20130865 Ver 1_Final Mitigation Plan_Oct2013_20141023

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
The Best Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Duplin County, North Carolina
EEP Project # 95353
Cape Fear River Basin
CU 03030007
Prepared for:
� 1 tell,
PROGRAM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
October 2013

The Best Site
Duplin County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID 95353
Cape Fear River Basin
CU 03030007
Prepared for:
..-L =1
j wialai te,lil
�I11ent
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
r
Environmental Banc & Exchange
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
919 - 829 -9909
5WK
DICKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
919 - 782 -0495

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal
Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section §
332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and
dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of
compensatory mitigation."
The Best Site Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project is located within an agricultural
watershed in Duplin County, North Carolina, approximately two miles east of Beulaville. The
project streams proposed for restoration and /or enhancement have been significantly
impacted by channelization and agricultural practices. The project will involve the restoration
and protection of streams and wetlands in the Muddy Creek watershed. The purpose of this
restoration project is to restore and enhance a stream /wetland complex located within the
Cape Fear River Basin.
The project lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03030007060010 (USGS, 1998) and
within the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Cape Fear River Sub -basin
03 -06 -22 ( NCDENR, 2005). The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Plan identified HUC
03030007060010 as a Targeted Local Watershed. The watershed is characterized by 52
percent agricultural land use area with Muddy Creek identified as Impaired for aquatic life
because of a Fair benthic community rating. The plan listed water quality and animal
operations as major stressors within this TLW, and the planning goals include identifying
restoration and stormwater BMP needs.
The proposed Best stream and wetland mitigation project is located within the northern
(upstream) portion of the TLW and includes sections of Muddy Creek (303d listed) and
headwater streams that discharge into Muddy Creek. The project, through stream and
wetland restoration and enhancement activities, will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. These benefits will address the degraded
water quality and nutrient inputs from farming that were identified as major watershed
stressors in the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Plan.
The Best Site project consists of stream and wetland restoration on tributaries that are
located directly adjacent to Muddy Creek and includes 19,882 linear feet of Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement along Muddy Creek and its tributaries. The Best Site
Mitigation Project area is located directly on over 9,000 linear feet of Muddy Creek and
includes over 18,500 linear feet of 10 unnamed tributaries. Stream restoration is proposed
for two tributaries, headwater valley restoration along a portion of one tributary, stream
enhancement along three tributaries, and stream preservation and buffer enhancement for
the remaining streams.
The eastern portion of the project originates approximately 0.3 miles west of Edwards Road
and includes the upstream portion of Muddy Creek and tributaries UT1 and UT2 flowing
from the north and UT3 and UT4 flowing from the south. The western portion of the project
Best Mitigation Plan i October 2013

is located southeast of the intersection of NC HWY 24 and Lyman Road and terminates
approximately 0.4 miles south of Lyman Road. This area includes the lower section of
Muddy Creek and its tributaries; UT5, UT6, UT7, UT8, UT9, and UT1 0.
The site consists of farmland, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), and wooded
areas. The total easement area is 142.7 acres, 116.4 acres of which are wooded. The
remaining area is agricultural. The wooded areas along the corridor designated for
restoration are classified as disturbed deciduous forest, and invasive species are prevalent
throughout. Several ditches exist throughout the project and flow into the main channel.
Each ditch contributes to the overall design discharge of the channel. Channels proposed
for restoration or enhancement are degraded to a point where they no longer access their
floodplain, lack riparian buffers, allow livestock access, and aquatic life is not supported.
Little aquatic habitat is available to support aquatic life, and the riparian buffers are not
maximizing their potential to filter nutrients.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore wetland areas and design natural
waterways through stream /wetland complexes with appropriate cross - sectional dimension
and slope that will provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for the existing
streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream
characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in- stream habitat. The
floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural
exchange and storage during flooding events. The design will be based on reference
conditions, USACE guidance ( USACE, 2005), and criteria that are developed during this
project to achieve success. Additional project objectives, such as restoring the riparian
buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and eradicating invasive species,
are listed in Section 1.
The design approach for the Best Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel
design with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the
channel and floodplain. The analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent
to, nearby, or previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters
of the analog reach are replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog
approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar between the design
and analog reaches (Skidmore, et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was developed using
analytical methods in an effort to identify the design discharge.
The headwater valley restoration approach is proposed along the upper section of UT4. The
existing ditches /channels will be backfilled to the extent possible such that cut and fill is
balanced along the reach. Priority Level I restoration is proposed on UT1 and UT2. For the
majority of the restoration reaches, the channel will be rerouted form its current location to
adjacent natural valley features. Enhancement Level I is proposed for UT6 and UT8, and
Level II is proposed for UT3.
The restoration approach on UT1 and UT2 includes relocating the channel to either side of
its current location within the natural valley. The existing channels will be plugged and filled
to prevent continued flow within the ditches. By rerouting and raising the channel, the design
will allow the channel frequent access to its floodplain and the opportunity for creating small
depressional areas within the buffer to enhance habitat for wildlife and aquatic organisms.
Relocating these channels will not impact any forested areas because the buffer along the
restoration reaches is currently cultivated crop land or active pasture.
Best Mitigation Plan ii October 2013

