20140866 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20140705

Ur &
Part S. Technical Approach
5.1. Project Goals and Objectives
FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP #16-0OS634 CU #USOSOWI
20140666
The Flea Hill Restoration Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits to the Flea Hill
Drainage as well as the Cape Fear River, which is just over one -half mile downstream from the project area. While
many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such as nutrient removal, sediment reduction, and
improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far - reaching effects, potentially extending downstream to the
Cape Fear River. As stated previously, the project is located within targeted local watershed 03030004 - 130010.
Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined below as project goals.
The 2001 Watershed Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin lists four goals for the
1. Protect and improve water quality throughout the Cape Fear River Basin by
and other non - source pollutants
2. Increase floodwater retention capabilities in the Cape Fear River Basin by fo
that increase storage capacity where floodwater retention capabilities are most
3. Implement restoration projects that improve habitat for aquatic plant and animal
4. Support local efforts to restore local watersheds in the Cape Fear River Basin
r
1,
r rat@oiS 4W*ts
The Flea Hill Restoration Project meets each of those goals. It will reduce nutrient and sediment inputs into the
Cape Fear River, increase floodwater retention, and provide a corridor for wildlife that connects to the Cape Fear
River. Thought the project is not located in a Cape Fear River Local Watershed Plan area, it will provide filtering
capacity for a local watershed.
The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Plan lists the goals for this cataloging unit (03030004), including
restoration and buffer protection in urbanizing areas, and preservation elsewhere. This project meets the latter goals
while allowing continued use of the property as a working farm. It will reduce nutrient and sediment inputs through
the project area.
Benefits Related to Water Quality
Nutrient removal
Restore riparian stream buffer - Currently, excess nutrients mostly in the form of nitrogen from
agricultural field runoff enter the project reaches via culverts without flowing through riparian
buffers. Fully functioning riparian buffers will be established and permanently protected to filter
runoff containing excess nutrients before entering the project reaches. Additionally, detention
basins will be constructed along the flow path to the restored channel to further filter and
denitrify farm runoff. In the case of the enhancement option (Option B), pools will be constructed
on the project channels at the culvert outlets to perform similar functions.
Sediment removal
Restore proper channel form — Streams with proper dimension, pattern, and profile will
efficiently transport sediment and allow for deposition on point bars and on the floodplain. In
addition, the design will prevent degradation by: decreasing stream slope and increasing stream
length /sinuosity, dissipating energy over proper riffle and pool sequences, and by dissipating
stream energy with overbank flooding for storms greater than bankfull.
Construct instream structures — Instream structures such as grade control log jams, single arm log
vanes, and log weirs will redirect shear stress from the near bank to the center of the channel
during runoff events thus reducing bank erosion. Based on preliminary site assessments, stream
bank erosion is a contributor of sediment and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) within the project
area.
Restore riparian stream buffer - All project reaches are lacking a mature, wide riparian buffer for
some portion of their length. As a result, some stream banks are eroding and introducing
sediment to the stream. A restored riparian buffer will increase root mass within stream banks,
Page 18

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP #16- OOS634 CU# OS0S0001
=-1 Page 19
thus decreasing bank erosion and sedimentation.
Stream bank bioengineering— Construction of geolifts, installation of live stakes, and other
bioengineering practices will re- establish a healthy root mass along the stream banks, thus
preventing erosion and excess sediment delivery to the stream.
Benefits Related to Ecological Processes
Improved
Restore proper channel form — Restored channel dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure
substrate and
adequate bed load and suspended sediment transport according to sediment supply, valley type
instream cover
and valley slope. Appropriate sediment transport will ensure riffle substrate is adequately
transported and excessive degradation or aegradation does not occur.
Construct instream structures — Construction of instream structures which are designed to
'
improve bedform diversity and trap detritus will improve instream cover and aquatic habitat.
Reduce water
Restore riparian stream buffer — A restored and protected riparian stream buffer will increase
temperature
„shading of the project stream reaches. The increased shade will decrease water temperatures.
Stream bank bioengineering — Bioengineering such as geolifts and stream bank live staking will
provide tree canopy and shading to the stream and reduce water temperatures.
Improve aquatic
Aquatic habit will be improved from each previously listed goal. If all goals are achieved, the
habitat
project will realize maximum aquatic habitat improvement and ecological uplift.
Improved
Riparian buffers and restored riparian wetlands will increase infiltration of precipitation into the
floodwater
local water table. In addition, the restored stream reaches will have increased access to their
retention
floodplains, which will be wider, allowing floodwater energy to dissipate over the floodplain,
which will increase floodwater retention time.
Restoration of
Riparian buffer planting and streambank bioengineering will improve terrestrial habitat adjacent
terrestrial habitat
to the project reaches and will provide connection to wildlife areas downstream of the project
site.
Improved
Restore riparian wetland vegetation — Areas where the riparian vegetation has been removed, is
aesthetics
being heavily grazed by livestock, or is otherwise limited, or of low quality due to lack of density
and /or presence of exotic species, will be replanted with native species vegetation. Removing
invasive plant species and planting native woody and herbaceous plants will greatly improve site
aesthetics.
Restore riparian stream buffer — Areas where the existing riparian buffer vegetation is limited, or
of low quality due to lack of density and /or presence of exotic species, will be replanted with
native species vegetation. Removing invasive plant species and planting native woody and
herbaceous plants will greatly improve site aesthetics.
Restore proper channel form — Restoring stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile will
decrease unsightly bank erosion and restore a more "natural" aesthetic appearance to project
reaches.
Improved wetland
Shallow Priority Level II stream restoration will restore wetland hydrology and active flows to
function
areas that have been historically manipulated (channelized and filled). Native species riparian
wetland vegetation will be re- established, as well. Baker is not seeking wetland mitigation credit
but the site soils are hydric and wetlands will be re- established as part of the restoration option
(Option A).
=-1 Page 19

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFr #16-005631 CU# 05050001
5.2. Project Description
reducing nutrient loading through filtration and denitrification.
these processes.
aker
The project is located in Cumberland
County, approximately three miles
west of the community of Wade. The
project site is located in the DENR
sub -basin 03 -06 -15 and the targeted
local watershed 03030004 - 130010 of
the Cape Fear River Basin. The project
will involve restoration of stream
functions along Flea Hill Ditch, which
is technically an unnamed tributary to
the Cape Fear River. The project reach
joins the Cape Fear River just over
one -half mile downstream from the
project area. The project reach drains to
a section of the Cape Fear River that is
classified as WS -IV (Index No. 18-
(23.5), from a point 8.2 miles upstream
of Carvers Creek to a point 0.5 miles
upstream of City of Fayetteville water
supply intake).
Baker first visited the Flea Hill site in
February, 2013. Each of the project
reaches have been heavily impacted from
historic land use practices, including
cattle farming, agriculture, and forestry
uses. Within the project area, 100
percent of the of the stream banks have
inadequate (less than 50 feet wide)
riparian buffers. Figures 6A and 6B show
the most recent aerial photography with
clearly narrow and/or absent riparian
buffers.
The primary water quality stressor that
would be addressed through the
implementation of this project is nutrient
loading from agricultural land adjacent to
the project area, as well as in the drainage
area. Abundant algal growth in the
existing stream channels provides visual
evidence that the stream receives high
nutrient loading. The lack of adequate
and quality buffer vegetation, past land
disturbances, and channel manipulation
present a significant opportunity for
water quality and ecosystem
improvements through the
implementation of this project by
The project will be designed in order to maximize
Page 20

