20181034 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2022_20220823

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20181034
Version* 1
Select Reviewer: *
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 08/23/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 8/23/2022
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: *
Email Address: *
Paul Wiesner [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:*
20181034
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Version:* 1
• DMS Mitigation Bank
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Haywood
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type: *
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload:
Signature
............................................
Print Name: *
Signature:*
Existing Version
UT to Rush Fork_100068_MY0_2022.pdf 13.07MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Paul Wiesner

As-built Baseline Monitoring Report FINAL
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Haywood County,North Carolina
French Broad River Basin: 06010106
DMS Project ID No. 100068
DMS RFP#16-007335 (Issued 9/8/2017)
DEQ Contract No. 7535
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01171
DWR#2018-1034
Baseline Data Collection Period:
March 2022
'i !r��. -, c�,�
> ''h ,ate `. .
-AWS4dli '1411.14i:'eh, 4, --:,::,,..,,
if
,s/, .. ,f-
J.
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1652
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Submission Date: August 2022

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
August 8, 2022
Paul Wiesner, PM
NCDENR, Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr. — Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
We Make a Difference
Subject: Response to DMS Comments (June 24, 2022) for Draft As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project, Haywood County
French Broad River Basin: 06010106
DMS Project #100068
Dear Mr. Wiesner,
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments
dated June 24, 2022 in reference to the Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project's As -Built Baseline
Monitoring Report. We have revised the Draft document in response to review comments as
outlined below.
• Cover Page: Please update the cover page to; UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project,
so the project name matches the DMS accounting system (CRM) and the project's Credit
Ledger. Please update the project name report wide as necessary.
RESPONSE: Revision made as requested.
• Section 1.1 Project Description: This section notes; "Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
(Michael Baker) restored approximately 2,865 linear feet and enhanced an additional 1,185
linear feet of stream along seven reaches of unnamed tributaries (UT) to Rush Fork creek."
These footages do not appear to match Table 1. Please review and update the report
accordingly. Please also review and confirm the uncredited wetland acreage noted in the
report.
RESPONSE: Revisions and review made as requested
• Section 1.6 Design Change Deviations: In this section, please also note and discuss any
monitoring device location changes from the IRT approved mitigation plan.
RESPONSE: Two monitoring changes were noted: the addition of a flow gauge on UT4 and
the relocation of one vegetation plot from the right floodplain to the left floodplain on UT1-
R4.
• General: Based on recent IRT feedback and requests, DMS recommends including
upstream and downstream project crossing photos in all future monitoring reports (MY1-
MY7).
MBAKERINTL.COM
7g7 Haywood Rd. Suite 201 j Asheville, NC 28806
Office: 828-412-6101 1 Mobile: [phone]

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
We Make a Difference
RESPONSE: Additional photos of upstream and downstream project crossings will be
included in future monitoring reports (MY1-MY7).
• Appendix E: This appendix should be labeled "Record Drawing Plan Sheets".
RESPONSE: Revision made as requested.
• Appendix E - Record Drawing Sheet 5: Sheet 5 shows a portion of the crossing
infrastructure (pipe and headwall) installed inside the conservation easement. This
infrastructure encroachment was confirmed in the field by DMS and Baker on 6/14/2022.
The crossing infrastructure should be moved outside of the recorded conservation
easement, or a conservation easement modification will be required. Any
conservation easement modification costs will be the responsibility of the full delivery
provider (Baker). Please discuss a proposed resolution in the comment responses. The
proposed resolution will need to be reviewed and approved by the IRT as part of the
MYO/ As -built IRT review prior to implementation.
RESPONSE: Baker has worked with the contractor to move the crossing infrastructure just
upstream of the CE line. This modification was completed on July 25, 2022.
• Appendix E - Record Drawing Sheet 7: Please confirm that the pre-existing soil road shown
within the conservation easement has been either moved or extinguished as part of the
project construction. In the revised record drawings, the sheet should be updated to show
the soil road relocation area or a call out should be provided noting that the soil road was
extinguished as part of project construction and implementation.
RESPONSE: We acknowledge the soil road is shown on Sheet 7; however, this is only
intended to describe a topographical and historic feature on the landscape. The road has
long been abandoned for any use and is currently vegetated with mature trees and lacks
any connection to any usable roadways. Moreover, there is no existing Right of Way, and
the old roadbed was not used during construction of this project.
• Appendix E - Record Drawing Sheet 8: Sheet 8 shows a portion of the project BMP located
within the conservation easement and a portion of the BMP located outside of the
conservation easement. Please explain why the BMP is partially located in the
conservation easement and indicate if BMP maintenance will be required in the monitoring
term or in long term Stewardship. If a conservation easement modification is required
based on the comment above and IRT review, DMS and DEQ Stewardship highly
recommend including the entire BMP and associated infrastructure inside the modified
conservation easement. Please discuss a proposed resolution. As noted above, this should
be reviewed and approved by the IRT as part of the MYO/ As -built IRT review prior to
implementation.
RESPONSE: The capacity of the designed BMP needed to increase to function as intended.
This design was implemented after the establishment of the conservation easement,

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
We Make a Difference
resulting in a portion of the BMP being located outside the conservation easement
boundary. It should be noted that livestock fencing surrounds the entire BMP with
permission and cooperation from the landowner. This arrangement was shown in the
approved Mitigation Plan on Sheet 9 of the included project plans, thus review and
approvals have already taken place. Functionality of the BMP will be assessed in future
monitoring years to determine if maintenance will be required; although no maintenance
outside the conservation easement boundary is anticipated.
DMS conducted a field visit on June 14, 2022. The following comments/observations are a result
of that visit:
• Areas of multiflora rose were noted within the conservation easement at the upstream
portion of UT3. Please treat the existing invasives within the entire conservation easement
during MY1 (2022) and through the monitoring term. Please provide invasive treatment
details in the MY1 (2022) report.
RESPONSE: Multiflora rose was treated on June 29th, 2022, at the upstream portion of UT3
and invasive plants will continue to be treated as needed in future monitoring years.
Details of these treatments will be included in all monitoring reports.
• The conservation easement corners along the unfenced section of UT1-R4 from stations
24+00 — 28+00 (soil farm road) are not currently marked. Each conservation easement
corner must be marked with a durable witness post and signage. Conservation easement
corners greater than 200 feet in distance or stretches that cannot be seen by direct line of
sight should be supplementally marked between the easement corners. All conservation
easement marking must be complete prior to approval and payment for Task 6 (MYO).
RESPONSE: Signs were added to these posts on June 29, 2022. Additional durable witness
posts were added on August 16, 2022.
• Signed durable wooden posts mark the conservation easement corners on reach UT1-R4
(stations 31+00 — 38+00). Metal t-posts are installed between conservation easement
corners but are not currently signed. DMS recommends adding signs to the t-posts to
clearly mark the conservation easement boundary. While not required, Baker should
consider adding PVC poles on this reach to avoid easement encroachment and easement
scalloping.
RESPONSE: Signs were added to these t-posts on June 29, 2022. Additional signage and/or
t-posts may be added along with PVC poles to clearly delineate the conservation easement
boundary.
Digital Deliverable Comments:
• The MY0 2022 Background Tables file - Table 5 vegetation table, is incorrect/ not complete.

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
We Make a Difference
The data sheets and individual vegetation tables submitted appear to be complete
and accurate. Please verify that Table 5 should be deleted from this submission or
submit a revised and accurate Table 5 with data as presented in vegetation data files.
RESPONSE: This revision has been made as requested. Table 5 has been changed to Table 6
due to the addition of the new Table 2, Summary: Goals, Performances and Results and is in
the Background Tables file. The blank file has been deleted. An accurate Table 6 is included
in the vegetation data files.
• The cross-section morphology table used is not the current version of the template and is
missing attributes required for baseline morphology summary, please see the current
(2020) version of the DMS Monitoring Table templates and include all missing attributes
noted on the morph table template.
RESPONSE: The cross-section morphology table has been updated to the current DMS
monitoring template and missing attributes have been added. The revised table is Table 8 in
Appendix D.
• The goals table (table 2 of DMS template) is missing from the submission.
RESPONSE: The goals table has been included as Table 2 in Appendix A.
• The cross section and longitudinal profile raw data is incomplete, please refer to the DMS
monitoring digital data templates, XS Raw Survey and Raw Long Pro Data, for features
requiring annotation and revise the submission to include missing features.
RESPONSE: Grade control structures have been added to the profile and a note has been
added to the XS graphs indicating the location of the left and right pins. A table has been
added to the Geomorphology folder in the digital deliverables indicating the type of
structure, it's stationing and elevation by reach.
• Photo Point 58 is missing from the RushFork_As_Photo_Points file. Please update
accordingly.
RESPONSE: Photo Point 58 is included the Stream Station Photo Points within the As Built
report and is also included in the digital submission files under Support Files — 2 Visual
Assessment — Photos — Stream. Photo Point 58 is the last file in this folder.
• Please provide a .PDF of the standalone PLS sealed project as -built drawings in the
revised digital submittal.
RESPONSE: A standalone copy of the PLS sealed project as -built drawings has been included
as requested.
• Please verify the soil road indicated as having been relocated on the As -built and the
fencing previously identified in the conservation easement plat in the vicinity of veg plot 3
have both been relocated outside the conservation easement.

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
We Make a Difference
RESPONSE: Both the soil road and the fencing previously identified in the conservation
easement have been relocated outside of the conservation easement in these areas.
As requested, one hardcopy of the revised Final As -Built Baseline Monitoring report has been
included with this response. A full electronic copy with support files is also included on a USB
drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding our response
submittal.
Sincerely,
/
Jason York
Environmental Scientist

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 3
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 3
1.3 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA 4
1.4 MITIGATION COMPONENT SUMMARY 4
1.5 PROJECT TIMELINE 6
1.6 DESIGN CHANGE DEVIATIONS 6
1.7 VICINITY MAP 7
1.8 TECHNICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS AND REFERENCES 8
APPENDICES
Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Table 1 Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Figure 2 Project Asset Map and Credit Map
Table 2 Summary: Goals, Performances and Results
Table 3 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 4 Project Contacts
Table 5 Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Map
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
As Built Stream Station Photo -Points
As Built Vegetation Photo Log
Monitoring Device Photo Log
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Planted Stem Counts by Plot and Species
Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Table 7 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 8 Cross -Section Morphology Data Summary
Figure 7 Longitudinal Profiles
Figure 8 As Built Cross -Sections
Appendix E Record Drawing Plan Sheets
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)
PAGE 2

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Project Description
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored approximately 2,843.58 linear feet and enhanced
an additional 1160.43 linear feet of stream along seven reaches of unnamed tributaries (UT) to Rush Fork
creek. Additionally, 0.996 uncredited acres of adjacent riparian wetlands were enhanced and protected
within the conservation easement of the project. The project lies within the French Broad River Basin,
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 06010106-020010 (named the Pigeon River/Crabtree Creek Watershed),
which is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the NC Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS
2009) French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report. The project is located in the Blue
Ridge Physiographic Region, within the Southern Crystalline and Mountains Level IV ecoregion. The
project watershed drains into Rush Fork Creek, which flows for approximately 2.8 miles to its confluence
with Crabtree Creek which continues for approximately 0.7 miles where it flows into the Pigeon River.
These tributaries and streams are designated as Class C waters by the surface water classification system
of the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR).
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (project) is located on two adjacent parcels of an active
cattle farm in Haywood County, North Carolina, halfway between the unincorporated communities of
Crabtree and Fines Creek as shown on the Project Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The project site entrance is 5.9
miles down Route 209 from exit 24 off of I-40, on the right at 9503 Rush Fork Road. Coordinates for the
approximate center of the project are 35.644607 N Latitude, -82.940170 W Longitude. Current agricultural
use on the project site is predominantly livestock pasture; however, past use may have included row crops
and apple production. 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.
The project is being conducted as part of the DMS Full Delivery In -Lieu Fee Program and is anticipated to
generate a total of 3,533.610 cold -water stream mitigation credits and the site will be protected by an 8.26-
acre permanent conservation easement (Appendix B).
1.2 Goals and Objectives
The goals of this project are identified below:
• Reconnect stream reaches to their floodplains,
• Improve stream stability,
• Improve aquatic habitat,
• Reestablish forested riparian buffers, and
• Permanently protect the project in a conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• To restore appropriate bankfull dimensions, and/or raise channel beds, by utilizing either a Priority
I Restoration approach or an Enhancement Level I approach.
• Stabilize eroding channel banks and arrest incision by utilizing an Enhancement Level II approach.
• To construct streams of appropriate dimensions, pattern, and profile in restored reaches, slope
stream banks and provide bankfull benches on enhanced reaches and utilize bio-engineering to
provide long-term stability.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)
PAGE 3

• Construct the correct channel morphology along all stream channels, increasing the number and
depth of pools utilizing structures including geo-lifts with brush toe, log vanes/weirs, root wads,
and/or J-hooks.
• Establish riparian buffers at a 30 foot minimum width along all stream reaches, planted with native
tree and shrub species.
• Establish a permanent conservation easement restricting land use in perpetuity. This will prevent
site disturbance and allow the project to mature and stabilize.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria and performance standards for the project will follow the NCDMS's templates As -
Built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (June 2017), and the
Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (June 2017), and as
described in Section 7 of the approved Mitigation Plan. All specific monitoring activities will follow those
outlined in detail in Section 8 of the approved Mitigation Plan and will be conducted for a period of 7 years
unless otherwise noted.
1.4 Mitigation Component Summary
The project involved the restoration or enhancement of seven reaches, all unnamed tributaries to Rush Fork.
Reach UT1-R1, is a steep, 206-foot long perennial reach that had been impacted historically through the
removal of riparian vegetation, channelization, and agricultural activities (most recently livestock). The
channel had been experiencing active erosion on over 50 percent of the streambank upstream of a degraded
old ford crossing. An Enhancement Level 1 approach was implemented on this reach, which involved
rebuilding new, stable channel dimensions as a B-type stream, raising the channel elevation to allow
floodplain access, installing in -stream structures, and building a stable culverted crossing just upstream of
the old, degraded ford.
Reach UT1-R2 is a steep, roughly 275-ft reach that was not as impacted by the historic land use as the
reaches above and below it. A narrow line of established walnut trees growing along the banks of this reach
provide greater stability to this section. As a result, the channel is not deeply incised here, and bank erosion
along R2 was minimal in spite of the fact that livestock had access to the reach. As such, an Enhancement
Level II approach was implemented here. This involved the reestablishment of a full riparian buffer, the
rebuilding of new channel dimensions along most of the reach (stabilizing the few sections of eroding
banks), and the installation of three in -stream structures. Some of the black walnut trees were removed in
the buffer to reduce their impact on other vegetation and an abandoned cabin within the conservation
easement was also removed.
Reach UT1-R3 is a steep, roughly 601-ft reach that had been impacted historically through the removal of
riparian vegetation, channelization, and agricultural activities (most recently livestock). As a result, the
channel is experiencing active erosion for well over 50 percent of the streambank length, and the absence
of woody vegetation along the banks also contributes to the instability. An Enhancement Level I approach
was selected for this reach, which involved rebuilding new, stable channel dimensions as a B-type stream,
raising the channel elevation to allow floodplain access, and installing in -stream structures, several of which
act as grade control features. Additionally, areas of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were removed and
treated during and after construction. There is also a 40-ft conservation easement break for a powerline
right-of-way located near the top of this reach. Stream enhancement work was conducted through this
break, though no trees were planted here.
Reach UT1-R4 is a steep, roughly 1,530-ft long perennial channel, though only 1,224-ft are located within
the conservation easement due to the break from NC Route 209 and associated utility lines. The reach had
been quite incised and had exhibited bank scour ranging from 50-60% over its length, and mass wasting
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)
PAGE 4

