ?
>o
>
3

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
.3
4
N_
I_
�
N
N_
N
O N
�
U
U
�'
c6
a
a
c
0
U
a
p
p
1Ta
1
0
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
~ 11-190a9d anl;elmmno
�S
�n
o�
Z/J!
�!S
<y
F
O
7
OS
N
r'9 E
'r1S N
f6
R
Z U
c>
N
N
fn
09 U
7
L)
of a
�
oP
v
a
s
s
u
v
o�
o�
of
0
Sao
S
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
;uaaaad SSLIO
U
p
a
■
c E
o E
CN
N
O
N
C
t0
N
N
C
tP0
N
O
R
O C
IL
V
0
7
o
co
M
m
(O
t
0
V
'o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
co
N
co
coM
co
7
l!')
Lo
I-
m
a,
a,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
o
F
R
V
co
N
7
(O
N
N
N
V
7
W
WM
W
(O
7
V
N
O
QI
R
OJ
co
(O
V
V
N
O
U
F
0
V
W
0
M
Vl
O
O
O
tp
tp
N
N
N
�
N
�
E
E
E
3

0
o
�JIS,
EDP
Esc
�JI
o
�I
-r
o
0
�
9F
O
I
0
7
r
i
N
E9 E
E
o
E
y
O
E
(n
{� y
N
y
y
R
y
T
F
N
U
U
G!
O
N
U
`)
R
d
� N
�I U
d
�
m
a
U
v
�
a
s
S
L
d
JE
G1
1
0�
o'er
o
_
A
o
U
WSJ
�
N
/J
�IJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
~
lu93J9d
anileinwno
WOWOd
ssBID
~
E
o E
y
O
a
O
O
O
O
N
N
�
4"1
N
O
N
N
th
LL"i
N
LL"i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
aD
O
M
M
Lo
w
M
w
N
O
N
w
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C.
O
O
O
e
N
't't'
N
o
I-w
w
w
w
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
Co
0
0
0
0
O
O
V
p
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
e
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
����
O
M
M
N�
a0
N
N
M
O
M
O
0
O
�
U
W
C
O
N
N
V
N
(O
t
t
N
O
N
00
O
N
U
W
V
M
Vl
O
O
O
N
O
f0
O
O
f0
N
N
N
>
>
>
U
o
v
>
>>
LL
U
3
O
x
l
F

INTERNATIONAL Memo
Subject: UT to Magness BMP Design Summary
Author(s): Cody Batchelder, P.E.
Date: November 19, 2020
A stormwater best management practice (BMP) is proposed on the west side of the UT to Magness stream
near station 25+00. This wet pond will receive stormwater runoff from4.19 acres of drainage area, which
contains no impervious area. Sizing of the BMP was completed using a 1-inch design storm rainfall
depth, and runoff was calculation using the simple method. This BMP was designed to meet the
stormwater design criteria of a wet pond following the North Carolina Stormwater Design Guidance
Manual. Most of the minimum design criteria (MDC) were able to be accommodated; however, a few
could not be met as outlined below. Even with these limitations, the design will be able to provide water
quality improvement benefits.
The BMP collects surface runoff along the western side of the proposed wet pond, and then discharges
runoff through an overflow weir along the northern side, and is designed to detain the 1-inch storm for
water quality. The BMP meets the requirements for main pool surface area and volume (MDC-1), main
pool depth (MDC-2), sediment storage (MDC-3), location of inlet and outlet (MDC-4), forebay (MDC-5),
vegetated shelf, and protection of the receiving stream (MDC-8). The revegetation for the BMP will meet
the requirements of landscaping plan MDC-11. Peak attenuation is not proposed for this BMP.
The BMP is unable to meet MDC-7, which requires a 2-5 day drawdown time between the temporary and
permanent pool elevations. For a BMP of this size, meeting this criterion would require an orifice that
would likely be subject to frequent clogging in the proposed application; therefore, the BMP was
designed to accommodate the required treatment volume of the permanent pool and the temporary pool
below the outlet. A low maintenance stone weir structure is proposed for the wet pond outlet, which also
eliminates the need for a trash rack (MDC-10). No fountains are proposed, which eliminates MDC-9.

UT to Magness Stream Mitigation Project Calcs by: CDB
Checked by:
BMP Stage/Storage, Volume, and Surface Area Calculations
Avg. Area
Elevation
Area (so
(so
Height (ft)
Inc vol (cf)
Acc vol (ft3)
Notes
869.00
100
Main Pool Only
Top of Permanent Pool, Main Pool
872.00
946
523
3
1569
1569
Only
Middle of Veg Shelf, Main
872.50
1770
1358
0.5
679
2248
Pool+Forebay Area
Top of Veg Shelf, Invert of Outlet,
873.00
2332
2051
0.5
1026
3274
Main Pool+Forebay Area
Top of Pond/Outlet, Main
874.00
2950
2641
1
2641
5915
Pool+Forebay Area
Deep Water Surface Area
523
sf
% Deep Pool
17.7%
Shallow Water Surface Area
1809
sf
% Shallow Water
61.3%
Temporary Ponding Surface Area
618
sf
Temporary Ponding
20.9%

o
o
o
o
)
o
\
f5
(
ro)
K
®
{/
r/\j
?
_
-&>P
/)(j
2
_
/
\
\\\
\
\
\\
}
\�\\
\
\
o
=
t
.-
o
,�oo
_
§)
_\:
~
\\\r\\/:r(\(\
\:\«!&\{{
_
_
,
\
\
\\
\j{
\}
!
`i
/ a !
o li�{{\J
=
�®®\\�
„)
\ `
))§)
°
r
{
{)
)/
)�
)f
N®::�
\_
f §
\\
7
{
))
!{))
{//
,
\
\f\!}
(
-
\
m -55 o{
)
)
{5(3lji
_
\§
E
-
E
-
3 `�*
ro: w°(
,
o
t,lo
:£»}2�
k±
lo
j{){oo2
\/
\
\
)!:§k�to
®®®®®®®®
!t
;
_
::7
/::
m:
o
§o
77
\ , !\)
\ol
\
a
{
f \:
o
>�)
\\\\\\\)
-
°l
(�}
\}
\ \
)\\\
\)/(
k)
°/§
/§
\� N -
\{
)
;;fff
/) ! «!
-
�
--------
)
«::
e r>
/3::
>
i
:
!\!«`7}/@

UT to Magness Creek: Culvert Design Calculations
cg
1S 2P � 3R
Drainage Area Arch Culvert- Inlet Arch Overt
Control Check
0
cg
4PN
V5R
Floodplain Pipes- Inlet Floodplain Pipes
Control Check
Subcat Reach on Link Routing Diagram for Culvert Analysis-Arch+Floodplain Pipes
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net, Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler sin S29052 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Culvert Analysis- Arch+Floodplain Pipes Type 1124-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S29052 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2
This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work.
Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Drainage Area
Runoff = 207.96 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 24.722 af, Depth> 0.84"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Area (ac) CN Description
352.000 65 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG B
352.000 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
32.0 Direct Entry,
Subcatchment 1S: Drainage Area
Hydrograph
■ Runoff
u
3
0
LL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Culvert Analysis- Arch+Floodplain Pipes Type 1124-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S29052 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3
This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work.
Summary for Arch Culvert- Inlet Control Check
[57] Hint: Peaked at 870.28' (Flood elevation advised)
Inflow Area = 352.000 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.84" for 2-year event
Inflow = 207.96 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 24.722 of
Outflow = 207.96 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 24.722 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 207.96 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 24.722 of
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Peak Elev= 870.28' @ 12.31 hrs
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 861.27' 79.0" W x 62.5" H, R=41.2' /82.6" Pipe Arch CMP_Arch _1 81x59 w/ 12.0" inside
L= 30.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 860.27' / 859.81' S= 0.0153 T Cc= 0.900
n= 0.025 Corrugated metal, Flow Area= 23.02 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=207.96 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=870.28' TW=864.59' (Dynamic Tailwater)
L1=CMP_Arch_1 81x59 (Inlet Controls 207.96 cfs @ 9.03 fps)
014
Time (hours)
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Culvert Analysis- Arch+Floodplain Pipes Type/1 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S29052 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4
This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work.
Summary for Arch Culvert
[52] Hint: Inlet/Outlet conditions not evaluated
Inflow Area = 352.000 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.84" for 2-year event
Inflow = 207.96 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 24.722 of
Outflow = 198.46 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 24.644 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 0.0 min
Overflow = 9.57 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.076 of
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Max. Velocity= 9.82 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 4.68 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Peak Storage= 606 cf @ 12.26 hrs
Average Depth at Peak Storage= 4.32' above invert (3.32' above fill) , Surface Width= 4.61'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.21' above invert (4.21' above fill) Flow Area= 23.0 sf, Capacity= 198.39 cfs
Any excess flow will be diverted to the secondary overflow
79.0" W x 62.5" H, R=41.2' /82.6" Pipe Arch Pipe w/ 12.0" inside fill
n= 0.025 Corrugated metal
Length= 30.0' Slope= 0.0153 T (101 Elevation Intervals)
Inlet Invert= 860.27', Outlet Invert= 859.81'
O
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Culvert Analysis- Arch+Floodplain Pipes Type 1124-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S29052 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5
This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work.
1
Arch Culvert
9.57 cfs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Culvert Analysis- Arch+Floodplain Pipes Type 1124-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S29052 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6
This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work.
Summary for Floodplain Pipes- Inlet Control Check
[57] Hint: Peaked at 862.77' (Flood elevation advised)
[63] Warning: Exceeded Reach 3R INLET depth by 0.20' @ 0.00 hrs
Inflow = 9.57 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.076 of
Outflow = 9.57 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.076 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 9.57 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.076 of
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Peak Elev= 862.77' @ 12.32 hrs
Device Routing
Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary
861.47' 24.0" Round CMP Round 24"
L= 30.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 861.47' / 861.01' S= 0.0153 T Cc= 0.900
n= 0.025 Corrugated metal, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
#2 Primary
861.47' 24.0" Round CMP Round 24"
L= 30.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 861.47' / 861.01' S= 0.0153 T Cc= 0.900
n= 0.025 Corrugated metal, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
na�Eund
ow Max=9.46 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=862.76' TW=862.26' (Dynamic Tailwater)
und 24" (Outlet Controls 4.73 cfs @ 3.13 fps)
24" (Outlet Controls 4.73 cfs @ 3.13 fps)
Floodplain Pipes- Inlet Control Check
Hydrograph
■ Inflow
■ Primary
u
3
0
LL
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Culvert Analysis- Arch+Floodplain Pipes Type/1 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S29052 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7
This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work.
Summary for Floodplain Pipes
[52] Hint: Inlet/Outlet conditions not evaluated
[90] Warning: Qout>Qin may require smaller dt or Finer Routing
[80] Warning: Exceeded Pond 4P by 0.13' @ 12.39 hrs (0.06 cfs 0.000 af)
Inflow = 9.57 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.076 of
Outflow = 9.61 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.076 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Max. Velocity= 4.16 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 2.17 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.2 min
Peak Storage= 69 cf @ 12.31 hrs
Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.79' , Surface Width= 3.91'
Bank -Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 6.3 sf, Capacity= 29.13 cfs
A factor of 2.00 has been applied to the storage and discharge capacity
24.0" Round Pipe
n= 0.025 Corrugated metal
Length= 30.0' Slope= 0.0153 '/'
Inlet Invert= 861.47', Outlet Invert= 861.01'
0
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Culvert Analysis- Arch+Floodplain Pipes Type 1124-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.69"
Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 11/24/2020
HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S29052 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8
This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work.
Floodplain Pipes
Hydrograph
■ Inflow
■ Outflow
0
u
3
0
LL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

WETS Table UT to Magness Creek WETS Table (Shelby weather station, apx. 7 miles from site)
WETS Station: SHELBY 2 NW,
NC
Requested years: 1990 -
2016
Month
Avg Max
Avg Min
Avg
Temp
Temp
Mean
Temp
Jan
51.5
28.3
39.9
Feb
54.8
30.3
42.6
Mar
63.2
37.7
50.5
Apr
71.9
45.8
58.8
May
78.6
55.2
66.9
Jun
85.7
62.9
74.3
Jul
88.9
66.6
77.7
Aug
87.4
65.6
76.5
Sep
81.7
58.6
70.2
Oct
72.3
46.0
59.1
Nov
62.7
36.3
49.5
Dec
53.8
31.0
42.4
Annual:
Average
71.1
47.0
59.0
Total
-
-
-
GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data:
24 deg =
28 deg =
32 deg =
3
3
3
Years with no occurrence:
24 deg =
28 deg =
32 deg =
0
0
0
Data years used:
24 deg =
28 deg =
32 deg =
24
24
24
Probability
24 F or
28 For
32 F or
higher
higher
higher
50 percent *
3/12 to
3/23 to
4/6 to
11/21:
11/4:226
10/25:
254 days
days
202 days
70 percent*
3/8 to 11 /
3/18 to
4/3 to
26: 263
11 /9: 236
10/29:
days
days
209 days
* Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.
STATS TABLE - total
precipitation (inches)
Yr
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
Avg
30 %
30 %
Precip
chance
chance
precip less
precip
than
more than
4.47
3.09
5.32
3.32
2.41
3.90
4.62
3.12
5.52
3.92
2.47
4.73
4.20
2.82
5.03
4.42
2.54
5.38
4.61
2.92
5.56
4.31
2.43
5.26
3.90
2.05
4.77
3.70
1.76
4.44
3.67
1.89
4.48
4.24
3.16
4.96
41.58
53.16
49.39
Avg number
Avg
days precip
Snowfall
0.10 or more
7
1.9
6
1.1
7
0.6
6
0.0
7
0.0
7
0.0
8
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
5
0.0
5
0.1
7
0.6
76 4.4
Jan Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun
Jul Aug
Sep
Oct Nov Dec Annl
M6.34
3.24
4.23 9.16
5.32 6.35
5.
M8. 3.60 1.55 54.
57
75 11
4.62 6.05
1.40 M1.40
2.16 1.37
2.77 4.62
M3.
0.70 6.50 34.
26
85
M1.55
M6.72 M4.15
M3.13
15.
55

m
Ln
E
W
Ln
9-1

N
O
N
M
C)
O
N
O
N
V
V
}/ O
N
O
N
� O
7C) +r
C �
(Q — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N
w o
c
� L
M
L 3 O
U� N
O
— O
M
O
N
O
N
O
v
co 0
at
C co
O
i N
-� N
O
O O O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CDN
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O In O O In O In O In CD In O O
N N N M M
aa;eM 01 4jd9d

N
O
N
M
C)
O
'^
v♦
N
O
N
V
L
� �
f6
N
NN
LL C
O
N
V
M O
o
''M
V!
i----____--
-____-- _--
o
O
,^
V
C
Q
�
L
W
O
LO
00
N
O
y
N
ao
N
C
CD
0
O
N
O
C
N
O
V)
v
o
N
�
Op
•3
co
N
O
i
O
N
C7
N
O
O
O
O
O
O O O O O O O O O O O N
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
In
O Lo O In O In O In O In O
N N M M
aajeM of 4jd9d

N
O
N
M
r
O
Q�
N
O
V!
�
O
�
L i
VC
�
O
O
VI
CN
7
N fC
V
�
�
W
O
� L
L �
c
i
O
o
U O
N
L
co
y V
�
r
o
i
N
N
C
L
N
(n
L
O
N
L
(�
O
N
O
O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O
O O N
O O
O
N
O U-) O LO U-) O
' N N (M
LO O O
Cl?
aajeM of yldad
c
cu
0)
X
c
(Q
L_>
cu
U
O
D)
'F
bi
O
z

APPENDIX B: SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed below in Table B.1. The conservation easement boundaries are shown in Figure
B.1, and a copy of the Draft survey plat is provided below.
Table B.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Pro] ect — DMS Prcj ect No. 100081
CE
Parcel PIN
Site
Deed Book
Total
Areas in
Landowner
County
Protection
and Page
Acreage
Parcel
Number
Instrument
Numbers
Protected
Robert E. Yarboro
A
and Kay Dixon
2641-53-8722
Cleveland
Conservation
Book 11
2 28
Yarboro
Easement
Page 03O
Robert E. Yarboro
Conservation
Book 1168,
B
and Kay Dixon
2641-52-8927
Cleveland
Easement
Page 030
3.63
Yarboro
Robert E. Yarboro
Conservation
Book l6D,
C
and Kay Dixon
2641-41-9802
Cleveland
Easement
Page l43
2.22
Yarboro
Robert E. Yarboro
Conservation
Book l6D,
D
and Kay Dixon
2641-41-9802
Cleveland
Easement
Page l43
2.59
Yarboro
Robert E. Yarboro
E
and Kay Dixon
2641-60-0979
Cleveland
Conservation
Book 1105,10.94
Yarboro
Easement
Page 421
A conservation easement has been obtained and recorded from the landowners for the entire project. The
easement and survey plat documents were reviewed and approved by NCDMS and State Property Office
(SPO) and will held by the State ofNorth Carolina. The easement and survey documents were recorded (Book
43, Pages 180-182) at the Cleveland County Register of Deeds on December 11, 2020.

z
Conservation Easement Parcel Boundaries A17-M14
Parcel Boundaries
N h CE-A
1 :-:
2.28 ac
JL
ILI
t
�!: rev
,k Zr_
y ��r~ -[•
rg
- 3.63 acOt
..
Net
Imo'=-'� Y •
CE-C
2.22 ac
e
CE-D
2.59 ac
CE-E
0.94 a
20 9 Aerial 1F.Frolaqraph Source: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geogra ME n i n is
N � I
North Carolina Figure B-1. Site Protection
Michael Baker Division of 0 125 250 500 Instrument Map
Mitigation Services Feet UT to Magness Creek Project
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Proj. No. 100081 Cleveland County