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP #164OOS634 CU# OS050001
Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Program and the US Fish and Wildlife databases, there are six federally -
listed endangered species known to occur in Cumberland County, including the red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), Saint Francis' satyr butterfly (Neonymphia mitchelli francisi), American chaffseed (Schwalbea
americana), Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii), Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), and rough - leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia).
The project site is not likely to be utilized by anadromous fish species. The Cape Fear River is less than one mile
downstream; however, a steep bluff separates the river from the terrace on which Flea Hill Ditch flows. The
elevation change from the river to the terrace is approximately 40 vertical feet in 200 horizontal feet.
The project is situated in a rural area of northeastern Cumberland County (project watershed percent impervious
cover less than 10 percent). The land use within the project watershed is comprised of a mix of forested and active
agricultural lands (mostly cropland), along with low density residential and transportation uses. The most prevalent
land use is active agricultural, followed by forested land, with a very small percentage of residential/transportation
land use. Figures 2 and 4 show the topography in the project area. Soils information for the project is shown in
Figure 3. The proposed conservation easement area encompasses up to 15 acres of land, depending on the selected
option, that includes agricultural fields, narrow forested buffer lands, and a farm road (Figures 6A and 6B).
The streams at the project site were separated into three project reaches (R1, R2, and R3), based on drainage area
breaks at confluences (Figures 6A and 613). The drainage area for each reach is shown in Table 1.
Project Reaches R1 and R2 are shown as solid blue -line streams on the USGS topographic quadrangle map (Figure
2). Project Reach R3 is not shown as a blue -line stream, dashed or solid. The presence of historic valleys for each of
the project stream systems can be seen from LiDAR imagery for the site (Figure 4), and are obvious during field
investigations.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in March 2013. These evaluations were based
on North Carolina Division of Water Resources's ( NCDWR) Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v 4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 20 10) stream assessment protocols.
Table 1 below presents the results of the field evaluations along with the assessed status of each project reach.
Copies of the supporting field forms may be found in Appendix 1.
Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent /Perennial Status.
Project
NCDWQ Stream
Watershed Drainage
Reach
Existing Project
Classification Form
Area (acres) z
Stream Status Based on
Designation
Reach Length (ft)
Score 1
Field Analyses
R1
480
39.25
648
Perennial
R2
1,720 -2,260
39.25
604
Perennial
R3
490 -1,030
25.75
34
Intermittent
Note 1: NCDWR Stream Classification forms are provided in Appendix 1 for the streams listed above.
Note 2: Watershed drainage area at the downstream end of each reach is approximated based on topographic and
LiDAR information.
The project site consists of all sand bed streams with essentially no gravel or coarser material as part of the
substrate. Isolated locations have a harder clay bottom and the streambanks most often consist of loamy material.
Bed materials were sampled in middle Reach R1 to a depth of six inches and sand was predominant (see Figure 7
for this and other pre- monitoring locations). Visual inspections were done throughout Reaches R1, R2, and R3 and
Z� Page 21

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # 164*SFAM CU# OSOSO001
only sand and finer material was
observed on the channel surface.
The project watershed is largely
undeveloped. Future development is
expected to be low considering there are
more road - accessible locations in the
surrounding area. Consequently, future
sediment supply rates from channel
erosion is expected to be remain similar
to current rates. However, a detailed
sediment transport analysis will be
conducted to confirm that if sediment is
being supplied to the project reaches it
will be adequately transported, thus
preventing aggradation. As part of the
formal design process, Baker will assess
the hydraulic forces to ensure that the
channel bed will not aggrade nor
degrade. Bed degradation (incision) can
occur without sediment supply if the
design has excessive shear stress or
stream power. Consequently, grade
control log jams will be incorporated in the design with larger rock sizes or woody debris that will not move during
storm events, since bed material supply is not sufficient to build riffles naturally. The grade control log jams will
also raise dissolve oxygen, and provide aquatic habitat and assurance that the restored channel will not degrade over
time. Further discussion of sediment transport analysis is provided in Section 5.3.
Baker conducted field studies to evaluate and document the existing conditions of the site as well as each project
stream reach. These studies included pedestrian surveys, photographic documentation, GPS /total station cross
section surveys, GPS surveys of pertinent site features, completing the field -work dependant sections of the
NCEEP's Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria — Rating Form for RFP #16- 005630 and completing all of the
mapping and calculation of associated statistics in accordance with NCEEP's Guidance for the Submission of
Mapping and Associated Statistics for Full Delivery RFPs. Copies of the completed described rating forms are
included in Appendix 3. The results of the existing condition cross section surveys were used to conduct
geomorphic (Rosgen) stream classification for the project stream reaches. The results of the existing condition cross
sections surveys are summarized in Table 2. The results of the pedestrian surveys and GPS surveys of pertinent site
features were used in conjunction with available GIS files to develop mapping as required by the RFP.
This mapping includes time -series historical aerial photography, recent aerial photography with topography and
proposed mitigation features /measures, channel stability mapping, site floodplain alteration and water quality
stressors, watershed planning contextual mapping, and mapping of adjacent and proximal planning elements are
provided as required by the RFP. Additional mapping and figures are provided herein to better convey the value and
benefit of the proposed project.
Page 22