Enhancement Level I on UT6 and UT8 will include grading a floodplain bench, bank
stabilization treatment, and habitat improvements. Enhancement Level II is proposed for
reach UT3, where habitat and buffer improvements are proposed.
Wetlands are present adjacent to streams UT3, UT4, UT5, UT6, UT10, and Muddy Creek.
The three wetland restoration areas proposed are located at the headwaters of UT1, on the
floodplain adjacent to the proposed UT2 stream restoration, and on the floodplain of Muddy
Creek. Wetland restoration activities will include plugging existing ditches, raising the
elevation of the local groundwater, restoring natural drainage patterns both above and below
the ground surface, roughing of the soil surface, planting wetland species, and permanent
exclusion of livestock.
After completion of all construction and planting activities, the site will be monitored on a
regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be conducted at a minimum of twice
per year throughout the seven -year post- construction monitoring period, or until
performance standards are met. These site inspections will identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Success criteria on the headwater valley reaches
will include documented surface flow and vegetative success. The measure of stream
restoration success will be documented bankfull flows and no change in stream channel
classification. Sand bed channels are dynamic and minor adjustments to dimension and
profile are expected. The measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at
least 210 seven -year old planted trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end
of year seven of the monitoring period. Successful establishment of wetland hydrology will
be demonstrated by a wetland hydroperiod of seven percent (17 days) or greater of one
growing season at each groundwater gauge location. Annual monitoring data will be
reported using the EEP monitoring template.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be
transferred to the State of North Carolina (State). The State shall be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the
deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Best Mitigation Plan iii October 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................. ..............................4
2 SITE SELECTION .............................................................................. ..............................5
2.1 Directions to Site ........................................................................ ............................... 5
2.2 Site Selection ..............................................................................
..............................5
2.2.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin .....
..............................5
2.2.2 Project Components ...........................................................
............................... 5
2.2.3 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ....................
..............................6
2.3 Project Site Vicinity Map ............................................................
............................... 8
2.4 Project Site Watershed Map ......................................................
............................... 9
2.5 Soil Survey ................................................................................. .............................10
2.6 Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map ..........................................
.............................11
2.7 Project Site Current Condition Plan View ..................................
.............................12
2.8 Project Site LIDAR ..................................................................... .............................13
2.9 Project Site Historical Condition Plan View ...............................
.............................14
2.10 Site Photographs .......................................................................
.............................15
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT .................................................
.............................18
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information ..................
.............................18
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure ............................................ ...............................
20
4 BASELINE INFORMATION .............................................................. .............................21
4.1 Watershed Summary Information ............................................ ...............................
21
4.1.1 Drainage Area ....................................................................
.............................21
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification ..............................................
.............................21
4.1.3 Endangered /Threatened Species .......................................
.............................21
4.1.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................
.............................22
4.2 Reach Summary Information ................................................... ...............................
22
4.2.1 Channel Classification ........................................................
.............................26
4.2.2 Discharge ...........................................................................
.............................26
4.2.3 Channel Morphology ..........................................................
.............................26
4.2.4 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................
.............................29
4.2.5 Bankfull Verification ............................................................
.............................30
4.2.6 Vegetation ..........................................................................
.............................30
4.2.7 Quantitative Habitat Assessment ..................................... ...............................
31
4.3 Wetland Summary Information ................................................ ...............................
35
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands ............................................................. ............................... 35
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil .............................................................
.............................41
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints ...............
.............................43
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities ......................
.............................43
4.4.2 Site Access ......................................................................... .............................43
4.4.3 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass ...............................................
.............................43
5 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ..................................................... .............................46
6 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ...................................................... .............................49
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits ....................................... ...............................
50
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases ................................................... ...............................
50
7 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..............................................................
.............................51
7.1 Target Stream and Wetland Types ............................................
.............................51
7.1.1 Reference Stream Studies .................................................
.............................51
7.1.2 Reference Wetland Studies ................................................
.............................56
7.2 Design Parameters .................................................................. ............................... 56
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach ............................................
.............................56
Best Mitigation Plan 1
October 2013