13k q3 P61 %0
3y�y
CERPTIFICATE 01 RIIRVE)Y AND AEGURACY:
SUIT
.Doe:14-Da 141_ oB� Ime vcE�3a9. RuoB:1ll15_
R IS
11.142E = _ �a]6 ao
I InDO
LOR APE AND
I WAS
esso nEREeYIRnrr 11 ms —1 a OF 1CLASS W OLD
FELL P DDAFE E �` EE iAno xE,nDI«
/11
DRSSO1
DIED LSED,
1111
FDerA � �b ciue xuxe o'xo '�..
r
SEAL fI}=
:tlg
�irr�Ory,y�rcrcss xeMPmx xu[s uerc PIS L eRR5
TM 1 leV� nIE EelEww[rtI�CEa F�w RAY
TO D.Fl rv3 SPIRSPER OF PROP— Is in EA .. AREAS oFl x0
TNGAR0LIN4
n RF
II 1AE) aPEOPLE' A" (p AREry Rfo aF 111E DRREwR(sTMaPSmE
IN IF
MY/WR„FcreE coND TFAi
I/ME —TEE
Snlux�/
EARISSERT RA
" AT ED. M¢rs ALL ITAPLAT ED RY
EN,S FOR REcdroING.
1, moco�,s� 1FIDER 0/11-2020
PC
�
A✓:�
1. LATE
wxxDO
ewxtoxn
—DI
LATE
�mF`r"ul
auwnM aoi vc
N
3y�y
DDAAFD­
rcrA waEn`���y
ro �r�e T�oe,.iw w.,uP
r \1 'r DR,�DII.IDID
RO rARRDIN RaoswlPE,
•, xoN rEoz o
' _ 1 PS. . � SI(PAREEL 2)
TPG46IPORT ON DP TRACT 9)
RCIBERET E. EOROA-E
III, BOR0
DS', 68 PGL SO (ARCEL1L 1i,nACT 1D)
��(TRAGT10)
DE Rrc.
1 N.a
n, xo 21 I
-_ —
----\�\0
,
--T--
My DI
Da ao Pcp144 1PGE4ae
\ I'
REESSE\`\
\\\
Eli\\
FIRF­
OD.,TRPumS I
1 \
CA.,e.Dx. eu '\
1 �
i
DO
- — - - — - — - — -
LEGEND:
wRwEr rt[T unLEss
Ea+. E CE
0
T 5/IA R0J R c/E,EEE' coxmDL
IS
C.—III IDPI
Txo,ED) v
sEO ,o IDO,nPr
E ETAEw ,xI DArzs
p (AS
,Ee�Loe/o5/,9
h ,i/JD/zDn"
O
T S/eIUUMIN M SCAE" qP .'-I/4
Qo
s� s/a xEs a w/ "xEz' cw
mFc (As NO,ED)
IF RE DORSERIAnox EASE.Ex,
B
LORRICOR�,SI:w" orv"`EACE D FOOT RDC
O
aox
E-D Pc. Im, �x w,I�Dx .o xlDm
1oR
R"OEE1HD.OEA"P` )
FILE
,o` D
GI
'°°Jo�FaRN�,
r
.".i
(") '"ooEH
oEM
NExT°
FEAD'D,�atloER'owo
wDxxEn
DOLE
o
(EE,>,
DLA xT
o
IFP-.I ROAD SEx,ERLRE �ET
0
smE u/warzR
SHEET 2
1
I I
I
I
I
DDRDA9 e � ,
u
PPAR.1-,
IIPAR<ELR
1
I�
IJ)
AR�IP.
C9
- -E
SHEET
'I
GRA<i.I I
1
IG
1
1
1
1
I AREA
R1TED w
&�$�c
FLOODSPECIAL xAZARLIT" SOFT OF A, D AREA
c�g su b
FORCE
e aR
PIT E
DIED E_
PACE
ED TER
n sp
A.
OR
F.
P.
SHEET#:I OF
'ERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR:
'HE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
IVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
T 110 GNESSGREEK'
=ze 11M e1-1
1,S oxe - 1rc-1111,
z/ov=o. DRAex er. xx De"neDmSr x.E
r.o. eDz zsss
ee 802 v 9 20 (828575 (�2) 902/
keeDom
Lic e # C- C-303

€ow<w
I cis is
Lbw = w��N„ z°ode
uSrvnrvry A..rv„A.Vry w m N 999
oil
mE z
�s6-�= 1
o .z6 oJF sawn p pm ':_� ss °�mm N �a°� amo` g W
�<ow_
- ----------- ---- ----- --- - -- — - -- oZ
ag
XsaIms
IN
�3
00
I o� I
a�
go88 I \ li'I�
I _ d°
Boo
Sul F # `\ R
Own
If
CIO
T" dNb9,...'AV` _4Fj�` � BQ \\ a O � a a i�R'r®s����®,�`�
£ h
s

_�
-g8
Wis
col
41
_
a
6
E
_
zg,
ks
a 2ma ga §^R v VIM
zYB�8 '888 8 $Ft g
° as �NN��m�aa
Gp4
A
GpY�
GpQ�
\ s
/
/
/
/
/
g 'ga i
i
I � i
ng
� z -°8 _m3mbl aF yF �E�b a b�§ off$ ££m g�LLyo
a =,Ro`gassamms='s aeoFa®��saa= ase

APPENDIX C: CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total approved credits generated as reported by the as -built / baseline
report for the mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE)
has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for
construction of the mitigation prof ect. The DE, in consultation with the NCIRT, will determine if performance
standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases
where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics
of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria
described in Table C.1 as follows:
Table C.1 Stream Credit Release Schedule
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project — DMS Project No. 100081
Credit
ILF/DMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Nfdestone
Release
Released
1
Site Establishment
0%
0%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological
30%
30%
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
3
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
o
10 /0
0
40/o
stable and interim performance standards have been met
4
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
o
10 /0
0
50 /o
stable and interim performance standards have been met
5
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
o
10 /0
0
60 /o
stable and interim performance standards have been met
*
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
o
5 /0
65%
6
stable and interim performance standards have been met
(75%**)
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
75%
7
stable and interim performance standards have been met
o
10 /o
(85%**)
*
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
o
5 /0
80%
8
stable and interim performance standards have been met
(90%-)
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
90%
9
stable, and performance standards have been met and
10%
**
project has been approved for closeout
(100% )
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these m onitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
* * 10%reserve of credits to beheld back until the bankfull eventperformance standard has been met

Table C.1 Wetland Credit Release Schedule
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Credit
ILF/NCDMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
I
Site Establishment
0%
0%
Completion of all initial physical and biological
2
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
30%
30%
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
3
10%
40%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
4
10%
50%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
5
o
15 /0
0
65 /o
interim performance standards have been met
Year
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
6*
performance standards have been met
5%
70%
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
7
15%
85%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
8*
5%
90%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
9
performance standards have been met
°
10%
°
100 /o
*Plea se note that vegetationplot data may notbe required with m onitonng reports submitted duringthese
monitoringyears unless otherwise required by the MitigationPlan or directedby theNCIRT.
The following conditions apply to all the credit release schedules:
a. A reserve of 10% of a site's total stream credits will be released after four bankfull events have occurred,
in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that
less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits is at the
discretion of the NCIRT.
b. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis, assuming that the
annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with Section IV (General Monitoring
Requirements) of the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, and
that the monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other
concerns have been identified on -site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require written approval
from the USACE.
c. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a determination by
the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in the Mitigation Plan.

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

APPENDIX E: MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be performed at least
once a year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These
site inspections may identify issues that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance is most likely to
be expected in the first two years following site construction and may include the following components as
described below in Table E.1:
Table E.1 Routine Maintenance Components
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Proj ect — DMS Proj ect No. 100081
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channelm aintenance and repair a ctivitic s may include m odifying in -stream
structures to preventpiping, securing loo se coirmatting, and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation along the projectreaches. Areas of concentrated
stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channelm ay also require maintenance to
prevent streambank failures and head-cuttinguntil vegetation becomes established.
Vegetation
Vegetationwill be maintainedto ensure the health andvigorof thetargeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will be treated by mechanical
and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring herbicide application
will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries shallbe identifiedby fence, marker,
bollard, post or other m eans as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation casement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyedwill be repaired and/or replaced on an
asneededbasis.
Farm Road Crossing
The farm road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowedby the recorded
Conservation Easement deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements. Culverts
and fords located atcrossings outside the casementwill be maintained for stability and flow
whenever possiblewith respect totheserestrictions.
Beaver Management
Routine maintenance andrepair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and dam breechin g, dewatering, and/or removal. Beaver
management will be performed in accordance with US Departmentof Agriculture (USDA)
rules and regulations using accepted trapping and rem ovaltechniques only within the project
boundary.

APPENDIX F: DWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS

Main Stem: Reach 1
Sd e M, - A--X
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 111
Date: o� a� Projectote. Y+ A kfr g Latitude:
Evaluator: }y ��. fy County: It 1. lz i r Q Longitude.
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle onej Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent er ial) e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30' i
............
B. Hydrology Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
i1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
'1
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = i a - S- )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) EST
Q
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
14 .5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
�1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0,75; OBL = 1.5 O er
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Reach UT 1
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
t]ate:
t�T L5ki
Project/Site: -
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
s
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if a 19 or perennial if a 30" '
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent Weak
Moderate
Strc
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0 1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ­1 se uence
0 1
�
' :L2)
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0 1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0 i
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0 1
2
3
9. Grade control
0 0.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
e
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal
2. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
'2
3
3. Iron oxidizing bacteria
[14.
0 1
2
3
Leaf litter
15
05
0
5. Sediment on plants or debris
0 5
1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
i
1.
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 er
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I� Project/Site: Ut2
Evaluator: w C_-4,- �P County.
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
if z 19 or perennial if
A. Geomorphology Subtotal '
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
B. Depositional ban; or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Reach UT2
Latitude:
Longitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
3
0
1
2.
3
0
1
2ti
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
0
;0.
No=O
Yes
0
3
0
1
2} 3
0.5 0
0
0.5
1',' 1.5
0
0.5
1 1.5
No=O
Yes=3

Reach UT3
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I} { � Project/Site: M a tE U j j
Evaluator: RM County: C
Total Points: Stream Determinatto � circle one)
Stream is of least intermittent :,
ff z 19 or perennial if a 30" Ephemera ntermitten Perennial
Latitude:
Longitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
B. H drola Subtotah
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14_ Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.51
3
p
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.54
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 °
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
2
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
LW
0.5
1
1 5
25. Algae
`0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL=1.5r--
ther =_L�—'
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
P. 35 of manual.
Sketch:

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

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1 Main Stem
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): UT to Magness Creek 2. Date of evaluation: 11/8/18
3. Applicant/owner name: Baker Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. King, R. Myers / Baker
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Magness Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):-81.5314, 35.4035
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): (see map) 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5' ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name UT to Magness Creek Date of Assessment
11/8/18
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/Organization
S. King, R. Myers / Baker
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Reach UT2
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): UT to Magness Creek 2. Date of evaluation: 11/8/18
3. Applicant/owner name: Baker Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: R. Myers / Baker
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Magness Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):-81.5314, 35.4035
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach UT2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 25'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5' ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 12' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name UT to Magness Creek Date of Assessment
11/8/18
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization
R. Myers / Baker
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
UT to Magness Creek
Date of Evaluation
11/8/18
Applicant/Owner Name
Baker Engineering
Wetland Site Name
UT to Magness wetlands
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
S. King, R. Myers/ Baker
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Magness Creek
River Basin
Broad
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050105
County
Cleveland
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
M Yes F— No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.4068.-81.5283
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
®B ®B ®B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ®I ®I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
®D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

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

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name UT to Magness wetlands Date of Assessment 11/8/18
S. King, R. Myers /
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

APPENDIX H: APPROVED JD AND WETLAND FORMS

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2019-00664 County: Cleveland U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Lawndale
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Mickv Clemmons
Address: 797 Havwood Ave., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Telephone Number: 828-412-6100
E-mail: mclemmons(dmbakerintl.com
Size (acres) 10.79 Nearest Town Lawndale
Nearest Waterway Magness Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.404463
Longitude:-81.530205
Location description: The review area is located 0.301 miles Northwest of the intersection of Philadelphia Road and Shaker
Drive in Cleveland Countv. PIN(s): 2641540498, 2641538722, 2641538722, 2641528927, 2641528927, 2641419802, 2641600979.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 5/16/2019. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2019-00664
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Catherine M. Janiczak at 704-510-1438 or
Catherine. M.Janiczak(d,u sace. armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 06/17/2019.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: N.
Date of JD: 06/17/2019 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2019-00664
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Holland Youngman
Address: 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Telephone Number: 828-412-6103
E-mail: Holland.Youngman(dmbakerintl.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Mickv Clemmons File Number: SAW-2019-00664
Date: 06/17/2019
Attached
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
®
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPennits.asi)x
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak
CESAD-PDO
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 06/17/2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Micky Clemmons, Micky LAST, 797 Haywood Ave.,
Suite 201,Asheville, NC 28806
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Yaraboro PJD, SAW-2019-00664
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located 0.301 miles
Northwest of the intersection of Philadelphia Road and Shaker Drive in Cleveland County. PIN(s): 2641540498,
2641538722, 2641538722, 2641528927, 2641528927, 2641419802, 2641600979.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Cleveland City: Lawndale
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.404463 Longitude:-81.530205
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Magness Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 05/16/2019
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Estimated amount of
Geographic authority to
Type of aquatic
aquatic resources in
which the aquatic resource
Latitude (decimal
Longitude (decimal
resources (i.e.,
Site Number
review area (acreage
'may be" subject (i.e.,
degrees)
degrees)
wetland vs. non -
and linear feet, if
Section 404 or Section
wetland waters)
applicable
10/404)
Main
35.407123
-81.528623
3,109 linear feet
Non -wetland
Sec. 404
Stream
UT1
35.407123
-81.528623
161 linear feet
Non -wetland
Sec. 404
UT2
35.407123
-81.528623
260 linear feet
Non -wetland
Sec. 404
UT3
35.407123
-81.528623
120 linear feet
Non -wetland
Sec. 404
W-i
35.407123
-81.528623
0.03 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
W-A
35.407002
-81.528357
0.009 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
W-B
35.406850
-81.528315
0.026 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
W-C
35.406889
-81.528485
0.019 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404

Estimated amount of
Geographic authority to
Type of aquatic
Latitude (decimal
Longitude (decimal
aquatic resources in
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic resource
Site Number
review area (acreage
'may be" subject (i.e.,
degrees)
degrees)
wetland vs. non -
and linear feet, if
Section 404 or Section
wetland waters)
applicable
10/404)
W-1
35.405534
-81.529151
0.014 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
W-H
35.405439
-81.529403
0.013 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
W-F
35.404289
-81.530696
0.048 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
W-E
35.404035
-81.5311077
0.018 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
W-D
35.403633
-81.531248
0.014 acres
Wetland
Sec. 404
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved 7D (AID) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of 7Ds and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AID for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AID
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AID could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AID
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AID
or a PJD, the 7D will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AID, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AID to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information.

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figure 5.1 (Dated 05/16/2019)_
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Lawndale Quadrangle_
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: USDA NRCS 2016 SSURGO
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMAVFIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): 2015 NC One Map
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corus and should not be relied uuon for later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of R latory
staff member completing PJD
06/17/2019
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable) t
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.