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP #16 -WS634 CU# 05050001
Table 2. Summary of Existing Condition Cross section Survey Data.
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information.
Note 2: Cross section locations are shown in Figure Z
Reach R1 is the downstream end of the main Flea Hill Ditch and extends from the confluence of Reaches R2 and
R3 downstream to the end of the project. Reach R1 has a valley length of approximately 480 feet and a drainage
area of 648 acres. Reach R1 has an essentially flat valley gradient and is contained within a ditch that is
approximately 22 feet wide and 6.5 feet deep. The bank height ratio was measured at 3.4 and erosion is present on
approximately 87 percent of the channel length (i.e., either streambank) in the form of surficial scour. Reach R1 has
been channelized so that flood flows are contained entirely within the channel. The 1950 historical aerial photo
shows Reach R1 in its current location, so this channelization cannot be confirmed with this documentation (Figure
8 series). However, relic spoil is present in the form of the elevated farm road along the right bank, thus providing
physical evidence of the described channelization. Floodplain alteration on Reach R1 is clearly evident.
Reach R1 has mature trees interspersed along the right bank and these will be protected or incorporated as part of
the design. The lower 350 feet, or 70 percent, of the left bank of Reach R1 has been cleared and actively
maintained. The upper 30 percent has a riparian buffer that is approximately 10 feet wide. Two culverts run beneath
the farm road along the right bank of Reach R1 delivering concentrated excess nutrients, mostly in the form of
nitrogen, from agricultural field runoff. The culverts receive all runoff from the adjacent row crop field because the
road acts as a berm, causing runoff to bypass treatment by the 10 -foot buffer along the right bank; thus, agricultural
runoff is the primary water quality stressor.
Based on existing conditions, Reach R1 does not clearly fit one Rosgen stream type and consistent bankfull
indicators are not evident. The channelized ditch is deep and wide enough so that the entrenchment ratio is 1.7. The
bank height ratio, however, is 3.4, which indicates that the channel is severely incised. These ratios typically
indicate an incised `Bc" channel, but the width/depth ratio is 7.5, which is uncharacteristic of B channels. Reach R1
might also be considered an entrenched "E" channel.
Reach R2 is immediately upstream from Reach R1 on the main Flea Hill Ditch. It has a drainage area of
approximately 604 acres and a length of 1,720 feet (Option A) to 2,260 feet (Option B). The existing sinuosity is
near 1.0. The valley slope past the left bank remains relatively flat, but has more gradient than that along Reach R1.
The ditch dimensions in Reach R2 are approximately 28 feet wide and 4.2 feet deep (i.e., depth at the low bank).
The bank height ratio was measured at 3.9 and erosion is present on approximately 12 percent of the reach in the
form of surficial scour. Streambank stability is generally good on Reach R2, but there is very minimal effective
stream buffer and Foodplain access.
cZ� Page 23
Watershed
Existing
Project Reach
Entrenchment
Width /Depth
Typical Bank
Channel Type
Designation
Drainage 1
Area (acres)
Ratio
Ratio
Height Ratio
( Rosgen
Classification)
Ri
648
1.7
7.5
3.4
Bc (incised) or
E (entrenched)
R2
604
1.4
14.4
3.9
F
R3
34
2.0
3.3
5.6
Bc (incised) or
E (entrenched)
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information.
Note 2: Cross section locations are shown in Figure Z
Reach R1 is the downstream end of the main Flea Hill Ditch and extends from the confluence of Reaches R2 and
R3 downstream to the end of the project. Reach R1 has a valley length of approximately 480 feet and a drainage
area of 648 acres. Reach R1 has an essentially flat valley gradient and is contained within a ditch that is
approximately 22 feet wide and 6.5 feet deep. The bank height ratio was measured at 3.4 and erosion is present on
approximately 87 percent of the channel length (i.e., either streambank) in the form of surficial scour. Reach R1 has
been channelized so that flood flows are contained entirely within the channel. The 1950 historical aerial photo
shows Reach R1 in its current location, so this channelization cannot be confirmed with this documentation (Figure
8 series). However, relic spoil is present in the form of the elevated farm road along the right bank, thus providing
physical evidence of the described channelization. Floodplain alteration on Reach R1 is clearly evident.
Reach R1 has mature trees interspersed along the right bank and these will be protected or incorporated as part of
the design. The lower 350 feet, or 70 percent, of the left bank of Reach R1 has been cleared and actively
maintained. The upper 30 percent has a riparian buffer that is approximately 10 feet wide. Two culverts run beneath
the farm road along the right bank of Reach R1 delivering concentrated excess nutrients, mostly in the form of
nitrogen, from agricultural field runoff. The culverts receive all runoff from the adjacent row crop field because the
road acts as a berm, causing runoff to bypass treatment by the 10 -foot buffer along the right bank; thus, agricultural
runoff is the primary water quality stressor.
Based on existing conditions, Reach R1 does not clearly fit one Rosgen stream type and consistent bankfull
indicators are not evident. The channelized ditch is deep and wide enough so that the entrenchment ratio is 1.7. The
bank height ratio, however, is 3.4, which indicates that the channel is severely incised. These ratios typically
indicate an incised `Bc" channel, but the width/depth ratio is 7.5, which is uncharacteristic of B channels. Reach R1
might also be considered an entrenched "E" channel.
Reach R2 is immediately upstream from Reach R1 on the main Flea Hill Ditch. It has a drainage area of
approximately 604 acres and a length of 1,720 feet (Option A) to 2,260 feet (Option B). The existing sinuosity is
near 1.0. The valley slope past the left bank remains relatively flat, but has more gradient than that along Reach R1.
The ditch dimensions in Reach R2 are approximately 28 feet wide and 4.2 feet deep (i.e., depth at the low bank).
The bank height ratio was measured at 3.9 and erosion is present on approximately 12 percent of the reach in the
form of surficial scour. Streambank stability is generally good on Reach R2, but there is very minimal effective
stream buffer and Foodplain access.
cZ� Page 23

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP #lb -QWx34 Cu# 0SWM1
The right bank is 4 feet higher than the
left bank because of the farm road
constructed along it, presumably using
spoil from the ditch. Most of Reach R2
has a buffer along the ditch banks of 10
to 15 feet in width, consisting of smaller
trees. The right bank along lower Reach
R2 is mostly cleared. However, any
treatment provided by the right buffer is
essentially nullified by culverts passing
through the buffer as described in the
Reach R1 existing conditions.
Consequently, agricultural runoff is the
primary water quality stressor.
Additionally, floodplain alteration on
Reach R2 is clearly evident.
Based on existing conditions, Reach R2
is classified as an incised "F" Rosgen
stream type. The channelized ditch has
an entrenchment ratio of 1.4 and the
width/depth ratio is 14.4. The bank
height ratio is 3.9, which indicates that
the channel is severely incised.
Reach R3 is a headwater stream that originates along Daughtry Road, near its intersection with Swamp Road, and
flows northeast to the confluence with Flea Hill Ditch. The drainage area for Reach R3 is estimated to be 34 acres.
Judging from historical aerial photos, Flea Hill Ditch once flowed through the existing R3 channel (see Figure 8
series), but between 1972 and 1981 the existing Flea Hill Ditch was dug and the former path (Reach R3) became a
headwater tributary. Reach R3 has a length of 490 feet (Option A) to 1,030 feet (Option B). The existing sinuosity is
essentially 1.0. The valley beyond the right bank lies between Reaches R3 and R2. The ditch dimensions of Reach
R3 are approximately 15 feet wide and 6.9 feet deep (i.e., depth at the low bank). The bank height ratio is estimated
at 5.6 and erosion in the form of surficial scour is present on approximately 52 percent of either streambank in
Option A (i.e, lower Reach R3 only). Upper Reach R3, is also deeply incised but the channel erosion is limited to
approximately 5 percent of either streambank in the form of surficial scour. However, there is no stream buffer or
floodplain access on upper Reach R3.
The lower 490 feet of Reach R3 has a narrow buffer along the ditch banks of 5 to 10 feet in width, consisting of
smaller trees. However, there are considerable gaps of more than 50 feet with no trees on the left bank. The upper
540 feet of Reach R3 in the project area is kept completely mowed and cleared of woody vegetation. Runoff from
agricultural fields flows readily into Reach R3; as such, agricultural runoff is the primary water quality stressor.
Floodplain alteration on Reach R3 is evident by the size and shape of the channel. Historical aerial photographs
prior to 1980 show Reach R3 once was the main Flea Hill Ditch. Also, the existing channel has a very uniform
trapezoidal dimension typical of a maintained ditch.
Based on existing conditions, Reach R3 is classified as an incised "Bc" or an entrenched "E" Rosgen stream type.
The channelized ditch has an entrenchment ratio of 2.0 and a width/depth ratio of 3.3. The bank height ratio is 5.6,
which indicates that the channel is severely incised.
As shown in Figure 3, soils around project reaches are predominantly Roanoke loam (Ro). The county soil survey
describes Roanoke soils as nearly level, poorly drained soils along drainageways of terraces, as is the case at the
project site, which is a former terrace of the Cape Fear River. Roanoke soils have clay and clay loam from 8 to 48
Page 24