along an additional 15-20%, with numerous headcuts present. Reach R4 was accessed by livestock and
had little or no vegetated buffer with only a few scattered trees found along the stream, predominantly
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). A Priority Level I Restoration approach was implemented on R4 in
order to fully restore the stream and its associated buffer functions. A channel of appropriate dimensions
was constructed and was raised to reconnect the reach to its historic sloping floodplain as a B-type stream.
This will promote more frequent overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm
events greater than the bankfull discharge and will also improve adjacent groundwater hydrology.
Numerous in -stream structures were installed along the reach to promote bank stability, improve habitat,
and provide grade control. A full, 30-ft riparian buffer of native species was planted, and the Chinese privet
was removed and treated during and after construction. The reach also has extensive wetland areas on the
right bank above Route 209, which are now protected within the conservation easement. Livestock have
subsequently been excluded from this reach. A fence encroachment was corrected after the As Built survey
was completed.
Reach UT2 a roughly 78-ft intermittent channel that flows into UT1-R3 from a culvert that carries drainage
from a small field and the hill slope to the east of R3. It had been incised in the lower portion as the channel
cut down to meet R3 and it had a pronounced hydrologic disconnect at the culvert outlet. The channel also
lacked a full riparian buffer, especially an herbaceous layer, due to livestock impacts. An Enhancement
Level II approach was selected for this reach. A full buffer of native species was planted, and the channel
was raised in the lowermost section to ensure a stable tie-in with R3. Additionally, areas of multiflora rose
were removed and treated during and after construction.
Reach UT3 is a steep, roughly 1,577-ft perennial channel that begins as a series of springs just upstream of
the project boundary. It had been impacted historically through the removal of riparian vegetation,
channelization, and agricultural activities (most recently livestock). UT3 had been incised over most of its
length, with varying degrees of bank scour, including sections of mass wasting where the stream flowed up
against a steep bank or where cattle trails crossed the stream. The reach only had a few pools primarily
associated with headcuts in the channel. The uppermost section of UT3 began with a partially buffered
forested area, mostly along the left bank, consisting of a narrow row of crabapple (Malus sp.) trees.
However, the vast majority of the reach buffer consisted primarily of herbaceous pasture grasses. A
Priority Level I Restoration approach was implemented on UT3 in order to fully restore the stream and its
associated buffer functions. A new channel with the appropriate dimensions was constructed and was raised
to reconnect the reach to its historic sloping floodplain as a B-type stream. This will promote more frequent
overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events greater than the bankfull
discharge and will also improve adjacent groundwater hydrology. Numerous in -stream structures were
installed along the reach to promote bank stability, improve habitat, and provide grade control. A full, 30-
ft riparian buffer of native species was planted, and the pasture grasses were treated around the planted
stems after construction (ring -spraying) to help with tree establishment. A degraded ford crossing was also
rebuilt as a stable culvert crossing and relocated to coincide with an existing powerline easement, thus
allowing for only one CE break on this reach. UT3 also has extensive wetland areas along both banks,
which are now protected within the CE and livestock have been fully excluded.
Reach UT4 is a roughly 42-ft intermittent channel that begins from an existing culvert flowing under and
then paralleling Route 209 before turning through a culvert under the access road and onto the project tying
into UT1-R4. This short section of channel was nevertheless highly degraded, mostly due to the presence
of livestock. It was incised as it cut down to meet the similarly incised UT1-R4, had eroding banks, and
lacked a riparian buffer. As such, Restoration was implemented on this reach, wherein a new channel was
built of appropriate dimensions, which was also raised to meet the restored R4 channel. A full buffer of
native species was planted along the reach. And while only the lowermost section is included within the
project easement, the upper portion between the access road culvert and Highway 209, also had fencing
installed to exclude livestock, thus protecting the entire reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)
PAGE 5

Additionally, a small BMP was installed at the top of UT3 to capture and treat the runoff from a vegetated
swale (an old abandoned roadbed) that had conveyed stormwater from its 4.3-acre drainage area directly
into the reach. The BMP was sized for a 1-inch design storm and has been planted with native shrub and
herbaceous vegetation to ensure stability. It also has a stable rock outlet feature to convey overflow into
UT3.
1.5 Project Timeline
The Rush Fork Mitigation Project was instituted in April 2018. The Mitigation Plan was approved by the
IRT in April 2021. Project construction of the streams was initiated in October 2021 and completed in
February 2022. Planting of live stakes and bareroot stems was completed in February 2022 and the
vegetation plots were installed in March 2022. The As -Built survey was completed in March of 2022. All
monitoring devices including 18 cross -sections, 3 crest gauges, and 3 flow gauges were installed in March
2022. All crest gauges and flow gauges are continuous logging Van Essen DIVER gauges. Livestock
exclusion fencing and gates were fully installed by March 2022. The CE pins were located and the
boundary fully marked by March 2022 as well. Monitoring Year 1 is on schedule for 2022 as shown in
Table 2.
1.6 Design Change Deviations
During project construction, there were a few, relatively minor deviations from the original design plans as
marked in red in the as -built plans (Appendix E). Primarily these were a few substitutions made on in -
stream structures replacing log structures with rock/boulder structures due to material availability. In two
cases, an additional structure was added to the channel not originally in the plans. Additionally, the sizing
of several of the crossing and access gates were changed from the proposed due to landowner preference,
and a few extra gates were installed for improved easement access.
There were a few minor deviations from the approved planting plan due to lack of species availability.
American basswood (Tilia americana), rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), and umbrella tree (Magnolia
tripetala) were unavailable and were replaced by planting additional stems of several other species on the
approved list; yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), winterberry (Ilex
verticillata), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and Carolina silverbell (Halesia carolina).
One additional flow gauge was added to UT4 following the IRT approval of the mitigation plan.
Additionally, a vegetation monitoring plot shown on the right floodplain of UT1-R4 in the approved
mitigation plan was moved to the left floodplain of UT1-R4.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)
PAGE 6

1.7 Vicinity Map
"016106030040
Project coordinates:
35.644607 N,-82.940170
Haywood County
Haywood County
French Broad River Basin
Note: Site is located within Targeted Local
Watershed 06010106-020010
Figure 1.
Project Vicinity Map
UT to Rush Fork Project
DMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)
PAGE 7

1.8 Technical and Methodological Descriptions and References
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
a Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200
in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. The survey data from the permanent
project cross -sections were collected and classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System to
confirm design stream type (Rosgen 1994).
The six permanent vegetation -monitoring quadrants (plots) were installed across the site in accordance with
the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007) and the data collected from each
was input into the DMS Veg Table Production Tool (2021).
All of the crest gauges and flow gauges are Van Essen brand Baro-Diver data loggers.
References:
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 2011 French Broad River Basin Classification
Schedule. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC. Available at:
https://deq.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-schedule
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2021. DMS Vegetation Table Production Tool.
NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration
Priorities. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)
PAGE 8

APPENDIX A
Background Tables and Figures

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Project Segment
Original
Mitigation
Plan*
Ft/Ac
As -Built
Ft/Ac
Original
Mitigation
Category
Original
Restoration
Level
Original
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Stream
Reach UT1-R1
206.20
206.410
Cold
El
1.5
137.467
Reach UT1-R2
275.00
275.000
Cold
EH
2.5
110.000
Reach UT1-R3
612.10
600.860
Cold
El
1.5
408.067
Reach UT1-R4
1,216.33
1,224.370
Cold
R
1.0
1,216.330
Reach UT2
86.24
78.160
Cold
EH
2.5
34.496
Reach UT3
1,584.45
1,577.530
Cold
R
1.0
1,584.450
Reach UT4
42.80
41.900
Cold
R
1.0
42.800
Total:
3,533.610
Wetland ' '
N/A
0.996
0.996
-
E
-
-
Total:
N/A
*The lengths shown for each reach are the creditable lengths and we e calculated after all exclusions were accounted for, such as easement breaks, utility imp cts, stream crossings, etc.
Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non -Rip
Coastal
Warm
Cool
Cold
Wetland
Wetland
Marsh
Restoration
-
-
2,843.580
-
-
-
Re-establishment
-
-
-
Rehabilitation
-
-
-
Enhancement
-
-
-
Enhancement I
-
-
545.534
Enhancement 11
-
-
144.496
Creation
-
-
-
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
3,533.610
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Stream Mitigation Credits
Reach
Approach
Length (ft)
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Reach UT1-R1
El
206.20
1.5
137.467
Reach UT1-R2
Ell
275.00
2.5
110.000
Reach UT1-R3
El
612.10
1.5
408.067
Reach UT1-R4
R
1,216.33
1.0
1,216.330
Reach UT2
Ell
86.24
2.5
34.496
Reach UT3
R
1,584.45
1.0
1,584.450
Reach UT4
R
42.80
1.0
42.800
Total Footage for Credit 4,023.12
Restoration 2,843.58
Enhancement I 818.30
Enhancement II 361.24
Total Credits
2,843.580
545.533
144.496
3,533.610
A • rial
Glikat
gra•h
Conservation Easement
44,4
Stream Centerlines by Approach
Restoration
BMP (no direct credits)
— Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
at» • asG .. ,lL .i' ILL ' C'„�`-''"`��YY1jeii
BMW !!u l�3��r��W1� Jr�?euiar�t{�u� �1ot u��
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
North Carolina
Division of
Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
0 125 250 500
Feet
Figure 2. Project Asset
and Credit Map
UT to Rush Fork Project
Haywood County

Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performances and Results
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Goals
Objectives
Functional Level
Performance Criteria
Monitoring
Measurement
Tool
Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Reconnect stream channels to their floodplains
To raise channel beds and/or
slope stream banks which
serve as floodplains as is
appropriate for a B stream
type by utilizing either a
Priority I Restoration
approach or an Enhancement
Level I approach.
Hydraulics
Four bankfull events within
monitoring period.
Stage recorders loacated
upstream on UT3, UT1-R1,
and middle of UT1-R4.
Supplemental data from flow
gauges on UT3, UT2, UT4.
N/A
Improve stream stability
To construct streams with the
appropriate dimension,
pattern, and profile in
Restored reaches or
dimension and profile on
Enhanced I reaches. Also
slope stream banks, install
grade control structures with
plunge pools, and utilize bio-
engineering to provide long
Geomorphology
Restored streams will
maintain bank -height ratios of
less than 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios greater
than 1.4 (B-type) or 2.2 (C-
type) provided visual
inspections also reveal
stabilization.
Cross -Sectional Survey
Visual Inspection
N/A
Improve aquatic habitat
Increase the heterogeniety of
habitat by increasing the
number and depth of pools,
increasing the amount of
woody debris, utilizing
structures including geo- lifts
with brush toe, log
vanes/weirs, cross -vanes,
and/or J-hooks.
Geomorphology
Inventory comparisons of in-
stream structures and features
from existing conditions and
as -built project surveys and
assessments. Increased
number of pools and woody
structures and debris
compared to the existing
conditions.
Profile Survey
Visual Inspection
N/A
Reestablish forested riparian buffers
Establish riparian buffers at a
30-ft minimum width along
all stream
reaches, planted with native
tree, shrub and herbaceous
Geomorphology
Survival rate of 320 stems per
acre at MY3, 260 planted
stems per acre at MYS, and
210 stems per acre at MY7.
Vegetation Plots
Visual Inspection
N/A
Permanently protect the project
Establish a permanent
conservation easement
restricting land use in
perpetuity. This will prevent
site
distuthance and allow the
project to mature and
cratuti7n
Biology
Conservation Easement
documents. Visual inspections
to confirm no encroachments
into CE.
Visual Inspection
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Table 3. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Grading Completed in February 2022
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 3 months
All Planting Completed in February 2022
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 3 months
Number of Reporting Years': 0
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Project Institution Date
N/A
April 2018
Mitigation Plan Approved by IRT
N/A
April 2021
Final Design - Construction Plans
N/A
October 2021
Construction Grading Completed
N/A
February 2022
Livestake and Bareroot Planting Completed
N/A
February 2022
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
March 2022
June 2022
As -Built Strream Survey
March 2022
N/A
As -Built Vegetation Monitoring
March 2022
N/A
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
' = The number of monitoring reports excluding the as-built/baseline report
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Table 4. Project Contacts
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect No. 100068
Designer
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact: Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Construction Contractor
1000 Bat Cave Road,
Old Fort, NC 28762
Contact: Charles Baker, Tel. [phone] x. 11
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Survey Contractor
88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Contact: Brad Kee, Tel. [phone]
Kee Mapping and Surveying
Planting Contractor
1000 Bat Cave Road,
Old Fort, NC 28762
Contact: Charles Baker, Tel. [phone] x. 11
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
1000 Bat Cave Road,
Old Fort, NC 28762
Contact: Charles Baker, Tel. [phone] x. 11
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Seed Mix Sources
9764 Raider Hollow Road,
Upton, KY 42784
Telephone: [phone]
Roundstone Native Seed, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
797 Helton Creek Road, Lansing, NC 28643 Telephone: [phone]
825 Maude Etter Road, McMinnville, TN 37110 Telephone: [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery (livestakes)
Dykes and Son Nursery
Monitoring Performers
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Stream Monitoring POC
Vegetation Monitoring POC
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Table 5. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitieation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County
Haywood County
Project Area (acres)
8.26
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.644607 N,-82.940170 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
7.3
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
French Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
6010106
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
06010106-020010
DWR Sub -basin
04-03-05
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
308 acres/0.48 square miles (at downstream end of UT1)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0.18% impervious area
CGIA Land Use Classification
79,8% forested, 17.1% hay/pasture, and 2.9% developed (open space).
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Length of reach (linear feet)
2,464
99
1,618
18
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Moderately
Confined
Unconfined
Moderately
Confined
Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres)
308
24
98
27
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
B4a
B
A to B4
B
Stream Classification (proposed)
B4a
B
A to B4
Cb
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
IV — Degradation
and Widening
III —Degrading
IV Degradation
and Widening
III —Degrading
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
PCN
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
PCN
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Notes:
1 Source: USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2016
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS-BU I LT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
-
North Carolina
Division of
Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
0
250
500
Feet
�5 filar 1 f 11111nll h!m-i Jtl 3 itJ
Overview Map: Current Condition
Plan View (CCPV) MYO
UT to Rush Fork Project
Haywood County

VP1: 688
stems/ac
VP2: 688
stems/ac
LJ Conservation Easement
Livestock Fencing
O Photo Points
Gauges
O Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
Overhead Powerlines
Veg Plots
BMP Feature
Cross -Sections
Stream Top -of -Bank
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
No Credit
JD Wetlands
-45 5�rill4r aqtra4C11.1 I Rail i:'
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL -
North Carolina
Division of
Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
0
125
250
Feet
Figure 3A. Current Condition
Plan View (CCPV) MYO
UT to Rush Fork Project
Haywood County

'XS9
VP3 729
stems/ac
VP6: 648
stems/ac
VP5: 972
stems/ac
PP
XS-16
FL-2
XS-17 '
XS-14
A
UT1-R2
Livestock Fencing
Conservation Easement
A. Photo Points
Gauges
O Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
- Overhead Powerlines
Veg Plots
Cross -Sections
Stream Top -of -Bank
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
No Credit
JD Wetlands
IM(CricarreAinfoffl-m4masAn*dg,
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
North Carolina
Division of
Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
0
125
250
Feet
Figure 3B. Current Condition
Plan View (CCPV) MYO
UT to Rush Fork Project
Haywood County

UT1-R4
PP-51
PP-52 4
VP4: 810
stems/ac
PP-55
PP-56
PP-57
.t F �i
PP-27
PP-47
LJ Conservation Easement
Livestock Fencing
O Photo Points
Gauges
O Crest Gauge
e Flow Gauge
Overhead Powerlines
Veg Plots
Cross -Sections
Stream Top -of -Bank
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
No Credit
JD Wetlands
1c t intI [ thrnt-it 3MVt kti
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
North Carolina
Division of
Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
0
125
250
Feet
Figure 3C. Current Condition
Plan View (CCPV) MYO
UT to Rush Fork Project
Haywood County