Wetlands
Approx. Conservation Easement
Project Stream
Intermittent
Perennial
r�
R- L
Figure 5.1 - Updated 5/16/19
Review Area
Michael Baker 0 200 400 800 Feet UT to Magness Creek
Stream Mitigation Project
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Cleveland County, NC

11 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern /Mountains and Piedmont a
Project/Site; V City/County: hr" t+j Sampling Date: 1 'p
Applicant/Owner: _ State: -- Sampling Point:t
Investigator(s): [ "�[VA Iu Section, Township, Range: —'
Landform (hilislope, terrace, ate.): / Local relief (concave, convex, none): 6"4 LA Slope (%): r
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)): I � —_1 3 t0 Let: 3 �LU(o Long: . S a ? Datum: ALAL 23
Soil Map Unit Name: _ Lb I,1)& n NW! classification:
Are climatic / hydr�ollooic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No —XL(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Y_ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ _ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes k No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �C No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required,)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (1313)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (814)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table W)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drain, -age Pattenis (1510)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (03)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (69)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
rr
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches). S-4 eA
No Depth (inches): lei kau
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes —X­ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WL
�j(ill 1A4#cAJ
.I
I�Jdi,SC (� A
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: ►�✓
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species }
1, A 4,, rv� w, (oO Y_ �F�Ae(,,� That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: G (A)
2_ 2 O F- 41C� Total Number of Dominant
3. 0)LRn ' Q_ Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC; (AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
= Total Cover QBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x 2 =
1 FAC species x 3 =
2 FACU species x 4 =
3 UPL species x 5 =
4 Column Totals: (A) (8}
5.
Prevalence Index = BIA =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
_ 2 -Dominance Testis >50%
9, _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0t
10. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: i
G f /. Y _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
jd
2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. - be present. unless disturbed or problematic.
4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.
8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1 a.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Total Cover woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4,
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
6 Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (include photo numbers
ehere
l/oron a separate shec:a.)
S��r�j��'�5 � fYn�G��✓S �A.t�,G� �I�rr
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

Sampling Point:
SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
inches Color moi..t %
Redox Features
Color moist % Tyne_ Loc Texture Remarks r
c Ittoo
11L OL+ 'cR
-
�D
10 4
� �- oc I�
'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letlon> RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (S7) — 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_
Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ` Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_
_ Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gfeyed Matrix (F2) ^
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
_
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) ^ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
J Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gfeyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Endicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_
`:an y Redox (S5)
^_
_ Piedmont Flno 'plain Sri'- T19) (FOLRA i"a) wetland' hy�'r^l^gy must be T son(,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
``
p r
c�
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

&4 Irv, d
�I �2
11 ..`� WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern
! Mountains and Piedmont r /
Project/Site: V ` �y e CitylCounty: �t:�L.,. Sampling Date:
�r
A�ant/Owner: n State: Sampling Point:
l
Investigator(s): LO r
"(�
Section, Township, Range: `
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
N^� . Local relief (concave, convex, none): Gr-it-R,t
Slope N;
Subregion LRR or MLRA : ".
g' ( }
I; � Lat:
3J. 40 Y 3
Lon { ?e �
g: � � S
�lfl�_' sir
datum: .
5ai! Map Unit Name: r_:. P4`4�.t
1+t
n,i�
/ ,
f b`? -*�
NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions
on the site typical for
']
this time of year? Yes
No 1c: (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation, Soil
or Hydrology
significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances' present?
Yes ' No
Are Vegetation Soil
or Hydrology
naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes T No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes- No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that aooly) _
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns {810}
Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (Bi) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83) — Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (65)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
Geomorphic Position (D2) ��dr�ry rr
f
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: It
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): n- I
Water Table Present? Yes Na Depth (inches): S-r-
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): :-r ,ii ez
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
,
includes ca illa trip e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Alm �V3
P
zdti
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) -- Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: `t —r?
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
�
9
50 V ��
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. Pr e r S
20 A4 U
3. L n- rry c
�
- IV (�
Fi4C
Total Number of
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. i �S 4 I/! r 1ns� ti
fAJ -EA =
Percent of Dominant Species
� �
5.
That Are08L, FACW, or FAG: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
B.
�(� = Total Cover
09L species x 1 =
Saplihm/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 =
1 —
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B!A =
B.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
—1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
B.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
_
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
..
_Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 `'
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3•
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in_ (7.6 cm) or
6
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
9.
than 3 in. DSH and greater than 3.28 ft (9 m) tall.
10.
Herb- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall,
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
= Total Cover
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
2.
3.
4.
S.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks; (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
VAOWW� t
� ltL 6ii:xs5 t5 ��i���� 1`IJ"
kcCes S . A,�/�I j �.,r� �o
Y4`AJ Ld
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirr
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color moist % Type Loc
- (k Iv 5'�l?
-118 101 u K too
Sampling Point: YV _?
the absence of indicators
C Wf I&*.
Remarks
,Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'_
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (57)
2 cm Muck (A10) (M LRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
^_
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
C Depleted Matrix (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
— Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA t36, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No—
Remarks:
Ru V'V
X" �'(4'2 ^4
A
Iti 41 /-Y KsJa0\,..
91 1.4, Zv".ck (*��'j J'/Wtd�"
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project[Site: (.� 1 ii�J !� ,f�! }L� ti CitylC nty: WM1 6tj Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: A Y� - ` rw State: Sampling Point: U!/
�`
l U L
Investigator(s): r ."i ! : Section, Township, Range: _
Landform (hillslope, terrace, e J / Local relief (concave, convex, none): S �ici+ r,ys„wG'l* Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): `' �� % Lat: . 'f V o i Long: (, `Z 1 Datum: h! �w
Soil Ma Unit Name: �C ro 0
p L: i, cl� ee i r�s _ i8` 1e NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No —/—_ (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes —kf No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
i l.t ,k�fim d (�` G (i� t'+A ` SL
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reguiredscheck all that apply)
` Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_.__ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (85)
— Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
f
Surface Water Present? Yes
No i� Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
x'
Saturation Present? Yes
Nol Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No
includes ca illa fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size
1.
2,
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size
1. -
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1a.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species %� U
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: to ( )( I/)gr )
2. t' 1 D f� F4C
4.
i
5.
6
7
8.
9.
1 a.
11.
12,
+� Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1. -
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.a'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tail.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 tt in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
a ��L
dve JA- J M-e S -t Cow-, ` f .
(L40� 11414I ej 4AIT �J
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix
Color moist
Redox Features
°k Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc
Texture Rem rks
t I k
IJb".s —
Soy
571.
ff�V4 -
f -M «,
.• 2
2
I
r a J ✓In r� _
ncentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
_ Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (178)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
(" Sv�1 & �"� �L-, 7
o P P
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No _X__
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

APPENDIX L• APPROVED FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORMS
(Complete Categorical Exclusion included in electronic submittal)

We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
May 23, 2019
Paul Wiesner, Project Manager
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste. 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Task 1: Environmental Screening Documentation Submittal for the UT to Magness Creek
Mitigation Project; Broad River Basin — CU# 03050105 — Cleveland County, NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 100081; NCDEQ Contract No. 007604
Dear Mr. Wiesner:
Please find enclosed two hard copies and one digital copy of the final Categorical Exclusion (CE)
for the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project in Cleveland County, NC. The Project is
located in the Broad River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050105) and the NC Division of Mitigation
Services Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03050105-080060. The project drains directly to Magness
Creek and the First Broad River, which is a drinking water source for the City of Shelby and other
downstream municipalities. Existing reaches within the project site flow to the south-southwest where the
downstream extent of the project is bordered by Selkirk Drive.
The proposed project is a full -delivery, stream mitigation effort for the NC Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in response to RFP#: 16-007400. The project will
involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,210 linear feet (LF) of existing stream, and the
re-establishment and rehabilitation of 1.72 acres of riparian wetlands. A Best Management Practice (BMP)
in the form of a constructed sediment detention pond will be installed in an unstable ephemeral drainage
that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches at least 30 feet from the top of bank and will incorporate some
of the existing functional wetlands. The conservation easement will protect the entire project area in
perpetuity. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with permanent fencing.
In addition to the submittal of the CE document for the completion of Task 1, Baker submitted the
Landowner Authorization Forms prior to the on -site project review meeting with the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) and DMS on September 27, 2018, as required. Based on the preliminary mitigation plans and
the on -site meeting, and the subsequent contract amendment for riparian wetland credits, the project will
generate 3,123 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 1.707 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) in the Broad
River Basin. The proposed activities are outlined below in Tables 1 & 2.
Table 1. UT to Magness Stream Details
Reach ID
Length (ft)
Mitigation Approach
Credit Ratio
SMUs
MS
2,950
Restoration
1:1
2,950
UT2
260
Enhancement I
1:5:1
173
Total Credits
3,123
MBAKER INTL.COM Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC28806 1 Off ice:828.350.14o8

We Make o Difference
fer-ence
Table 2. UT to Magness Wetland Details
Mitigation Approach
Acres
Credit Ratio
WMUs
Proposed Re-establishment
1.684
1:1
1.684
Proposed Rehabilitation
0.034
1:5:1
0.023
Total Credits
1.707
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or via my email
address at mclemmonsAmbakerint.com.
Sincerely,
Micky Clemmons
Project Manager
Cc: File

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation
Services Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
ProjectPart 1: General • •
Project Name: UT to Magness Creek
County Name: Cleveland
EEP Number: Project # 100081; Contract # 7604
Project Sponsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Micky Clemmons
Project Contact Address: 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201, Asheville, NC
Project Contact E-mail: Mclemmons mbakerintl.com
EEP Project Manager: Paul Wiesner ( aul.wiesner ncdenr. ov)
ProjectDescription
The UT to Magness Creek mitigation project is located in Cleveland County, NC, east of the Town of Lawndale,
within the Broad River Basin (03050105) and the NC DMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03050105080060.
Located within a water supply watershed (WS-IV), the project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First
Broad River, which is a drinking water source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities.
Existing reaches within the project site flow to the south-southwest where the downstream extent of the
project is bordered by Selkirk Drive.
The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and the removal
or impairment of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit areas of
active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access. Riparian buffer vegetation varies from areas
with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any significant
u nderstory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,210 linear feet (LF) of existing
stream, and the re-establishment and rehabilitation of 1.72 acres of riparian wetlands. A Best
Management Practice (BMP) in the form of a constructed sediment detention pond will be installed
in an unstable ephemeral drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock.
Native riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 30 feet from the top of bank and will
incorporate some of the existing functional wetlands.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed5/21/19
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
5/22/19
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/16/05

2: All Projects
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Com rehensive Environmental Res onse Com ensation 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
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent tothe project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the promect area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Pro ert Ac uisition Policies Act Uniform Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed priorto the intentto use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offerthat the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
ElNo
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

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

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

UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project / Categorical Exclusion— Summary
Broad River Basin — CU# 03050105— Cleveland County, NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 100081; NCDEQ Contract No. 007604
Project Background
The UT to Magness Creek mitigation project is proposing to restore and enhance approximately 3,385
linear feet (LF) of streamwithinthe Broad River Basin forthepurposeof obtaining stream mitigation credit
for the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Project reaches have been significantly impacted by
historic channelization, unrestricted livestock access, and a lack of quality riparian buffers. Stream banks
consist of heavily grazed pasture grass with some areas of widely scattered trees, mixed with pockets of
invasive species. Project reaches are unstable, incised and exhibit active bank erosion from both high flows
and livestock access. A constructed sediment detention pond will be installed in an unstable ephemeral
drainage to treat pasture run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Livestock will be
permanently excluded from all project areas. Buffers in excess of 30 feet will be established along all
proposed reaches. In addition, most of the existing functional wetlands will be incorporated inside the
conservation easement to protect them in perpetuity.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies to use an interdisciplinary
approach in planning and decision -making for actions that will have an impact on the environment. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have
determined that DMS projects will not involve significant impacts and therefore a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) is the appropriate type of environmental document for this project. FHWA has also determined that
stream restoration projects are considered land disturbing activities; therefore, Parts 2 and 3 of the DMS
CE checklist and a summary of the findings applicable to the environmental regulations associated for this
project are included. Supporting documentation is included in the Appendix.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
A preliminary review of the project and adjacent parcels zoning/land use status was conducted on August
1, 2018 using the Cleveland County,NC GIS Tax Mapping application (https://www.webgis.net/nc/
Cleveland/). Results from this review did not indicate any commercial or industrial designations within
the project parcels nor those abutting or adjacent the project properties. A search of environmental
records for the project area was conducted on August 6, 2018 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc
(EDR). Results from the EDR's Radius Map Report did not find any current nor historic hazardous
waste records for any properties within or adjacent to the project review area. See the Appendix for full
EDR report. Based on these results, no additional documentation is required to meet regulatory
compliance for CERCLA.
National Hstoric Preservation Act (Section 106)
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) requested a review and comment from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to architectural,
archaeological, and/or cultural resources from the restoration project on August 3, 2018. On December 17,
2018, NC DMS sent a review request to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' Tribal Historic Preservation
Office (EBCI THPO), the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma's (UKB) THPO, and
the Cherokee Nation's THPO. On September 4, 2018, Baker received a response letter from SHPO finding
that no historic resources would be affected by the project. On January 8, 2019, NC DMS received a
response letter from the Cherokee Nation stating that "no instances where this project intersects or adjoin"
records of cultural and historic resources; therefore, no impacts to Cherokee resources are "foreseen... at
this time". On April 10, 2019, Baker received a correspondence email stating that the United Keetowah
Band of Cherokee (UKB) concurs with the recommendation not to conduct a cultural resource survey for
UT to Magness CreekMitigationProject; DMS ProjectNo. 100081
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

the UT to Magness Creek mitigation project. No response was received from the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians (EBCI). All correspondence on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act
Prior to signing the Option Agreement for the Conservation Easement, each property owner of the land
involved in the restoration project was notified that Baker does not have condemnation authority and as to
the fair market value of the land involved. Copies of each Option Agreement is included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) conducted an on-line review of the project area with the use of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPAC website (httl s://ecos.fws. ov/ipac� on
August 6, 2018. This review generated an Official Species List (OSL), which identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that
may occur within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by proposed project.
Results from review found the following two federally listed species. No USFWS designated critical
habitats were located within the project boundaries.
Federal
Habitat
Scientific Name
Common Name
Biological Conclusion
Status
Present
Myotis septeutrionalis
Northern Long-eared Bat
T
No
No Effect
Hexastylis naniflora
Dwarf -flowered
T
Yes
No Effect
Heartleaf
Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on August 6, 2018. Results from this search found no known occurrences
of any of the above referenced species within two miles of the project site.
Based on our review, field surveys, USFWS and FHWA consultation, Baker has developed the following
determinations for the above referenced species.
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long -Eared Bat) — Threatened
USFWS optimal survey window: June 1- August 15
In North Carolina, the NLEB occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal
plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is
not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern
North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or whereNLEB hibernate in eastern NC. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically
>3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves
of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Pregnant females give birth from late
May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings,
over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The IPAC Official Species List generated on August 6, 2018, stated that the presence of the species may
be affected by the proposed project; therefore, Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural
Heritage Program's DataExplorer (https:Hncnhde.natureserve.org� on August 6, 2018 and found no known
occurrences of the NLEB within two miles of the Project site, nor are there any caves within the project
area that would provide hibernation habitat. Because the project will include the removal/clearing of trees,
Baker conducted afield review on May 23, 2018 to determine the presence or absence of roosting habitat
for the species within the project area. Results of the field review found that there were no shagbark hickory
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project; DM Project No. 100081
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

or similar type trees within the project area that would provide roosting habitat for the NLEB; therefore, no
suitable habitat will be removed nor cleared as result of the project. Based on these findings, the biological
opinion criteria outlined in the Range -wide Programmatic Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern
Long-eared Bat (Version 5.0, February 2018) deems that the project will meet Section 7(a)(2) requirements
of the ESA with the use of the 2018programmatic biological opinionof"No Effect" for the NLEB. Acopy
of the Consistency letter (TAILS 04EN1000-2018-R-0615) associated with the project determination is
included in the Appendix.
Hexastylisnaniflora (Dwarf -flowered heartleaf) — Threatened
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: mid -March — early July
The dwarf -flowered heartleaf is a low -growing evergreen perennial that has heart -shape leaves that are four
to six centimeters long. The leaves are dark green and leathery and are supported by long thin leaf stems
connecting it to an underground stem. The blooms are small, inconspicuous jug -shaped flowers that are
usually beige to dark brown or purple. The flowers are found near the base of the leaf stems and are often
buried beneath the leaf litter. The plant grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy
areas next to streams, and along slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A review of NCNHP records conducted on August 6, 2018 did not indicate any known occurrences of the
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf within 2.0 miles of the study area. However, acidic soils and a few small pockets
of open wooded area occur along the top of the stream bank within the project site.
Since these conditions may provide marginal habitat for the species, a project site review was conducted
on May 23, 2018. No populations or individuals of the species were identified during the site review. The
project will have "No Effect" on the species.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
On August 7, 2018, Baker submitted the AD-1006 form for the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
to the North Carolina StateNatural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Office. TheNRCS responded
on August 27, 2018 with the determination that implementation of this restoration project would result in
the conversion of 10.3 acres of prime and unique farmland soils and of 0.70 acres of statewide important
or local important farmland soils. Baker submitted the completed AD-1006 form to the NRCS Assistant
State Soil Scientist September 19, 2018. The completed AD-1006 form and all correspondence on this
issue is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the USFWS on
August 7, 2018 requesting their comment and review on the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project. On
August 17, 2018, Baker received a response letter from the NCWRC stating they do not anticipate impacts
to federally listed endangered or threatened species as a result of the proposed project. However, the
presence of the Broad River spiny crayfish (Cambarus spicatus), a federal and state species of concern, has
been documented on Magness Creek proper. Therefore, NCWRC requests to be alerted if the crayfish is
observed during construction, so that they can be safely relocated. As of September 19, 2018, Baker has
not received any comments from the USFWS. Copies of all correspondence are included in the Appendix.
1Vli2rator_y Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the USFWS on August 7, 2018 requesting their comment and review on the
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project in relation to migratory birds. As of September 19, 2018, Baker
has not received any comments from the USFWS on this issue. All correspondence with the USFWS is
included in the Appendix.
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project; DMS Project No. 100081
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

APPENDIX
UT to Magness CreekMitigationProject; DMS Project No. 100081
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

UT To Magness Creek
Selkirk Drive
Lawndale, NC 28090
Inquiry Number: 5383530.2s
August 06, 2018
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
CEDR www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBF-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary----------------------------------------------------
4
Map Findings
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
GeoCheck - Not Requested
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2018 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5383530.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
SELKIRK DRIVE
LAWNDALE, NC 28090
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.4065000 - 35' 24' 23.40"
81.5293000 - 81 ° 31' 45.48"
Zone 17
451939.2
3918053.8
893 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5947038 LAWNDALE, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140618
Source: USDA
TC5383530.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

F- MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
SELKIRK DRIVE
LAWNDALE, NC 28090
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
5383530.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL___________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS -------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS_________________________ Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE-------------- Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS__________________ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA- Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------- RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG---------------- RCRA- Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS_________ Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5383530.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL__________ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS_____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------- Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF_______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI____________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST__________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
LUST -------------------------- Regional UST Database
INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST_________________ State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST___________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST___________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL______________ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP___________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS----------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Center Listing
TC5383530.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIST LF_______________________ Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9___________ Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS___________ Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL_________________ Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL_______________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS________________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS________________________
Spills Incident Listing
IMD___________________________
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90____________________
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80____________________
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR_________
RCRA- Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS_________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD__________________________
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS_______
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR_______________
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST____________
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION___________
2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS__________________________
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS--------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD__________________________
Records Of Decision
RMP__________________________
Risk Management Plans
RAATS________________________
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP___________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS_________________________
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS___________________________
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS__________________________
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS-------------------------
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE______________
Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA______________
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER________
PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO ---------------------
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS____________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS_____________________
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT____________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP______________________
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA_______________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
TC5383530.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS______________________
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES____________________
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES ---------
Abandoned Mines
FINDS -------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO -------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
DOCKET HWC----------------
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
UXO ---------------------------
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
FUELS PROGRAM___________
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS__________________________
Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS___________________
ASBESTOS
COAL ASH____________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS______________
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance -----------
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES------------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC----------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP---------------------------
Animal Operation Permits Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP_____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto ----------------- EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_____________ EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS____________________ Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF_______________________ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST____________________ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC5383530.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5383530.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 5383530.2S
IV
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4
1/2 1 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA
Upgradient Area
Power transmission lines
Hazardous Substance
100-year flood zone
Disposal Sites
500-year flood zone
.
National Wetland Inventory
0
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: UT To Magness Creek CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: Selkirk Drive CONTACT: Kristi Suggs
Lawndale NC 28090 INQUIRY #: 5383530.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.4065 / 81.5293 DATE: August 06, 2018 4:52 pm
Copyright �o 2018 EDR, Inc. (,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5383530.2S
IV
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
i
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1 /9 1 /4 1 /2 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Disposal Sites
Power transmission lines
100-year flood zone
500-year flood zone
.
National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: UT To Magness Creek CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: Selkirk Drive CONTACT: Kristi Suggs
Lawndale NC 28090 INQUIRY #: 5383530.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.4065 / 81.5293 DATE: August 06, 2018 4:54 pm
Copyright �o 2018 EDR, Inc. (,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