7.2.2 Wetland Restoration Approach ........................................... .............................65
Table 2. Best Site Project Components - Wetland Mitigation ................... ..............................6
7.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration ................................ .............................69
Table 3. Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................ ..............................7
7.2.4 Best Management Practices ............................................... .............................72
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information ................................ .............................18
7.2.5 Soil Restoration .................................................................. .............................72
Table 5. Project Information ..................................................................... .............................21
7.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................. .............................72
Table 6. Project Watershed Summary Information .................................. .............................21
73.1 Stream Data Analysis ....................................................... ...............................
72
7.3.2 Wetland Data Analysis ....................................................... .............................77
Table 8. Reach Summary Information ..................................................... .............................25
7.3.3 Mitigation Summary ............................................................ .............................81
Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results ....................................... .............................30
8 MAINTENANCE PLAN ..................................................................... .............................81
Table 10. Natural Community Summary .................................................. .............................31
9 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ....................................................... .............................83
Table 11. Average volume (cubic inches) of SWD structures used in the design reach.......
9.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria ......................................... .............................83
Table 12. Small Woody Debris calculations for the reference and design reach ..................
9.1.1 Bankfull Events ................................................................... .............................83
Table 13. Wetland Summary Information ................................................. .............................36
9.1.2 Cross Sections ................................................................... .............................83
9.1.3 Digital Image Stations ......................................................... .............................83
9.2 Wetland Success Criteria ........................................................ ...............................
83
9.3 Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................... ...............................
83
9.4 Scheduling /Reporting ................................................................ .............................84
10 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... .............................85
10.1 As -Built Survey ........................................................................ ...............................
85
10.2 Visual Monitoring ..................................................................... ...............................
86
10.3 Cross Sections ........................................................................... .............................86
10.4 Bank Pin Arrays ......................................................................... .............................86
10.5 Surface Flow .............................................................................. .............................86
10.6 Wetland Hydrology .................................................................. ...............................
86
10.7 Vegetative Success Criteria ....................................................... .............................87
10.8 Remedial Actions ....................................................................... .............................87
11 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................... .............................88
12 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................. ...............................
89
13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ............................................................. .............................90
14 OTHER INFORMATION ................................................................... .............................91
14.1 References .............................................................................. ...............................
91
14.2 Appendix A - Site Protection Instrument(s)
14.3 Appendix B - Baseline Information Data
14.4 Appendix C - Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
14.5 Appendix D - Best Design Plan Sheets (11 "x17 ")
List of Tables
Table 1. Best Site Project Components - Stream Mitigation .................... ..............................6
Table 2. Best Site Project Components - Wetland Mitigation ................... ..............................6
Table 3. Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................ ..............................7
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information ................................ .............................18
Table 5. Project Information ..................................................................... .............................21
Table 6. Project Watershed Summary Information .................................. .............................21
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ........................... .............................24
Table 8. Reach Summary Information ..................................................... .............................25
Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results ....................................... .............................30
Table 10. Natural Community Summary .................................................. .............................31
Table 11. Average volume (cubic inches) of SWD structures used in the design reach.......
32
Table 12. Small Woody Debris calculations for the reference and design reach ..................
33
Table 13. Wetland Summary Information ................................................. .............................36
Best Mitigation Plan 2 October 2013

Table 14. Proposed Hydric Soils Parameter and Characteristics ............ .............................43
Table 15. Regulatory Considerations ....................................................... .............................44
Table 16. Forested Wetlands Credits ....................................................... .............................49
Table17. Stream Credits ......................................................................... .............................50
Table 18. Tree Communities at the Reference Reach for Best Site ........ .............................55
Table 19. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters ......... .............................64
Table 20. Proposed Plant List .................................................................. .............................70
Table 21. Peak Flow Comparison .......................................................... ...............................
73
Table 22. Stable Channel Design Output ................................................. .............................74
Table 23. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ........ .............................75
Table 24. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities .................. .............................75
Table25. Maintenance Plan .................................................................... .............................82
Table 26. Monitoring Requirements ......................................................... .............................85
Best Mitigation Plan 3 October 2013

1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) develops River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's 54
cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds are called
Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration
project funds.
The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin RBRP identified HUC 03030007060010 as a Targeted
Local Watershed (http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /c /document library /get file ?uuid= e16e9d5a -a385-
41ec- 8969- 44c8e10369ba &groupld= 60329). The watershed is characterized by 52 percent
agricultural land use area with Muddy Creek identified as Impaired for aquatic life because
of a Fair benthic community rating.
The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin RBRP identified degraded water quality likely from existing
animal operations as a major stressor within this TLW. The Best Stream and Wetland
Restoration Project was identified as a stream and wetland opportunity to improve water
quality, habitat, and hydrology within the TLW.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
• Reducing runoff from animal operations,
• Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Establishing riparian buffer areas adjacent to CAFOs,
• Converting active farm field to forested buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks,
• Improving and protecting portions of headwater systems that discharge to a 303d
listed stream,
• Reduction in stream bank slope,
• Restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats, and
• Construction of in- stream structures designed to improve bedform diversity and trap
detritus.
The proposed Best stream and wetland mitigation project is located within the northern
(upstream) portion of the TLW and includes sections of Muddy Creek (303d listed) and
headwater streams that discharge into Muddy Creek. Due to its location and proposed
improvements, the project will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within
the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area,
others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more
far - reaching effects. Many of the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of
riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and
construction of in- stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded
water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed
stressors in the 2009 Cape Fear RBRP.
Best Mitigation Plan 4 October 2013