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # 16 -0051W CU# 05030001
inches depth and loamy sand below that. Permeability is slow and the seasonal high water table is at or near the
surface; however, at the Flea Hill Restoration Project Site, the open drainage system lowers the water table. There is
a small area of Wickham fine sandy loam (WmB) around the middle of Reach R2. Wickham is a well drained soil
on slightly convex ridges of stream terraces along the Cape Fear River. Individual areas of this unit are generally
long and narrow in shape and parallel to the stream channel. This is the case at the Flea Hill site. Permeability is
moderate and available water capacity is medium.
As stated above, there is currently six federally listed Threatened species known to have occurred in Cumberland
County. This project is not anticipated to have a negative impact on these species, though a survey of the site will
be conducted to determine if any of the endangered species are present prior to submission of the Categorical
Exclusion documentation.
This project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historical resources. There is no site listed
on the National Register of Historic Places within three miles of the project site. On -site investigations and
discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential resources of this type on the property. If the project is
awarded, Baker will contact the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to ensure that there will
be no cultural or historical resource impacts.
A public water supply intake for the City of Fayetteville is located 10 miles downstream from the project reach on
the Cape Fear River. The project tributary drains to a section of the Cape Fear River that is classified as WS -IV.
The nearest airports to the project site are Fayetteville Regional Airport (approximately 13.3 miles south of the
project site) and Harnett Regional Jetport (approximately 14.5 miles to the north).
None of the proposed project reaches are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. All project reaches, however,
are located within the FEMA 500 -year floodplain, according to a recent query through the North Carolina Flood
Mapping Program. While it is not anticipated that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or
documentation, Baker will coordinate with the local floodplain administrator and prepare the required
documentation to obtain approval for the project from FEMA.
5.3. Project Development
The Flea Hill Restoration Project will
involve the restoration and/or
enhancement of three stream reaches, as
well as restoration and protection of their
associated riparian buffers. As a result of
the proposed restoration and
enhancement activities, approximately
between 2,900 and 3,765 LF of stream
will be restored or enhanced, and
between 9.7 and 15.4 acres of riparian
buffer will be restored or enhanced
(Figures 6A and 6B). The stream and
riparian buffer systems to be restored
have been impacted by channelization
and ditching, loss of riparian buffers, and
other past land use disturbances (see
Photos 1 through 4 and 6).
Baker will compile and assess watershed
information including: drainage areas,
historical land uses and development
trends, geologic setting, soil types, and
terrestrial plant communities. Project
Z� Page 25

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFr #164M634 CU# 05050001
reach designs will use appropriate field investigations and regional curves to verify proposed bankfull channel
dimensions. Baker will use the results of the existing condition analyses along with reference reach data from
previous projects to develop a proposed stream restoration design for the project reaches. This design will follow
Rosgen's "step- wise" methodology in which dimensionless ratios from the reference reach and past project
experience are used to restore stable dimension, pattern, and profile, as well as proper bankfull sediment - transport
competency for the proposed reach. The stream channel design will include analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics,
shear stress, sediment transport, and appropriate channel dimensions. The hydrology and hydraulics will include
analysis of the bankfull discharge, and comparison of the reference reach ratios to design ratios from past projects
under similar geomorphic settings which have proved successful. The bankfull discharge will be used to develop
the proposed channel dimensions and to monitor performance standards. Sediment transport calculations and
stream power analyses will be performed for the existing channels and the design channels for comparison.
Specifically, Baker will perform representative pebble counts and will collect bulk sediment samples in order to
evaluate bed material characteristics and sediment transport. The bed material will be sieved and a grain size
distribution developed. The results of the substrate analyses will be used to classify the streams and to complete
shear stress, sediment transport, and stability analyses. Baker will use the critical shear stress and boundary shear
stress analysis approaches to verify that the channels as designed will not aggrade nor degrade. Sediment transport
calculations will be performed for the existing channels and the design channels for comparison.
Instream structures will be constructed only from materials naturally found at the project site such as hardwood logs
and native brush. Rock materials will be used in limited instances, such as part of the step pools on slope drains, if
necessary. In order to ensure sustainability of those structures, Baker will only use methods of structure design and
construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same geographic setting.
Baker has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile areas.
Figures 6a and 6b show the site access and open areas that are available for use during construction. These same
site access points and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction. Where
practicable, impacts to existing native riparian buffer vegetation will be minimized. The use of native riparian
buffer transplants will be maximized as well. Any potential impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided during
construction, with only temporary, minimal impacts expected as necessary for maximized permanent stream and
wetland functional uplift. None (0) percent of the project is affected by any physical constraints or barriers
since there are no stream crossings as part of the project.
Reach R1 begins at the confluence of Reaches R2 and R3 and flows for approximately 500 feet before reaching a
large culvert beneath an existing farm access road. Reach R2 extends upstream along the main Flea Hill Ditch from
its confluence with Reach R3. There are two general options for improving Reaches R1 and R2: shallow Priority
Level II restoration (Option A) or Enhancement Level I (Option B). A combination of restoration and enhancement
on Reach R2 is possible through Option A because additional easement area is available (see note on Option A
Flexibility on following page). Reach R3 is only proposed for Enhancement Level I under both Options A and
Option B. The approaches to each are described below.
Reaches R1 and R2 — Restoration (Option A)
Shallow Priority Level II restoration is a viable approach for the treatment of Reaches R1 and R2. Priority Level I
restoration is not feasible, however, because an existing 48 -inch diameter corrugated metal culvert is located
approximately 1,200 feet upstream of where the proposed restoration channel begins and flows beneath Swamp
Road at an invert elevation of 95.8 feet. The elevation of the existing floodplain beyond the left bank of Reach R2 is
98.0 feet where the proposed restoration channel will begin. The proposed thalweg elevation of the restoration
channel can begin at an elevation as high as 95.0 feet, while still avoiding unacceptable backwater conditions at the
Swamp Road culvert. With proposed top of bank elevations at approximately 96.6 feet and a width -to -depth ratio of
9, the proposed top of bank would be less than 1.5 feet below the existing floodplain for a very shallow Priority
Level II approach. From this initial elevation, the proposed channel would gradually drop 3.5 feet to the
downstream culvert invert (bottom of Reach R1) for an average channel slope of 0.0015 ft/ft, assuming a minimum
sinuosity of 1.1.
Page 26