Michael Baker

Proposed Conservation Easement
', ='- , -t gyp•;'�BrYrns _ .dl� � � 1
�S&We
COM
` e L
ich
946 •. Cam- 1. �_' - .
� L \• t
777
i s A
x f
FLawndale Quadrangle
Y Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i'cubNed
0 1,600 3,200 Figure 2
Michael BakerFeet USGS Topographic Map
UT to Magness Creek
INTERNATIONAL 1 inch = 1,600 feet Stream Mitigation Project

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (the "Option") is made and
entered into this 23rd day of Fcbruary. 2018 (the "Effective Date"), by and among
Robert and Kay Yarboro; residing at 2803 Selkirk Drive; Lawndale, NC _ 28090 (the "Grantor-), and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., a corporation organized in the State of New York with
offices at 797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201, Asheville, North Carolina 28806 ("Baker'),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Cleveland County, North
Carolina, containing 168.71 acres (PINs 2641419802, 26141528927, 2641538722, 2641540498,
2641600979), more or less, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, together with the improvements thereon and all appurtenances thereto belonging and
appertaining, and all creeks, streams, rights -of -way, roads, streets and ways bounding said real property
(collectively the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to Baker, an exclusive right and option to acquire a
conservation easement, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B. (the "Easement"), over the
Property in accordance with the teens of this Option; and
WHEREAS, Baker is interested in acquiring the Easement in order to develop and construct a full
delivery wetland, stream, and/or buffer restoration project over the lands covered by the Easement (the
"Work") in conjunction with requests for proposals issued under the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly the Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and Baker has agreed to undertake such Work
with respect to the Easement in accordance with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto,
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, Baker hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) Baker believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the Purchase Price, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a), together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by Baker in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii)
Baker does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of (the "Signing Date
Option Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of Option. Grantor hereby grants unto Baker, its successors and assigns, which shall
be limited to a third -party designated by Baker qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement under
N.C.G.S. §121-35(2), the exclusive right and option to purchase the Easement in accordance with and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Option.
2. Term. The tenn of this Option shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire
Thirty Six (36) months after the Effective Date (the "Term"), unless extended by the parties, in writing. A
Memorandum of Option to Purchase Easement in the form attached as Exhibit D shall be executed by both
parties simultaneously with this Option and recorded at Baker's sole discretion and expense in the county
where the Property is located to provide record notice of this Option. In no event shall this Option be
recorded or filed in the public records.

3. Exclusivity of Option. Grantor covenants and agrees that it will take no action to sell or
transfer the Easement during the Term, and that Grantor will not encumber the Property in a manner that
would impair the intended use of the Easement hereunder, it being intended and agreed that the Option is
exclusive to Baker and Baker's successors and assigns.
4. Exercise of Option. At any time prior to the expiration of the Term, Baker may exercise
this Option by giving Grantor no less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of the date Baker desires to
consummate the purchase of the Easement under this Option (the "Closing"). Closing shall take place at a
time and place reasonably acceptable to both parties. The terms of the purchase and sale of the Easement
at Closing shall be as follows:
a Ptotal nurchase nrice for the lasement shall be
per acre (the "Purchase Price")
included in the Easement as determined by the Survey prepared pursuant to Paragraph 4(b),
below. The Option Deposit shall be credited towards the Purchase Price at Closing.
b. Survey. Prior to Closing, Baker shall obtain, at Baker's expense, a survey prepared
by a registered land surveyor duly licensed in the State of North Carolina showing the
boundary of the Easement as well as all easements, rights -of -way, encroachments and
improvements located thereon, and the exact acreage of the Easement (the "Survey"), and
that Baker shall have consulted with Grantor and taken in to account Grantor's concerns as
to the exact delineation of boundaries of the Easement. Following consultation with
Grantor and the completion of the Survey, a new legal description of the Easement shall
be prepared from the Survey. The new legal description shall be substituted for the
description currently attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all references contained herein to
the "Easement" shall be deemed to refer to the new description prepared from the Survey.
C. Prorations, Costs and Expenses of Closing. At Closing, ad valorem taxes for the
current year for the Easement area shall be prorated, and Grantor shall remain responsible
for all other ad valorem taxes applicable to the remainder of the Property subsequent to
Closing. At Closing, Grantor shall pay any outstanding ad valorem taxes for prior years
on Grantor's real or personal property, any late list penalties, revenue stamps or transfer
taxes applicable to the Easement, and any mortgages or liens with respect to the Property.
At Closing, Baker shall pay any costs related to the Survey, any title examination expenses,
title insurance premiums, recording costs for the deed conveying the Easement, costs of
recordation of any recorded plats showing the Easement, as well as any engineering or site
plan costs. Each party shall bear its own accounting and attorney fees.
d. Closing Documents_ and Title. At Closing, Grantor shall deliver (i) a deed
substantially in the form of the attached Exhibit E (the "Deed") conveying the Easement
to Baker or to a legally qualified non-profit organization or government agency as
contained in N.C.G.S. §121-35(2) designated by Baker, provided, that the final form of the
Deed shall be in form mutually acceptable to Baker and Grantor so long as such form is
consistent with the provisions of Article 4, The Conservation and Historic Preservation
Agreements Act as contained in N.C.G.S. §I21-34 through 42. The Deed shall convey
good, marketable and insurable title to the Easement, free and clear from all mortgages,
liens, easements, covenants, restrictions and other encumbrances, except those previously
accepted by Baker in writing; (ii) lien affidavits warranting and holding harmless any title
insurance company insuring title to the Easement, from and against unpaid mechanics and
2

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

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

If to Baker: Jake Byers
Michael Baker Engineering
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
If to the Grantor: Robert and Kay Yarboro
2803 Selkirk Drive
Lawndale, NC 28090
9. Miscellaneous.
a. This Option, together with the exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated
herein by reference, contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to
the subject matter contained herein. No amendment, modification, or discharge of this
Option, and no waiver hereunder, shall be valid or binding unless set forth in writing and
duly executed by the parties hereto.
b. Any provision of this Option that shall be found to be contrary to applicable law
or otherwise unenforceable shall not affect the remaining terms of this Option, which shall
be construed as if the unenforceable provision or clause were absent from this Option.
C. This Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns.
d. This Option shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina without application of its conflicts of laws provisions.
e. No act or failure to act by either party shall be deemed a waiver of its rights
hereunder, and no waiver in any one circumstance or of any one provision shall be deemed
a waiver in other circumstances or of other provisions.
£ Grantor agrees to not mow or otherwise damage vegetation within Easement area
after Baker plants or replants the same. If Grantor or Grantor's agents or invitees damage
vegetation within the Easement, Grantor will replace the lost or damaged vegetation at their
expense.
g. Baker shall ensure that access to portions of the Grantor's property shall not be
impeded by the proposed.
j. This Option shall not be assignable by Baker, except to another entity acquiring at
least fifty-one percent (51 %) interest in Baker or Baker's business or to an entity qualified
to be the grantee of a conservation easement under N.C.G.S § I 21-35
h. Baker shall exclude livestock from the area included within the conservation
easement by constructing a woven wire fence along the surveyed easement line. This fence
will be constructed according to NRCS specifications and will include gates as needed for
managing crossings and to provide human access.
5

i. Baker shall install a well, waterlines and up to 5 insulated, pressurized water tanks
to provide a water source for livestock, when they are excluded from the restored stream
channel and buffer. This water system will be installed according to NRCS standards.
j. Baker shall install two ford type stream crossings in accordance with NRCS
standards, to provide livestock access to pasture areas that are separated from other pastures
by the conservation easement fencing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Option as of the date first above written.
G TOR: ['
By: (.
�&A�
Print Name;����� ��boev
Title:_ QW Vic/
By; / 1 v w
Print Na V�6 h c r a
Title-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGI ERING, INC.:
By:
Print Name: Dwain Hathaway
Title: Vice President
I

• Mote: This map may not be a certified survey and has not been
reviewed by a local government agency for compliance with any
applicable land development regulations and has not been
mar reviewed for compliance with recording requirments for plats.
. ' , ^�• 4W
�� • Q YARBORO ROBERT E !
1 , YARBORO KAY D < �'
2641540498 ',' _ • _ • -
•,_��r.t� ..
ip
Air
A]i. YARBORO ROBERT E�
�;, • _` YARBORO KAY D + • 11 • x{�
YARBORO ROBERT E 2641538722
YARBORO KAY D h 7
_ 2641538722
ti
' 1
YARBORO ROBERT E YARBORO ROBERT E
YARBORO KAY D YARBORO KAY D
'��.,' : • 2641528927 2641528927
r` 1
YARBORO ROBERT E
YARBORO KAY D
_ r 2641419802
�. YARBORO ROBERT E
YARBORO KAY D ■
• 2641419802
ve
�1 r
_ YARBORO ROBERT E _
do •; • i YARBORO KAY D h•
2641600979 }
• Pam" i , ` 4L
P Project Streams
Parcel Boundaries};.
ti Broad 0305 105
Michael Baker
0 250 500 1.000 Exhibit A
Feet Landowner(s):
INTERNATIONAL Yarboro, Robert E. and Kay D.
S

We Make o Difference
INTERNATIONAL
August 3, 2018
Renee Gledhill -Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Email: Environmental.ReviewAncdcr. og_v
RE: Project Review Request
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Broad River Basin (Catalog Unit - 03050105)
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) to conduct stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement activities for the above -
referenced project. We are requesting an office review of the attached documentation and comment on any
possible issues that may emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the
proposed stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement project.
The project area is located in Cleveland County, North Carolina approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the
Town of Lawndale. The project is located on the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Lawndale
Topographic Quadrangle. The center of the project area is located at 35.4065 N and-81.5293 W. The
project site flows south-southwest and is bordered at the downstream extent by Selkirk Drive. Please see
the enclosed Vicinity and USGS Topographic Maps for a depiction of the project site location.
The UT to Magness Creek site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal or impairment of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit
areas of active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access. Riparian buffer vegetation varies
from areas with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any
significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of existing stream.
Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1
restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being
sought. A Best Management Practice (BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an
unstable ephemeral drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and will incorporate
some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with
permanent fencing.
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Ave., Suite 300, Office 336
Charlotte, NC 282771 Office:704-1665:2200

2
We Make a Difference
An on-line search was conducted on August 3, 2018 using the HPOWEB GIS Map Service to identify any
historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places that lie within a one -mile radius of the
project site. Results from the search identified only one surveyed area of historic reference: Arthur Lee
and Lesta Spangler House (Site ID CL0395). Please refer to the enclosed SHPO Map for a depiction of the
project area's location relative to the historic property.
On -site investigations and discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential cultural resources
within the proposed easement areas. No archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes, and no existing structures are located within the
areas proposed for restoration or enhancement. The majority of the site has historically been disturbed due
to past and current management for pasture grazing and livestock production.
Baker appreciates your timely attention to this matter. If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will
assume that there are no comments with regard to the project area and archaeological and cultural resources.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this project or the extent of proposed
disturbance. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at ksug_gskmbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
1lal_el
Kristi Suggs
Enclosures: Vicinity Map
USGS Topographic Map
SHPO Map
Cc: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI)
File

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administcator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Iamilton
September 4, 2018
Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One
15720 Brixham Avenue, Suite 300, Office 318
Charlotte, NC 28277
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project, Lawndale, Cleveland County, ER 18-1817
Dear Ms. Suggs:
Thank you for your letter of August 3, 2018, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

We Make o Difference
INTERNATIONAL
August 3, 2018
Holly Austin
Section 106 Assistant
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Email: hollymaustin gmail.com
RE: Project Review Request
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Broad River Basin (Catalog Unit - 03050105)
Dear Ms. Austin:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) to conduct stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement activities for the above -
referenced project. We are requesting an office review of the attached documentation and comment on any
possible issues that may emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the
proposed stream and/or wetland restoration/enhancement project.
The project area is located in Cleveland County, North Carolina approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the
Town of Lawndale. The project is located on the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Lawndale
Topographic Quadrangle. The center of the project area is located at 35.4065 N and-81.5293 W. The
project site flows south-southwest and is bordered at the downstream extent by Selkirk Drive. Please see
the enclosed Vicinity and USGS Topographic Maps for a depiction of the project site location.
The UT to Magness Creek site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal or impairment of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit
areas of active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access. Riparian buffer vegetation varies
from areas with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any
significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of existing stream.
Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1
restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being
sought. A Best Management Practice (BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an
unstable ephemeral drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and will incorporate
some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with
permanent fencing.
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Ave., Suite 300, Office 336
Charlotte, NC 282771 Office:704-1665„2200

We Make a Difference
On -site investigations and discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential cultural resources
within the proposed easement areas. No archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes, and no existing structures are located within the
areas proposed for restoration or enhancement. The majority of the site has historically been disturbed due
to past and current management for pasture grazing and livestock production.
Baker appreciates your timely attention to this matter. If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will
assume that there are no comments with regard to the project area or archaeological or cultural resources.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this project or the extent of proposed
disturbance. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at ksug_gskmbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
A)41axf
Kristi Suggs
Enclosures: Vicinity Map
USGS Topographic Map
Project Area Map
Cc: NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
File

ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Stephen Yerka 12/17/18
Historic Preservation Specialist
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
[e-mail]
Dear Mr. Yerka,
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed UT to Magness
Creek mitigation site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal
agency for this proposed mitigation project. A USGS Topographic Map and a proposed
project conceptual map showing the project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was
prepared from the Lawndale, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle. The project
location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows: (35.4065 N,-81.5293 W).
The UT to Magness Creek mitigation project is located in Cleveland County, NC, east of the
Town of Lawndale, within the Broad River Basin (03050105) and the NC DMS Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) 03050105080060. Located within a water supply watershed (WS-IV), the
project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First Broad River, which is a drinking water
source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities. This TLW consists of a
mix of rural and commercial land use, with approximately 49% of land dedicated to some
form of agricultural production. Like the project area, many streams within this TLW are
highly unstable with eroding banks and limited aquatic habitat.
Land use within the project area consists predominantly of livestock production but has also
included row crops. Project stream reaches have been significantly impacted by historic
channelization, unrestricted livestock access, and the removal or impairment of riparian
buffers. Most of the reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit areas of active bank erosion
from high flows, hoof shear, and raw banks. Riparian buffer vegetation varies from areas
with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any
significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of
existing stream. Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the
implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian
NORTHCAROLINAD_E Q��
DepaMinM W Emtronme tl4ualiry
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1 Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being sought. A Best Management Practice
(BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an unstable ephemeral
drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement
will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and
will incorporate the BMP as well as some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will
be excluded from the conservation easement with permanent fencing.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. Please feel free to contact us with any questions
that you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
P&U4 i' Y •
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
naul.wiesnerOncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NORTH CAROLINAD
DWaNmM of&M-U, 4ua9N
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Elizabeth Toombs 12/17/18
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
elizabeth-toombs@ cherokee.org
Dear Ms. Toombs,
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed UT to
Magness Creek mitigation site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the
lead federal agency for this proposed mitigation project. A USGS Topographic Map
and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area are enclosed. The
topographic figure was prepared from the Lawndale, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic
Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows: (35.4065 N,
-81.5293 W).
The UT to Magness Creek mitigation project is located in Cleveland County, NC, east of the
Town of Lawndale, within the Broad River Basin (03050105) and the NC DMS Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) 03050105080060. Located within a water supply watershed (WS-
IV), the project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First Broad River, which is a
drinking water source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities. This
TLW consists of a mix of rural and commercial land use, with approximately 49% of land
dedicated to some form of agricultural production. Like the project area, many streams
within this TLW are highly unstable with eroding banks and limited aquatic habitat.
Land use within the project area consists predominantly of livestock production but has
also included row crops. Project stream reaches have been significantly impacted by
historic channelization, unrestricted livestock access, and the removal or impairment of
riparian buffers. Most of the reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit areas of active bank
erosion from high flows, hoof shear, and raw banks. Riparian buffer vegetation varies
from areas with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density
and without any significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF
of existing stream. Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with
the
NORTH CAROLINA
0lIMM,lIR OE EfYA1p1111MSal Q��
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian
buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being sought. A Best Management Practice
(BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an unstable ephemeral
drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement
will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and
will incorporate the BMP as well as some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will
be excluded from the conservation easement with permanent fencing.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. Please feel free to contact us with any questions
that you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
P"t�VY61&<O_K�
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesnerPncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NOH�H�111'
OeIId16ne1Rof RAronme WGft
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
211 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Office of the chief
Sill John Baker
GWX9 D8P
Principal Chief
CHEROKEE NATION®
�>� ��S��y
GEOGJJ
-
P.O. B.. 943• Tahlequah, OK74465-OM • 91&453.500 • eh—kx g
S. Joe Crittenden
Deputy Principal Chief
off. KG, dE aNY
WPA Di, A O>EOGA
January 8, 2019
Paul Wiesner
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Mr. Paul Wiesner:
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about Magness Creek
Mitigation Project, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project. Please
allow this letter to serve as the Nation's interest in acting as a consulting party to this proposed
undertaking.
The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre -historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project's legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.
However, the Nation requests that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) halt all project activities immediately and re -contact our Offices for further consultation
if items of cultural significance are discovered during the course of this project.
Additionally, the Nation requests that NCDEQ conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent
Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included
in the Nation's databases or records.
If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
W ado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Sheila Bird 12/17/18
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
P. 0. Box 746
Tahlequah, OK 74465
[e-mail]
Dear Ms. Bird,
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed UT to Magness
Creek mitigation site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal
agency for this proposed mitigation project. A USGS Topographic Map and a proposed
project conceptual map showing the project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was
prepared from the Lawndale, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle. The project
location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows: (35.4065 N,-81.5293 W).
The UT to Magness Creek mitigation project is located in Cleveland County, NC, east of the
Town of Lawndale, within the Broad River Basin (03050105) and the NC DMS Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) 03050105080060. Located within a water supply watershed (WS-IV), the
project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First Broad River, which is a drinking water
source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities. This TLW consists of a
mix of rural and commercial land use, with approximately 49% of land dedicated to some
form of agricultural production. Like the project area, many streams within this TLW are
highly unstable with eroding banks and limited aquatic habitat.
Land use within the project area consists predominantly of livestock production but has also
included row crops. Project stream reaches have been significantly impacted by historic
channelization, unrestricted livestock access, and the removal or impairment of riparian
buffers. Most of the reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit areas of active bank erosion
from high flows, hoof shear, and raw banks. Riparian buffer vegetation varies from areas
with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any
significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of
existing stream. Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the
NORTHCAROLINAD_E Q��
DepaMinM W Emtronme tl4ualiry
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1 Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian
buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being sought. A Best Management Practice
(BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an unstable ephemeral
drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement
will be implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and
will incorporate the BMP as well as some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will
be excluded from the conservation easement with permanent fencing.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. Please feel free to contact us with any questions
that you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesnerOncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NORTH CAROLINAD
DWaNmM of&M-U, 4ua9N
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Ro*e Hi
Him
�.cem
J r
ZZ
. low
• f
=• ; ;Ch : $
+ � • �• r+./' �': lei L i � � ' • � /) i ._- _ _ _ _ - -
A.
1 —
■ ` � . -�~1 -r "•. 1. � � i
Conservation Easement Lawndale Quadrangle
-- ,
Cop right: 2013 Nationl*ad,GeograptiiE�Society, i cubed
0 1,600 3,200 Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Michael- BakerFeet UT to Magness Creek
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1"=1,600' Mitigation Project