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
n r .,'/-.,iti -- ,,
�4 3 L 4,,-,* .,yam
y2a
._t1�. �
1
PP-1: UT1,Reach 1,Station PP-2: UT1,Reach 1,Station
11+00.Facing Upstream. 11+80. Facing Upstream.
, fits ,t
•
,.., ...
e
,,, „
a
_ _01
�� I
4 `'
8E r
PP-3: UT1,Reach 1,Station 12+10 PP-4: UT1,Reach 1,Station 12+33
Facing Downstream Facing Downstream
•
111
_ r
q
of
PP-6: UT1,Reach 2,Station PP 7: UT1,Reach 2,Station
13+25. Facing Upstream. 14+60. Facing Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
"•:'
a
•
_ '...oR?y
rs
ra _
c
i °Ts
F
PP-7: UT1,Reach 2,Station PP-8: UT1,Reach 2,Station
15+50. Facing Upstream.
14+60. Facing Upstream.•
M."
PP-9: UT1,Reach 3,Station PP-10: UT1,Reach 3, 16+80.
16+50. Facing Upstream. Facing Upstream.
_
�Y-
_.. ,r -
•
P-11: UT1,Reach 3,Station PP-12: UT1,Reach 3, Station
17+35. Facing Upstream. 18+25. Facing Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MYO As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
.
ifi 3'
1,
, ,,, . , _,
r
..
,,,,
7...., ,...c., ,,,,,„
,,
' ;, ..„ . ,,„.„,,..,, ,
., ,s-i � ' - -___ . _- . .. .,.--,,.
_. _ ,
,,
__ .„ -
_....„. ...,., ., ,.
..
- . ,_,,,,,,,,,-„,..._„„,„,„...,,,,„ i
_.. ,_,a- - ;. _
�1' mow' ,. F '- - ''
ti-
PP-13: UT1,Reach 3,Station PP 14: UT1 Reach 3,Station
18+90.Facing Upstream. 19+55.Facing Upstream.
,_ ,
t sus
PP-15: UT2,Station 10+15.Facing PP 16: UT2,Station 10+85.Facing
Upstream. Upstream.
, A
Al
PP-17: UT1,Reach3,Station PP 18: UT1,Reach 3,Station
19+70.Facing Upstream. 20+60.Facing Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MYO As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
,,,,.,,,..,,,.":4,...,,,..., .1
,.v _ �
A.
3 - - a• f'.
PP-19: UT1,Reach 3,Station PP-20: UT1,Reach 4,Station
22+00.Facing Upstream. 22+75.Facing Upstream.
ji
i -
tiff
�R'
PP-21: UT1,Reach 4,Station PP-22: UT1,Reach 4,Station
23+90.Facin:U.stream 24+20. Facing U'stream.
„a
R
t.,
PP-23: UT4,Station 10+50.Facing PP-24: UT1,Reach 4,Station
Upstream. 25+25.Facing Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
.
PP-25: UT1,Reach 4,Station PP-26: UT1,Reach 4,Station
26+00.Facing Upstream. 27+00.Facing Upstream.
"
4F.
yy�� QF a'�"..s
Y S
•
PP 27: UT1,Reach 4,Station PP-28: UT1,Reach 4,Station
27+75.Facin' U.stream. 27+90.Facin: Downstream.
PP-29: BMP at Top of UT3. PP-30: UT3,Station 10+00.Facing
Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
e �
4}
"• y �� t� r,� ^
1 [d•,,^_�-. --. �e a
v.,PZ °kaj
•
PP-31: UT3,Station 11+10.Facing PP-32: UT3,Station 11+75.Facing
Upstream. Upstream.
'fix F
_= ,s
- -.
PP-33: UT3,Station 13+15.Facing PP-34: UT3,Station 14+15.Facing
U stream. Upstream.
ow
' ..• i 1.
PP-35: UT3,Station 14+85.Facing PP 36: UT3,Station 15+95.Facing
Upstream. Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
-1741*
3 YIpGi
PP-37: UT3,Station 17+35.Facing PP-38: UT3,Station 17+65.
Upstream. Facing Upstream.
PP-39: UT3,Station 18+75.Facing PP-40: UT3,Station 20+40.Facing
U.stream. U,stream.
4.4
Zr �.
PP-41: UT3,Station 21+20.Facing PP-42: UT3,Station 22+10.Facing
Upstream. Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
I _
• �
PP-43: UT3,Station 22+15.Facing PP-44: UT3,Station 23+15
Downstream. Facing Upstream.
•
oitfi
•
PP-45: UT3,Station 24+40.Facing PP-46: UT3,Station 25+35.Facing
U'stream. Upstream.
yy (
•
PP-47: UT3, Station 26+30.Facing PP-48: UT1,Reach 4, Station
Upstream at confluence. 30+50.Facing Downstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
j�,y -e� t 1 �•, h k a - !oft',
•
PP-49: UT1,Reach 4,Station PP-50: UT1,Reach 4, Station
31+20.Facing Upstream. 32+50.Facing Upstream.
�; ...
•
ji+T
r
di.
p3 ,.
PP-51: UT1,Reach 4, Station PP-52: UT1,Reach 4,Station
33+10.Facing Upstream. 34+30.Facin. Upstream.
•
� Y
PP-53: UT1,Reach 4,Station PP-54: UT1,Reach 4,Station
35+00.Facing Upstream. 35+60.Facing Upstream.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 4: Rush Fork: MYO As Built Stream Station Photo Points
NCDMS Proect No.j #100068
•
,ay. ` JS'S.wX yF
G V�
'
'. .�,. cis t._ , .. _
'� {fir- _, of
�a
41,
PP 55: UT1,Reach 4,Station PP 56: UT1,Reach 4, Station
36+15.Facing Upstream 37+00.Facing Upstream.
a1
i
a
-.'
4
•
PP 57: UT1,Reach 4,Station PP 58: UT1,Reach 4,Station
37+50.Facing Upstream. 37+60.Facing Downstream. End
of Project.
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) All Photos taken on April 13, 2022.

Figure 5: Rush Fork: MYO As-Built Vegetation Photo Log
NCDMS Project No. 100068
�i1 ^'4 .�� F�:
t"x� ''1 i Cv.L.'' - -
,Ni
a r �"� z S-J ,5� d it a ,x A ». ! `iC
9 �'
;y "' x "j=,fit r'. I
5
`�h .yr 1
v.,-,v,.• 3 =.fyi� is
r '
1111
t ,g -
Vegetation Plot#1:Photo 3-17-22 Vegetation Plot#2:Photo 3-17-22
i
•A - p 4 p
p y � `l:: Ya il1' qP , , '. t hk �i
ry5, Las
L.,,-l. -;' '4
Vegetation Plot#3:Photo 3-22-22 Vegetation Plot#4:Photo 3-17-22
'' e1 `�. t Y 'k+q. T' T.
_ W b ',t' .s .'
if
liri
or311i ¢
Vegetation Plot#5: Photo 3-22-22 Vegetation Plot#6: Photo 3-17-22
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report (FINAL)

Figure 5: Rush Fork: MY0 As-Built Vegetation Photo Log
NCDMS Project No. 100068
•
Random Vegetation Plot#1: Photo
3-17-22
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report (FINAL)

Figure 6: Rush Fork: MYO As-Built Monitoring Device Photo Log
Mai ''""
:.--'''''Cl';'',;''''''''''-':4: .; l''' ''''1.71,P14";-;-'
��a r it d --�, � � >i . w
':‘4,Tki:"Ii Itiltkt,:".' '''::-'4'''''' ,7;,.:''**4,pt,.:,‘:17,,
r�
b
N`"• j
4
Crest Gauge#1, UT3 Crest Gauge#2, UT1 Reach 2
■
d
21 t ti'�" way ,
ssrr �y` IJ'
k. 5'f 'ice '11 Is
sr
::".,......7.:„..,'_.-__,...._,-
\ . ,. .
Crest Gauge#3, UT1 Reach 4 Flow Gauge#1, UT3
,!...,c,49.,gimings._,,,:_17.1=„
.,_..7...:sw*..,,i.,.,.--.7:1,,,,r,.1,...,(.,,L,'.4'3;,.,::::,',...
A�Z
X
§ T3..
G
t.
,,
Flow Gauge#2, UT2 Flow Gauge#3, UT4
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
As Built Baseline Monitoring Report(FINAL) Photos taken April 13, 2022.

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

TABLE 6. PLANTED STEM COUNTS BY PLOT AND SPECIES
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
7.3
2022-02-23
NA
2022-03-22
2022-03-22
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 5 F
Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 1 R
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Total
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation
Plan
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
FAC
1
1
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye
Tree
FACU
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula lenta
sweet birch
Tree
FACU
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigre
over birch
Tree
FACW
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
8
8
4
4
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
FAC
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
OBL
2
2
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
FACW
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
FACU
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus Ivanica
pennsy
green as h
Tree
FACW
3
3
Halesia caroling
Carolina silverbell
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
2
2
Ilex verticillata
common winterberry
Tree
FACW
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifere
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
1
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
4
4
2
2
2
2
Querous albs
white oak
Tree
FACU
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
Quercus imbricaria
shingle oak
Tree
FAC
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucuscanadensis
American black elderberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FACW
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Xanthorhiza simplicissima
yellowroot
Shrub
FACW
1
1
Sum
Performance Standard
17
17
17
17
18
18
20
20
24
24
16
16
14
Post
Mitigation
Prunus seratina
black cherry
Tree
FACU
1
Sum
Proposed Standard
17
17
17
17
18
18
20
20
24
24
16
16
14
Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
17
17
18
20
24
16
14
Stems/Acre
..__
..__
-_.
810
972
648
567
Species Count
10
10
10
12
9
10
Dominant Species Composition (%)
18
17
22
20
33
25
14
Average Plot Height (ft.)
_
_
_
2
2
2
2
%Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post
Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
17
17
1s
20
24
16
1
Stems/Acre
688
688
-_.
810
972
648
poi
Species Count
9
10
10
10
12
9
10
Dominant Species Composition (%)
18
17
22
20
33
25
1.'
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
2
_
2
2
2
2
%Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1). Bolded speci s are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approv d, and a regul r font indicate that the speci s has been app oved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that w re included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring
year (bolded), pecies that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation pl n addendum regular font),a d species that re not approv d (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitig Lion plan, whe eas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
UT RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)

TABLE 6. PLANTED STEM COUNTS BY PLOT AND SPECIES
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac.
A. t.
# Species
%Invasives
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) Spedes
%Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
%Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
688
`
0
688 10
0
729
10
0
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 5 F
Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac.
A(k)t.
# Species
%Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
%Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
%Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
810
10
0
972
L ` 12
0
648
9
0
Veg P of Group 1 R
Stems/Ac.
A(kit.
#Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
567
Ir 10
0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the r ndom vegetation plot "groups'. Random plots are d noted with an , and fixed plots with an F.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
UT RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)

APPENDIX D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Table 7. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
UT1 - Reach 1-3 (Enhancement)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft)
7.1000
9.65
12.2000
9.90
11.39
12.88
9.00
9.50
10.00
7.79
9.28
9.28
10.76
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.09
27.03
15.09
38.96
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.2700
0.58
0.8900
0.55
0.86
1.16
0.65
0.68
0.70
0.59
0.65
0.65
0.70
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.99
BF Cross -sectional Area (ftz)
3.3300
4.85
6.4
5.4
8.76
12.1
5.9
6.45
7.00
5.44
5.90
5.90
6.36
Width/Depth Ratio
7.9800
26.62
4
45.2600
8.97
13.49
1
18.00
13.80
14.05
14.30
11.13
14.69
14.69
18.24
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1500
1.43
1.7100
1.70
1.67
1.63
1.40
2.20
1.94
2.78
2.78
3.62
Bank Height Ratio
1.0000
1.43
1.8600
1.00
1.19
1.38
1.10
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
d50 (mm)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4.30
14.60
15.40
20.50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-0.0950
-0.0680
-0.0630
-0.0400
Pool Length (ft)
2.00
9.50
10.00
14.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
14.00
42.10
35.00
240.00
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.33
2.46
2.47
2.55
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
---
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
168.14/256/80
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.21
0.15
0.32
0.49
0.15
0.21
0.15
0.21
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
B4a
B4a - B4 - Ba
B4a
B
BF Velocity (fps)
3.00
3.82
4.64
3.42
5.11
6.80
2.15
3.58
5.00
BF Discharge (cfs)
10.00
19.75
29.50
23.90
31.16
38.41
12.60
14.95
17.30
Valley Length
Channel Length (ft)
1,164
1,093.30
1,082.27
Sinuosity
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.02
1.08
1.14
1.05
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Table 7. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
UT1 - Reach 4 (Restoration)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
8.7300
11.07
13.4000
9.90
11.39
1
12.88
12.50
12.75
13.00
12.93
14.21
13.36
15.90
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.96
30.86
24.30
46.32
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.7300
1.01
1.2800
0.55
0.86
1.16
0.90
0.93
0.95
0.69
0.71
0.87
1.11
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.46
1.43
1.60
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft')
9.8600
10.48
11.1
5.4
8.76
12.1
11.3
11.70
12.10
11.01
13.27
14.33
14.48
Width/Depth Ratio
6.8200
12.59
18.3600
8.97
13.49
1
18.00
12.00
15.00
1
18.00
11.65
15.94
13.13
13.13
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4800
2.45
3.4200
1.70
1.67
1.63
1.40
1.80
2.20
1.59
2.13
1.88
1.88
Bank Height Ratio
1.0000
1.31
1.6200
1.00
1.19
1.38
1.00
---
1.62
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
d50 (mm)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.30
19.30
17.70
19.30
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
--
-0.5800
-0.0220
-0.0377
-0.0790
Pool Length (ft)
---
----
2.00
13.40
14.00
22.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
----
----
18.00
44.80
40.00
117.00
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.50
2.55
2.72
2.72
2.89
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
156/180/100.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.48
0.15
0.32
0.49
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4a - B4 - Ba
B4
----
B4
BF Velocity (fps)
3.17
3.61
4.04
3.42
5.11
6.80
4.00
5.00
6
6.00
BF Discharge (cfs)
31.24
38.03
44.81
23.90
3
38.41
37.88
38.13
38.37
Valley Length
Channel Length (ft)
1,300.00
---
1,216.33
----
1,224.37
Sinuosity
1.08
1.11
1.14
1.02
1.08
1.14
1.10
1.15
1.20
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Table 7. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
UT3 - Restoration
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft)
6.58
9.90
11.39
1
12.88
7.50
8.00
8.50
7.04
8.29
7.60
10.92
Floodprone Width (ft)
11.96
15.37
14.41
20.71
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.82
0.55
0.86
1.16
0.57
0.61
0.65
0.52
0.61
0.58
0.77
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.70
0.78
0.85
0.71
0.89
0.89
1.07
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft')
5.4
5.4
8.76
12.1
4.6
5.30
6.00
3.64
5.05
5.16
6.23
Width/Depth Ratio
8.02
8.97
13.49
1
18.00
13.10
10.32
13.88
13.02
19.16
Entrenchment Ratio
2.17
1.70
1.67
1.63
1.40
1.80
2.20
1.70
1.85
1.86
1.97
Bank Height Ratio
1.83
1.00
1.19
1.38
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
d50 (mm)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
----
N/A
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10.20
18.70
16.90
37.20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-0.1400
-0.0660
-0.0649
-0.0330
Pool Length (ft)
2.00
5.70
6.00
12.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
10.00
37.00
34.00
70.00
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.70
1.75
1.80
2.16
2.54
2.53
2.94
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.15
0.15
0.32
0
0.49
0.15
----
0.15
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Ba
B4a - B4 - Ba
Ba
----
B4
BF Velocity (fps)
3.48
3.42
5.11
6.80
4.42
4.71
5.00
BF Discharge (cfs)
18.8
23.90
31.16
38.41
19.00
24.50
3
30.00
Valley Length
1,541
Channel Length (ft)
1,618
1,584.45
----
1,577.53
Sinuosity
1.05
1.02
1.08
1.14
1.02
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Table 8. Cross -Section Morphology Data Summary
UT to Rush Fork Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
Stream Reach
UT3
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)
Cross section X-9 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
M1'1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
3063.86
3048.03
3028.13
3010.84
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
3062.99
3045.87
3027.42
3007.90
LT0132 Elevation
3063.86
3048.03
3028.13
3010.84
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
0.87
2.16
0.71
2.94
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
4.20
11.12
3.64
15.11
Stream Reach
UT3 UT 1 Reach 4
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross section X-6 (Pool)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
M1'1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
2998.75
2985.03
2976.51
2970.37
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
2997.84
2982.50
2975.44
2969.02
LTOB2 Elevation
2998.75
2985.03
2976.51
2970.37
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
0.91
2.53
1.07
1.35
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
6.23
15.51
6.11
11.01
Stream Reach
UT1 Reach 4
Cross section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-11 (Pool)
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
M1'1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
2954.14
2922.10
2913.15
2904.41
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
2951.59
2920.67
2910.26
2902.81
LTOB2 Elevation
2954.14
2922.10
2913.15
2904.41
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
2.55
1.43
2.89
1.60
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
27.56
14.50
31.24
14.33
Table 8. Cross -Section Morphology Data Summary
UT to Rush Fork Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
Stream Reach
UT1 Reach
UT1 Reach 2 INNUT1 Reach 3
Cross-section X-13 (Pool)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-15 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-16 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
M1'1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
3051.49
3025.48
3008.35
2998.87
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
3049.01
3024.52
3007.37
2996.54
LTOB2 Elevation
3051.49
3025.48
3008.35
2998.87
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
2.48
0.96
0.98
2.33
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
12.13
5.44
6.36
12.06
Stream Reach
UT1 Reach
Cross-section X-17 (Pool)
Cross-section X-18 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
2986.75
2976.03
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
2984.29
2973.48
LTOB2 Elevation
2986.75
2976.03
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
2.46
2.55
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
17.60
17.29
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT (FINAL)

Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles
3060
3055
3050
3045
3040
3035
0
T
y
W
3030
3025
3020
3015
3010
3005
Rush Fork: UT-1 (R1, R2, and R3) Longitudinal Profile
X$
•13
Culvert
Crossing
K1/KL
Reach
Break
R2/R3
Reach Break
1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350
Reach Stationing
1 Grade Control Structure TWG — LTB RTB WSF Cross -Section
1400
1450
Reach Break
1500
1550
1600
1650
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