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # 16 -0056U CU# QSOS0001
The existing channel will be filled along its entire length using suitable fill material excavated from construction of
Reaches R2 and R3. The proposed design would specify that the terrace beyond the left bank will be graded into the
existing channel to develop an active floodplain. The floodplain will be at least 35 feet wide, which would produce
an entrenchment ratio of greater than 3.5. Additionally, vernal pools will be incorporated along the floodplain,
particularly where concentrated drainage from beyond the right bank enters via existing culverts, to provide habitat
diversity, improved detention of runoff, and improved conditions for denitrification. The latter may be enhanced by
incorporating littoral shelves around the vernal pools in contact with the water table elevation. Native wetland plant
species will be established in these pools and along the surrounding shelves to promote nutrient uptake, oxygenated
water, and denitrification. Incorporation of ramial wood chips from harvested trees along the left bank will further
promote growth of soil fungi (i.e., beneficial mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungi). The ramial wood chips will be
placed on the active floodplain to a depth greater than 3 inches.
Ramial wood chips consist of the twigs and branches of trees and woody shrubs (preferably deciduous) including
small limbs up to 7 cm (2v4 in.) in diameter. This material is processed into small pieces by chipping; and the
resulting product has a relatively high ratio of cambium to cellulose compared to other chipped wood products.
Thus, it is higher in nutrients and is an effective promoter of the growth of soil fungi and of soil - building in general.
The goal is to develop an airy and spongy soil that holds an ideal amount of water and resists evaporation and
compaction, while containing a long -term source of fertility. Soil fungi greatly enhance pollutant removal through
improvement in soil filtration capacity and production of extracellular enzymes that breakdown pollutants,
including nitrogen. Additionally, vegetation survival and vitality is increased via root interaction with mycorrhizal
fungi.
The project is located on an alluvial stream terrace adjacent to the Cape Fear River. Headwater streams of this type
within the Coastal Plain physiographic region are typically characterized by relatively low slope, low sinuosity, and
a relatively low width -depth ratio. These conditions apply where stable riparian forest vegetation, but not beavers, is
present. The goal of the project is to restore the reference stream characteristics evident on this former river
floodplain. Consequently, headwater Rosgen "E" stream type channels will be used for reference reaches. Examples
of this are shown in Photos 5 and 7. The stream in Photo 7 is on the project property and drains to the middle of
Reach R2.
It is expected that the proposed restoration channel will be a Rosgen "E" steam type, characteristic of headwater
coastal plain streams. The term `headwater' in this case refers to a lower sinuosity channel (e.g., less than 1.2),
which will be helpful for maintaining a channel slope of at least 0.0015 ft/ft. Using an appropriate width -to -depth
ratio (e.g., 9), along with lower meander geometry and steeper riffles, will help prevent the channel from becoming
braided.
The proposed channel slope of 0.0015 ft/ft lessens the need for grade control structures because slopes in this range
have proven to be at very low risk for incision. Wood structures, such as log vanes and weirs, however, will be
incorporated to provide habitat and bedform diversity. Grade control log jams, developed and successfully
employed by Baker for similar stream restoration projects, will also be utilized to create natural riffle features in the
Coastal Plain setting. Additionally, root wads, brush toes, and log rollers will be incorporated for step -pool
formation, bank stability, and habitat diversity.
An added benefit provided by the restoration option will be removal of all culverts draining to the project reach
and replacing those with slope drains and step pools, as needed to maintain slope stability and promote infiltration.
Where the slope drain empties onto the created floodplain, vernal pools will detain the runoff as described above.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along all of Reaches RI and R2. In fact, extra
property was secured through the easement option, so the riparian buffer will average approximately 100 feet
beyond each bank of Reach Rl. No stream crossings or other breaks in the easement are proposed along
Reaches R1 and R2. Reaches R1 and R2 have some mature trees along the right bank and these will be saved as part
of the project restoration design.
Page 27

W
FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # 16- 005634 CU# 05050001
Option A Approach Flexibility: One additional note regarding the proposed mitigation under Option A is that
portions of Reach R2 could be changed from restoration to enhancement if NCEEP or the IRT prefers such an
approach. Additional easement area is available to accommodate such alterations, as shown in Figure 6A. Also, the
design sinuosity and belt width can be increased on the restoration sections to ensure that the requested 2,500 SMUs
are still met. The potential easement area is wide enough throughout the length of Reaches RI and R2 to allow for
greater belt width and higher sinuosity. The assumed sinuosity is initially 1.1, so it is reasonable to increase
sinuosity to 1.2 or slightly higher. Furthermore, additional easement area is available on upper Reach R3 to provide
additional enhancement length if still more credit is needed. As with the original Option A, a resulting 2,500
SMUs are proposed for contract and the same cost per SMU apply if the reviewers choose to include more
enhancement and less restoration on Reach R2.
Reaches R1 and R2 — Enhancement Level I (Option B)
Option B provides an opportunity to
employ an Enhancement Level I approach
for Reaches RI and R2. This
enhancement approach focuses on leaving
Reaches R1 and R2 in their current
locations, while restoring riparian buffer
and stream functions. Specific
enhancements proposed for
implementation under this approach
include:
Relocating the existing berm and
farm road along the right bank of
Reaches R 1 and R2 further to the
east, out of the floodplain;
• Removing as much of the upper right
bank as possible through sloping and
grading without harming the existing
trees at its base. This would maintain
the lower bank stability, yet allow
flooding at higher streamflows;
• Sloping, matting, and planting
streambanks that currently lack
woody vegetation;
• Removing the existing culverts that
drain directly to Flea Hill Ditch from the agricultural fields to the east replacing those with slope drains and step
pools, as needed, to maintain slope stability and to restore and improve infiltration;
Creating more natural pools in the improved stream channels to include littoral shelves where the slope drains
empty into Reaches R1 and R2;
Installing instream structures, such as toe wood and grade control log jams, to narrow the channel, improve
instream habitat, and to promote appropriate sediment transport along the project reaches;
Restoring and improving function of the riparian buffers to greater than 50 feet in width;
Stream pattern and floodplain wetting would not be achieved with the described enhancement approach for Reaches
R1 and R2, although this approach would save the existing trees along the stream banks for the majority of the reach
lengths. Additionally, root wads, brush toes, and log rollers will be incorporated for step -pool formation, bank
stability, and habitat diversity.
Riparian buffers of approximately 70 feet in width will be restored and protected along all of Reaches R1. The
average buffer width on Reach R2 under the enhancement scenario will be at least 60 feet. No stream crossings or
other breaks in the easement are proposed along Reaches R1 and R2.
Page 28

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # I&aQS&U CU# 05050001
Reach R3 — Enhancement I
Reach R3 is a headwater tributary to the main Flea Hill Ditch. As historical aerial photos show (see Figures 8A -8E),
the main Flea Hill Ditch once flowed through Reach R3. At present, however, Reach R3 is an intermittent channel.
The approach to Reach R3 will involve restoration activities, but only Level I Enhancement credit is being proposed
for Reach R3 under Option A and Option B. NCEEP has expressed reservations about awarding restoration credit
on intermittent reaches. Therefore, the proposed design for this approach to Reach R3 will specify that soil material
along both sides of Reach R3 be graded into the existing channel to extend and improve the active floodplain
connection along both sides of the entire reach. The result will essentially be Priority Level II restoration.
A small Rosgen `E' stream type single - thread channel with a width -to -depth ratio of 9 or greater will be
implemented beginning at the existing channel grade. If connecting to a restored Reach R2 (Option A), Reach R3
will rise in elevation along the reach to later connect with elevated Reaches R2 and R1. Baker is using the valley
length for determining the number of stream mitigation units (SMUs) to be conservative and avoid any concerns
regarding possible credit shortfall.
To improve water quality, a series of pools surrounded by littoral shelves will be constructed along the restored
floodplain of Reach R3. The littoral shelves will promote denitrification and nutrient uptake by vegetation. As
described above, ramial wood chips can be incorporated on the floodplain benches along the channel to provide
further nutrient processing.
Additionally, root wads, brush toes, and log rollers will be incorporated to promote bank stability and habitat
diversity.
The conservation easement width along Reach R3 will be at least 140 feet, so riparian buffers in excess of 65 feet
on each bank will be restored and protected. No stream crossings or other breaks in the easement are proposed
along Reach R3.
Conservation Easement Boundary Marking
Photo 7. Reference quality stream on the project property. This reach
may be surveyed to serve as a nearby reference reach for the Flea Hill
channel.
aker
Immediately following site construction
and planting, the conservation easement
boundaries will be permanently marked
and posted. All boundary marking,
posting and signage will be in
accordance with the applicable NCEEP,
SPO and State of North Carolina
standards.
Restoration of Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet
from the top of banks will be restored
along all proposed stream restoration and
enhancement reaches, as previously
discussed. The proposed vegetative
plant selection for stream and wetland
buffer areas will incorporate native
species that follow those suggested by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) and
tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note
VN- RS -4.1 (1997). The natural
vegetation community will include the
appropriate strata (canopy, understory,
Page 29