y r..
s+
Restoration
¢" Enhancement
Enhancement II r
No Credit
Proposed BMPs
Conservation Easement
Additional Fencing
Existing Streams
2015 Aerial Photograph Source: NC ONeMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
0 350 700 Figure 2: Proposed Project
Michael BakerFeet
Conceptual Map
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 H A L 1" = 350' UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project

United Keetoowah Band
Of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
Office of Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 746 • Tahlequah, OK 74465
18263 W Keetoowah Circle • Tahlequah, OK 74464
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.ukb-nsn.gov
January 16, 2019
RE: UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for consulting with the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
(UKB).
Information on Native American use in the project vicinity show that prehistoric, ethnographic,
historic, and/or traditional sites of value to the UKB surround the project area. The UKB objects
to projects that will disturb or destroy archaeological sites that may be eligible for the Nation
Register of Historic Places and requests copies of the State Historic Preservation Officer's report
and any archaeological surveys that are performed for the above -mentioned project. If no surveys
have been undertaken, we recommend that a cultural resources survey be completed prior to
project implementation.
Please note that these comments are based on information available to us at the time of the
project review. We reserve the right to revise our comments as information becomes available.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me by phone or by email,
Thank You,
V--1:04
Erin Thompson
Tribal Archaeologist/NAGPRA Coordinator
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
18263 W. Keetoowah Circle
Tahlequah, OK 74464
918-871-2838
[e-mail]

Awn H. 121 E. First Street, Clayton, North Carolina 27520
C.ir.Ttsor« ., [phone] fax [phone]
C.I. archcon.org
March 4, 2019
Ms. Erin Thompson
Tribal Archaeologist
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
18263 W. Keetoowah Circle
Tahlequah, OK 74464
RE: UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project, Cleveland County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Thompson:
Mr. Micky Clemmons of Michael Baker International has contacted my firm regarding conducting an
archaeological survey of the proposed impact areas associated with the UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation project
in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The goals of this project are to restore and enhance several small streams within
a proposed conservation easement. There are several stream segments included in the overall plan, with a total length
of approximately 2,700 feet. The proposed impact corridors are approximately 200 feet in width encompassing the
stream bed and adjoining banks.
After reviewingthe project, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated thatthey were
aware of no cultural resources that would be affected by the project (letter dated September 4, 2018). They did not
request any archaeological investigations. Likewise, the Ms. Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
with the Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office was unaware of any "cultural, historic, and pre -historic
resources" that would be impacted by the proposed mitigation project. However, you noted the sensitivity of the project
vicinity for "prehistoric, ethnographic, historic, and/or traditional sites of value to the UKB" and stated that the tribe
would object to any projects that would disturb any archaeological sites in the project impact area that would be
considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP; letter dated January 16, 2019). You further
requested a copy of any investigation reportto review or, if no investigation had been undertaken, that one be conducted.
This request led to Mr. Clemmons contacting us.
A review of the project maps and plans provided by Mr. Clemmons indicates that an archaeological survey of
the proposed impact areas would not be productive. Due to the constraints of the project corridor's width, we wouldbe
examining only a narrow area of steep slope grading to the various stream banks. These banks have undergone severe
erosion with approximately 72 percent of the project corridor exhibiting bank scour and erosion. In addition, the soils
along the mitigation corridor are classified as Chewacla loam which are poorly drained. Further, there are spoil piles
along the project corridor and indications that the stream has been channelized. Overall, the conditions in the project
area are considered to have extremely low potential for the presence of archaeological deposits and virtually no potential
for any such deposits to be intact.
I appreciate your concern for the preservation of NRHP eligible archaeological resources, particularly those
associated with the Cherokee. However, in this case, I do not think the expense and effort would result in any
contribution to our understanding of lifeways in the project vicinity. I respectfully request that the recommendation for
an archaeological survey of the proposed UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation project area be reconsidered.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this request. Should you wish to speak with me further about this
request, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
incerel
Dawn Reid
President
Attachment: Photos of site conditions.

Example of the significant erosion at the upper end of this project site.
1 �
Dark soil layer indicating wetland condition in the recent past prior to
excessive erosion from upland slopes.
High banks indicating past channelization.

Extremely overwide channel from past stream bank erosion and
upland erosion to channel from terraced pasture slopes.
Channelized buffer to drain water from wetlands across the floodplain.
Eroding stream banks and erosion within buffer due to livestock access.

Email thread regarding submittal of report by Archeological Consultants of the Carolinas to the United Keetoowah
Band of Cherokee, concluding in their concurrence with the reports findings. Read from bottom to top.
From:
Brew. Donnie (FHWA)
To:
Wiesner. Paul
Subject:
[External] FW: Follow-up RE: Request regarding UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project, Cleveland
County, North Carolina
Date:
Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:50:09 AM
ments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to re rt. m nc.
fyi
From: Erin Thompson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Follow-up RE: Request regarding UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project,
Cleveland County, North Carolina
The UKB concurs with the recommendation not to conduct a cultural resource survey for the UT to
Magness Creek Mitigation Project, Cleveland County, North Carolina.
Thank you,
Erin Thompson
Interim THPO
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
18627 W. Keetoowah Circle
Tahlequah, OK 74464
918-871-2838 (0)
480-275-9009 (C)
From: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 6:11 AM
To: Erin Thompson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesnerPncdenr.gov>
Subject: Follow-up RE: Request regarding UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project, Cleveland
County, North Carolina
Good morning Ms. Thompson,
Hope you are having a good week.
The purpose of this email is to follow up on the email below from last month.
At your earliest convenience, please let me know if you concur with our recommendation to
not conduct a cultural resource survey at the proposed UT to Magness Creek stream

mitigation project site in Cleveland County, North Carolina.
Thank you,
Donnie
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
donnie.brew(cDdot.gov
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***
From: Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 10:58 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request regarding UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project, Cleveland County,
North Carolina
Good morning Ms. Thompson,
Hope you are having a good week.
On January 10, 2019 the Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a
Public Notice for a proposed North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) mitigation
project named "UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project", in Cleveland County, North
Carolina. (Corps Action ID#: SAW-2018-01759)
The UKB responded on January 16, 2019.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency for this project that is
being administered by the NC DIMS.
There are 4 attachments to this email. One is an analysis of the proposed project site by
Archeological Consultants of the Carolinas (AAC) to get their perspective on the potential
benefit of an archaeological survey of the proposed mitigation site. The other attachments

are supporting documents that are referenced in the AAC memo.
Please review this additional information and let us know if you concur with our
recommendation to not conduct cultural resource survey for this particular project site.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Respectfully,
Donnie
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
donnie.brew(cDdot.gov
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***

w �kww
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Govemor Ray Cooper Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
1►iy►lart]09:YY9]
August 6, 2018
Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One - 15720 Brixham Hill Ave.
Charlotte, NC 28277
RE: UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project; 167680/01
Dear Kristi Suggs:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists. Tables of
natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile radius of the project area, if any, are also
included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile radius of the
project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for guidance.
Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices. cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund easement, or an
occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butlerQncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS: Telephone: [phone] LOCATION:
1651 Mail Service Center www.nenhp.org 121 West Jones Street
Raleigh; NC 27699-1651 Raleigh, NC 276133

{
\
coc
06
2 w
\
`cu 2
2
4 k G 2
§
f
CO/
k
§
7
\
cu §
66
2 U ,
E
ƒ
\
CD
\
u \
\
/
cu
dCD
>
7_
< A
k�
})
�
k �
cu
■ o
cu
o
3
erg%
��
i§
� CD00 IT
)
� o
�k�CN$
c
�
(i 6 Uw
t
2 9
o
_
\\/k�
\-o
\U/
�u
2$k2k
\
�®
-
CU
\
cu
\
(Ij 5-
S2
_
\
\D
zz
KCD
u
k
{%
-!
o g =
■
k
§[ 7k
<
cu
cu
2
w
o e m
< o I o
\
<
-
_
7
u
2
7
\2
\
k k
f
cu 2
2
2 \
7
-
2
7 4-
�
a
(\ \
§
§
§
��
§
§
/
k
cE 7
2
cu
k/
dcu
<
�k (D
cu
\cu
/ (
d
cm
\ \
0 \
2
2
k{
w� c %
,I-
§
\
_

{
\ a
CO/
/
IL
co
IT
06
2 §
/
u
m
£
m a)
aEy
(
7
R «
� n
.ƒ��/\�
/
= _
.3
� n
\
mG
\
/
CO
CO
k
2
2
§
m66
2
� 2
U-
�
E
0
\
\
\
6
3
k
D
/
/
■
u
>
>
>
cu
<
A
A
A
[
u
}i
t§
0
kE�cu
§�
)
±
±
/)
< 3
mu
)\
�%B
o
-ci o
\:c�3
±z
2 I'-
Cj$
��\&�
\
7
\
'C'�2��
kk23
\
3
~
)
� § _ 0 2
� �
&
&
&
■
:
in 2 k
2
\
\
\
2 2
0
<
\
-
77�
u
2
��
-
d \
\
+
/
�\
0 K
2
CD
\
2
® o
o
m2
+
+
e
m
§
£%
§
'a§
ƒ _
ƒ _
%
_!
d
E
m k
7 k
0)
w
a)
2 0
e m
e m
S
-
\
\
7 o
co o
co o
m
k
6
E
\
k
cu _
�
R
7
o
\
�
o
■
w
�
�
§
�
g
■
�
_
2
�
=
°
)
\
(
\
2
a §
_ cu
_
�k
/
E
k
k
E
n
n
=
E
d
S m
o
o
E
§
0
§
o
m
§
/
/
°
£
%
_
% E
/
/
\
2
\ /
-
d
_
ƒ
<cu
(
(
/cu
k 2�
g
g
/
a
(a/
\
X °
\
\
\
)
2
2
k{
w�§
o
o
±
,I-
§
/

A0
W
.O
L
0
'+�
cm
C
m
L
U
C
Q]
m
0
'(.0
cl
I
rZ
V
Z
t
rV
s
� 1: N5�IDn-R
F�MM,DI�,IeJ
a
pc°
-si
g ki
9.4o
�Q
�o
,n goo
V ^
o z
r - Ls7
r f
M �
c o oWc s
=�f3
a o $wN
v
G

We Make o Difference
INTERNATIONAL
August 7, 2018
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
Attn: Marella Buncick, Endangered Species Biologist
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Categorical Exclusion for UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project, Cleveland County, NC
NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID 4100081, Broad River Basin (03050105)
IPAC Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2018-SLI-0615
Dear Ms. Buncick:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) respectfully requests review and comment from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the implementation
of the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is in support of the development
of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced proj ect.
The project area is located in Cleveland County, North Carolina approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the
Town of Lawndale on the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Lawndale Topographic Quadrangle.
The center of the project area is located at 35.4065 N and-81.5293 W. Located within a water supply
watershed (WS-IV), the project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First Broad River, which is a
drinking water source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities. Existing reaches within
the project site flow to the south-southwest where the downstream extent of the project is bordered by
Selkirk Drive. Please see the enclosed Vicinity and USGS Topographic Maps for a depiction of the project
site location.
The UT to Magness Creek site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal or impairment of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit
areas of active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access. Riparian buffer vegetation varies
from areas with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any
significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of existing stream.
Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1
restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being
sought. A Best Management Practice (BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an
unstable ephemeral drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and will incorporate
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One, 15720 Brixham Hill Ave., Ste. 300 Office 336
Charlotte, NC 28277 1 Office: 704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with
permanent fencing.
Data Review and Analysis
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) conducted an on-line review of the project area with the use of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPAC website (https:Hecos.fivs.gov/ipac on
August 6, 2018. This review generated an Official Species List (OSL), which identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that
may occur within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by proposed project.
Results from review, found the following two federally listed species. No USFWS designated critical
habitats were located within the project boundaries.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
M otis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
Threatened
Hexast lis naniflora
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf
Threatened
On August 6, 2018, Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) Data Explorer(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org_/). Results from this search and found no known
occurrences of any of the above referenced species within two miles of the project site.
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat) — Threatened
USFWS optimal survey window: June 1- August 15
In North Carolina, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in
the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and
mines. Since this species is not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are
extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC.
During the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both
live and dead trees (typically >3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like
barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Pregnant
females give birth from late May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and
occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an
important habitat type for foraging.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species and the project site is located outside of a county
and/or watershed where NLEB maternity trees or hibernation sites are known to occur. Additionally, a
two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on August 6, 2018 found no known occurrences of the NLEB within two
miles of the Project site.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf -flowered heartleaf) — Threatened
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: mid -March — early July
The dwarf -flowered heartleaf is a low -growing evergreen perennial that has heart -shape leaves that are four
to six centimeters long. The leaves are dark green and leathery and are supported by long thin leaf stems
connecting it to an underground stem. The blooms are small, inconspicuous jug -shaped flowers that are
usually beige to dark brown or purple. The flowers are found near the base of the leaf stems and are often
buried beneath the leaf litter. The plant grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy
areas next to streams, and along slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.

We Make a Difference
No critical habitat has been designated for this species
Please provide comments on any possible issues that may arise with respect to the endangered species,
migratory birds or other natural resources from the construction of the proposed project. The following
additional supporting documentation has been included for reference: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic
Map, and Project Site Map. If Baker has not received response from you within 30 days, we will assume
that the USFWS does not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project
at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response, input, and cooperation. Please contact me if you have
any further questions or comments. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at
ksuizizs(&mbakerintl. com.
Sincerely,
�l
Kristi Suggs
Cc: File
Enclosures

United States Department of the Interior '"°FV"''
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office '
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
hILtp://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/colMlyfr.html
IPaC Record Locator: 361-13503224
August 07, 2018
Subject: Consistency letter for the 'UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project' project (TAILS
04ENI000-2018-R-0615) under the revised February 5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA
Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the
Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat.
To whom it may concern:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received your request dated to verify that the
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project (Proposed Action) may rely on the revised February
5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within
the Range of the Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat (PBO) to satisfy requirements under
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Based on the information you provided (Project Description shown below), you have determined
that the Proposed Action will have no effect on the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) or
the threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). If the Proposed Action is not
modified, no consultation is required for these two species.
For Proposed Actions that include bridge/structure removal, replacement, and/or
maintenance activities: If your initial bridge/structure assessments failed to detect Indiana bats,
but you later detect bats during construction, please submit the Post Assessment Discovery of
Bats at Bridge/Structure Form (User Guide Appendix E) to this Service Office. In these
instances, potential incidental take of Indiana bats may be exempted provided that the take is
reported to the Service.
If the Proposed Action may affect any other federally -listed or proposed species and/or
designated critical habitat, additional consultation between the lead Federal action agency and
this Service Office is required. If the proposed action has the potential to take bald or golden
eagles, additional coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
may also be required. In either of these circumstances, please advise the lead Federal action
agency for the Proposed Action accordingly.