2 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions to Site
The Best Site Stream and Wetland Site is located in Duplin County approximately two miles
east of Beulaville, NC (Figure 1). To access the downstream end of the Site from the town
of Beulaville, travel 0.6 miles east on NC HWY 24, take a right onto Lyman Road (SR 1801),
and continue 1.6 miles southeast to the crossing with Muddy Creek. Reaches UT7, UT8,
UT9, UT10 and the lower end of Muddy Creek may all be accessed from Lyman Road.
Reaches UT5 and UT6 are located just south of NC HWY 24, approximately 1.9 miles east
of Beulaville. The upstream portion of the site may be accessed from two locations.
Reaches UT1, UT2 and Muddy Creek are located to the south of NC HWY 24, opposite of
the intersection of NC HWY 24 and Penny Road (SR 1720), approximately 2.8 miles east of
Beulaville. To access reaches UT3, UT4 and Muddy Creek, travel 3.2 miles east on NC
HWY 24 from Beulaville to Edwards Road (SR 1835), continue south for approximately 1.0
mile, turn right onto Put Lane, and follow the road down to Reaches UT3 and UT4.
2.2 Site Selection
2.2.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin
The site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03030007 (NCDWQ
sub -basin 03- 06 -22). The project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin (8 -digit USGS
HUC 03030007, 12 -digit USGS HUC 030300070600 (USGS, 2012) and the NCDWQ Cape
Fear 03 -06 -22 sub -basin (NCDWQ, 2002) (Figure 2).
2.2.2 Project Components
The project area is comprised of a single large easement area along Muddy Creek and 10
tributaries. The easement along Muddy Creek is separated by Lyman Road. The eastern
portion of the project originates approximately 0.3 miles west of Edwards Road and includes
the upstream portion of Muddy Creek and its tributaries UT1 and UT2 flowing from the north
and UT3 and UT4 flowing from the south. The western portion of the project is located
southeast of the intersection of NC HWY 24 and Lyman Road and terminates approximately
0.4 miles south of Lyman Road. This area includes the lower section of Muddy Creek and its
tributaries (UT5, UT6, UT7, UT8, UT9, and UT10). The stream mitigation project
components are summarized in Table 1.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts wetlands
within the project site (Figure 7). The floodplain along Muddy Creek is mapped as PF01A
(Palustrine Forested Broad - Leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded) and PF01 C
(Palustrine Forested Broad - Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) in the watershed of UT2
north of NC HWY 24. Additional wetlands are shown above the headwaters wetland of UT3
and UT4, and mapped as PF01 /4A (Palustrine Forested Broad - Leaved Deciduous/ Needle -
Leaved Temporarily Flooded). Wetland delineations performed in June 2012 identified three
wetland mitigation areas. Two sites (W1 and W2) are adjacent to the stream restoration
(UT1 and UT2) that contain relic hydric soil, and the third site (W3) is along the floodplain of
Muddy Creek. Area W1 is within an active pasture, while W2 and W3 are within cultivated
cropland. Area W3 consists of two adjacent areas that are similar (W3a and W3b). The
wetland mitigation project components are summarized in Table 2.
Best Mitigation Plan 5 October 2013

Table 1. Best Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
Reach
Mitigation
Stationing
Existing
Proposed
Mitigation
SMUs
Type*
(Existing)
Length (LF) Length (LF)
Ratio
UT1
P1 Restoration
0 +47
to 18 +00
1,551
1,723
1 : 1.0
1,723
UT1
SP & BE
18 +00
to 21 +03
303
303
1 : 5.0
61
UT2
P1 Restoration
2 +30
to 30 +30
2,552
2,770
1 : 1.0
2,770
UT2
SP & BE
30 +30
to 33 +39
309
309
1 : 5.0
62
UT3
Enhancement II
0 +00
to 8 +42
1,458
812
1 :2.5
325
UT3
SP & BE
14 +58
to 15 +22
64
64
1 :5.0
13
UT4
HV Restoration
5 +63
to 11 +03
534
510
1 : 1.0
510
UT4
SP & BE
11 +03
to 17 +58
655
655
1 : 5.0
131
UT5
SP & BE
0 +00
to 40 +86
4,086
4,043
1 : 5.0
809
UT6
Enhancement 1
0 +62
to 6 +00
538
538
1 : 1.5
359
UT7
SP & BE
0 +44
to 32 +27
3,183
3,183
1 : 5.0
637
UT8
Enhancement 1
0 +75
to 9 +00
825
825
1 : 1.5
550
UT8
SP & BE
9 +00
to 12 +13
313
313
1 : 5.0
63
UT9
SP & BE
0 +00
to 11+71
1,171
1,171
1 : 5.0
234
UT10
SP & BE
3 +37
to 11 +05
768
768
1 : 5.0
154
Muddy
SP & BE
0 +35
to 92 +49
9,214
9,073
1 : 5.0
1,815
Creek
Total
27,524
27,060
10,213
*P1 = Priority
1, SP & BE=
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement, HV
= Headwater Valley
Table 2.
Best Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation Type
g yp
Mitigation
Mitigation
WMUs
Area (ac)
Ratio
W1
Restoration
3.66
1:1
3.66
W2
Restoration
0.29
1:1
0.31
W3A
Restoration
0.58
1:1
0.58
W3B
Restoration
0.59
1:1
0.59
Total
5.12
5.12
2.2.3 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery and information provided by the property owners indicate that the subject site
has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and that the location of the stream has
not changed in over 50 years (Figure 4 and Figure 6). By 1958, the area was cleared and
Best Mitigation Plan 6 October 2013