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # I6- 001634 CU# OSONW I
shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate reference community. Within the four different strata,
especially for the canopy, a variety of species will be planted to create an appropriate successional planting strategy
as shown in Table 3.
Additionally, moderately- tolerant species are able to survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood - tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated
or flooded for long indefinite periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Tree species planted across the
stream banks, wetland, floodplain, and upland areas will include a mixture of appropriate native species for the local
piedmont region and based on wetness conditions. Planting will be done at a density to achieve the vegetative
success criteria outlined in Part 5.7.
Table 3. Summary Information for Natural Vegetation Community.
Botanical Name
Common Name
Strata
Distribution
Wetland
Tolerance
Acerrubrum
Red maple
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
FAC
Liquidambarstyracifluo
Sweet gum
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
FAC
Nyssc biflora
Swamp tupelo
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
OBL
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
FACW -
Quercus lyrato
Overcup oak
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
OBL
Clethro alnifolia
Sweet pepperbush
Understory
Riparian Buffer
FACW
ltea virginica
Sweetspire
Understory
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Magnolia virginiana
Sweet bay magnolia
Understory
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Halesia caroliniana
Silverbell
Understory
Riparian Buffer
FAC
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACW+
Alnus serrulata
Hazel alder
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Salixsericeo
Silky Willow
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer
OBL
Voccineum corymbosum
Highbush blueberry
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Carex luputina
Hop sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland /Littoral Shelf
OBL
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland /Littoral Shelf
FACW
Panicum virgotum
Switchgrass
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACW+
Sorghostrum nutans
Indiangrass
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACU
luncus effuses
Soft stem rush
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland /Littoral Shelf
FACW+
Sagittaric latifolio
Arrow arum
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland /Littoral Shelf
OBL
Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy bluestem
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Hibiscus moscheutos
Swamp hibiscus
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
OBL
Baker and Backwater Environmental have a successional planting strategy which includes early successional, as
well as climax species. The selections will be interspersed throughout the project area so that the early successional
species may give way to climax species in all areas. The early successional species include sweet gum and red
maple. The climax species include cherrybark oak, swamp chestnut oak, and overcup oak.
As part of the proposed project, invasive exotic vegetation such as Chinese privet, will be treated both to control its
presence and reduce its spread within the proposed conservation easement areas. These efforts will aid in the
establishment of native riparian species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Along the project stream reaches, 100 percent of the stream banks currently have inadequate (less than 50 feet wide)
riparian buffers. The proposed buffer areas for the project site either contain existing trees or will have trees
Page 30

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
REP #16- OOS634 CU# OSORMI
replanted to appropriate densities (i.e. the riparian buffers will be restored and permanently protected). The leaves
that these trees will drop every fall further increase the standing litter on the ground, reducing runoff and increasing
the previously noted water quality benefits.
Nutrient Removal Estimation
The NCEEP has an ongoing interest in reducing nutrient inputs and quantifying sediment reductions that can be
attributed to projects. As part of performing the field assessments and monitoring protocols for this project, Baker
will develop an initial estimation of the total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) loads (pounds /year) being
exported from the site in order to demonstrate the nutrient removal function of the project.
Baker estimates that at least 40% of the total nitrogen load and 45% of the total phosphorus load within the project
area will be removed. The NCDWR (formerly DWQ) BMP Manual estimates that restored riparian buffers remove
30% TN and 35% TP. If this is true for the project area, an additional 10% removal for each may be expected
through a combination of the stormwater basins along Reaches R1 and R2 and stabilized streambanks.
Functional Uplift
In their current conditions, the majority of the project reaches and riparian buffer areas are degraded as a result of
past channelization, forest clearing, and agricultural practices. The maximum possible functional uplift will be
achieved by:
• Providing stable channel forms to reduce bank erosion and sedimentation.
• Removing existing berm and drain features and re- routing of artificially concentrated nutrient laden agricultural
runoff through restored riparian buffers and other features such as vernal and littoral pools.
• Reducing nutrient runoff carried by the streams through implementation of vernal and littoral pools along the
flow paths, and enhancements associated with these to promote denitrification and nutrient uptake.
• Restoring and enhancing riparian wetland and riparian buffer vegetation to promote native species, appropriate
densities, filtering flood flows and runoff, and improve riparian habitat value.
• Providing improved floodplain connection to dissipate flood energies, filter storm flows, and promote sediment
and debris deposition on the floodplain and banks.
• Restoring diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that area appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting.
• Restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect to existing wooded areas and natural communities at the
periphery of the project site & Restoring, enhancing, and protecting existing saturated areas.
5.4. Proposed Mitigation
This technical proposal describes the proposed stream mitigation approaches for the Flea Hill Restoration Project.
The work will include approximately 2,922 to 3,764 LF of stream restoration and /or enhancement (Figure 6). This
approach will yield 2,500 stream mitigation units (SMUs). Any additional credits developed within the conservation
easement areas will be available to NCEEP as part of the proposed project. The proposed amounts of stream and
wetland mitigation are presented in Tables 5 and 6 below.
Table S. Proposed Stream Mitigation Summary for the Flea Hill Restoration Project — Option A
Project
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Amounts
Ratio
SMUs
R3
Stream Restoration
530 LF
1:1
530
R2
Stream Restoration
1,900 LF
1:1
1,900
R3
Stream Enhancement Level 1
492 LF
1.5:1
328
Totals
2,922 LF
2,758 SMUs*
*Notes: 2,500 SMUs are proposed for contract, leaving some room for uncertainty at proposal stage.
See Option A Approach Flexibility box on page 28.
Page 31