08/07/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 361-13503224
The following species may occur in your project area and are not covered by this determination:
• Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf, Hexastylis naniflora (Threatened)

08/07/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 361-13503224
Project Description
The following project name and description was collected in IPaC as part of the endangered
species review process.
Name
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Description
The UT to Magness Creek mitigation project is located in Cleveland County, NC, east of the
Town of Lawndale, within the Broad River Basin (03050105) and the NC DMS Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) 03050105080060. Located within a water supply watershed (WS-
IV), the project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First Broad River, which is a
drinking water source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities. Existing
reaches within the project site flow to the south-southwest where the downstream extent of
the project is bordered by Selkirk Drive.
The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access
and the removal or impairment of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches are incised,
unstable, and exhibit areas of active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access.
Riparian buffer vegetation varies from areas with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with
large trees but at low density and without any significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of
existing stream. Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the
implementation of Priority Level 1 restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian buffer
plantings; however, no wetland credit is being sought. A Best Management Practice (BMP) in
the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an unstable ephemeral drainage that
receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native riparian buffers will
be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement will be implemented
along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and will incorporate
some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation
easement with permanent fencing.

08/07/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 361-13503224
Determination Key Result
Based on the information you provided, you have determined that the Proposed Action will have
no effect on the endangered Indiana bat and/or the threatened Northern long-eared bat. Therefore,
no consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is
required for these two species.
Qualification Interview
1. Is the project within the range of the Indiana bat[1]?
[1] See Indiana bat species profile
Automatically answered
No
2. Is the project within the range of the Northern long-eared bat[l]?
[1] See Northern long-eared bat species profile
Automatically answered
Yes
3. Which Federal Agency is the lead for the action?
A) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
4. Are all project activities limited to non-construction[1] activities only? (examples of non -
construction activities include: bridge/abandoned structure assessments, surveys, planning
and technical studies, property inspections, and property sales)
[1] Construction refers to activities involving ground disturbance, percussive noise, and/or lighting.
No
5. Does the project include any activities that are greater than 300 feet from existing road/
rail surfaces[l]?
[1] Road surface is defined as the actively used [e.g. motorized vehicles] driving surface and shoulders [may be
pavement, gravel, etc.] and rail surface is defined as the edge of the actively used rail ballast.
Yes

08/07/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 361-13503224 5
6. Are all project activities greater than 300 feet from existing road/rail surfaces[1]?
[1] Road surface is defined as the actively used [e.g. motorized vehicles] driving surface and shoulders [may be
pavement, gravel, etc.] and rail surface is defined as the edge of the actively used rail ballast.
No
7. Does the project include any activities within 0.5 miles of an Indiana bat and/or NLEB
hibernaculum[1]?
[1] For the purpose of this consultation, a hibernaculum is a site, most often a cave or mine, where bats hibernate
during the winter (see suitable habitat), but could also include bridges and structures if bats are found to be
hibernating there during the winter.
No
8. Is the project located within a karst area?
No
9. Is there any suitable[1] summer habitat for Indiana Bat or NLEB within the project action
area [2]? (includes any trees suitable for maternity, roosting, foraging, or travelling habitat)
[1] See the Service's summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat.
[2] The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely
the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR Section 402.02). Further clarification is provided by the
national consultation FAQs_
No
10. Does the project include maintenance of the surrounding landscape at existing facilities
(e.g., rest areas, stormwater detention basins)?
No
11. Does the project include wetland or stream protection activities associated with
compensatory wetland mitigation?
Yes
12. Does the project include slash pile burning?
No
13. Does the project include any bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities
(e.g., any bridge repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work)?
No

08/07/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 361-13503224
14. Does the project include the removal, replacement, and/or maintenance of any structure
other than a bridge? (e.g., rest areas, offices, sheds, outbuildings, barns, parking garages,
etc.)
No
15. Will the project involve the use of temporary lighting during the active season?
No
16. Will the project install new or replace existing permanent lighting?
No
17. Will the project raise the road profile above the tree canopy?
No
18. Is the location of this project consistent with a No Effect determination in this key?
Automatically answered
Yes, because the project action area is outside of suitable Indiana bat and/or NLEB
summer habitat

08/07/2018 IPaC Record Locator: 361-13503224
Determination Key Description: FHWA, FRA, FTA
Programmatic Consultation For Transportation Projects
Affecting NLEB Or Indiana Bat
This key was last updated in IPaC on March 16, 2018. Keys are subject to periodic revision.
This decision key is intended for projects/activities funded or authorized by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and/or Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), which require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the endangered Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis) and the threatened Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis).
This decision key should only be used to verify project applicability with the Service's February
5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects. The
programmatic biological opinion covers limited transportation activities that may affect either bat
species, and addresses situations that are both likely and not likely to adversely affect either bat
species. This decision key will assist in identifying the effect of a specific project/activity and
applicability of the programmatic consultation. The programmatic biological opinion is not
intended to cover all types of transportation actions. Activities outside the scope of the
programmatic biological opinion, or that may affect ESA -listed species other than the Indiana bat
or NLEB, or any designated critical habitat, may require additional ESA Section 7 consultation.

We Make o Difference
INTERNATIONAL
August 7, 2018
NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Attn: Olivia Munzer, Western Piedmont Coordinator
2430 Turner Road
Mebane, NC 27302
Email: olivia.munzerkncwildlife.org
RE: Categorical Exclusion Project Review Request
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project, Cleveland County, NC
NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID 4100081
Broad River Basin (03050105)
Dear Ms. Munzer:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) respectfully requests review and comment from the NC Wildlife
Resource Commission (WRC) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the
implementation of the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is in support
of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced project.
The project area is located in Cleveland County, North Carolina approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the
Town of Lawndale on the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Lawndale Topographic Quadrangle.
The center of the project area is located at 35.4065 N and-81.5293 W. Located within a water supply
watershed (WS-IV), the project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First Broad River, which is a
drinking water source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities. Existing reaches within
the project site flow to the south-southwest where the downstream extent of the project is bordered by
Selkirk Drive. Please see the enclosed Vicinity and USGS Topographic Maps for a depiction of the project
site location.
The UT to Magness Creek site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal or impairment of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit
areas of active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access. Riparian buffer vegetation varies
from areas with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any
significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of existing stream.
Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1
restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being
sought. A Best Management Practice (BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an
unstable ephemeral drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and will incorporate
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One, 15720 Brixham Hill Ave., Ste. 300 Office 336
Charlotte, NC 28277 1 Office: 704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with
permanent fencing.
Data Review and Analysis
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) conducted an on-line review of the project area with the use of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPAC website (https:Hecos.fivs.gov/ipac on
August 6, 2018. This review generated an Official Species List (OSL), which identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that
may occur within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by proposed project.
Results from review, found the following two federally listed species. No USFWS designated critical
habitats were located within the project boundaries.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
M otis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
Threatened
Hexastylis nanif7ora
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf
Threatened
On August 6, 2018, Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) Data Explorer(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org_/). Results from this search and found no known
occurrences of any of the above referenced species within two miles of the project site.
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat) — Threatened
USFWS optimal survey window: June 1- August 15
In North Carolina, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in
the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and
mines. Since this species is not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are
extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC.
During the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both
live and dead trees (typically >3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like
barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Pregnant
females give birth from late May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and
occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an
important habitat type for foraging.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species and the project site is located outside of a county
and/or watershed where NLEB maternity trees or hibernation sites are known to occur. Additionally, a
two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer
(https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/) on August 6, 2018 found no known occurrences of the NLEB within two
miles of the Project site.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf -flowered heartleaf) — Threatened
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: mid -March — early July
The dwarf -flowered heartleaf is a low -growing evergreen perennial that has heart -shape leaves that are four
to six centimeters long. The leaves are dark green and leathery and are supported by long thin leaf stems
connecting it to an underground stem. The blooms are small, inconspicuous jug -shaped flowers that are
usually beige to dark brown or purple. The flowers are found near the base of the leaf stems and are often
buried beneath the leaf litter. The plant grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy
areas next to streams, and along slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.

We Make a Difference
No critical habitat has been designated for this species
Please provide comments on any possible issues that may arise with respect to the endangered species,
migratory birds or other natural resources from the construction of the proposed project. The following
additional supporting documentation has been included for reference: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic
Map, and Project Site Map. If Baker has not received response from you within 30 days, we will assume
that the NCWRC does not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project
at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response, input, and cooperation. Please contact me if you have
any further questions or comments. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at
ksuizizs(&mbakerintl. com.
Sincerely,
�l
Kristi Suggs
Cc: File
Enclosures

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
17 August 2018
Ms. Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker International
Ballantyne One, 15720 Brixham Hill Ave.
Suite 300, Office 336
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
Subject: Request for Project Review and Comments
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Cleveland County, North Carolina
NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID4100081
Dear Ms. Suggs,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your letter on 07
August 2018 requesting review and comment on any possible concerns regarding the UT to Magness
Creek Mitigation Site. Biologists with NCWRC have reviewed the provided documents. Comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site is located along Selkirk Drive and south of Schneck Farm
Road near Lawndale, Cleveland County, North Carolina. The mitigation site is in agricultural and
riparian forested lands. The project will provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
streams within the Broad River Basin (HUC 03050105). The project will restore and enhance
approximately 3,385 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Magness Creek and riparian wetlands;
however, no wetland credits are being requested.
We have records for the federal species of concern and state special concern Broad River spiny crayfish
(Cambarus spicatus) along Magness Creek. We have no records of federal or state -listed species at or
adjacent to the site. However, the lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of
federal or state rare, threatened, or endangered species. An on -site survey is the only definitive means to
determine if the proposed project would impact rare, threatened, or endangered species.
Based upon the information provided to NCWRC, it is unlikely that stream and wetland mitigation will
adversely affect any federal or state -listed species. However, we recommend leaving snags and mature
trees or if necessary, remove tees outside the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 — August 15).
We recommend that riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner needs.
NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to maximize the
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
17 August 2018
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation
Cleveland County
benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife
habitat.
Stream and wetland restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing
native, forested buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided stringent measures are taken to
minimize erosion and sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the
project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If I can be of additional assistance, please call (919)
707-0364 or email olivia.munzerkncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
0—kt�
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Ec: William T. Russ, NCWRC

We Make o Difference
INTERNATIONAL
August 7, 2018
Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Email: Milton.Cortesknc.usda. og_v
RE: Prime and Important Farmland Soils
NCDMS, UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Cleveland County, NC
Dear Mr. Cortes:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) to conduct stream restoration/enhancement activities for the above -referenced project.
The project area is located in Cleveland County, North Carolina approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the
Town of Lawndale on the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Lawndale Topographic Quadrangle.
The center of the project area is located at 35.4065 N and-81.5293 W. Located within a water supply
watershed (WS-IV), the project drains directly to Magness Creek and the First Broad River, which is a
drinking water source for the City of Shelby and other downstream municipalities. Existing reaches within
the project site flow to the south-southwest where the downstream extent of the project is bordered by
Selkirk Drive. Please see the enclosed USGS Topographic Maps for a depiction of the project site location.
The UT to Magness Creek site was identified to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts. The existing stream reaches have been significantly impacted by unrestricted livestock access and
the removal or impairment of riparian buffers. Most of the project reaches are incised, unstable, and exhibit
areas of active bank erosion from both high flows and livestock access. Riparian buffer vegetation varies
from areas with no woody buffer vegetation to areas with large trees but at low density and without any
significant understory.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,385 LF of existing stream.
Degraded riparian wetlands will be restored and/or enhanced with the implementation of Priority Level 1
restoration, livestock exclusion, and native riparian buffer plantings; however, no wetland credit is being
sought. A Best Management Practice (BMP) in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed in an
unstable ephemeral drainage that receives run-off from an area that is frequently used by livestock. Native
riparian buffers will be established along all proposed reaches. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches in an excess of 50 feet from the top of bank and will incorporate
some of the existing functional wetlands. Livestock will be excluded from the conservation easement with
permanent fencing.
Baker conducted a review of the project area using the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (USDA NRCS) Web Soil Survey. A Soils Classification Report and Map was
generated for the soils that are present within the proposed conservation easement. Based on the data
determined from this review, there are a total of 10.3 acres of Chewacla loam (ChA) and 0.7 acres of Pacolet
sand clay loam (PaC2) within the project area.
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One, 15720 Brixham Hill Avenue
Suite 300, Room 336
Charlotte, NC 28277 1 Office: 704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this project or need any additional
information. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at ksuggsAmbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
As
Kristi Suggs
Enclosures: USGS Topographic Map
NRCS Soils Classification Report & Map
FFPA Form AD-1006
Cc: File

o
451600
35o 24'39"N
g
r
1
93
1
93
1
93
1
93
0
ro
93
1
93
0
r
93
35o 24' 8" N
451600 451700 451800 451900 45200(
Map Scale: 1:4,660 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
o Meters N
0 50 100 200 ?00
Feet
0 200 400 800 1200
Map projection: Web Mercator Gonermordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: lfrM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
Soil Map —Cleveland County, North Carolina
(UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project)
451700 451800 451900 452000
452100
452100
452200
35o 24' 39" N
g
r
1
93
m
93
1
93
m
93
0
ro
93
m
93
0
r
93
35o 24' 8" N
452200
m
8/7/2018
Pagel of 3

Z
O
G
O
LL
Z
Ca
G
0
Z
W
0
W
J
CL
N — N
U)
U O 0-0
U O O
E
O)
N Q m
Q O m
N E E C
A O O O
O E N
m (6 CL p
U m N
= y E tl)
> O O N
C >
Q O
-0 U) 6
> Q m U
y E
E o-a) m
m o
m EN
O C m N tl)
U a) N E o)
O E
C N -O m y
E 2 7 Q� N
y a) 0 m
W E U Wi
O O
U)
m
O
>
O
N
U
y
m
U)
N
I
��
0
O_
0 L
U O
y
_0
m
7
U) C
m
E
(n
Q E
-p U) -p
+-
m
U)
O
N
E
=
w
Q
N
O
N
O
O
N
L
..-
N�
N N
Q
.y
..-0
a))
U)
CJ
a)CL
0-
Z
O
tl)
m
U)
0 d
N U) 7 m
Q
Z
0
N
(O
E
U W
m (p W O N
Q N N
D
N
L
CL
y m
y
s
U
N
U)
a) O
i
�
N _
m
Q
C
U
a)
m
O Q >,
w
3 U
U .=.. O p
> a) - p
a)§
o
O
U c
(n
O
o
m o_ E
E T m y
N 2
L '� N (6
E a)
O
N
C,
Q
a)
N m E
U
Q
N
7 u) U O tl)
U a) -p O'
w '6
'6 O
m O
N�
N
m o O m
�
y
.O
N
N
N C
J
(6
(n N Q E
Q c
Utl)
U
U)
t C O
N
Q U
o Qm m.O
N
a) a)
m
m
N
m
0-0
0
"� E
0
>CL a),
t N N (6
m
O '06
N N
N m
E
0) N
0 C
m
U
'N C
Q
.yL-
T E
U w
E m m
o
Q m 0 E
a)
O O C
0 O N N O
O O
>
L Q
O_ O
(6 O
O I�
y0
'6 0
N
(mA N
m m
vU-a
�- o
u) U O:
Q .�? a) 0
QN
y E
U) N
= L
EO
= O
°) N
o.QN C
m E m
N N
EL E
p N p
U U
m 0 Ln �_ p
Q=o Q m
L
H o
0 7
U U
O N
U—
m °N°
H o .- w
y
� y
Q
m
(i U
m
L
r
CL
Q
>.
O
a)
a
2
y
O
a
a
-yo O
L
a)
Q
CL
J
m E
a)
m
0CL
O
O
a
OCL
(n U)
>
N
O
y
U) (n
�
O
S Q
v
R
R
C
�
�
m
y
C
O
y
0
.�
0
Q
U)
o
a°
w
w
a°
w
y
N
c
N
a
Q
a
o
0
>
Q
>
Q
>
Q
w
R fl
Q
Q
o
fl
Q
(�
>,
3
3 y
O `O
`o
O
o
N
2
N
°
w
o
(�
0
(�
°
W
,
Q
_ 0
a) O-
o
a m
os
os
os
y 3
LL 3 O
T
a
w
>
>
=
a os w
a)
co)
E
aa))
O
Y
a)
o o (n
y
Q
o
U)
0
U)
0
U)0
o o
m m
os
U
o
U
c7
c7
m
J J
y
a
o
m
m
(n
m
(n
a>>
(n
a o
in U) (n
w
a
O r
u X
a)
/b
*
A
+¢¢
# S
(6 L
N
0
Q
y
Q
y
00(1)
Uo
� U
� a)
— m
0 a)
U Q
O
U
m
0
m
Z

Soil Map —Cleveland County, North Carolina
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation
Project
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently flooded
10.3
93.8%
PaC2
Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to
15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
0.7
6.2%
Totals for Area of Interest
11.0
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/7/2018
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 8/7/2018
Name of Project UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Mitigation
County and State Cleveland, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By
NRCS 08/07/2018
Per . on Co pleting F r
Mil 6ortes � NRCS
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
EZI
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
113 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 79% % 236,827 acres
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 61.4%% 93,263 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Cleveland Co,. NC LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
August 27. 2018 by eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
I Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
11.0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0
C. Total Acres In Site
11.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
10.30
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
0.70
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0118
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
4.4%
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
97
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor ro ect use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use
(15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use
(10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
20
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
20
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
5
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
5
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
10
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
5
10. On -Farm Investments
(20)
10
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
100
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
97
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)
160
100
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
197
0
0
0
Site Selected: A
Date Of Selection 9/19/2018
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES NO ❑
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: FHWA Date: 9/19/2018
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

APPENDIX J: HYDRIC SOILS REPORT

Hydric Soils Investigation
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Cleveland County, NC
Prepared by:
I N T E R N AT 1 U N A L
Michael Baker Engineering, inc.
8000 Regency Parkway — Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
14t-z / -
Scott E. King, i_S5 #1301
January 14, 2019
SCIE1VTjs'l
p'N►M '[IAA
U
N
1
= t OF

Introduction
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. conducted a hydric soils investigation along the floodplains of
an unnamed tributary to Magness Creek (main stem) and two of its smaller tributaries (UT1 and
UT2) in Cleveland County, NC for the purpose of identifying potential opportunities for historic
wetland restoration as part of a proposed mitigation project for the NC Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). More specifically, the investigation was to confirm the presence and location
of any hydric soils found on site. Currently, the approximately 12-acre subject area
(represented by a potential conservation easement boundary) is mostly managed as livestock
pasture with scattered trees found along the floodplain of the lower section of the main stem
and along UT1 and UT2.
Methodology
Prior to the field investigation, the NRCS soils layer was reviewed for the site (Figure 1), along
with the NRCS' most recent compilation (2016) of hydric soils for Cleveland County, North
Carolina. Chewacla loam (0-2% slopes, frequently flooded) was found to be mapped
throughout the floodplains of the subject area. The Chewacla soil series is a recognized NRCS-
listed Hydric Soils for Cleveland County. Chewacla loams are taxonomically categorized as Fine -
loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts. Additionally, Wehadkee loam (Fine -
loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) is listed as a component soil
series of Chewacla in the NRCS descriptions, which is also listed as a Hydric Soil for Cleveland
County.
The USGS map for the subject area (Lawndale Quad) was also reviewed (Figure 2). It identifies
the main stem itself as a blue -line stream. Two other significant flowing unnamed tributaries
(UT1 and UT2) were also discovered in the field flowing into the middle and lower sections of
the main stem from the east, but are not shown on the USGS map. Additionally, NWI data from
the USFWS was reviewed for the site but did not reveal the presence of any previously
identified wetlands located along the floodplain of the site.
Hand -turned soil auger borings and soils analyses were conducted throughout the subject area,
and the hydric soil boundary was marked using the 126 GPS points subsequently captured with
a TopCon Tesla Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GNSS Receiver. This device collects survey data to a
minimum Class B Horizontal Accuracy and all points were georeferenced to the NAD83 State
Plane Coordinate System in US Survey Feet. This survey system is capable of collecting point
data with an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot. Hydric soils were identified using the
NRCS document "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying
and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010". Seven representative boring descriptions are
provided in this report, and numerous photos of soil borings and hydric soil are presented in an
enclosed photo -log.