in agricultural production with the current ditch system mostly in place. Land use patterns
have remained constant since then. Between 1958 and 1974 the CAFO in the watershed for
UT2 (poultry) was built across NC HWY 24. Between 1977 and 1983 the CAFO on UT3
(swine) was constructed with a single lagoon beside the stream. Between 1983 and 1993 a
CAFO was constructed in the watershed for UT4 (swine) having two lagoons with two
additional houses added between 1993 and 1998. Also between 1983 and 1993, the
headwater of UT1 was cleared and converted to pasture. Additional CAFOs have been
constructed throughout the Muddy Creek drainage above the project. These swine
operations total eleven swine houses with three waste lagoons and three poultry houses.
Little has changed since 1983 in regards to the development of the project site and nearby
surrounding property. The area remains in an agricultural community with some neighboring
property forested. All of the facts in Section 4.1 (Watershed Summary Information) support
the notion that several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface
drainage, and potentially soil parameters, have been modified. Soil structure and surface
texture have been altered from intensive agricultural operations. Although the soils
characterized on the W1 restoration area are classified as poorly drained, the ditching
system has caused these soils to be effectively drained. Historical land use and
development trends on the Best Site are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Date Land Use and Development Observations*
1958 Conditions consist of ditched agricultural fields throughout the project
area except where wetlands W1 is proposed. This area is forested.
1974 Land use conditions have changed very little. A CAFO (poultry) in the
watershed for UT2 was built across NC HWY 24.
1983 The CAFO on UT3 (swine) was constructed with a single lagoon beside
the stream.
1993 A CAFO was constructed in the watershed for UT 4 (swine) having two
lagoons. The headwater of UT1 was cleared and converted to pasture.
1998 Two additional swine houses added to CAFO above UT4
2010 Depicts current site conditions.
* Observations based on aerial imagery and landowner communication
Best Mitigation Plan 7 October 2013

2.3 Project Site Vicinity Map
uv
NAIVII
.. VAN-
IJ
Legend 4.
Akpolts
NC Highway
StWe Roads
sueams
_ s '
Best Mitigation Plan 8 October 2013
EI 3X
aDDRI --
.,....ip.,L�
Best Mitigation Plan 8 October 2013

2.4 Project Site Watershed Map
Best Mitigation Plan 9 October 2013
!yyp
sq.
0 7
k sq. mi.:--- Muddy Creep Drainage Area ;
4.58 square miles
�'f � 3sq. mi • •
; =
�
�
J
.13sq. i.
7 0.09sq. i.
•• l -
,48sq. mi.
ISO \ A`
V.
Legend
Muddy Creek Drainage Area f
Q Drainage Areas
® Proposed Easement r
I.
— Proposed Streams Beulaville and Potters Hill USGS'Topographic [quadrangles
Figure 2.
USGS Map
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
0 1,500 3.000 6,000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Best Mitigation Plan 9 October 2013

2.5 Soil Survey
The Best Site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The watershed is
underlain by the Castle Hayne aquifer. The Castle Hayne aquifer is composed of limestone,
sandy limestone, and sand. It is the most productive aquifer in North Carolina. The
topography of the area is generally gently rolling with nearly flat floodplain. Elevations range
from 45 to 65 feet.
The Duplin County Soil Survey depicts six soil types as present within the project area
(Figure 3). The six series present are: Autryville loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes;
Marvyn and Gritney soils, 6 to 15 percent slopes; Muckalee loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes;
Woodington loamy fine sand, 0 to 1 percent slopes; Noboco loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent
slopes; and Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. Of the mapped soil series that
occur throughout the project, the Muckalee loam dominates the floodplain of Muddy Creek
and the lower reaches of many of its tributaries. The Rains series is mapped at the
headwater of UT1 and Wetland 1. The Marvyn and Gritney soils are found on the low
terrace along Muddy Creek. The Autryville and Woodington series are mapped in the
remaining areas of the project. The Rains and Woodington soils are poorly drained with slow
to negligible runoff. None of these soils are subject to ponding, and only Rains may
experience flooding. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the
Muckalee, Rains, and Woodington soils to be hydric when undrained.
A detailed soil investigation of the site verified the existence of sandy soils similar to
Muckalee throughout much of the floodplain on Muddy Creek and the floodplains along its
tributaries. A soil similar to Rains was found at the headwaters of UT1 where wetland
restoration is proposed. The investigation identified hydric soil indicators in areas in the
lowest part of UT2. The common hydric soil indicators outside of the floodplain are S7 -Dark
Surface, S9 -Thin Dark Surface, F3- Depleted Matrix, and F4- Depleted Below Dark Surface.
The cultivated fields appear to have sandy /sandy loam deposition or fill along the dredged
channel, and the resulting buried horizons would meet hydric indicator criteria. The fill in
these areas appears to be spoil from excavated channels combined with deposition
resulting from cultivation practices higher in the landscape.
Best Mitigation Plan 10 October 2013