3015
3010
3005
3000
2995
0
2990
v
w
2985
2980
2975
2970
2965
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
• Grade Control Structure
Rush Fork: UT-1 (R1, R2, and R3) Longitudinal Profile (cont.)
1900
1950
2000
2050
Reach Stationing
TWG LTB RTB WSF Cross -Section
2100
2150
2200
2250
2300
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

2980
2975
2970
2965
2960
$ 2955
0
O 2950
w
2945
2940
2935
2930
2925
AIM
XS-R
2240 2340
Rush Fork: UT1 (R4) Longitudinal Profile
XS-9
•
2540
2640
Reach Stationing
Route
Cro
:09 Road
ssing
2740 2840 2940
Grade Control Structure LTB RTB WSF f Cross -Sections
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

2935
2930
2925 —
2920
2915
0
co
2910
w
2905
2900
2895
Culvert
Crossing
2890
3025 3j
Rush Fork: UT1 (R4) Longitudinal Profile (cont.)
.0
Grade Control Structure
3325
XS-11
3425
Reach Stationing
XS-11
3525 3625 3725
TWG LTB RTB WSF Cross -Sections
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

0
v
w
2998
2996
2994
2992
2990
2988
2986
1000
1010
1020
1030
Rush Fork: Reach UT2 Longitudinal Profile
1040
1050
Reach Stationing
1060
�TWG —LTB —•— RTB
1070
- WSF
1080
1090
1100
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

3090
3080
3070
3060
3050
co
v
w
3040
3030
3020
3010
S-1
AIM
Rush Fork: Reach UT3 Longitudinal Profile
XS-2
-
5-3
1
950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800
Grade Control Structure
Reach Stationing
TWG LTB RTB WSF f Cross -Sections
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

3018
3013
3008
3003
2998
0
2993
co
w 2988
2983
2978
2973
2968
Rush Fork: Reach UT3 Longitudinal Profile (cont.)
XS-5
Culvert
Crossing
XS-6
XS-7
1820 1870 1920 1970 2020 2070 2120 2170 2220 2270 2320 2370 2420 2470 2520 2570 2620 2670
Reach Stationing
Grade Control Structure TWG LTB — RTB WSF Cross -Sections
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

2969
2968
2967
$ 2966
0
ro
v
"' 2965
2964
2963
2962
Rush Fork: Reach UT4 Longitudinal Profile
995 1005 1015 1025 1035 1045
-TWG
Reach Stationing
�LTB �RTB
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 1
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B
4.2
7.25
0.58
0.87
12.5
1.0
1.81
3063.86
3063.86
3070
3069
3068
y 3067
0 3066
c0
d 3065
w
3064
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT 3, Cross -Section 1
j
As
3063
3062
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
—o— -built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
3061
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 2
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Lett I3ank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
C
11.12
14.64
0.76
2.16
19.26
----
----
3048.03
3048.03
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross -Section 2
3051
3050
y 3049
c
0
0 3048
0
w
3047
3046
SAs-built
---e--- Bankfull
-eFloodprone
--3045
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 3
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
no-
F
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B
3.64
7.04
0.52
0.71
13.54
1.0
1.7
3028.13
3028.13
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross -Section 3
3031
3030
ate.+
w
C
0
a 3029
d
w
As
3028
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
—o— -built
-0--Bankfull
---e--• Floodprone
3027
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 4
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E
15.11
13.05
1.16
2.94
11.25
----
----
3010.84
3010.84
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross -Section 4
3015
3014 4.N,
3013 -
3012
C
0
co 3011
d
W3010-
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
.
.
3009 -
- -x--• Bankfull
--- --- Floodprone
As
3008 -
-built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
3007
1 1 1
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 5
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B
6.23
10.92
0.57
0.91
19.16
1.0
1.9
2998.75
2998.75
3002
3001
3000
0
d
2999
2998
2997
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross -Section 5
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
As -built
---0--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
0 10 20
Station (ft)
30
40
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 6
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E
15.51
12.07
1.29
2.53
9.36
----
----
2985.03
2985.03
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross -Section 6
2989
2988
2987
w
0 2986
ca
d 2985
w
•
2984
As
2983
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
t -built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
2982
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 7
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B
6.11
7.95
0.77
1.07
10.32
1.0
1.97
2976.51
2976.51
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross -Section 7
2981
2980
2979
c
0
v 2978
a)
Lu
2977
— —
2976
Left and right pin are flush with ground
and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
tAs-built
-0 Bankfull
--surface
---e--- Floodprone
2975
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 8
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
11.01
15.9
0.69
1.35
23.04
1.0
2.91
2970.37
2970.37
2973
2972
ate.+
2971
0
ca
u 2970
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross -Section 8
-
As
2969
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the--
furthest point on the X axis.
t -built
---e--- Bankfull
4 Floodprone
2968
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 9
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
B
27.56
19.55
1.41
2.55
13.87
----
----
2954.14
2954.14
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT 1 Reach 4, Cross -Section 9
2958
2957
2956
0 2955
ca
d 2954
w
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
2953
As
2952
t -built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
2951
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 10
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B
14.5
13.79
1.05
1.43
13.13
1.0
1.59
2922.1
2922.1
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross -Section 10
2926
2925
2924
c
0
0 2923
d
w
2922
—
e
As
2921
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
-built
"-0" BankfUll
furthest point on the X axis.
---e--• Floodprone
2920
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 11
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E
31.24
17.43
1.79
2.89
9.74
----
----
2913.15
2913.15
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross -Section 11
2917
2916
2915
2914
c
0
v 2913
d
w 2912
-0
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
As
2911
t -built
---e--- Bankfull
2910
---e--- Floodprone
2909
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 12
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Restoration
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B
14.33
12.93
1.11
1.6
11.65
1.0
1.88
2904.41
2904.41
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross -Section 12
2907
2906 <>
ate.+
2905
•.
dsurface
w 2904
— —
Left and right pin are flush with ground
and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
As
2903
t -built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
2902
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 13
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Enhancement
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E
12.13
9.45
1.28
2.48
7.38
----
----
3051.49
3051.49
3056
3055
3054
te+
3053
c
0
0 3052
_0
w 3051
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 1, Cross -Section 13
—
As
3050
3049
Left and right pin are flush with ground--
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
t -built
4 Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
3048
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 14
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Enhancement
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B
5.44
7.79
0.7
0.96
11.13
1.0
1.94
3025.48
3025.48
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 2, Cross -Section 14
3030
3029
w 3028
C
0
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
0 3027
d
w
3026
As
3025
t -built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
3024
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 15
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Enhancement
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.36
10.76
0.6
0.99
18.24
1.0
3.62
3008.35
3008.35
3011
3010
0
0 3009
3008
3007
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross -Section 15
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
—o— As -built
---e--- Bankfull
-e Floodprone
0
10 20
Station (ft)
30
40
50
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 16
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Enhancement
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
--
12.06
11.68
1.03
2.33
11.34
--
--
2998.87
2998.87
3002
3001
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross -Section 16
—
3000
c
0
co 2999
y
W
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
2998
As
2997
-built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
2996
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 17
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Enhancement
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
B
17.6
12.06
1.5
2.46
8.26
----
----
2986.75
2986.75
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross -Section 17
2990
2989
^+ 2988
C
0
0 2987
d
w
—
o
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
2986
As
2985
t -built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
2984
0 10 20
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

FIGURE 8. MY-0 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent Cross -Section 18
(As -built Survey Data Collected: March 2022)
Enhancement
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
B
17.29
15.15
1.14
2.55
13.29
----
----
2976.03
2976.03
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross -Section 18
2979
c:
2978
2977
c
0
cv 2976
d
uJ
2975
o
z.Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
As
2974
—o— -built
---e--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
2973
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX E
Record Drawing Plan Sheets

BETSEYS
GAP RD
•
N.T.S.
PROJECT
AREA
VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF SHEETS
1 TITLE SHEET
1-A
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
VEGETATION SELECTION
1-B NCDOT CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 - 2F DETAILS
3 - 10 PLAN VIEW
11 - 15 PROFILES
16 BMP DETAIL
r Y
GRAPHIC SCALES
20
0
20 40
20
PLANS
0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
5 0 10 20
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
fr
1
1
1
1
1
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
HAYWOOD COUNTY
LOCATION: FROM EXIT 24 ON INTERSTATE 40, TRAVEL NORTH FOR
5.75 MILES ON NC HWY 209 RUSH FORK ROAD
TYPE OF WORK: RECORD DRAWINGS
BEGIN UT3
STA. 10+00.38
--t
MITIGATION S UMMAR Y
STREAM
STREAM
STREAM
REACH RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT I ENHANCEMENT II
UT1 R1 0 206.41 0
UT1 R2 0 0 275.00
UT1 R3 0 600.86 0
UT1 R4 1224.37 0 0
UT2 0 0 78.16
UT3 1577.53 0 0
UT4 41.90 0 0
TOTAL 2843.80
807.27 353.16
BEGIN UT1 REACH 1
STA. 10+98.02
ter.-- -----'--- -
---
1
1
1
1
1
END UT,'1 REACH 3
BEGIN UT'1 REACH 4
ST. 22+50.94
11
BEGIN UT4
STA. 10+00.00
END UT1 REACH 1
BEGIN UT1 REACH 2
STA. 13+25.00
END UT1 REACH 2
BEGIN UT1 REACH 3
STA. 16+00.00
BEGIN UT2
STA. 10+05.88/
END UT2 STA. 10+84.04
TOB UT1 REACH 3
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
NCDEQ
NC DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
217 WEST JONES STREET, SUTIE 3000a
RALEIGH, NC 27603
END UT3 STA. 26+24.54
TOB REACH UT1 REACH 3 & 4
END UT4 STA. 10+41.90
TOB UT1 REACH 4
♦
•
•
•
STATE
BARER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
NC
166680
1
24
END UT1 REACH 4
STA. 37+80.92
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
CONTACT: PAUL WIESNER
PROJECT MANAGER
LETTING DATE:
KATHLEEN M. MCKEITHAN, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
PROJECT ENGINEER
,o\.N.CARp.•/
L%
FSSIp'.9'�
SEAL l •'
028432
•'FNGI NE:'P�:
P.E.
SIGNATURE:

ST
NV
�NTION
SYM
I.)
OLS
ST NDA
I•\
SPECI
ICATIONS
i
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
%
166680
1-A
PROJECT ENGINEER
c
0-1
m
Q
CO
CO
CO
CO
7-
c
0
0-1
m
7-
c
a)
0
7-
L
0
CC
CO
CO
i
N U
a)
O 0
i
N. Q
l9/
L(:1�
OO
o
i103-300
J-HOOK VANE
EAM C
SUP
GRADE CONTROL J-HOOK VANE
cuTTE ROCK VANE
OUTLET PROTECTION
ROCK CROSS VANE
DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE
LOG AND ROCK STEP / POOL
(4-1-TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
SOON
irealre
•
o®
00
ROOT WAD
LOG J-HOOK VANE
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE
LOG VANE
LOG STEP
0
0 0
0
LOG CROSS VANE
LOG ROLLER
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BOULDER CLUSTER
BOULDER STEP
0 SAFETY FENCE
TF TAPE FENCE
- -WLB- - JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BOUNDARY
ARC
- T(�
AS SH 1-
FP 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
CE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- ---435---- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
- ------------- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
PROPERTY LINE
0-0
FOOT BRIDGE
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
40) TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TREE REMOVAL
TREE PROTECTION
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL FILL
SOD MAT WITH WOOD TOE
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
1 //
munmumum
MEMEMEMMI
MMEMEMEME-----•
aniudowip
x
•
O
ROOT WAD REVETMENT WITH LIVE BRUSH
BOULDER TOE PROTECTION
PROPOSED WETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENT
PROPOSED WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
PROPOSED WETLAND REHABILITATION
**NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
MONITORING WELL
RAIN GAUGE
CREST GAUGE
IN STREAM
FLOW GAUGE
NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
MARCH 2009 (REV 2013)
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.62 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
.*`L.VN� CARGl'.
•
4.Q� SEAL
028432
•
,,' it eN. ii11 O,,
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
G
ENE
AL NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN -STREAM STRUCTURES USING A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE BOULDERS (3'x2'x2'), LOGS AND ROOTWADS.
2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE
EFFORTS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED FOR THE SPRING OF 2020.
4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE -CALL" BEFORE EXCAVATION STARTS. (1-800-632-4949)
5. BOULDER SIZES FOR IN -STREAM STRUCTURES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3'x2'x1' AND CAN BE CHANGED PER STRUCTURE OR THE
DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
6. ALL ON -SITE ALLUVIUM SHALL BE HARVESTED AND STOCKPILED PRIOR TO FILLING ABANDONED CHANNELS.
7. TOPSOIL SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH OF 8" AND STOCKPILED SEPARATELY FROM UNDERCUT SOIL. 8" OF TOPSOIL SHALL
BE PLACED ON ALL BANKFULL BENCHES AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
8. ALL DISTURBED EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE MATTED WITH COIR FIBER MATTING OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
9. ALL STREAM BANKS SHALL BE LIVE STAKED.
10. UNLESS THE ALIGNMENT IS BEING ALTERED, THE EXISTING CHANNEL DIMENSIONS ARE TO REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
11. CONTRACTOR WILL ENSURE THAT FENCING IS INSTALLED ON OR OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE
PLANS BUT NO MORE THAN 1' OUTSIDE.
12. WHERE PROPOSED FENCE CROSSES EXISTING STREAMS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE A SECTION OF BREAK AWAY FENCE,
A FLOOD GATE, OR ELECTRIFIED CHAINS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
13. ANY BORROW OR WASTE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT MUST COME FROM OR GO TO A PERMITTED SITE AND/OR FACILITY.
d
Q
i
Z
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
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
Betula nigra
River Birch
10%
FACW
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
10%
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
10%
FACU
Betula lenta
Sweet Birch
10%
FAC
Quercus alba
White Oak
10%
FACU
Tilia americana
American Basswood
0%
FACU
Aesculus (lava
Yellow Buckeye
7.5%
FACU
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
5%
FAC
Fraxinus americana
White Ash
5%
FACU
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
7.5%
FAC
Ulmus americana
American Elm
5%
FACW
General Riparian Zone - Understory/Shrub Species
Rhododendron maximum
Rosebay
FAC
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
2.5%
FAC
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
FACW
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
FAC
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
2.5%
FAC
Magnolia tripetala
Umbrella Tree
0%
FACU
Halesia carolina
Carolina Silverbell
5%
FAC
PERCETAGES SHOWN IN RED ARE THE CONSTRUCTED PLANTED PERCENTATGE.
VEGETATION SELECTION
Wetland Zone - Overstory/Canopy Species
Betula nigra
River Birch
15%
FACW
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
15%
FACW
Betula alleghaniensis
Yellow Birch
10%
FAC
Quercus imbricaria
Shingle Oak
5%
FAC
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
5%
FAC
Acer negundo
Box Elder
5%
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
5%
FACW
Ulmus americana
American Elm
5%
FACW
Wetland
Zone - Understory/Shrub
Species
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
15%
OBL
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
5%
FACW
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
5%
FAC
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2.5%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
2.5%
FACW
Xanthorhiza simplicissima
Yellow -root
2.5%
FACW
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2.5%
FACW
Streambank Live Stake Plantings
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
25%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
10%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
25%
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow
20%
OBL
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation
Project - NCDMS Project
No. 100068
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted
by Species
Density
(lbs/ac)
Wetland
Tolerance
Agrostis perennans
Autumn Bentgrass
10%
1.5
FACU
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wildrye
15%
2.25
FACW
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
2.25
FAC
Tripsacum dactyloides
Eastern Gamma Grass
5%
0.75
FACW
Polygonum pennsylvanicum
Pennsylvania 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
Tioga Deer Tongue
15%
2.25
FAC
Andropogon gerardii
Big Blue Stem
5%
0.75
FAC
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian Grass
5%
0.75
FACU
Total
100%
15
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.

PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680 1-B
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
c
01
CO
cn
m
cn
CO
CO
CO
m
i
c
01
a)
0
L
O
LL
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
N O
N
0
N O
L
Q Q
N/
a
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY:
State Line
County Line
Township Line
City Line
Reservation Line
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin
Property Corner
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Line
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
Proposed Chain Link Fence
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
0
EIP
x
0
x
x
Existing Wetland Boundary
Proposed Wetland Boundary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE:
Gas Pump Vent or U/G
Sign
Well
Small Mine
Foundation
Area Outline
Cemetery
Building
School
Church
Dam
Tank Cap
HYDROLOGY:
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone 2
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream
Spring
Wetland
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
*LB
*LB
EAB
EPB
0
0
s
O
t
Js
BZ 1
BZ 2
J
< FLON
ST
VISI
•
c+r
Ir
H
C
OL N
AYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
RAILROADS:
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost
Switch
RR Abandoned
RR Dismantled
RIGHT OF WAY:
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker
Existing Right of Way Line
Proposed Right of Way Line
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Access
Proposed Control of Access
Existing Easement Line
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement —
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement
CSX TRANSPORTATION
0
MILEPOST 35
SWITCH
0
A
Proposed Temporary Utility Easement
Proposed Permanent Easement with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES:
Existing Edge of Pavement -
Existing Curb -
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
Existing Cable Guiderail
Proposed Cable Guiderail
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
VEGETATION:
Single Tree
Single Shrub
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard
Vineyard
E
E
TDE
PDE
PUE
TUE
c
F
T T T T
n n n
n n n n
z
C3
Vineyard
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Wall -
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES:
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer
U/G Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole
Recorded U/G Power Line
Designated U/G Power Line (S.U.E.*)
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole
Proposed Telephone Pole
Telephone Manhole
Telephone Booth
Telephone Pedestal
Telephone Cell Tower
U/G Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded U/G Telephone Cable
Designated U/G Telephone Cable (S.U.E.*) —
Recorded U/G Telephone Conduit
Designated U/G Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.*)
Recorded U/G Fiber Optics Cable
Designated U/G Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.*-
CONC
CONC WW
CONC HW
0 CB
O
S
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter
Water Valve
Water Hydrant
UN,
•.`� 0N
.
•% 9.
SEAL
•
039201
.
• FNG I F••
Recorded U/G Water Line
Designated U/G Water Line
Above Ground Water Line
TV:
TV Satellite Dish
-< TV Pedestal
b
P
T
T-
TC
TC-
T FO
T FO
TV Tower
(S.U.E.*)
U/G TV Cable Hand Hole
Recorded U/G TV Cable
Designated U/G TV Cable
(S.U.E.*)
Recorded U/G Fiber Optic Cable
Designated U/G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.*)_
GAS :
Gas Valve
Gas Meter
Recorded U/G Gas Line
Designated U/G Gas Line (S.U.E.*)
Above Ground Gas Line
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout
U/G Sanitary Sewer Line
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer
Recorded SS Forced Main Line
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.*)
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
Utility Pole with Base
Utility Located Object
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown U/G Line
U/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
A/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
U/G Test Hole (S.U.E.*)
Abandoned According to Utility Records
End of Information
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
A/G Water
HH
TV
-TV-
TV FO
- — — — TV F 0 — — —
G
A/G Gas
O
SS
A/G Sanitary Sewer
FSS
--FSS----
•
0
0
❑s
?UTL
AATUR
E.O.I.
revised OZ/UZ/

TYPICAL RIFFLE, POOL, AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS SECTIONS
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO. 1
166680
2
PROJECT ENGINEER
c
0-1
CV
cn
O-
m
cn
CO
CO
CO
0-1
c
/
m
/
c
a)
0
/
L
0
LL
CC
CO
CO
i
N 0
N
0
N 0
L
Q Q
(NJ/
Wbkf
RIFFLE or PLUNGE POOL
//\//X//\�,2,
CFO
s<\
O O
Wb
Wbkf
POOL (MEANDER)
S\
w/i �i //in
VARIES
but z 30'
VARIES
but z 30'
Wbkf
Wb
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
TOP OF TERRACE
VARIES
but Z 30'
BENCH LIMITS
TOP OF TERRACE
BENCH LIMITS
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf)
AVERAGE DEPTH
MAXIMUM DEPTH (Dmax)
W/D (Wbkf/Dbkf)
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf)
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)
RIFFLE SIDE SLOPE (X:1)
INSIDE POOL SIDE SLOPE
OUTSIDE POOL SIDE SLOPE
/44. ;••FFSSIp. '•9'• 11,
: SEAL �'
028432
.#0�7%•'FNGINE ..• -•
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
UT1 R1, R2, &
R3 UPPER
10+00-19+50
UT1 R3
LOWER
19+50-22+61
UT1 R4
UPPER
22+61-28+00
UT1 R4
LOWER
28+00-37+95
UT2
UT3 UPPER
11+50 - 16+50
UT3 LOWER
16+50 - 26+45
UT4
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
9.00
11.50
10.00
12.50
12.50
16.50
13.00
17.50
4.50
6.60
7.50
10.00
8.50
12.00
5.80
7.50
0.65
1.11
0.70
1.40
0.90
1.70
0.95
1.80
0.45
0.70
0.57
1.10
0.65
1.30
0.45
0.70
0.80
1.50
1.00
2.00
1.20
2.50
1.30
2.50
0.60
1.00
0.70
1.70
0.85
1.80
0.50
1.00
13.80
10.40
14.30
9.20
13.90
9.50
13.70
9.80
13.00
9.50
13.10
8.90
13.10
9.50
12.90
10.30
5.90
12.80
7.00
17.00
11.30
28.80
12.10
31.30
2.20
4.60
4.30
11.20
6.00
15.10
2.60
5.50
5.80
5.50
5.00
4.50
8.10
6.50
8.50
7.50
4.00
2.60
4.70
3.20
4.90
4.80
3.60
3.50
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
N/A
2.00
i
a
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
ROOT WADS
COVER LOGS
GRADE CONTROL
LOG J-HOOK VANE
(SEE SHEET 2-D)
i
7
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
(SEE SHEET 2-D)
TOP OF BANK
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
o z
-0\77
GPI.
ONO
off`
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
(SEE SHEET 2-D)
STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES, ROOT WADS, LOG VANES AND COIR FIBER
MATTING WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN.
2. ANY CHANGES TO NUMBER OR LOCATION OF STRUCTURES DURING
CONSTRUCTION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER.
3. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS,
FLOODPLAIN BENCHING, AND TERRACE SLOPES AS DESCRIBED IN THE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
4. ROOTWADS MAY BE REPLACED WITH GEOLIFT.
z
of
LULL
SIN
J-
Ow
O,LJ
a
Jl=�
vowCO
.00
/
//
i
1/2 - 2/3 TOP OF BANK
SILL
B
FLOW
1/3 BOTTOM WIDTH
NO GAPS
BETWEEN
BOULDERS
VANE ANGLE
20° TO 30°
PLAN VIEW
1/2 - 2/3 TOP OF BANK
ROCK CROSS VANE
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS.
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
3. CONSTRUCT ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS AS SHOWN.
4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, & #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE
CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW.
8. ON -SITE ALLUVIUM SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE STONE BACKFILL WHERE
AVAILABLE.
9. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
10. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'.
TOE OF BANK
BANKFULL STAGE
FLOW
STREAM BED
ELEVATION
FLOW
RIFFLE
\ i\° °OSCOUR
FILTER FABIC
FLOW
FILTER FABRIC
CHANNEL BED
,".
6' MINIMUM
2'
MIN-Pil
1.11. CHANNEL BED
Pon
SECTION A - A
WELL GRADED MIX
HEADER ROCK
STREAM BANK
/ \ \ \/\�\ \�\/ \/ FOOTER ROCK
B'
PROFILE VIEW B - B'
VANE ARM
CROSS VANE INVERT/GRADE POINT
RUN
/ \\/\\/\///\%//\//�� POOL
RIFF�F
//, \//, \//, \ 7\�\//// /\/\
PROFILE VIEW C - C'

c
0-1
CV
cn
m
m
cn
Q
co
cO
c0
i
c
ro
0
i
m
i
c
01
0
i
L
0
LL_
m
CO
c0
i
("N 0
N 8)
0 -)
N 0
L
QQ
e
ROCK VANE
( PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO. 1
BOULDER STEP
166680
2A
TOP
A
TOE
PROJECT ENGINEER
O� O���, C p R-I/l�'�
: i9','
1/3
BOTTOM
WIDTH
OF
CHANNEL
OF BANK
p
o °o°o,
°r,.� o® °
°o
t. ��°
r
° °8 °O
�.� FESSIp
•: :' �0 '1'y'•.
- _ APPROVED BY:
SEAL e
F. •039201
•
•• ••'••A Fc% i ��
.�,�9C .,GIN•,,. �c�,,��
FLOW
g t
oo �o ��� o
°°$
t B'
,,,,�� i'� i�� ,,,
DATE:
M
(V
STONE BACKFILL
HEADER ROCK
J °•�
11
Joel
,00 �;
°°I'
20° TO 30°
_Yips00
S:
A�� �
Oo.
• 0
Q•�'
.I
ISCOUR
N,
vi
'4 NO GAPS BETWEEN
\
POOL
/
..'----
ROCKS
STREAM BED ELEVATION
BANKFULL
FLOW -�
SLOPE
HEADER ROCK
v
°O o0oo oO
67a' o
o o 0 o
�
�O�
B o opt•' � .°
�08 �O�
8 ob,:
8�� �o
��
�C ae Baker
9 9
M oh egeBa PerkEngineering
a , S ee sono Inc.
8Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone:[phone]
g o,�°OB
o® o o �.,
& 58 o°00 08 �.:�
000�a
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
®oB°%f%�
o°o °000 000°is ;Da o° °' o�
° °° ° °° °$°„ o°
N C DMS I D N O. 10006 8
o® :•�° °•°° °
-•OO~ fi••°
��"`� �� ��
BOULDERSill
`
-- --
HEAD OF RIFFLE
A'
BOULDER
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED) 4% TO 7%
FOOTER ROCK
��
PER DIRECTION
OF ENGINEER ---- -___
0 o ,0oo
PLAN VIEW
CL\DE •••••: •• /�
•. • �. ow,@®� •. ; o .•�: ►, . IFFY
:ok..!oo °••°g°�°o0o O• ., 0,o
oo° °•• �)8o��t°� 0
o.o o q� w.
BOTTOM
PLAN VIEW
WIDTH
STONE BACKFILL�
FOOTER ROCK
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (EXCAVATED)
SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
PROFILE VIEW
80.'-c' �1 POOL
rin
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX
STREAMBED
HEADER ROCK
STONE BACKFILL
PROFILE A - A'
NOTES:
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
1. HEADER AND FOOTER BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 1' X 2' X 3'.
2. FOOTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT 1/4 TO 1/3 OF THE LENGTH IS DOWNSTREAM OF
THE HEADER.
3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTERS WITH THE BUCKET
OF EXCAVATOR.
4. INSTALL NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH FOOTER BOULDERS.
5. UNDERCUT THE RIFFLE ELEVATION 12 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR A LAYER OF STONE.
6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION
CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
7. FILL TRENCH WITH GRADED MIX OF CLASS A, CLASS B, AND #57 STONE TO THE BED ELEVATION
OF THE CHANNEL.
8. BOULDER STEPS MUST BE EXTENDED TO A MINIMUM OF 2' INTO THE BANK. USE SILL BOULDERS
IF NECESSARY.
9. THALWEG AND STEP INVERT WILL BE CONCAVE AND SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF THE DESIGNER.
10. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'.
0
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS.
0o
°0800°°080°00°080°
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST
3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE
4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL
AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK. ooQo°O600Qo°O6000000°
AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS. Q0o0°°Q0C°�0°°Q0C�0°°o
FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. 00 00 00 0
5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL
SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A
IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
FOOTER ROCK
WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, &
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM
CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL
#57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE
WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE
OF FLOW.
STAGE.
10' MINIMUM
SECTION A - A
9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x
4'.
GRADE CONTROL ROCK J-HOOK VANE
ROCK J-HOOK VANE
1/3 BOTTOM
1/3 BOTTOM
1/3 BOTTOM
1/3 BOTTOM
STONE BACKFILL
WIDTH OF
CHANNEL
20° TO 30°
WIDTH OF
CHANNEL
FLOW
LEAVE GAPS (OPTIONAL)
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER STREAM BED ELEVATION
BANKFULL
HEADER ROCK
WIDTH OF �� WIDTH OF
CHANNEL CHANNEL
FLOW
20° TO 30° _
�-) Dri o°QOQQ o°QoCXJ
.� OOO O CCo O CCo
���°°*.�o.ft.Cao `i.o
ROo,0 �- •,/0°
�Oa
STREAM BED ELEVATION
STONE BACKFILL BANKFULL
[HEADER ROCK
.
o FLOW -i-
r i0 o�OV 4% TO 7% SLOPE
J°°
•��
'o
FLOW��.
SLOPE
o
4% TO 7%
q
�8C�o0
0�.
-
- - - - - -
cu
°'
°°Qo
0
D
°QoQQ
Lu
q
oJO�t�.
���000
!
�v
000 ° CQ 00
�O
LL
.A'
.�cn°/
,o°ko �.-
�O•//•
•
off. %'
STONE BACKFILL'�
FOOTER ROCK
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (EXCAVATED)
SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
cn
_,
_,
o3
co
N
'O
�U, A �'
�\
goo i
j%•�
ooQ: %' '\
�/S'�'' %. \
co
STONE BACKFILL
FOOTER ROCK
GEOTEXTILE FABRIQ���`%cu
PROFILE VIEW
x
N
o11
�. SCOUR ,� SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
I
o0�1 / POOL \ PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
•, ` PROFILE VIEW
3...
�.
10NO
Qo'r'
)•I1
o °o
J°p
o o�J`'
HEADER
I I
\ 1
` ,,
FOOTER ROCK
GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX
STREAMBED
ROCK
HEADER ROCK
STONE BACKFILL
PLAN VIEW
N
oo°
o.
CIO•/
QQ'1�
)000°°
j��
�o�
�Oo•
�8i
POOL
;
Y
i z
\
�'•- - co
FOOTER ROCK
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
PER DIRECTION
BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX
STREAMBED
HEADER ROCK
STONE BACKFILL
OF ENGINEER
0�8o000t8o000�8�°
°OQoq 00Qoo °0Qo0o°
NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS �9o°°Ooo°°°oo°°Qo
HEADER ROCK
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
PLAN VIEW
FOOTER ROCK
0°O0°o8000°080�
°
�BoOOo 0
ooQ00000°o080,0%
0, (- °000° °000° °o
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
10' MINIMUM �
SECTION A - A
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
FOOTER ROCK
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS.
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, & #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE
CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW.
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'.
5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
10' MINIMUM
SECTION A - A
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, & #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE
CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW.
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'.

A
LOG AND ROCK STEP / POOL
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO. 1
166680
2B
PROJECT ENGINEER
c
m
CV
cn
m
m
CO
CO
CO
c
0
0-1
m
i
c
a)
0
i
L
0
LL
0
CC
CO
CO
i
N 0
N 8)
0 -)
(NI0
L
QQ
N/
PROTECT BANK
USING TRANSPLANTS
PROTECT BANK
USING GEOLIFT
dirN
•
♦
so u0
° t)8(0•
0 gpcl EXCAVATE
pp�qq rioo0A POOL
SOUO ��Uc>
000go°000•-
o 000o 000
coo00000i
8C5o0t)0DC5c
00 000000 g�Q
°00
% . 00 oO 00'
j EXCAVATE IpOpt)�0o'I
n00 0°000•
' POOL ;i�°O�o,0°g82°
0 0.0° 0,
♦
-t
ifiste
-
A'
PLAN VIEW
PROTECT BANK USING
ROOT WADS
+
BANKFULL
0,q0
)0 00
0
PI
noon
-STONE BACKFILL
0IN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SECTION A - A'
BASE FLOW
HEADER LOG
1%
SECTION B - B'
FOOTER LOG
�.sAlt\\ CAR07i1'.
.,� O<cESSjo. Yy'1.:
SEALN9e •
039201
••FNG•
I F�' s��.
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
Michael Baker
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 8" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED
AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 3' ON EACH SIDE.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE 1' X 2' X 3' AND PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
5. TOEWOOD OR TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF BOUDERS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
6. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH WELL
GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, & #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE.
a
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMBED
2/3
PLAN VIEW
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE
STONE BACKFILL
HEADER LOG
ANY GAPS BETWEEN LOGS MUST BE FILLED WITH OTHER
RECENTLY HARVETED BRANCHES OR COBBLE AND GRAVEL
BEFORE INSTALLING FILTER FABRIC AND BACK FILLING ARM
1/3
20°-30°
FILTER FABRIC
ROOTWAD
LOG BURIED IN
STREAM BANK
AT LEAST 6'.
BOULDERS CAN
ALSO BE USED.
FOOTER LOG
1/2 - 2/3 BANKFULL
6' MINIMUM
SECTION A - A'
ROOTWAD
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC
FLOW
STREAMBED
HEADER LOG
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED, AND FOOTERED.
2. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 2' x 2' x 1'.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
4. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG INTO THE
BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
5. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ACHORING.
6. HEADER BOULDERS TO BE PLACED 0.5 TO 0.75 FEET APART.
7. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
8. TRANSPLANTS OR BOULDERS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
9. BOULDER SILL MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 6'.
10. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH WELL GRADED MIX
OF CLASS B, CLASS A, & #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM
WHERE AVAILABLE.
��iy% ;%--/i%'
ii,��% may _' /i
/---- - - '''' ,•- --- -- ---.' - --.. \
C----;J:----;1.---:-;1"-- ..-.1-; -------;;:-.;:15:7----71,;;;;I:;:3-";'?'
v�f --
ANY GAPS BETWEEN LOGS MUST BE FILLED WITH OTHER
RECENTLY HARVETED BRANCHES BEFORE INSTALLING
FILTER FABRIC AND BACK FILLING ARM
11paiL
-
,e t„, L
f�14
PROFILE VIEW
FOOTER LOG
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMBED
A
- •
EXCAVATE
POOL
POOL
/
0
2/3
PLAN VIEW
♦
1/3
BANKFULL
♦
♦
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LOG VANE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
ROOTWAD
LOG BURIED IN
STREAMBANK AT LEAST 5'
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ANCHOR LOGS.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
4. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
5. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
7. TOEWOOD OR TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
8. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH WELL
GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, & #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE.
STONE BACKFILL
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
1/2 - 2/3 BANKFULL
FLOW
STREAMBED
BOULDER
HEADER LOG
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC
6' MINIMUM
SECTION A - A'
ROOTWAD
010
I IS ,d0*°
PROFILE VIEW
4
pig 07). .
FOOTER LOG
t✓