Results and Conclusions
The on -site field investigation was conducted in November of 2018 and January 2019.
Extensive areas of hydric soils and buried hydric soils were discovered throughout the
floodplain, totaling 1.9 and 4.6 acres respectively, as shown in Figure 3. Soils meeting hydric
status were described by one or more of the following hydric soil indicators described below:
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:
a. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of for 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 or more distinct or
prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings.
F3 DeDleted 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, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
F8 Redox Depressions:
In closed depressions subject to ponding, 5 percent or more distinct or prominent redox
concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings in a layer that is 5 cm (2 inches) or more
thick and is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil.
Furthermore, with regards to mitigation potential, three categories of hydric soil were
discovered on site:
1. Hydric soils appropriate for restoration. These are the areas that meet one or more hydric
soil indicators and appear to have been hydrologically impacted by significant adjacent stream
downcutting caused by the deliberate dredging and straightening of the main stem and
connecting tributaries. Additionally, in at least one location a drainage ditch was dug to help
drain a wetland area. These soils have also been significantly impacted by the use of the entire
area as pasture for cattle, particularly to the vegetation. These areas are suitable for wetland
restoration through re-establishment, presumably as part of a Priority Level I Restoration of the
main stem and the accompanying raising of the channel beds in the lower sections of the
tributaries in reconnecting them to the raised main stem. The filling of any drainage ditches
near wetland areas within the final easement is also recommended. These efforts should
restore groundwater hydrology and increase flooding frequency to these areas. Additionally,
the planting of a full riparian buffer would restore the appropriate vegetation to the wetlands.
This hydric soil category accounts for approximately 1.9 acres.

2. Buried hydric soils. These are hydric soil areas that have clear fill material located on top of a
buried A -horizon. The fill material certainly appears to derive from the adjacent upland soils
(Pacolet/Cecil soils) located on the steep valley hillslopes, and was either directly placed in the
wetlands to deliberately fill them, or were eroded down from historic agricultural use on the
hillslopes. The average depth of fill is between roughly 1.0 —1.5 ft for most of the floodplain of
the main stem. However, in the lowermost floodplain after its confluence with UT2, the depth
of fill is roughly 2.0 ft. The buried A -horizon is clearly identified as such due to the pronounced
accumulation of organic matter in the layer. The soil is very dark grey or black (Munsell Chroma
of 1 and Value of 2 or 3) and obviously formed on the soil surface. Organic matter, in particular
to this significant a degree and thickness, does not translocate or accumulate at depth in fine -
textured soils. This layer is indicative of a very wet environment where reducing conditions
inhibited the usual decomposition rate of organic matter, thus resulting in its accumulation.
This hydric soil category accounts for approximately 4.6 acres.
Although buried hydric soils are often considered suitable for restoration through the removal
of fill material and the reestablishment of hydrology, recent discussion with the NC-IRT
indicates that they do not consider these project soils suitable due to the depth of fill present
and to the presumed historic nature of the fill. Thus, while these areas are described in this
report they are not recommended for wetland restoration purposes.
3. Hydric soils located within existing wetland areas. The existing wetlands are found in
scattered pockets throughout the floodplain of the main stem and UT1, as well as in several
located within the stream banks of the main stem on wet inner berms. These hydric soils
account for approximately 0.2 acres. These estimates are approximate until the wetland areas
are confirmed by the Corps of Engineers. The wetlands appear suitable for a mix of either
restoration -by -rehabilitation or enhancement depending on the differing levels of impact
observed to each area.
References
Soil Survey Staff. Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for North Carolina. United States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at
https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (FY2016 official release).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web
Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) National List of Hydric Soils of the United States, 2016
revision.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA,
NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
4

Proposed Conservation Easement ` 1
H..u[b Sch "
y Iti_ IW Bethel s2lern t :
tern - 1.
L_ �.
i •SFr �{r7 , � • • � r I{ � :
_ 5
TO
r li
9CP 1.
Lawndale Quadrangle - - -- - h ---�---
L Copyright:© 2013 Natitnal Geographic Society, i'cAed
0 1,600 3,200 Figure 2
Michael BakerFeet USGS Topographic Map
UT to Magness Creek
I N T E R N A T I O N A L 1 inch = 1,600 feet Stream Mitigation Project

Soil Description Form
Project: OT 61 r 1L
County: /' ,�, ( Michael Baker
Date: �� `� (is
I N T ERN AT10 N A L
Staff:
Boring
Horizon
Depth
Texture / Structure /
Consistence
Matrix Color
Mottle Color(s)
(Quantity / Size / Contrast)
D Z Ll
L+[
Adra
tiLt��
�r2 pry 7
rr
10
1v 2
J�r�. �z ire
104'2 3
--
`?
10�(
s riz
SFc 3
LOA 0,
IO I R 3 2-
—,to'
s o
R 32r�'
37r
9 2
� i � 1.
i � d
112 e
®.-T
^ � A-. 'X//" 5
IPA,-
SAS—
i's�f
-
s
1J 2 r
u.-7,6vXi 044r3 a wa
2 -
11
Yt?
ij
S�
CIAO
IPA,,.
p? 4 -
• �f
1 A w'
y
10 I € �_
7� f oX
LVA
it d e AS°
r--,4'
4W.
11� �/6

Magness Creek Hydric Soils Report
Soil Boring 41: Buried hydric soil (A -horizon)
Soil Boring 42: Buried hydric soil (A -horizon)
Soil Boring 43: Hydric soil
Soil Boring 41: Close-up showing soil depletion
forming above buried A -horizon
Soil Boring 42: close-up showing soil depletion forming
above buried A -horizon
Soil Boring 44: Buried hydric soil

Magness Creek Hydric Soils Report
Soil Boring 45: Hydric soil
Soil Boring 47: Hydric soil above a buried A -horizon
1q.
Buried A -horizon exposed in bank on lower main stem
Soil Boring 46: Upland soil (depletions too deep)
Soil Boring 47: Close-up showing soil depletions
formed above the buried A -horizon
Hydric soil from buried A -horizon

Magness Creek Hydric Soils Report
Buried A -horizon at —1 ft depth exposed on bank in Close-up of exposed A -horizon showing soil depletions
middle of main stem above buried A -horizon
Hydric soil from buried A -horizon Hydric soil from buried A -horizon
Hydric soil present in floodplain of upper main stem Hydric soil present in floodplain of middle main stem

Magness Creek Hydric Soils Report
Hydric soil present in floodplain of upper main stem
Hydric soil present in floodplain of lower main stem
Additional soil boring showing hydric soil above buried
A -horizon on floodplain of upper main stem.
0
Hydric soil present in floodplain of middle main stem
Buried A -horizon in floodplain of lower main stem
M
Additional soil boring showing buried hydric soil above
buried A -horizon on floodplain of upper main stem.

Magness Creek Hydric Soils Report
Additional soil boring showing hydric soil in floodplain Additional soil boring showing hydric soil above buried
of upper main stem. A -horizon in floodplain of upper main stem.
Additional soil boring showing hydric soil in floodplain Additional soil boring showing hydric soil in floodplain
of middle main stem. of middle main stem.
Additional soil boring showing hydric soil above buried
A -horizon in floodplain of middle main stem
Sample hydric soil from middle of main stem

APPENDIX K: CORRESPONDENCE

I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Memo Regarding UT to Magness Creek Post Contract IRT Field Meeting
Memo Date: 10/12/18
Meeting Held: 9/27/18 from 9:00 to 11:30 P.M.
Project: UT to Magness Creek, DEQ Contract #7604; DMS Project #100081
Attendees:
Todd Tugwell (Corps of Engineers),
Mac Haupt (DWR),
Paul Wiesner (DMS),
Matthew Reid (DMS),
Todd Bowers (EPA),
Meeting Minutes:
Olivia Munzer (WRC),
William Russ (WRC),
Micky Clemmons (Michael Baker),
Katie McKeithan (Michael Baker), and
Russell Myers (Michael Baker).
This memo and all responses will be included in the Mitigation Plan to serve as a record of field
discussions including crediting ratios and approaches.
The following provides a summary of procedures, discussions, and conclusions reached by the group.
The group met at the landowner's drive and moved vehicles to better parking near his poultry houses.
IRT members were then transported to the lower end of the project site where the site walk began. A
general site overview and map orientation was provided by Micky. The group walked upstream from
Selkirk Road to the top of the project along the left bank and returned to the lower end along the right
bank.
As we began the walk upstream Micky pointed out that the area immediately above the culvert would
not be included within the easement. There are two reasons for excluding this area. The FEMA Zone AE
extends to just above the culvert under Selkirk Road (shown in Proposal, Figure 5), and a livestock
crossing is needed into the lower pasture along the left bank. Ending the project site upstream of this
culvert allows for the livestock crossing and avoids any impacts to the FEMA Zone AE and associated
permitting. Todd pointed out that this will also avoid any future issues with NCDOT if they must widen
the road or extend the culvert. It was asked if we could place gates on the crossing, so the landowner
could limit access when livestock needed to be moved across the stream. Micky responded that Michael
Baker could not control how the landowner managed his farm outside of the easement area. However,
gates will be placed on the crossing and the landowner will be encouraged to manage access to it. It
was also pointed out that there will be an area between the crossing and the culvert that would be
fenced to limit livestock to the hardened crossing area. Micky pointed out that there is an existing ditch
line that NCDOT has graded and rip -rapped into the pasture and that this would be improved and
connected to the channel using a rock lined channel.

We continued upstream to UT2 and walked up the reach along the left bank to the property line. Micky
indicated that due to the significant incision and short reach, the stream would be restored using an
Enhancement I approach by developing a floodplain bench at the existing elevation. Mac pointed out
that several trees would need to be removed, but this will provide good woody material to use for
stream structures. The proposed actions for this tributary appeared to be accepted by the group.
The site review continued upstream. Between UT2 and UT1 the group observed drainage ditches that
were cut across the floodplain in the past. It was pointed out by Todd that it would be advantageous to
remove these ditches in support of wetland functions and Micky indicated that this would be done
within the easement area and outside of the easement area if the landowner agreed. The group also
observed the invasive trifoliate orange, Poncirus trifoliata, growing along the stream with small orange -
like fruit; small groups of the invasive privet, Ligustrum sp. and multiflora rose, Rosa multiflora. Bedrock
seams crossing the channel were pointed out by members of the group and Micky was asked how
Michael Baker planned to address them within the project plans. He indicated that as the channel is
meandered and raised up, some of the exposed bedrock will likely be buried, but it is likely other areas
of bedrock may be exposed and will be utilized within the new channel.
IRT members observed that due to the degradation and incision of the existing channel Michael Baker
will need a significant amount of fill material to narrow and raise the channel and asked where we
planned to obtain this fill. Micky pointed out that there were locations along the floodplain where
slopes from higher ground extended or pinched the floodplain along the right side of the stream. These
slopes could be cut to provide fill and an area at the back of the poultry houses has been identified as an
area the landowner would like leveled which will produce a significant amount of fill. Michael Baker
staff feel that between these two options we will have enough fill.
The group stopped at an old ford crossing on UT1. Todd expressed concerns about this intermittent
channel being used to generate mitigation credit. At the time of the site visit this channel had no flow
and little standing water within it. Micky explained that this was the first time that no flow was
observed within the channel during multiple Michael Baker site visits and that the channel scored (27.5)
as an intermittent channel based on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form. Todd indicated that the
USACE prefers channels be evaluated with the NCSAM instrument and that he was skeptical of the score
reported. A lively discussion was held on the pros and cons of including this channel, but in the end, it
was agreed that the channel would be excluded from stream mitigation unit (SMU) crediting.
Depending on the final jurisdictional call, this channel will most likely be raised to restore channel
hydrology to an elevation that best supports wetland functions.
The group continued up the channel to the top of the mainstem. Mac used his auger to check for hydric
soils in a couple of locations along the channel and found hydric indicators in these soil samples. Olivia
asked how we would utilize the first bedrock seam that is providing channel grade control and how we
would repair the upper end of the channel where it is overwide. Micky explained that, at the bedrock
point, the plan is to use the bedrock as the beginning of the Priority I channel. The channel is likely to
meander offline from this point, at a higher elevation, that allows the stream to access the floodplain.
The overwide area will be decreased in width and the proper dimension will be constructed. From this
location most, site visit participants walked back down the right bank returning to Selkirk Road and then
to their vehicles.

Once everyone returned to their vehicles the group stopped to summarize thoughts on what they had
seen and recommendations on how Michael Baker should proceed. These ideas are summarized in the
bullets below:
• The IRT accepted the proposed approach for the mainstem and for UT2.
• The IRT does not agree that restoration or enhancement activities should be carried out on UT1 to
produce mitigation credit. Michael Baker accepts this assessment and will exclude this channel
from any effort to provide SMUs.
• Paul indicated that the DMS will be interested in obtaining any wetland mitigation credits that the
site might produce. To this end the IRT recommended an evaluation of existing hydric soils be
carried out. Their feelings were that wetlands along the channel would likely be in isolated pockets
and their extent would have to be carefully evaluated. They also recommended detail planning for
how gauges should be deployed to assess future success, particularly if wetlands are isolated.
• There were no recommendations on the proposed BMP and it was acceptable as proposed.
The proposed approaches and ratios for each reach are provided in the following Table and in the
attached map (Attachment A). These are the approaches and ratios agreed upon at this IRT field visit
and will be utilized during the project design. Michael Baker and DMS understand that the final design
approach and crediting rationale must be justified in the Mitigation Plan.
Reach Name
Approach
Approximate Length (LF)
Ratio
Credits
MS
R
2,950
1:1
2,950
UT2
El
260
1.5:1
173
Total
3, 210 *
3,123
*Actual stream footage will likely change when a survey is completed.
Please let me know if you feel any of the above information is not presented as discussed in the field.
Sincerely,
Micky Clemmons, PM

Proposed Mitigation Features
Reach
Mitigation
Approach
Proposed
Length (ft.)
Credits
MS
R
2950
2950
UT2
El
260
173
Total Footage for Credit
3210
Total Credits
3123
Notes:
UT1 was removed from creditable streams
after the Post -Contract IRT site visit.
4
4
Proposed BMP
W
UT1
dio
+� � .� �'` - �r .ESL. `,,.�..: • , �'..{ "'+���.
W1 `,. Restoration
k Enhancement I
e UT2 'F" No Credit
Proposd BMPs -
Conservation Easement
Additional Fencing ..I
2015 erial Photograph Source: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geograph n i
North Carolina Post IRT Site Visit
Michael Baker Division of 0 150 300 600 Proposed Mitigation Features
Mitigation Services Feet UT to Magness Creek
I N T E R N A T I O N R L Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Proi. No. 100081 1 inch = 300 feet Cleveland County, NC

NRCS
ae
Conservation Service
Grazing Plan
Robert E Yarboro
Planning Scenarios:
Benchmark
Planned
Date: Monday, January 14, 2019
Name:
Robert Yarboro
Address:
2803 Selkirk Dr.
Lawndale, NC
Work Telephone:
Home Telephone:
Mobile Telephone:
FAX:
County:
Cleveland
Region:
Piedmont
Planner:
CME
Notes:

CONSERVATION PLAN MAf
Date: 1/8/2019
Customer(s): ROBERT E YARBORO
a Trails and Walkways
♦ Pumping Plant
tream Crossing
® Water Well
USDA
■ Watering Facility
Consplan
Agency: USDA-NRCS
Assisted By: Carter Edgerton
Prepared with assistance from USDA-Naturai Resources Conservation Service
N
380 0 380 760 1,140 1,520
Feet

CONSERVATION PLAN MAf
Date: 1 /8/2019
Custorner(s): ROBERT E YARBORO
USDA
Agency: USDA-NRCS
Assisted By: Carter Edgerton
,,,,,, Prepared with assistance from USDA -Natural Resources Conservation Service
,w Trails and Walkways
0 Pumping Plant
tream Crossing
6 Water Well
■ Watering Facility
Consplan
N
380 0 380 760 1,140 1,520
Feet