2.6 Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Best Mitigation Plan 11 October 2013
C aA
- -S.1N4
- -•-
RaR © RaA
VbA Nb6
V+JoI
NbA Nb6
'��- --
NbA uB
A RaA
G0A
•Cy �
McC NbB
AuB
r
u lB
RaA
' NbA �►
�
AuB
'B U
GoA �+
NbB P
Au
g
NtA
AuB IVIC McC NliA
,;
Sail Symbol Name
Au B Autryville loamy fine sand, 0 - 6% slopes
GoA Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 - 2% slopes
MCC Mervyn and Gritney soils, 6 -15% slopes
AUB MkA Muckalee loam, 0 - 1 % slopes
M -W Miscellaneous water
NbA Noboco loamy fine sand. 0 - 2% slopes
MCG
NbB Noboco loamy fine sand, 2 - 6% slopes
RaA Rains fine sandy loam. 0 - 1 % slopes
50urCe: NRGS'Soll ®ate uplin Caulity WoA Woodington loamy fine sand- 0. 1 %slopes
Figure 3. Legend
MRCS Soils Map Proposed streams
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Proposed Easement
0 750 1,500 3,000 Duplin County Soils
1 inch = 1.500 feet Feet Target Parcels
Best Mitigation Plan 11 October 2013

2.7 Project Site Current Condition Plan View
Best Mitigation Plan
Figure 4.
Current Conditions Map
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
0 625 1,254 2,540
Feet
1 inch = 1,250 feet
12
— Proposed Streams
ID Proposed Easement
Riparian Wetands
Riuerine Wetlands
Target Parcels
October 2013

2.8 Project Site LIDAR
Figure 5. proposed Streams
UDAR proposed Easement
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site parcels
0 625 1..250 2,500
Feet 2 ft Contours
1 inch = 1,250 feet
Best Mitigation Plan 13 October 2013

2.9 Project Site Historical Condition Plan View
Best Mitigation Plan 14 October 2013
a
Source: 195rial Photograph, USDA
awl
Figure 6.
Historical Conditions Legend
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 0 Proposed Easement
0 1,000 2.000 4.000
Feet Proposed Streams
1 inch = 2.000 feet
Best Mitigation Plan 14 October 2013

2.10 Site Photoaraahs
Best Mitigation Plan 15 October 2013

crossing. 6/28/2012
Facing downstream on UT4; downstream of
crossing. 6/28/2012
Facing downstream on UT5. 8/2/2012
Facing downstream on UT6. 8/2/2012
Facing downstream on UTT 8/1/2012
Facing downstream on UT8. 8/1/2012
Best Mitigation Plan 16 October 2013

Best Mitigation Plan 17 October 2013
J.
W%iv ��g
J
Facing upstream on UT9. 8/1/2012
Facing upstream on UT10. 8/2/2012
.r
Facing downstream on Muddy Creek;
upstream of Lyman Rd. 8/2/2012
Best Mitigation Plan 17 October 2013