ROCK DOUBLE DROP CROSS VANE
BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO. 1
166680
2C
PROJECT ENGINEER
c
LJ
CV
cn
0-
m
cn
CO
CO
CO
i
In
c
0_
i
m
In
0-1
i
c
a)
0
i
L
0
LL
In
m
CO
CO
7-
(Nl 0
N a)
0 -)
(NI 0
L
Q Q
1/3 1/3
BOTTOM BOTTOM
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF
CHANNEL CHANNEL
1/3
BOTTOM
WIDTH OF
CHANNEL
W
CD
LI
0u) •
co _13 �.•,.
(NJJ _/ O.
' 00 ►s
z -Podr
o O"
)0 D%
JO O&
J0
Jo
t�
NO GAPS
BETWEEN BOULDERS
,O°-,000
FLOW
20° TO 30°
JooOVoQooOU ooJ�
A o °800e00800::000t-'
�0 °°000� � °0%.� 4 °0� 00000 °0C
0000 •
,Oo
• 100OC
"08�
)00\
00
ii0Occ 0
- . Ac
8L
i
v�
SCOUR POOL
PLAN VIEW
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
STREAM BED ELEVATION
1/2 - 2/3 OF BANKFULL
FLOW
STONE BACKFILL
080oo0
/ 00000 0
f°1°-,n��r°ir
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SCOUR POOL
(EXCAVATED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS.
2. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
3. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
4. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
5. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
6. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A
MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B, CLASS A, & #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION 2"-4" BELOW THE
THE HEADER ROCK. INCORPORATE ON -SITE ALLUVIUM WHERE AVAILABLE. FILL SHOULD BE
CONCAVE BEHIND THE VANE ARM TO ALLOW POOLING OF FLOW.
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 3/4 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
9. ALL REACHES, BOULDER SIZE 1' x 2' x 3' TO 2' x 2' x 4'.
STREAMBED
STONE BACKFILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
HEADER ROCK
4% TO 7% SLOPE
FOOTER ROCK
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
PROFILE VIEW
BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONVEX
oo
080 000 0O �00 °'
8000 80•<
o°o0oO00 0°00o0O) 80000°o
o.. %oo %oo 0�
6' MINIMUM
SECTION A - A
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
TOP OF BANK
A
0
J
u_
uc�s vu uc�o (Nu
,o�r00 °,�00 °O�c�l%°
9i 0 0 0 •00g06
B i� o� 00 -
0dp000sCX)00 n.O
IP
9il oo Oo o0%oo0o 410C
)"c9c8:60C
UOoe°0g;O o°Oo00 °oS0o 1, °O OOO °O .0
000000 • , 000 41•
1p00o °O OOo O .O
��ii o�°080 0��•; o �
�gp00O o
°0' OOo°00D0
OOcQO�O•Oo0!roc
tail °o°°O,��O°O�OiC
•'QU0 ro(�°o011
BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION
a
A'
PLAN VIEW
0(
TOE
LARGER STONE MAY BE PLACED
TO REDIRECT LOW FLOW AT
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
STONE BACKFILL
NOTES:
1. UNDERCUT CHANNEL BED ELEVATION AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR LAYERS OF STONE TO
ACHIEVE FINAL GRADE.
2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION CONTROL
MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
3. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO GRADE.
4. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD HAVE THE ELEVATION OF THE BED 0.2 FT DEEPER IN
THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.
5. STONE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF 10% CLASS I, 20% CLASS B, 40% CLASS A, AND 30%
ON -SITE ALLUVIUM BY VOLUME OR #57 STONE.
6. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE 12" THICK.
7. LARGER CLASS I & B STONES MAY EXTEND ABOVE THE BED SURFACE, BUT NO HIGHER THAN
HALF BANKFULL AND SHOULD PROVIDE A "NATURAL LOOK". ENGINEER SHALL HAVE FINAL
APPROVAL OF EXTENDING ROCK.
8. SATURATED WOODY DEBRIS THAT IS EXISTING WITHIN THE CHANNEL CAN BE RELOCATED
INTO THE NEW RIFFLE AREAS.
COIR FIBER
MATTING
RIFFLE D-max
BANKFULL
OfO Q)oC\n
STONE BACKFILL
TOE
SECTION B - B'
1/4 OF
GLIDE
LENGTH
o O_ 000
D00000� (-
n�
.� 4�FFSSIp•.9'A
: SEAL �•'r.
028432
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION
STONE BACKFILL
000
PROFILE A - A'
RUN
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
1/4 OF RUN LENGTH
POOL
BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION
i
a
CHANNEL PLUG
CHANNEL TO BE PLUGGED
CHANNEL PLUG
PLAN VIEW
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
CHANNEL
INVERT
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
1.5' MINIMUM
1
FINISH GRADE
NOTES:
1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON -SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
2. BACKFILL OF PLUGS SHOULD INCORPORATE ANY OF -SITE CLAY AVAILABLE.
FINISH GRADE
COMPACTED BACKFILL
SECTION A - A'
LOG WEIR
oDi
oDi
COIR LOG
A
-
--•
/ SCOUR
POOL I
\
PLAN VIEW
TRANSPLANTS
LOG DROP
B'
oDi
TRANSPLANTS
OR LIVE STAKES
+n
COIR LOG
HEADER LOG
1 i
FOOTER LOG
CROSS SECTION VIEW B - B'
TOP OF STREAMBANK
FLOW
STREAMBED
STONE BACKFILL-
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
4' MINIMUM
SECTION A - A'
NOTES:
OUR PO
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. TOP OF HEADER LOG SHOULD BE SET AT SAME ELEVATION AS THE STREAMBED.
3. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WITH COIR LOGS TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
4. PLACE TRANSPLANTS ALONG BANKS TO PROTECT AGAINST BANK EROSION.
5. THE HEADER LOG SHOULD BE NOTCHED 2 - 3 INCHES DEEP IN THE CENTER AND
FOR 20 - 30% OF THE CHANNEL WIDTH.

c
n
CV
cn
m
m
cn
Q
co
cn
cn
i
c
ro
0
i
m
in
0-1
c
a)
0
i
L
0
LL_
m
CO
cn
i
CV 0
CV a)
0 -)
N 0
L
'vQ
(Nd/
Lc)
PLUNGE POOL
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
GEOLIFT
WITH
BRUSH TOE
166680
2D
FLOW
PROJECT ENGINEER
NOTES:
SEAL _ APPROVED BY:
• - I
. 039201
•••••FNGI
LOWEST ELEVATION OF CROSS
1. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE THE SAME SPECIES AS THE LIVE STAKES
AND SHALL BE INSTALLED DURING VEGETATION DORMANCY.
'�i NF��''•• �'4
�/-1C ••••... ••' �Sss
CULVERTV VANE SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY
\y\y\\\y\y\y\y\y\y\N
////%
j\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\/
• LOWER THAN INVERT OF CULVERT
/
2. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A DENSITY OF 20-30 CUTTINGS
PER LINEAR FOOT AND A MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 2.5 INCHES.
3. NUMBER OF SOIL LIFTS MAY VARY IN GENERAL LIFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE
������ iii'i goNk y �,,
DATE:
\
/\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\
/ DEPTH
/\/\
/ FOOTER BOULDERS
/jj EXTEND BELOW DEPTH OF SCOUR
FLOW
/ / / / / / / / / / /
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \
%\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\ \
/ / /
//\
\
TOP OF BANK OR BAN KF U L L STAGE.
Michael
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
ry, g y arkway, Suite 600
Ca NORTH CARD LI NA 27518
919.463.5488
PhLu
\
H///
cc
j j j j j\\//\\//\\//\/�\�//\/\
/ / / / / / / / //\/\/\/\/\/
'i\//i\//i\//i\//i\%i\%i\%i\%i\%i\%i\//i\//i\//i\//%\//%\//%\//%\//%\//%//%\//%//%//%� /\ /\//%//%//" z's 72
STAKE TOP LAYER
4' DEEP (TYP)INTERNATIONAL
TOP OF BANK / BANKFULL STAGE
Faxxn919. 63.5490
License #: F-1084
D
A
x48 x36
OF MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
►
(SEE MATTING DETAIL)
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
SECTION
A - A
WIDTH
•�
TRANSPLANTS OR
TEMPORARY SEED
AND MATTING
FLOODPLAIN
COIR FIBER MATTING
ENCOMPASSES LIFT
SEE CROSS B
.•
B
UNDISTURBED
ir
EARTH
LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
LIVE„,
PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
VANE DETAIL
TOP
OF TERRACE
1.0' LIFT OF
COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL (TYP)
/
q/
VARIES ►�
Wbkf ►�
VARIES ►
m
O
Y
z
_, z
_,
�`��`
/` /` i
m
0 7
/`
I�`
L'=-
'� BASEFLOW
Lt
Nm
m
m
D m
I
N
m
m
N -
D-Max
��
j� ����/ FINISHED BED
�'ti ,jam
♦��-
�� FOUNDATION APPROX. 1 FT
���iC BELOW FINISHED BED ELEVATION
PLAN
VIEW
NOTES:
Wb
SECTION
.-
B
-
B
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANCHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
1. WHEN GEOLIFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER, USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND
ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
2. CLASS I STONE MAY BE USED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER TO BUILD THE FOUNDATION
IN LIEU OF BRUSH MATERIAL.
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
BOULDER
HEADWALL / ENDWALL
TOP COURSE OF
BOULDERS (TYP.) -
EARTHEN BACKFILL
0.5:1 SIDE SLOPE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC COVER FILL MATERIAL
WITH 6 INCHES #57 STONE
_� �� ��
1
� : _._ .2' .
`
B
f FLOW 1 `
I GEOTEXTILE FABRIC -
‘ .CULVERT - 1
'
' II ; -
4
'\ . - i - - ' - ; _ _
O BASEFLOW
`, `
.
I I '
STREAM BED
_
\
/
- - - - - - ,
-
Y
z
a
m
Q
cc
1—
0
B+
EMBEDDED
BOULDERS
EACH
CULVERT
FOOTER
INCREASE OFFSET OF
COURSE TO ACHIEVE
0.5:1 SIDE SLOPES
PLAN VIEW
; ' - , ; ' - ,
.� CHINK AND WEDGE 4-INCH STREAM BED
z MINUS ROCK, AS NECESSARY, TO
a LEVEL THE BOULDER COURSES CULVERT SHALL BE EMBEDDED
m
Q BOULDER PLACED BELOW TO DEPTH INDICATED IN TABLE
cc EXISTING CHANNEL BOTTOM USE LARGEST BOULDERS
1— TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 2'. FOR FOOTER COURSE
N
SECTION B - B'
-4OO • 3O • oob% •'moo.
:i
uM ���.� /\/j\j/\
X�M ° •:••
P,,;;l�' \\\\\\\\\\\\\
1 M // //\//\//\//\//\//\//;2'
a. .v • •• i\r\i\r\i\i\i\i\i
�.. .� /\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\\/\\/\/
• ocoQO�' j�/�\/�\/�\/�\/�\/�\/��\/�\/�\/�
'mo o:•\��\�\\�\�\�\�\�\�\�\�ji\/\
0:1° - / /\j/\j/\/\/\ \j/\j/\j/\j/\j/\j/\\j/
:.!! °•' �\\%\\�% \%�����%\
° , l%\�l%\�l%\ >\ >\�l%\mil% /l%\ l%\fit>\�1\� \��\\��\\�/
�
\\j\/\j\\/\-
\�i\\\\i\-
/�\/�\//\//\//\/v
\r\
\/\/�\/�\/�\/�\/�\/�\/�\/��\/\'-ii
\ \\\\\�j\�j\��\\��\\��\\��\\�j\�j\�j\�j\�j\°o•�•co
\ \j/\\j/\\j/\\j/\\j\\j/\\j/\\
•..
-rol• 8.
.:�;►,� 1
M
4/'••�•� SLOPES MAY VARY
> MU
� �.• .. • /(rj
°%
\j\\j/\\j/\\j/\ / -.� 0•:•,
\%�\%�\%�\%�\% \%\\ \�\%�\%�\i�\i�\i\\i\ '•va%
j\\ j\\/ \/\/\/\ . /�\/\/\/\/\/\\ •.t : ai iy. ,._
l l\
N.> '\//�//// �%� �� �� �� ��i��i,�� !.��%�%�%�%" \��\���
< \
D
\\\�/ //\
//\//\.\.
%%�%�i.� ���%�i��i��i��i��i��%�%�%\/\,\/�%!
12" OR AS SPECIFIED
FILL MATERIAL
FLOODPLAIN CULVERT
STREAM CHANNEL CULVERT
(SEE PLANS FOR TYPE
CROSS SECTION VIEW
EXISTING GROUND
FLOODPLAIN CULVERT
/ SIZE)
STAGGER
JOINTS
B
REACH
BOULDER
SIZE
CULVERT
SIZE
EMBEDMENT
UT1-R1
1'x2'x2'
4 FT
12 IN
/
UT1-R4
1'x2'x2'
5 FT
12 IN
Q
( `
�-4ak
a
UT3
1'x2'x2'
4 FT
9.61N
m.
UT4
1'x1'x1'
3 FT
12 IN
NOTES:
Q
w
'
- ;_; CULVERT - -_
Q STREAM BED
Lu
cc
wiwa
r WiI4-4V
MAKE TOP OF FOOTER COURSE
1. SIZE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLANS.
2. APPLY SUFFICIENT FILL (2' MIN) OVER CULVERT TO PREVENT COLLAPSE.
3. STABILIZE SIDE SLOPES WITH EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND FILL AROUND CULVERTS
WITH CLASS II STONE.
4. INSTALL HEADWALLS AND ENDWALLS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND IN THE DETAILS.
5. PRIMARY CULVERT SHOULD BE INSTALLED 12" OR AS SPECIFIED BELOW CHANNEL ELEVATION.
EMBEDDED FOOTER B AS LEVEL AS POSSIBLE NOTES:
BOULDERS
EMBED TO DEPTH 1. BOULDERS SHALL BE TOUCHING SO THAT VOID SPACE IS MINIMIZED.
SHOWN IN TABLE 2. BOULDERS SHOULD EXTEND BELOW SCOUR DEPTH. FOOTER BOULDERS SHALL BE AT
LEAST 2' BELOW THE EXISTING BED
3. GEOTEXTILE MATTING SHOULD BE PLACED BETWEEN BOULDERS AND SOIL.
SECTION A - A' 4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED. VOID SPACE BETWEEN FABRIC AND
BOULDER OR ROCK FILL MATERIAL, SHOULD BE MINIMIZED.
5. BOULDERS SHOULD NOT BE HIGHER THAN THE TOP OF CROSSING ELEVATION.
6. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND BOULDERS, BURIED BELOW BOULDER DEPTH, AND
EXTEND INTO THE BANK.
1