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # l6 0564 CU# OSOS0001
Table 6. Proposed Stream Mitigation Summary for the Flea Hill Restoration Project — Option B
Project
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Amounts
Ratio
SMUs
R1
Stream Enhancement Level 1
478
1.5:1
319
R2
Stream Enhancement Level 1
2,258
1.5:1
1,505
R3
Stream Enhancement Level 1
1,028
1.5:1
685
Totals
3,764
2,509 SMUs•
*Note: 2,500 SMUs are proposed for contract leaving some room for uncertainty at proposal stage.
5.5. Current Ownership and Long Term Protection
Baker proposes to transfer a conservation easement to the State of North Carolina for the Flea Hill Restoration
Project and for that conveyance to serve as the method that will be used for Long Term Protection of the mitigation
site. Baker has entered into an Option Agreement for the acquisition of a conservation easement with the
landowners of the Flea Hill Restoration Project Site (Table 7). The Option Agreement has been recorded at the
Cumberland County Register of Deeds and is valid for a period of greater than or equal to one (1) year from the
closing date of this RFP. A copy of the Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in Appendix 2, and is
summarized in Table 7 below. A copy of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Landowner
Authorization Form, signed by the project landowners is included in Appendix 4. The Option Agreement allows
Baker to proceed with the project and to restrict the land use in perpetuity through a permanent conservation
easement. Baker is prepared to close on the project area after contract award by NCEEP and will provide, at any
time, copies of the deeds of easement, titles, surveys, and any maps.
Table 7. Summary Information of Current Land Ownership for the Project Site.
Owners of Record
Agreement Date
Duration of Agreement
Ola Daughtry (deceased)
Heirs are Linda McLaurin, Sandra Tew, and Joan
January 17, 2014
24 months
Daughtry
Note: A copy of the Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in Appendix 2.
The property owners of the Flea Hill Restoration Project are Linda McLaurin, Sandra Tew, and Joan Daughtry. The
landowner listed on Cumberland County records is Ola Daughtry, who was their mother. Ola Daughtry died in
January 2012 and her three daughters are the current owners of the land. The land is leased to a local farmer who
actively grows a rotation of crops on the land. The landowners and farmer have determined intentions for the land
outside of the proposed easement to be used for agriculture for the foreseeable future. However, all three of the
landowners are excited about the project, and have a strong desire to be good stewards of the land and protect the
stream project in perpetuity.
5.6. Project Phasing
Baker has extensive stream restoration experience, and understands the most recent mitigation requirements and
standards. Accordingly, Baker is in a strong position to implement this project in a timely and effective manner.
Upon contract execution for restoration of the Flea Hill Restoration Project Site, Baker will implement the project
schedule below.
Page 32

hLF.A 1111.1, RFS "I'0RA'L10A' PR0J1,C.I_
It P # 16 -INI36 34 (U :? IIi0i(XW)I
5.7. Success Criteria
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream and wetland mitigation projects (Permitee Responsible
and both NCDOT and NCEEP full - delivery projects). The stream and wetland restoration design and applied
success criteria for the project site will follow approved success criteria presented in the mitigation plan, developed
in compliance with the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template, Version 2.2, adopted June 8, 2012, as well as the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 and October 2005 by the USACE and NCDWQ. In addition, the
monitoring success criteria, practices, and corresponding reporting will follow the NCEEP Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued in February, 2014, the NCEEP As -built Baseline Monitoring Report
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February, 2014, and the NCEEP Annual Monitoring
and Closeout Reporting Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February, 2014. Monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of 5 to 7 years with the final duration dependent upon performance trends
toward achieving project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may be requested by Baker for some or
all of the monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through written approval from the regulatory
agencies. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration and Enhancement I Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven -year monitoring period. The
two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull
events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull flow events, two "geomorphically
significant" flow events (Qgs= 0.66Q2) must also be documented during the monitoring period. There are no
temporal requirements regarding the distribution of geomorphically significant flows.
Page 33
Scheduled Completion Time
Scheduled Completion Date
Project Task
(assuming contract execution on
(from date of contract execution)
June 1, 2014)
Task 1. CE Document
3 months
September 1, 2014
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation
4 months
October 1, 2014
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by
9 months
March 1, 2015
NCEEP
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
1 year, 2 months
August 1, 2015
Completed
Task S. Mitigation Site Planting and
Installation of Monitoring
1 year, 6 months
December 1, 2015
Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report
(including As -built Drawings)
1 year, 7 months
January 1, 2016
Approved by NCEEP
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to
2 Years, 5 months
November 30, 2016
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task B. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to
3 years, 5 months
November 30, 2017
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to
4 years, 5 months
November 30, 2018
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to
5 years, 5 months
November 30, 2019
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to
6 years, 5 months
November 30, 2020
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to
7 years, S months
November 30, 2021
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to
8 years, 5 months
November 30, 2022
NCEEP and complete Project
Close -out process
5.7. Success Criteria
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream and wetland mitigation projects (Permitee Responsible
and both NCDOT and NCEEP full - delivery projects). The stream and wetland restoration design and applied
success criteria for the project site will follow approved success criteria presented in the mitigation plan, developed
in compliance with the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template, Version 2.2, adopted June 8, 2012, as well as the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 and October 2005 by the USACE and NCDWQ. In addition, the
monitoring success criteria, practices, and corresponding reporting will follow the NCEEP Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued in February, 2014, the NCEEP As -built Baseline Monitoring Report
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February, 2014, and the NCEEP Annual Monitoring
and Closeout Reporting Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February, 2014. Monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of 5 to 7 years with the final duration dependent upon performance trends
toward achieving project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may be requested by Baker for some or
all of the monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through written approval from the regulatory
agencies. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration and Enhancement I Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven -year monitoring period. The
two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull
events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull flow events, two "geomorphically
significant" flow events (Qgs= 0.66Q2) must also be documented during the monitoring period. There are no
temporal requirements regarding the distribution of geomorphically significant flows.
Page 33

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP # 16- 005634 CU# 05050001
Bank Height Ratios: BHR shall not exceed 1.2 within restored reaches of the stream channel. This standard only
applies to restored reaches of the channel where BHRs are corrected through design and construction.
Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 (> 1.5 for `B" channels) within restored
reaches of the stream channel. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where ERs are corrected
through design and construction.
Cross sections: Cross sections along representative meander wavelengths will be monitored for seven years, with
monitoring events occurring at a minimum during years 1, 3, 5, and 7. There should be little change in as -built
restoration cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement toward increased stability
(e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Longitudinal Profiles: Longitudinal profiles will be developed to document the as -built condition for Restoration
and Enhancement Level I reaches. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the
design stream type. Additional longitudinal profiles may be required if problems are identified during the
monitoring period.
Visual Assessment: Visual monitoring of all sections of the project, to include representative photographic
documentation, will be conducted annually for each of the seven years of monitoring, and will be inclusive of the
Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and tables that house the visual assessment metrics. Visual assessments will
be undertaken of bank and bed stability, condition of instream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake
mortality, impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. Inspections will
also include assessments of riparian buffer conditions. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Stream Enhancement II Success Criteria
Success criteria for Enhancement 11 stream reaches will follow the success criteria for
Visual Monitoring/Photo Reference Stations and Vegetation Success Criteria as outlined herein.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the recommendations
found in the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Technical Note and correspondence from review agencies on recent
NCEEP full- delivery projects. The interim measures of vegetative success for the project will be the survival of at
least 320, three- year -old planted trees per acre at the end of Year Three of the monitoring period and at least 260,
five- year -old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year Five of the monitoring period. Final success criteria will be a
density no less than 210, seven - year -old planted stems per acre in Year Seven of monitoring. Planted vegetation
must average eight feet in height (for mountain counties) during Year Seven of monitoring. A listing of preferred
species to be planted on the site is provided in Part 5.3.
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report
documenting the stream and wetland mitigation will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion and
monitoring installation on the restored site. In addition, a period of at least 6 months will separate the as -built
baseline measurements and the first year monitoring measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built
monitoring report will include all information required by the current NCEEP templates and guidance referenced
above, including planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot
locations, a description of initial species composition by community type, and monitoring stations. The report will
include a list of the vegetation species planted and the associated planting densities.
Page 34