3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation
project includes portions of the following parcels. A copy of the land protection instrument(s)
is included in the appendices.
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
When available, the recorded document(s) will be provided. If the recorded document(s) are
not available, the template documents will be provided.
Best Mitigation Plan 18 October 2013
Site
Deed Book
Acreage
Landownder
PIN
County
Protection
and Page
Protected
Instrument
Number
Parcel A
Batts, Gerald T
347200520581
Duplin
1174@ 50
13.76
Parcel B
Batts, Gerald T
347200542344
Duplin
965@ 658
13.47
Parcel C
Clark, Emmett Ted
347200442322
Duplin
839@ 571
7.65
Parcel D
Edwards, Dexter Burl &
347200743294
Duplin
1231@ 132
5.03
Wife Pamela Edwards
Edwards, Dexter Burl &
Parcel E
347200644319
Duplin
1231@ 132
2.12
Wife Pamela Edwards
Edwards, Dexter Burl &
Parcel F
347200747685
Duplin
950@ 90
4.14
Wife Pamela T. Edwards
Parcel G
Edwards, Dexter Burl &
347200840796
Duplin
995@ 270
0.85
Wife Pamela T.Edwards
Parcel H
Edwards, Jonas Jefferson
347200844788
Duplin
1068@ 724
0.91
Parcel I
Edwards, Jonas Jefferson
347200843820
Duplin
1034@ 169
0.55
Parcel J
Lanier, Robert H.
Duplin
1.01
Parcel K
Miller, Joseph Craig Jr Etal
347209252506
Duplin
1302@ 55
3.42
Parcel L
Price, Jerry Linwood &
347200560642
Duplin
1258@ 271
29.42
Durwood Mckinley Price
Parcel M
Quinn, Ruth Ann Rhodes
347200767766
Duplin
816@ 607
13.92
Parcel N
Sandlin, Isaac Jerome Jr
347200356369
Duplin
6.09
(Farm)
Sharpe, Benny S & Wife
Parcel O
Linda And Emmett Ted
347200327543
Duplin
1006@ 754
8.34
Clark
Sharpe, Benny S & Wife
Parcel P
Linda And Emmett Ted
347200433660
Duplin
1006@ 754
3.08
Clark
Parcel Q
Smith, Patsy A
347200964488
Duplin
1159@ 484
12.38
Parcel R
Thigpen, Mary P.
347200867827
Duplin
98E@ 31
7.30
Parcel S
Whaley, Kathleen T
347200668774
Duplin
1083@ 701
5.34
Parcel T
Whaley, Kathleen T
347200266808
Duplin
957@ 536
0.55
Parcel U
Whaley, Kathleen T
347200267586
Duplin
0.97
Parcel V
Whaley, Ronald Kenneth
347200940919
Duplin
947@ 557
2.40
& Wife Rachel K. Whaley
TOTAL
142.70
When available, the recorded document(s) will be provided. If the recorded document(s) are
not available, the template documents will be provided.
Best Mitigation Plan 18 October 2013

All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State
prior to any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place
unless approved by the State.
Best Mitigation Plan 19 October 2013

3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
Site protection instrument figures will be provided as easement plats become available.
Best Mitigation Plan 20 October 2013

4 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 5. Project Information
Project Name
Best Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
County
Duplin
Project Area (acres)
142.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
34° 54' 44.011" N
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The easement totals 142.7 acres and the project streams include ten unnamed tributaries to
Muddy Creek and a portion of Muddy Creek extending from approximately 0.3 miles west of
Edwards Road to 0.4 miles past Lyman Road. The total drainage area at the downstream
limits of the project is 2,928 acres (4.58 mi2). The land use in the project watershed is
approximately 47 percent cultivated cropland, 21 percent evergreen and deciduous forest,
13 percent shrub /scrub, ten percent bottomland forest /hardwood swamp, three percent
developed, and six percent managed herbaceous cover and pasture.
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for the Best Site restoration reaches is undefined. Tributaries
of the project run directly into Muddy Creek. Muddy Creek is defined as Class C Sw
(NCDWQ 2012a). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life, secondary recreation, and
agricultural usage. The Sw is a designation for swamp waters — waters that have low
velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from adjacent streams. Muddy
Creek is listed on the 2012 303d list for impaired waters (NCDWQ 2012b). It is impaired for
aquatic use, receiving a Fair Bioclassification rating for benthic ecological /biological integrity.
Table 6. Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030007
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030007060010
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -06 -22
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2,928
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
6%
CGIA Land Use Classification
woody wetlands, emergent herbaceous
wetlands, cultivated crops, evergreen
forest
4.1.3 Endangered /Threatened Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected
under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Rare and protected species listed for Duplin County, and any likely impacts to the species
as a result of the project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (updated 22 September 2010) lists
one endangered species for Duplin County, North Carolina: red - cockaded woodpecker
Best Mitigation Plan 21 October 2013

(Picoides borealis). The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is listed as
Threatened due to similarity of appearance, but is not protected. No protected species or
potential habitat for protected species were observed during preliminary site evaluations.
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database
was consulted to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species
were mapped within one mile of the project site. Results from NHP indicate that there are no
known occurrences within a one -mile radius of the project area. Based on initial site
investigations, no impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
WK Dickson submitted a request to USFWS for review and comments on the proposed Best
Site Stream Restoration Project on June 7, 2012 in regards to any potential impacts to
threatened and endangered species. No response was received within a 30 -day period;
therefore, it is assumed that the initial determination of no effect to endangered and
threatened species will result from the proposed project.
The proposed project offers some potential to improve or create suitable habitat for several
Federal Species of Concern. Habitat may be improved or created for species that require
riverine habitat by improving water quality, in- stream and near - stream forage, and providing
stable conditions not subject to regular maintenance. Improved stream habitat may benefit
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and broadtail madtom (Noturus sp. cf. leptacanthus).
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include historic and archeological resources located in or near the project
area. WK Dickson completed a preliminary survey of cultural resources to determine
potential project impacts. A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
GIS Web Service database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or
archeological resources in the proposed project area. No architectural structures or
archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during surveys of the site for restoration
purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to
agricultural practices and channel modifications.
WK Dickson submitted a request to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to
search records to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance that may be affected by the Best Site Stream Restoration Project
on June 7, 2012. In a letter dated July 3, 2012 (Appendix B), the SHPO stated that they
had "conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project."
4.2 Reach Summary Information
The project area is comprised of a single large easement area along Muddy Creek and ten
tributaries. The easement along Muddy Creek is separated by Lyman Road. The eastern
portion of the project originates approximately 0.3 miles west of Edwards Road and includes
the upstream portion of Muddy Creek and its tributaries UT1 and UT2 flowing from the north
and UT3 and UT4 flowing from the south. The western portion of the project is located
southeast of the intersection of NC HWY 24 and Lyman Road and terminates approximately
0.4 miles south of Lyman Road. This area includes the lower section of Muddy Creek and its
tributaries; UT5, UT6, UT7, UT8, UT9, and UT10.
Best Mitigation Plan 22 October 2013