c
01
w
CV
cn
m
cn
Q
CO
CO
CO
CO
i
c
ro
w
m
0-1
i
c
0
0
i
L
0
LL_
m
CO
CO
CO
i
N 0
N 8)
0 -)
(N 0
L
Q 0_
Lc)
LIVE
STAKING
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
( PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
2E
TOP OF STREAMBANK
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
PROJECT ENGINEER
,sivin mplos'
.`4)0..' Cp***':4',#'•
TOP OF STREAMBANK
�oFESSI
_ .%p�f.. -•
= � SEAL ! : APPROVED BY:
039201
'• •��'% �� • �
TOE OF SLOPE
TOP OF
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
� � � •
II • •
PLANT
JUST
JUSTII
DIAMOND
STAKES ON TOP OF BANK AND
BELOW BANKFULL LINE IN A
SHAPED STAGGERED PATTERN
,
r
,,,�����BGMNg��
�`
�,,,
►►►����' DATE:
I
I
t
• `
'`, .,,
14
/
,
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
TOE OF BANK
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
c �y, NORTH CARLIN OA275680
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
L cens a #: F-10840
TOE OF SLOPE
CROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW
SQUARE CUT TOP
BUDS FACING UPWARD
* BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
CROSS SECTION VIEW ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
LIVE CUTTING
6'-8' SPACING MIN. 1/2" DIA
2' 3' LENGTH
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK.
2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER.
EXCAVATE E RE AL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE
EXCAVATE INONEBIUCKE ROOT
T E. IFAD, ENTIRE
THE TRANSPLANT IDSDTOON LARGE
,..:.:♦=♦=.=♦:.::.`
-
•�����
I�����1
2'-3' SPACING
�--______-_----_
-
_-_--
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
- -1 r - - --_-_ _-----
��` �
......
AND ROOTMASS
- --_____-��`
�.�``
AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4. FILL INANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
6. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
THEY TOUCH.
44+ ''�i
1
ANGLE CUT
30 - 45 DEGREE
LIVE STAKE
DETAIL
oDi
//
��,/'TOP
OF BANK
611
iINO
0
LIVE STAKES
41),
i,
N
ON POINT BAR I\ /�r
,`%
r```TOE
OF BANK
\�!♦�•/NOTES:'�1
�♦I��1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.--6D�6��
'����===�����, 2. DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
PLAN VIEW 4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
'��`
y�
,__�'� ���____ -�� `---____ � �����.
�-�
'�
PLAN VIEW
5. STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG.
6. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
PLANTINGS PLANTING
SPECIFICATIONS
COIR
FIBER
MATTING
�.;)
NOTES:
2.5 INCH
ROOFING
NAIL
PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 6 INCH DEEP
�Cp
\�
�Cp
\�
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
TOP OF STREAMBANK 3. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR,
OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT NOTES:
1. BANKS SHOULD BE SEEDED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF MATTING.
- -
2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING PER SPECIFICATIONS ALONG STREAM
TOP OF STREAMBANK BANKS OR IN OTHERS LOCATIONS SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER.
3. LARGE STAKES SHOULD NOT BE SPACED FURTHER THAN 36" APART.
�_/••
LARGE
/
STAKES
4. PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL SEAMS, IN THE CENTER OF BANK,
AND TOE OF SLOPE.
5. MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ON BANKS, STAKED, AND TRENCHED PRIOR
• TO INSTALLING CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE MATERIAL.
6. ALL MATTING STAKES MUST BE 100% BIODEGRADABLE.
TOE OF SLOPE
!•
1,
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL TYPICAL LARGE
MATTING STAKE
4. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J-ROOTING.
5. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP, OR STRAW.
6. HEEL -IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE.
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING AT TOE OF SLOPE.
SECURE MATTING WITH LARGE MATTING STAKE
LEG LENGTH
17.00 IN (43.18 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
CROSS SECTION VIEW
WIDTH
1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
THICKNESS
1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
PLANTINGS
NOTES:
i
TRENCH 7 TRENCH
�/
fsp
yf'yf'/
�/
p 1. WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED PLANT OR SHRUB
fep DIG THE HOLE 8 -12 INCHES LARGER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE
POT AND THE SAME DEPTH AS THE POT.
g/`� 2. REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT. LAY THE PLANT ON ITS SIDE
TOP OF STREAMBANK IF NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT.
3. IF THE PLANT IS ROOTBOUND (ROOTS GROWING IN A SPIRAL
AROUND THE ROOT BALL), MAKE VERTICAL CUTS WITH A KNIFE
TOP OF STREAMBANK
�O�A
��A
OR SPADE JUST DEEP ENOUGH TO CUT THE NET OF ROOTS.
ALSO MAKE A CRISS-CROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL.
4. PLACE THE PLANT IN THE HOLE.
5. FILL HALF OF THE HOLE WITH SOIL (SAME SOIL REMOVED FOR BACKFILL).
6. WATER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL THE REST
OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL.
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
• • • • • • •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TYPICAL SMALL
MATTING STAKE
LARGE
STAKES
• • • • • •/
• • • • • • • • • • • e
STAKES
COIR FIBER MATTING
LEG LENGTH
11.00 IN (27.94 CM)
TO BEEXTENDED TO
HEAD WIDTH
1.25 IN (3.18 CM)
• • • • • • • • • • • •
TOE OF SLOPE
O
HEAD THICKNESS
0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
LEG WIDTH
0.60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
LEG THICKNESS
0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
TOTAL LENGTH
12.00 IN CM)
(30.48
PLAN VIEW LARGE
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING
STAKES
1

c
01
LL°
CV
Cn
t1
m
Q
CO
CO
CO
CO
C
ro
t2
m
C
01
N
n
L
O
LL_
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
(N O
N 8)
0 -)
N 0
L
Q 0_
N/
BARB WIRE
FIELD
FENCE
STEEL GATES
( PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO. 1
END POST
166680
2F
PROJECT ENGINEER
SEAL I APPROVED BY:
028432
�'G•, 5/F GNE� �Q'
.ti
DATE:
4"�
SEE PLANS FOR SPECIFIC LENGTH
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
c 0y, NORTH CArkway, 2756800
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG BRACE POST
[6INCHDMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG
BARB WIRE
3 INCHES
INTERNATIONAL License#: F-1084
(TYP.)
x x x x x x x x
'
'�" DI
N C DMS I D N O. 10006 8
i
��
1
GRADUATED IN SIZE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
GETTING LARGER IN SIZE TOWARD THE TOP.i
r
'—�
VARIABLE
. .
48 INCHES
x x x x x x x x
m
~
O
0
Q
z "
-,_
z
E
>�
X X X X X X X X
ISILLJ
9
T
STEEL FRAME GATE
r
-
x x x x x x x
N
V
LJ
q
M
VARIES
BARB WIRE
GROUND LINE
X X X X X X X
L
V
NOTES:
—
Y
/i
\
\ ��
Y/ )
1 / / i
\
1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ?.��
/
1
24 INCHES (TYP.)
1
/ / / / / / / / / / /
\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
NOTE:
1. POST HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL BE THE SAME AS REQUIRED FOR THE ADJACENT FENCE.
2. CONSTRUCT AN END OR STRESS PANEL, AS REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFICATION, ON EACH SIDE OF GATE.
3. HINGES AND LOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SPECIFIED BY GATE MANUFACTURER.
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF 10-15 FEET.
2. ALL FENCING AND FENCE POSTS SHOULD BE SET 1-2 FEET OUTSIDE OF THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT FOR FENCE LINE MAINTENANCE ( LIKE HERBICIDE SPRAYING ).
AP
1

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
3
PROJECT IENGINEER
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 03.dgn
m
c
0-1
a)
0
L
0
CC
CO
N 0
N
0
N 0
L
Q 0_
N/
5
CONTROL POINT #305 4-'
GROUND COORDINATES
N: 713456.03'
E: 830566.09'
ELEV: 3065.15'
\ \ \
ROCK CROSS VANE (TYP.)
/
/
/
o
GRADE CONTJDLRaC
J-HOOK VA fE(TYN
BEGIN UT1 REACH 1
STA. 10+98.02
18" CMP
INV IN: 3048.07'
// INV OUT: 3046.94'
/ / 1 I 148"CMP
/ 1 I I INV I N :13046.47'
�/ ,INV OUT:)3046.36
BOULDER STEP INSTALLED
IN PLACE OF LOG DROP
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
/
N \\\
N \
\ \ •
\ \ N
\
\\ 4'GATE
WE KIRK
FARMS NORTH, LLC
PIN: 8731-33-5998
DB: 838 PG: 400, TRACT IV
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II
AND DB: 158 PG: 305
PC: C SL: 6260
2 - 8' GATES INSTALLED
IN PLACE OF 16' GATE
WE KIRK '
FARMS NORTH, I1LC
PIN: 8731-33-5998
DB: 838 PG: 400, (TRACT IV
REFERENCE: bp: 5 2 1/ G:/286, TRACT II
AND Dp: /'f58/ P : 305
\\PC7 C/ SL/ 6 60
/ / / 1
\ \ \ /
////
' §TA./12/+3,33.1/b / FLOC DOUBLE DR s P I
x I1 / / / / CRO S V/AN(E/ TY".)
J /� / /// / / �\ I / /
ir. / y / / 1 i / / J8'`{YALN
'r,/ I ` \ ` /
c)\ v
\ ?fir
1\8" CMP 4 Q
INV I N : 3047 95 c
INV OUT: 3046.90'
2 - 8' GATES INSTALLED
IN PLACE OF 16' GATE
\
\ \
END UT1 REACH 1
BEGIN UT1 REACH 2
STA. 13+25.00
ipel._
AS -BUILT\ `N, \`\�\\ \\ \\ \
TOP OF BANK (T�'-P.)N\\ \\ `� \\ \\ \\
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.)
AS -BUILT
THALWEG (TYP.)
0 \
I nn»uiel uiir
\ \ •
\ \\ N \ ANN PA MEF in
COOTROL ND P ORD 304ES N\` N \\ FAMIL PR PE \TIES\,\L.P �\
N: 713312.24' \ \ I N� 72-72-�837 \ \
E:830259.50 \ \ \ \
ELEV:3038.02' \ \ DB. 4 9 Pk: 163
\
•
�.` :�ESSIp4/ • �:.
• y•
• ▪ '.�� SEAL � ' 1.
• 028432
•
%� �''•FNGINt 'Qom:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
c•
W
LLI
V)
w
w
N
w
Z
I --
a
UT to RUSH FORK
UT1
RECORD DRAWING
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