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP #1640;631 CU# QSQ5=1
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward achieving the
success criteria referenced above. At least 180 days will separate the completion of initial vegetation planting and
the initiation of first year monitoring. Stream morphology, stream hydrology, wetland hydrology, as well as
vegetation, will be assessed to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken
for seven years or until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. For stream Enhancement II
monitoring will be limited to reference photos and assessment of vegetation survival.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCEEP by November 30
of each monitoring year. The monitoring reports will follow the current NCEEP monitoring report guidance and
templates, as specified in the RFP, and referenced above, and will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular maintenance activities
2. Project background information
3. As -built topographic maps showing location of vegetation sampling plots, permanent photo points, and
location of transects
4. CCPV map including monitoring features and any areas of concern or problem areas noted during
monitoring
5. Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed point stations
6. Geomorphic and sediment data
7. Hydrologic data
8. Vegetative data, as described below
9. Any geomorphic, hydrologic or vegetative problem areas
10. A description of any damage done by animals or vandalism
11. Wildlife observations.
Stream Mitigation Monitoring
The stream mitigation success criteria are defined above.
Hydrologic Monitoring. The hydrologic success criteria are defined above under Stream Hydrology for streams.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations
will be photographed for at least five years following construction. Reference photos will be taken once a year.
Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet above grade. Permanent markers will be
established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring
period.
Stream Hydrology and F000dplain Access: The occurrence of geomorphically significant events, bankfull events,
and floodplain access within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of crest gages and photographs.
The crest gages will be installed on the floodplain of and across the cross section of the restored channels as needed.
The crest gages will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gages will be checked each time there
is a site visit to determine if a bankfull and/or geomorphically significant event has occurred. Photographs will be
used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site
visits.
Cross sections: Representative meander wavelengths will be chosen for each Restoration and Enhancement Level I
reach that has discrete design criteria. Two permanent riffle cross sections and two permanent pool cross sections
will be installed along the chosen meander wavelength. Each cross section will be monumented on both banks. The
annual cross section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull,
inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified using the
Rosgen stream classification system. Bank pin arrays will only be utilized if warranted for the monitoring of lateral
erosion at cross sections occurring in meander bend (typically pools).
Lateral Reference Photos: Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Photographs
will be taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the bank.
The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the bank as possible will be included in
each photo. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Z� Page 35

FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
RFP #16.ouSfiU Cu# oSOSMI
Structure Photos: Photographs will be taken at representative Instream structures (typically grade control
structures) along the restored streams. Photographers will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area
in each photo over time.
Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetative success criteria are defined above. Monitoring will take place during years 1, 3, 5, and 7. Successful
restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if the
criteria are achieved, vegetation- monitoring quadrants will be installed across the restoration site, and monitored as
directed by the NCEEP monitoring guidance as referenced above. Vegetation monitoring data will be submitted
through the CVS web -based portal as requested by NCEEP. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall. Individual
quadrant data will be provided and will include individual- specific data on height, species, date planted, and grid
location; as well as a collective determination of density within the quadrant. Relative values will be calculated and
importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked so they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Volunteer species will be noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated with
NCEEP on a case -by -case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within quadrants will also be noted, as
will any wildlife effects. At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be
evaluated. For each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated
between July and September.
Remedial Actions
In the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success criteria, Baker will
develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in
coordination with NCEEP and the review agencies. Remedial action required will be designed to achieve the
success criteria specified previously, and will include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into
account physical and climatic conditions.
Part 6. Quality Control
Quality is built around processes and procedures. Baker's companywide Quality Management System establishes
those processes and procedures at three different levels:
a. "Project Management - The Baker Way" — Baker has established a standard structured Project Delivery
Process for all projects. This process addresses every aspect of a project and is the foundation for
delivering a quality product.
b. Project Management Plan (PMP) — The foundation established in "The Baker Way" is further defined
with the Project Management Plan (PMP). Each project's PMP applies the Project Delivery Process to
specific project conditions and establishes the process for managing the project.
C. Project Specific Quality Management Plan ( PSQMP) — Project Managers prepare a PSQMP for each
project that defines project specific quality assurance and quality control procedures.
The first two levels of quality control will ensure that all aspects of this project are delivered according to schedule.
The PSQMP for this project will document various quality assurance reviews to ensure all deliverables are
technically sound, follow NCEEP formats, contain all required information, and are grammatically /typographically
correct. Reviews will include:
a. Peer Reviews — Qualified and experienced individuals independent of the project will perform peer
reviews. The objective of these reviews will be to: assess the product versus NCEEP's requirements;
spot check key values; verify completeness and clarity; and determine if the design meets sound
engineering practice.
b. Deliverable Reviews — Appropriate staff will review the entire submission for overall presentation,
format, uniformity, consistency, and completeness.
Page 36

vi A
r \
.rr3
Cumberland County
n
r
N
7
030300041'0 f�010
100
0
301 r
13
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030004130010.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Flea Hill Site
Mk*" BaW EnBMw "Ine.
Ah
- 8100 RepM,cy �''•,
C.
G� 27518
..—..
0 0.5 1 2
Miles

LL)
ttLL �
11rx,
`1
J 41
6*
a
1738
a�
I
r ' 103
4
i
X11
t 171
t k,
�- Ta
\& .
Conservation Easement
Mich" Baker EnQ; g, Inc. Figure 2
n.,rir
800 �Pa°� 0 500 1,000 USGS Topographic Map
w Cary. None Cal— 27519 Feet
9183975099
F. 9 1B 09] 5/
Flea Hill Site
Fu 90

n'.
J
,
l�
i
x -�
,r
f
F'
Reach R1
CF
� d!
/ !1
'fm
Figure 8A
- 8WO R.g,wy P,N,"
S.a 60o
1 in= 700 ft
1950 Aerial Photo
Cary. NO�n C-1- 27518
819187
F- 9
Fex 9194635490
Flea Hill Site

N
A
r
y••f,� � �• / Reach R1
r
s
1
%la.
t .�
�.
4 VA
a
Ih
«:'�
".j .
• � i.
° z r
Note: COnSeNatlOrl easement
bounds shown are approximate.
Mich" Bak.r Enyfn —inp. Inc. Figure 8B
�Wo ° " "P° 0 500 1,000 1972 Aerial Photo
• Cry. Nonh Caobm 77519 Feet
Phan. 8,8,191.5,99 Flea Hill Site
Fu: B7B.i87 5°89

7 Floodplain Alteration
Floodplain apparently altered
Floodplali'n apparently unaltered
..
Reach R3
I
ker
I r
a v
Reach R1

Watershed Planning
Targeted Local watershed 03030004130010 ���fi/,tJ ..i /�'� /�'°v /�^ /�i� 1it� //i��/1���A / /�.1/��i����r �I ,%F� /�w
Site Location
Mkt," B*kw Engin—ing, Im. Figure 13
WOO Rgemy P.,y
S�rte 0.5 1 Watershed Planning
600
,y NWh Ca,V— 27518 Miles
Waker C:. PMro
9194835488 Contextual Map
F.. 9194635490 Flea Hill Site

Planning Elements
_ Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA)
Managed Area
• EEP Project Location
P � f7 l — •e li�M� -- �Ny N
Co -
1'
J'` r Site Location
- r:wac
I�f ` , • TTTLLS /
`S' 1
Mi'_ -,or EnOin Hnq. Figure 14
• S .°� P•��.Y o 1 2 Adjacent and Proximal
C'i Haan Grams 27518 Miles
PVq i:19463.5166 Planning Elements Map
Fu 919 463 5496
Flea Hill Site