APPENDIX L: PLAN SHEETS

o
o
z s
III
z r z
z77
a
x
III U
z�
cb-
� d
114
44
b
U I H O --
LQ
o
W '��
O � z---------
W W W ------------= -- O u W$ 4 x
O h BOO~ Zy (fl x• �_.
Lz�z Q N ti
A .x U) a
Q-- —-------- --------------------
� col)
W V v V
A �r 0 N w
N \S fzo W�o3
a
NV M a z o ~a
h w
z
< z 0
U.. zoo iuWSx
_h• a00
r - Q
wa z o0
0 U
C7
(209YD SS9N9 VW 01 IA 089L 9I .I gg o yd

�r
O
¢
U
o z
z y
�
CD
p
yU
pr
q
a z o z w
p z m x � n
U
z
O
O�
�
U Z ❑ r K r
w
�
U
ZS
¢
U W K ❑ Q Z
�
®
rW
z r
2
F
z
n ¢w z w
g o
o
,raw
o
O� r
inz
ww
b O
U
❑
j¢
OU
K
�
a ww m z O
rz
Oz
p Z
¢ U
10
KK
Hz
O
p �F LL Q
Um U z0
Uw
Sx
�Z
Om
m
- p
¢
v� Z2N
J�,
o z w ¢
J w� LL ❑Y Q
�
�a
W�
¢o
QN O
c¢i
w
o ocri w
J N ¢� S W n
a❑
�r
rb
y
CG) xCGO
�QZ
¢ z ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
N K m m s W
a a a a a
¢y
Y w U
X
a
hF
x Oz y W
�U
o (¢j
> z
pm �- °w
re -a Q
dU
�W
Vr/J
:n
USI QY y r ?2
UU
W
sa
m
ow 2
n
p_
g Oz Z i w Wr
m 2 wm ¢ v� g w
ww
LLw
c0] 2
Q
0m
rN
ao -
OW o
°2
J w z 2 =z
w Jz ❑ m a
�o
Z
¢55
z
m
NW ¢ ¢O W OZ
r
w
b
Q
OLL
Y� r
O
K
❑z O¢ Q y w Iz
z
ttp
W
�
ILL
�ti 3w ° � m°� om ❑ 03 �¢
� m
�
.�
Ui
m
❑
3
b
5
�
z
z
r
n
Z 0 w
m
°
z W p O
r
z
c.0
% o z a
o w m
�
>
a~ ma
o_ xw
J
r� U
®
� O O Z y
p
Z
y n
W z
W
z
¢ r U' ~ � O ❑
O r a
w ¢
LL
U LL Q
Y
p
Z
a
W ��
LL>
w ¢ w Z Z O
LL
yo =
W
m
zlw r r¢
K Z Z Sp LL LL- U
z
Z Z
Q
a z = =
dU w w
O
a
O
G
W W ¢ ¢ 2❑ O O'cj
U U m¢ Z
r r
ti a U U' J
�Q IL �[�
0�A 000
W
�a W
�
Ci
>
m
¢
hh��
�i9
N
O m
Y
z W
2 Y
O
m O
U m
Y
O
2
O
O
Z
00 z a w
O
w
i
r
f�i
z �
U W > � ❑
❑
U
z Y d p Uri O
❑
O
z w O m z
z
y
Y z
m O n r U a
O
x
� a a ¢ o '>
w
� <
o �
z
u o ❑ w � w �
w
� m
Y
U
p Y Y Y
¢ U ti U U
2
r
g O
p
L) ¢
>
0
U Q Y
0 0 0 2 z ❑ U
UJ O
� Z
O
m
�o°
tt O 2 O O ?
C7 K O m m 'n
O
❑
W O O m
r m U'
oo toal
O
O O O
U 5
¢
®
¢
o
w
Q
Z
co/9z2
„aP d'm usd mescs'���atd��s�ao.a ....mescs'��+=aro�a�:w
iaoaaaa
aw
5 ro
3 �oww
wwww
w
w
w Q
ww
Q
�
a
e a
3
H
5 0
w
a
� o
6
� .S
B
U
Q
w
B B
U U
Q Q
w w
B o
U Q
Q w
w
0 o
Q Q
w w
B B
U U
Q Q
w w
a
p]
O
B a
U p]
Q O
w
B B
U U
Q Q
w w
a
p]
O
B a
U p]
Q O
w
B a
U p]
Q O
w
a
y
c N
a
o
c
W
h
h
3—
F°
wwww
w w
w w
w
wwww
w
c
z
e a
�v�
�a
G
��
cs
r$
�°

Rm
Y
i
Cm
0 o
3
a
o
m =
0
r
3 3
z a
x
_ E
o
aowaw�000=�o
• ❑ o © e Q Ow
o a 0� { ICI ♦ a w � ICI i �I LL� � o � © a
I "
li I I Ilia
^
s
w w q
� ,`v` 3 � � o w° w° `c ` [w•i
3 3 3u o� °°
o°^°°n c ° v v oa v a a o 0 c c
t� f lo
o o oo V .� o .� o 0 0 0 0 0 o Q ,_ o 0 0 o d N N m ao s
o-- o W It o W It It It Q� o L It It 0 0 0 0 0- W W It It It wl It o 0 0- o W It o w - N= 3 0 ">
o�
ow
w
�
w
v
v �
j
c
w
v E cv c v -O 3 m rn
V T -
�i
C
N
8 t O)
2 0
t t
v v o 0 o ti a° v E
8
q p a o
O
q
°
u
°^
r
v a
u o w
- _ a o
E o
a s a i n` _ a_ _ o vc�i v°Ei LL v- _
a w w a w w y 3 ¢` u m w❑
v
a-' LL o- m a—

�oC o
m
_
w
I
Q
-
°
O
xo
O '
LU
'
-
^
s
tl1
-
oN L1 sY
-
yN
XX
_
U
dtY
y
rc
rc
17,
Uz
W
w
�
LL
-
Z
F
W
Y n
O
J
O
u
_qo
a`
n 3�yis�inNva
nip-r.i��
-
LU
�NS
--
'BP'— HSd 0-9IA...1 "6-0— ....6-H m lfl 0-9iA"+OZ02/£/GI

1-5 o
Ic
w
w www
w -
no ;no
p '
<� Q''za`0 �t. J w U p P WA-
japFsa��
LL w _ mow= o z �,\ w -_
"w w;��1,
z - LL
w
- w
Y 1
Y
_ I
¢
-
23
¢ <m<
-
rLL
•, - a,3i�w LL3
LL q _
l �v oPY==F
cmisziz - - ,
H ar�
�baazm sd mescs�z��tdz�b �aoza dew ? o n-mescs�z�=
ozozim

/:(
\
-
k
\
\
\
}
\\ }\�
G
G\
\
_
\}
..
}
.
-
\
\ }
/
\
\
$
G
'G
G\
\}
=
r y \\
\f_
_\-
\-
\\
\\\
\
)
_
}

w
H
C7
Y
¢
O
J
J
$LL
Z
Q
F(a�
U
u
U
J
�JI
ak
-
--J
M
x
X
X X
rj
LL
w
x
x
x x
w
X
X
X X
(D
F�
W
a
x
x
x
/r
W
F-
O
$4
-
w
C9
>wof
X
X
X X
r/\\
LLI
co
O
m
X X
\/r\
O
3
v
3l9HIEfYA ,3..
'BP '— HSd 0-9IA...1 "6-0— ....6-H m lfl m89L9IA"+=af o�dV:N
iaozlL

U z
o� T
l m
I
—
� J w F
� de lrvtl3al � F j F° j
W
Z
J w � Q
co p E J
L— V�
W
W
co O
Z U O
�p
W w
Z
LLLI
N.
/ w
DIVo -
F w _ w
U)
o l LL
a-
- o
LU
wWn
LL
LL
LU
U — F
z
o� �eP88o o448g w a ,� > k s
7 eio a a
�8 �880nn �`
-
_ww�°r,ao
IL
L0/9z/z'BP yZ0 HSJ O-9I\... 1 6° 0— ... 6-w
ozozvcv

o s _
- w
Z a T -
a s = o
Z LU
E
W T m c c
E
T o _ - - -
a 6�aaE e as
O �
W
0 t.:
W
[2" C• 5 m a � m
,C
C m N C C
Wtl
5 o ro ., ., ° .,
W5� o z m A p o
kt
�U moo^ aE u o�uB UB �dEdu°Uaa �T o o F w o F� z F F
li m 4
cu �
C0/9zlz "6P'&0 usd O—lll—at l'--0\^] ....B-H m in m89L9I
oaoaisi

- W �
0 CCtt��
z
- N
CC o
��a
o x tiz
09,
St
Z S
i
/ X
l
XX+ xx
Ir
,xx x
mu
mLL 1
x\
z
�
x x
Q v X hz
x��
X��oa
>wzia00
X w—gam
I x �mYf ma
3�0N
.XNx�aa
l
\\
a
O w
�
w
U W
I
1 2
i
\
/
W
~
LD
m a
V A C9
\ \\
I + \
r
W
\
%W
ON
\ \
\\ \
Z>d
W O
> OF
O
We
LLYn�
U
�Na^
Nw °aN
Uzz
U�am0
O
O
O O O O
'ba vm esd mescs1\...1-6-0— ....B-w

o
0
0
0
z
0
CCtt��
�7
w �O
'
X
c
5 3
u U
00'0Z- 9 133HS 33S H H , U
!Z 'b1S
w o a
i 3NI7 HJlbl^/
i
X
�
I
I
?
x �v
X I
w�
x XI
0 li X I X X
-
ODD
I
a
dU
pF w yu x/ x I
x XJ
XI�(� ��
�O
+
{%;a x
c~n A I \I �x X Y:
X I �`
X h
XI X XN X
%< x iy\ X X,
kk X X Y
p os \ l ;< X x,
x X\
.a -CO x x DWI
w i
m m X x
x x
x /
xs
x w
X o X Xz x
mI
>x x
X X
o
\ I
x -x
m
mQ
x X
X X
CQ7a �I I
N
nSf \\`
X
X X
zi o I
~
3 `Ind vI X wX�
IV
o+
h
� Z b mm.. / I
dZ �I X r; -sI I �z X x 1A Q Z b/ /� X 50 x °>\ J
Q
`�
X 1 x m T.
x o
1 i X X 1x
I
,�
�` I� o��m.
w X
�\
sl
U
I 3a m ��/1 x
m
30`cy o\ U X
z11
X>X�;Q�p X
�mr�m Q �� X X .
w wm.."�ivw
m>-d�C7a �:� X N/
X/i )" LLj
I / '%—: 'Rx
X
w
rtd
WQ�� XO x
wz��`W'�o IX >��Y a A
XX�:
�r
m,
I >0.7: �I Xw "' X� X}
II x g
mw
m1
��?o X x
II a A X
x
IIxX� xxCx
o
z a
m�
o I " fl /i X I�
I � x x v x x X
� vA _ / X X� X �m
1A\X X
X X\�v �\ X x Xa' I
o
x x
X X X x x
x
10
X x x xxo / a.� x
F �; l x Yv x x
x x x
x x x/ X/ !I /X x
X ID�o x/vX x
V 133HS 33S X
----
09+5I ylS 3NI1 HJl
0
rn
m
0
m
m
0
m
0
co
ao
£0/9UZ
'bp'S0 usd O-91\...1 "6° 0— ..a"6-w in mes[9-1-11Z/1m
izoziie
:W

o
0
0
0
0
0
CCtt��
°`
�
o
�
C2
-
v� Qp•
c�
/ z
/
1
� l
H
\ ¢
I H H
m
+
a
x
�a
Ow \
mz V
8 lW lllfll!
l� VAlllVI
\\
11 A I L VIII � y
\l\ 1 I
awl l o26-
am.n�
aM<ro
>aa.
o\
°o
J
\
oa
�.D
�lt'W
� 1 x
O
O
O
N
O
O
C0/9z/z -P[0 H 0-9I\...1 "6-0—
....B-W m in m89L9I�"+=aro.a
izoz/mie
�:W

3e o
�
cn
E
z
Mp��N SEE SNE , v
2
/
/ m�
/ Ixl1
/°��`ILL l
/ ID/ Nei
co
M
tiA
1 I I
I 1 Z,
¢ m.,
❑U/ C7ZIL
iW
I W++
/ / /
Y� ���
Ii/ v I may.
/q ow`�m�a
myq❑�
�❑�� �
///�
❑ w ¢
V
tix ti
—
��� Y
Z
W�H
J�
Z[2
x �<
M
�¢ �
oi
�'\ / ❑w
LL o
�
m�F \
m
m
m
m
co/9z/z

0
Z
❑
�,
1 a
z¢--.v�
U o�CLm�W
\ y
III
I
I I
r
C7 f
I
1tj
I
I I
I I I
I I I
II I
I I I xl
LL
i
o3K m`b co
OmoNo
f�
II
-VD�(9
a \
Oyu
I I
jQaao
a
W�
F
W
Q
U�
W
- i
ZU
z
� LL U
0000U
I m
I
Wx❑Zom `
�Ya❑❑
I i '
I I I
/
I
IUZ
I �
l mw
I
I I
/ 1
�
❑
1
� I
Uzi
Fr I
O W I I
roll
C~ C
i
<T
W
Im
?F�
x
II
/ /
/
yPE SNE�
SEt
Zz
U >
� a
I
00
CD
I \
I mw
d
� I 1
J
\/
z 0
V / E
A
h Q ID
A if
n /
Omm�U
> / $
U 4�1/ m}v0t
K low
1
N / YQui N,o
�
I �}awry
01 /
OI
I
f�
I
LU
b
I
I / �x
W
� � w

cmisziz

3H
w
O o
o O
w w
O w
o O
w w
w w
w w
C
.
C
0
z�
-w
lo
z
a
o
°
Q
Z
c
x s
N
c
�
g
x
U
N
v.
�i
o °'
C
G
6 o
v
tot
zwm>
a
z
E
m
a
a

z I �Z
L2 ° w
o — 9 p ------ w u
_ I EjI .✓1�'. i a
41 I
I o
�I zWz��Wmo w
�I � OWp WZmWW Z
1 ¢=�w�Q�o o
W W Q W 2 3 Z¢
\� a�j Uova LLF wN W�
1 m?F�zw�z w Jz J¢
¢z wui�H� mW
\ I xNax O Ux >Y UW �W
1 F NF Zm 09 Z Z
30z`-'wam Om ¢� ¢U'
\ 1 wag�o�� ww> www www
Fm om�U� 1 x7 xW xW
I Zw mzx Um UK UK I m
\� aW Oowzo �¢ �O �O
wpyw�x0 (7 O O
\ m N F Y F p W Z W K m x
JWZ~¢�� 3: nw nw
\ QU <.Co
=Wmw�wz vW< vWim Nm
F
1 W UWJ�JU W
2 — W ¢ 'U
mL W? x m W
H�Fp¢
\7 ¢
\ I
\\ I
\
1 -
1 --
co/9zlz 'BP'— E[ d 0-9Iz."at-6-0— ....B-H m in 0-9I l"rosd VW
Izoz2z/L

8
Ci
44/
C4
ti�x
QQJ)�
co� 44
kO
44
44J
t
4
< <
<
2
y
<
p0U�N
44
3 5 3U s
I Zz
co�
I
<
I(XIMID
VSYNDVW
01
IA
089Z91
"191foyd i

zz
Z
_
-
75 It
-
-
- - _
s
- g -
--
a
- _
-
K
v-
E v�
•
h S d c
U�U Ric-mmuUw�n�ana�nm
aKrv_
Lat
¢ m
U-_(�
N
o E �
E w
_
is E 1.4
53
2EiN
-
w E
-=
Mg _
F�
MLMUI
m �i 2 .«
2 m n o
/Y1
a� N
me
/)
F a
U
z
"6P'tl [0'J3 usd mH9L9I ��"atd �"6 �a0 ^] ssa�5=w m 1f1 m89L9I�"+=aroa �:
ILOZ/SI/
E
m
m
Q =

zz
o
-
Asp
m y
c
Z
-_ ilia
O
U _ _
W
aW
a_As s wag sit w
via
-
4.2 his
1 it
W
- __-
W
°
ro- - - £ -_ - c Wi _ -Rut
__-
- -
ammo u-o� (jam -
VwFn-- -
Tl
_oof--
Vl
m E
F--i
O omvsd3
Q - - _m3v
rl
3oE�
m
�j
3 a - -- �'- _- d
m� ¢oc_ -mod
_- mE
<d -aye F d --
ahm - m- FmFoa»m
w m
£0/9UZ "6P'9 [0...... mH9L9I ��"atd �"6 �a0 ^] ....6, mn im89L9I�"+=aro�a �:
ILOZ/SI/
a33va„_:E v339_
a€�33
Q33@ma„aa
_ v E v
a-
9 o a
9 0 a
v
� m

/®(
2
11
!! I !
`
\
\
\}
\\
To
\
s
_
�
-
�
LU
`
-`
k
`
- -
b-
g
\
_
7
\
§
\\\\\\\TF
�7TP
TP
TP
3
}In
�
`
��
§
�
2 _
, �
/-
§
-
-
}
- }
§-
°
�
}
-
«
LU
)\
z
: : a � � � � , ,:w :� ,:z:� , � :

(/})
\�\\
§
\((j})\
�
§
�
�
m
k
~
�
!
g
\&&
&
§°
,\
\)
)
�\
�)){
)\\
\
/\
+\
[\/
\
)�
/

EZ ni �t
Ol
W4
10 :�
w�
,,
5_________
— ,z
o
,,,
�,,,�, awa
;;
���,�
o <
I„�
5
57 g
11 oe
III
II
O
w
II
a
�z
g o
L�q
NW,-, Ho P
co/9z/z
'BP --H-089—\ ... 1-6-0— .... B-H m in-0-9-l"r
lzoVLd�l:l