CV
CV
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
%
166680
4
PROJECT 1ENGINEER
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 04odgn
m
c
0-1
a)
0
L
O
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
N U
C V a)
CO
V i
O_
rr/
WE KIRK
FARMS NORTH, LLC
PIN: 8731-33-5998
DB: 838 PG: 400, TRACT IV
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II
AND DB: 158 PG: 305
PC: C SL: 6260
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.) \�
ROCK SILL INSTALLED
IN PLACE OF LOC. p.ROP
STA. V+78.69 �, e
/ y
/
fota, lliE►i—.-i1
gri
;I:_i�ii�l� • 1
END UT1 REACH
BEGIN T1 RE CH \
STA. 16+00 1
0
12' GATE
/
/
4' GATE \
AS -BUILT
TOP OF BANK (TY
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
BEGIN UT2
STA. 10+05.88
12" CMP
INV IN: 2997.97'
15" CPP
INV OUT: 2996.61'
AS -BUILT
X --THALWEG (TYP.)
-
X-
\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
\ ROCK CROSS\VA�E MYR)
4 GATE INSTALLED
NOT IN ORIGINAL
DESIGN ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-6837
DB: 489 PG: 1683
EXIST NG GATE R. HUNG
IN TH S LO „'orRON
N I IN G1 GINAL DE
12" CMP X
INV IN: 2997.70'
INV OUT: 2997.63'
GRAVE, ROAD
\ \ \
NHOOK\yANE (TYP.)
CONFIAJENCE STA)`ION
UT1 REACH3 STA.19+54.61=
UT2 STA. 10+92.40
END UT2
WE KIRK
PIN: 8730-09-3258
DB: 838 PG: 404
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286,
AND DB: 158 PG: 305
PC: C SL: 6260 & PC: C SL:
TRACT II
7314
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
(CONSERVATION EASEMENT)
DB: 917 PG: 978
PC: C SL: 7314
84.04
>TOB UT1 REA 3
L000
4' GATE
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.)
C \
1
•
\CARO/I •
�.` :�FSSlp.:••9.•
• y
• ▪ ••�� • SEAL .
028432
••'•F•NG I NEB' • Qom:
'#41Ak-
, i� lai i ►�\.:�,`
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
4
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
r
4,
UT to RUSH FORK
UT1
RECORD DRAWING
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
5
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 05odgn
m
in
c
0-1
a)
n
L
0
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
N 0
C V a)
O
CV s-
o_
ram/
a
i
Z
/
/
/
/
/
4<,
N•
/
/
/ /
/
/ / /
/ / I
/ I
1 I
/ /
\\\\ROCK SILL I T; LED\
N \\\I.NIDLAGE_OF LOGLo �'6 �?F
2990
\\ /
N
/
WE KIRK
PIN: 8730-09-3258
DB: 838 PG: 404
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II
AND DB: 158 PG: 305
PC: C SL: 6260 & PC: C SL: 7314
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
(CONSERVATION EASEMENT)
DB: 917 PG: 978
PC: C SL: 7314
CONFLUENCE STATION
UT1 REACH 4 STA. 24+19.91=
UT4 STA. 10+50.55
AS BUILT THALWEG (TYP.)
UT1 REACH 3
--B-E-GTN_ T 1_ REACH 4
Sfk -22+-50 94
-_C0N_FWENEE- STATION
- U T3_ iTA_._ 26_3 5o0
CONTROL POINT #500
STATE PLANE COORDINATES
N: 712855.04'
E: 829608.53'
ELEV: 2989.63'
. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
—LOG- DROP- INSTALLED
— — --NOT-1 -_
BO U C D Ems-R (T
74--y <•.„,
/
Z+
77
i
/1
//•'j/ 77
77
�/
77 /
77 /
END UT4 STA. 10+41.90
TOB UT1 REACH 4
% BE-G I N UT4
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.
X�X / T
/X� / / / /
XiigARBy� / // / // / / / /
Xr I n n o �► o /TJ�7 n / / / / / /
21-72 6837
-STA. 10+00.00
�I -PLOW GA E #3
INV 4 2967.76'
/ 7/NV OUT: 2965.26
(BROKEN)
36".�N1P
IN: 2969�.
INV OUT�296
�// GATES
N PLACE
o
7
TALLED
16' GATE
3
--- —____ _ ___ ___ ___
20- POPLAR
77
AS-B U1-LT - = _ _
TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
3--
,vic_c-r(
ELE�TRI
3
PROJECT 1ENGINEER
01111/1/14
�.` :•.tSSIp�:9':.
• y• ,
'•�� SEAL T.
'•
MN
1. 028432
••'•ENG I NE`c:
'>
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1NTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
x x xT—x
7
i
i
/ ddif
11111.
d�4k'dll U_
,��uniil
------------
__—--S96Z
d - NC N K OROPD
RUSH FOR
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
r
3
•o
w
tn
LLI
d
UT to RUSH FORK
UT1 & UT4
RECORD DRAWING
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
6
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 06.dgn
m
c
0-1
a)
0
L
O
CC
CO
CO
CO
N U
NQa
O
\ i
\ O_
ram/
a
i
Z
w
LLI
cn
LLI
W
LLI
Z
J
X
PIN: 8730-09-3258
AS -BUILT
TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
D
LOG \DROI�1
\
')ROCKISOLIBLE
O6K
INSTALLC
RO9KD9
CROSS . .
STA.'28+00.77
A 60" CMP
y INV IN: 2940.06' I I
INV OUT: 2937.31' I 1
PP
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
FENCE ENCROACHMENT WAS CORRECTED
AFTER THE AS BUILT SURVEY WAS COMPLETED.
SS VAN E
IN PL CE OF
UBLE DI OP
ANE (ThP
BOULDffR STEP)(TYP.)
\
\ I N
\\(
r I \
I
I
PINE
" IN IN: 2 40.13'CMP\
INV 0 7: 29 k38'
•
\
------
\�\\—.
\ — �\
FORK 9 /
1
OPT
/
PIN: 8721-72-6837
N
X
::._____
/�///Ji----:----/ %
/ —W
/
-
%�- Et-\"'
G AN.� OCK
� :d4 ne1
1t„
�� ::;.l.o Z��
,7�� -�
18„\
\IN: 2928.
: 2928,2
IN :2
INV-OUT2927
\
,c* N N \
CONTROL P INT #3
GROUND COO DI%A
N: 712091.05'
E: 829287.74'
ELEV: 2934.51'
AS -BUILT THALWEGYI
\�X
•
/
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
PROJECT 1ENGINEER
�.` : ��ESSIp�:•9 �:..:*';..
• '.q4SEAL '
G.
028432
,,,,,i"l iiiii ►���-,` ,,
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
/ WLB�/—
/ / /
i /
//
/
r
8721-72-683
4"
UT to RUSH FORK
UTI
RECORD DRAWING
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
7
t\Plans\166680 _QSB-PSH 0 7odgn
m
i
c
0-1
0
i
L
O
LL
CC
CO
CV O
CV
0
(NI 0
L
Q Q
CV
x
x
SEE SHEET 6
x
x
WE KIRK
PIN: 8730-09-3258
DB: 838 PG: 404
REFERENCE: DB: 562 PG: 286, TRACT II
AND DB: 158 PG: 305
PC: C SL: 6260 & PC: C SL: 7314
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
(CONSERVATION EASEMENT)
DB: 917 PG: 978
PC: C SL: 7314
SOIL ROAD
PIN: 8721-72-6837
AS -BUILT /
TOP OF BANK (TYP.) //
ROCK VANE (TYP.)
/
BOULDER STEP (TYP.)
/ /
/ /
/ /
// /
x
CONTROL POINT #307 - -
GROUND COORD-I-NATES
v f788.Q1'
E: 829041.22'
ELEV: 2917.97'
Soil road extinguished.
/1/
,f1"*Ii4R\
/ ///
/ WI
BARB 1/
,/�
X/X 22"/�
—//
DOUBLE
CHERRY//
/
/ /
GKJ-I�(bCSK VANE (TYP.)
-
ENI
///•
18" CHE14 / / \ /
7
7
//
/////�
///
\/II/ ////
Il(//.
END UT1 REACH 4
STA. 37+80.92
,
/ /
/ /
/
/
I I/ i
7 I
/ /
/ r
ROCK CROSS VANE (TYP.)
--LOG J-HOOK VANE INSTALLED
IN PLACE OF GRADE CONTROL
ROCK J-HOOK VANE
AS -BUILT THALWEG (TYP.)
PIN: 8721-72-6837
SOIL ROAD
- _-39 +_00-
PROJECT IENGINEER
����\ ICI
AR0//4•
c▪ �f
�.` : �)E$ S 1p� :•9
••
• • SEAL T.
▪ •
MN
1. 028432
t ••••`NGINF.�l'•Qom;
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
CONTROL POINT #308
GROUND COORDINATES
N:711505.47' co
E: 828898.77'
ELEV: 2918.81'
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
UT to RUSH FORK
UTI
RECORD DRAWING
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
1
166680
8
PROJECT IENGINEER
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 08odgn
m
c
0-1
a)
0
L
0
LL
CC
CO
N 0
N
0
N 0
L
Q 0_
N/
a
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.)
/ / / /
ROG R 9 Pk)�
ROCK SI1414I -Ti i '�
IN PLACE c ID/ROPI
I III
' 'Ill 11111///
j// 1 1 1 1 III
AS -Big T /�//,i
TOP OF BANK “?,Y//.
<4,-)_7;v7v'v,4)„,v(;//
/ /
///
-
-
^ I
BEGIN U-6 / / ///,�
STA. 10+00.3
7
\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \7 7�
�ii/z////
/ /// 1/
/ /
/✓
LINED\\ I
RFLOW \/
CHANNEL / \ 1-
FOYR BMP
\ % '/
\ \
_ _ \
CbNTR LROLNLT 3 3
,GROUND COORDINATES
N 74423.87'
\ E: 829121.90'
�E€EV -3097 1'
7
_
/
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN:8721-i2
DB: 489.P9:J68-3 _
/ ��
/ / i
// / / / / /
/ //
/ /
/ / �01 / / / / �'L
/ / /
/
/ //
/ /
777
7 \\ \\
\ \ \
4' GATE
AS -BUILT THALWEG (TYP.)
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-6837
DB: 489 PG: 1683
•
3060
-----
=H-0-01(ykT'YP4-
BOULDER STEP (T
x—�—
CONTROL POINTV302\\ \ \
GROUND COORDINATES
N: 713975.07'
E: 829341.61'
ELEV: 3058.92'
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.)
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
*14111111111111
SIO�:•9�:.
• i'•
• ••�� SEAL•
•
1. 028432
•
� �•'•FNG I NF.�' • Qom:441.,1111110
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
/
/ -
_�/ / / / /
7 7
\
W
LLI
w
w
Z
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
UT to RUSH FORK
UT3
RECORD DRAWING
20
0
20
40
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
9
PROJECT 1ENGINEER
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 09odgn
m
c
0-1
0
L
0
CC
CO
CO
N U
N
O 0
i
N Q
l9/
i
ENI
/ / / /
/ / /
///// /30
/
\ \ \ I I \
\ \ \ \/\1/>\
\ \ \ )r \
\ \ \ \ \ \
� / / /
/ / / /
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.)
/
1 \ \
N
\ \ N
\ \\ \\ \\
XIV
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-6837
DB: 489 PG: 1683
AS -BUILT
TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
o_
X
\ -
.� - a -
\ \\ ROCK CROSS VANE (tY\P.) ° — \\ \ -* \ \ o
\ \ors \ \ \A AN`T�YP ` \\ \7 \
\OGTE AND RRTYF \ HOC -H00 y fR .) \ \ N
STEPROOL(T`YP) \
\ 7 \ \ \
// °zo \-SURVEYED VEG � /, 7 i
i N� PLOT -CORNER ���' /- /� / IN VTR
7
£ O DIGI-ATS I N S1`AL
\ \\ \
i/ \ \ \
\ \ \
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
M FLO�/ C�AUC3E #y/ /
FrOf
anakmalMmEIII In n�r%Gf!�l�
\-(TTYP.)
BOULDER STE (TYP.) \ \ \ \
\ \
\ 7-00
\ \ \\ \ \ 7. 7. 7 \ \ \ \
ED \ \
I N7P-LAC E O FGE O L I F�`
\ \
\
\ \ \ N. \ \ \
7
\
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ N \ N N
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-6837
DB: 489 PG: 1683
\
\
\
- \ \ \ 1 N
CONTROL POINT #301
GROUND COORDINATES
N: 713530.52'
E: 829447.33'
ELEV: 3021.99'
\
\ \ I T. TO'R� OF BANK`
`\ N_
\ \ LSD FO
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.)7.
•
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
\ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
r
W
I/)
W
v)
UT to RUSH FORK
UT3
RECORD DRAWING
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
10
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 1P.dgn
m
c
0-1
a)
0
L
0
0
CC
CO
CO
CO
N 0
N
0
N 0
L
Q Q
a
1
W
77
�\
77
77
77
77
77
▪ 77
77
\ \
77
77
77
77
AS -BUILT
TOP OF BANK (TYP.)—
BARBED -WIRE FEN GE-£a'-P .)
77
---— _---- LOG DROP
7
ROCK J-F OOK VANE4TTYP.)
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
• 7
77
77
77
77
77
RECORD DRAWING LEGEND
PROPOSED DESIGN
AS -BUILT SURVEY BY
KEE MAPPING & SURVEYING
4/14/22
RED LINE VARIATIONS FROM
ORIGINAL DESIGN SUBMITTED
WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN
77
77
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-6837
DB: 489 PG: 18113 48" CMP
INV IN: 2988.02'
INV OUT: 2986.84'
12" CPP
INV IN:989.28'
z 4.N,V OUT: 88:60'.'
// STA. 22+i25.5 •�,
i
SOCK CROS. VANE (f YP4
CONJROL POINT #300
GR ND COORDINATES
N: 13167.63'
E• 29461.72'
EV: 3014.21'
12" CPP
INV I N : 2989.09'
INV OUT: 2988.62'
2 - 8' GATES INSTALLED
IN PLACE OF 2 - 16' GATES
RELOCATED ACCESS ROAD
LIVESTOCK WATER SYSTEM
DRINKER & HARDENED PAD #1
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-6837
DB: 489 PG: 1683
/ xJ xi/WA E
WAjER SYSTEM
W�tLL LIVESTOCK WATER SYSTEM
DRINKER &HARDENED PAD #2
I
�
ATES INS ALL
• ACEOF2/16
141I1iti7a
----
ES
ANNE PALMER
FAMILY PROPERTIES, L.P.
PIN: 8721-72-683
G: 1683
•2990-----
ROCK DOUBLE DROP
CROSS VANE (TYP.)
2985/
/8" "/R ~ \-
\ \��_
\ \ -iv '• L
h ----- \ 3 STA22+72.1� \ \ :c\O\NF:447\-\\--= -
77
��� \ \ 7 �77 \ �77 \ \ �7 \
\\ \ \ \ \� \ \ 77
+ _ \ \ \ \ \
' i \ 77 \ \
4' GATE
kS-BBUILT THALWEG
����� �� �� \ 77 \ ��
N
BARBED WIRE FENCE (TYP.)
•
♦
I OLD
SILO
♦
♦�_-i
- - 5960
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL PLUG
PROJECT IENGINEER
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
Lci
2
4v
UT to RUSH FORK
UT3
RECORD DRAWING
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

1
3,060
l BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
166680
PROJECT ENGINEER
SHEET NO.
11
c
0-1
-J
LL
0_
m
U)
co
c9
co
co
7
C
0
m
c
01
n
i
O
0
L
CC
CO
CO
N 0
CV N
O L
CV
O
i�
Q-[1-
CV/ E
Ln�0
3,050
3,040
_
•
.
.
N
ti
.
L
AS
-B
U
L
T
OEN
T
46
HA
L
CMr
WEG
•
•
_
♦
♦
N
UT1
♦
F
SI
HA
VAF
,FYi'Tinlr r.i nl inn
;.
••�� SEAL e
•
•
t. 028432
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
Michael Baker
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
iiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiii�
1<
---,
-
3, 030
.—
3, 030
3, 020
3, 020
10+00
3,020
3,010
3,000
2,990
2,980
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
•
•
•
•
AS-B
U
L
T
T
H
•
AL
WE
G
•
•
D
Nam
ES
•
GN
•
•
UT1
•
_
3,020
a
•�
•
_
10.
•
i
EXI
STING
RO
U
16+00
17+00 18+00
19+00
1
D
•
•
•
20+00 21+00
3,010
3,000
2,990
2,980

1
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
166680
PROJECT ENGINEER
SHEET NO.
12
m
CV
CV
C
Q1
CV
-J
LL
t2
m
U)
co
co
co
i
C
0
7
m
c
01
n
i
O
L_
L
(11
CC
CO
CO
CV 0
CV OQ
0 -)
CV Q LC
\ i�
CV/E
Ln�Er%
2,980
—
2,970
2,960
2,950
A
•
s-
BU
IL
T
T
H
•
ALW
E
G
-
D
UT1
E
SI
G
N
TH
AL
ti
W
•
E
G
•
XI
ST
N
G
Gp<
0
U
N
•
D
_
_
MINN
040
;.
• SEAL e
028432
'mot:%•.4/G1NE% '••
•
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERN ATION AL License #: F-1084
Michael Baker
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
—
2,960
2,950
1<
2,940
2, 960
2,950
2,940
2,930
2,920
•
0'
•
_
22+00
X
TI N
••-
•
G
0
0
U
N
D
5
b
•
JI
1
f
•
AL
/
W-
27+00 28+00
/
/
/
6
0
P
23+00
•
•
•
•
•
MEN
•
•
•
•
•
A
•
29+00
Ssa
•
24+00
UT1
•
,-
30+00
•
2,940
25+00
•
1
DE
26+00
SIG
A
2,960
2,950
2,940
2,930
•
•
•
2,920

1
l BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
166680
PROJECT ENGINEER
SHEET NO.
13
c
0-1
LL
m
U)
co
co
co
m
c
01
0
i
O
LL
-C
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
(11
CV 0
N OQ
0 -)
CV OCT
ad -
CV/
LnEr%
2,930
UT1
T
NG
C
0
U
D
k% SEAL
•
028432
•
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
2, 920 - •-_.._
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
Michael Baker
` NCDMS ID NO. 100068
[IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1iir
1<
—
-
-
►■I;
�_1WOI
-
_
1
�
.T
-•"--
2, 910
=
.
�•-.
_..�_
2, 910
_
_
•
2,900
-"�'�=
•
• =•�-�___
2,900
•_
2,890
2, 890
33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00
38+00

1
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
N.
166680
PROJECT ENGINEER
SHEET NO.
14
m
csi
CV
CV
c
01
LL
m
U)
(s)
co
CO
CD
c
o_
7
m
Q
7
c
01
a)
0
i
O
0
L
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CV 0
3,000
iLC
u 0
3,080
3,070
3,060
3,050
3,040
♦
♦`
N..
•
♦
D
E
S
G
.
N
TH
A
/.
LVVE
G
•
A
B
UI
L
T
T
H
A
LWE
G
.
_
UT3
0
E
XI
S
TI
•
NG
G
RO
U
N
D
•
040
ti.
9'
•� SEAL � •
028432
''-,-t7):,i:f•fe./vNGmiN\ttc,%\k''::\•:::l
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
Michael Baker
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
3,060
3,050
.
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00 14+00
3,040
3,040
3,030
.
.
.
a
•
•
.,
.
•
C
XIv
T
IN
C
C
R
.
O
U
ND
UT3
46,
•
3,020
3,010
.
A
.
B
U
.
I LT
IA
.
4.r
LWC
G
.
.
Y
..
.,
.
3,040
3,030
D
CI`J TH
•
L
WEG
•
•
.
1
.
•
•
3,020
3,010
14+00
15+00 16+00
17+00
18+00
3,000

1
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
166680
SHEET NO.
15
3,010
3,000
2,990
2,980
UT3
•
•
'_.
D
E
SIG
•
N
-
T
H
A
L
W
EG
EXISTI N
G
GROU
N
C
Mmi
PROJECT ENGINEER
,,�N� C A R p�/.,'
•
:� SEAL '1 1:
� I
44
APPROVED BY:
G.
1. 028432
,,��wiiiiiu� ���,, DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1NTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
Michael Baker
1<
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
19+00
20+00
•
•
21+00
•
-
A
S-
BU
L
T
T
H
ALW
E
G
•
•
•
•
8"
AMP
2,990
L.
2,980
22+00
23+00 24+00
3,000
UT3
3,000
c
01
Lri
-J
LL
m
m
cn
Q
CO
C9
CO
CO
i
c
CO
c
01
0
i
O
L_
L
CO
CO
CO
CO
CV 0
2960
CV/„\
2,990
2,980
2,970
•
•
•
•
•
D
E
S
G
N
TH
\
A
•
L
WE
-
•
G
•
•
Or-
•
•
XI
S
Ci Ci
N
(DU
N
U
2,990
2,980
•
-
1,
-
•
•
Was
WEE
1
N
2,970
23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00
2,960

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
166680
16
PROJECT IENGINEER
t\Plans\166680_QSB-PSH 16 BMPodgn
m
c
0-1
a)
0
L
0
LL
CC
CO
N 0
N
0
N 0
L
Q 0_
N/
a
M
op
a
Z
•� \ / 1 VN ; ' / / / /
/ / /
/
II II 1`\\\\\ / \ �� �/ ,/ /� // // //
1 ``\ \ \ \\ / / / / / — —
I \ \ \ \ \ ,� / i / / / /
a
II \ \ ,` — / / /
I I I I `� \ \ \ \ �� � / //
I I 1. \ Th � / I O�
I‘4 b • .Vc<,
\ S � ,.,, I J
1 �\ - - N
j I I \ ( \ \
1 \ \ \
1 \ \\
\ I I
I 1 I I
/ / I I
/ / I I
/ 1 I
/ I I I
I
I I 1
\ 1
I I
I I
I 1
I 1 \
I \ I
1
I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
\0
\C
c
Proposed BMP Planted Species
UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Shallow Water Zone (50 Herbaceous Plants per 200 ft2)
Juncus effusus
Common Rush
10%
FACW
Peltandra virginica
Arrow Arum
10%
OBL
Pontederia cordata
Pickerelweed
10%
OBL
Sagittaria latifolia
Broadleaf Arrowhead
10%
OBL
Saururus cernuus
Lizard's Tail
10%
OBL
Scirpus cyperinus
Woolgrass
10%
FACW
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox Sedge
10%
OBL
Sparganium americanum
Bur -reed
10%
FAC
Carex lurida
Shallow Sedge
10%
OBL
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Smartweed
10%
FACW
Temporary Inundation Zone (8 shrubs per 200 ft2)
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
10%
OBL
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
10%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
10%
FACW
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
10%
FACW
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp Azalea
10%
FACW
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
10%
FACW
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
10%
FACW
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Highland Doghobble
10%
FACW
Vaccinium corymbosum
Highbush Blueberry
10%
FACW
Xanthorhiza simplicissima
Yellowroot
10%
FACW
Notes: -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.
- Shallow Water planting zone is from basin bottom to elevation 3085.5' while Temporary Inundation
planting zone is from elevation 3085.5' to 3086.5'.
- Embankments and perimeter fill slopes will be planted with non -clumping turf grasses (no trees or
woody shrubs).
o,.\N1CAR4(S
y• ,
• .�� SEAL !
028432•
••••FNG I NEB • Q`�
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100068
UT to RUSH FORK
AS - BUILT
RECORD DRAWING
10 0 10 20
SCALE (FT)