Best Site stream channels include unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek. Muddy Creek
ultimately flows into the Northeast Cape Fear River (Figure 1). The Best Site Mitigation Site
is located in a FEMA mapped floodzone (Figure 10), but all restoration is proposed outside
of the mapped floodzone. Invasive control and stabilization will be performed in select
segments of the project, including portions of the floodzone. NCDWQ Stream Classification
Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets were completed at
representative locations throughout the project area and are included in Appendix B.
Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Figure 4, Table 7 and Table 8
below, and the Stream Morphology Table in Appendix B.
Reach UT1 is an oversized perennial ditch with moderately unstable banks that discharges
to the north side of Muddy Creek near the upstream end of the project. The upper section
flows through an active cow pasture, while the downstream section is surrounded by
agricultural fields. UT1 lacks a forested buffer and banks.
Reach UT2 is a channelized and oversized perennial ditch that discharges along the north
side of Muddy Creek near the upstream end of the project. The channel exhibits moderately
unstable banks, and agricultural production occurs up to the top of bank. The bedform
diversity is low and the buffer is devoid of appropriate hardwood vegetation.
Reach UT3 is a headwater system that originates along the south side of Muddy Creek near
the upstream end of the project. This perennial channel is dimensionally stable, but is
impacted by direct cattle access in the upper reach and an adjacent hog waste lagoon on
the right bank of the lower reach. The riparian buffer is well vegetated along the left bank
and is sparse along the right. Undergrowth is sparse throughout due to cattle access.
Reach UT4 is an oversized perennial ditch with moderately unstable banks that discharges
to the south side of Muddy Creek near the upstream end of the project. This channel has
been significantly altered by ditching and agricultural activities, moving the channel west
from the historic valley.
Reach UT5 is a stable, perennial channel throughout the proposed project and provides a
variety of aquatic habitats. The project channel begins at NC HWY 24 and discharges to
Muddy Creek near the middle of the project area. The riparian buffer is an intact hardwood
forest with few localized areas of dense privet.
Reach UT6 is a perennial channel impaired by channelization. The banks are vertical and
un- vegetated, and the buffer is comprised of mature vegetation and a dense privet
understory. The project channel flows southeast from NC HWY 24 to the confluence with
UT5.
Reach UT7 is a stable, perennial channel throughout the proposed project area and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The buffer is intact and stable, dominated by
hardwoods with a few localized areas of dense privet. The project channel begins at NC
HWY 24 and discharges to Muddy Creek near the middle of the project area.
Reach UT8 is a perennial channel impaired by channelization to promote agricultural
activities. The channel is oversized, exhibits localized bank instability, and cleared
agricultural land in the buffer up to top of bank for the majority of the reach. The project
channel flows east from an agricultural crossing to the confluence with UT7.
Best Mitigation Plan 23 October 2013

Reach UT9 is a perennial, channelized stream, but is stable throughout the proposed
easement. The active channel is meandering within the larger excavated channel bottom.
The riparian buffer is intact hardwood forest with localized areas of privet. The project
channel begins at a culvert outlet east of Lyman Road and discharges to Muddy Creek near
the middle of the project area.
Reach UT10 is a perennial channel that is stable throughout the proposed easement and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is intact hardwood forest. The
project channel flows west from an agricultural crossing to the confluence with Muddy Creek
near the downstream end of the project area.
Muddy Creek is a stable swamp stream system (perennial) with an intact hardwood forest
floodplain that provides diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats. The existing channels are
highly variable in size due to numerous branching channels and relic beaver impoundments.
There are limited areas of buffer encroachment and invasive species (privet). The project
channel flows west from an agricultural crossing to the confluence with Muddy Creek near
the downstream end of the project area.
In general, all or portions of UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT6, and UT8 do not function to their full
potential. Having been channelized in the past and /or ditched to drain nearby fields for
agricultural activities, the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they
naturally would have prior to farming operations. In most cases, these streams are
hydraulically unstable, and are devoid of bedform diversity. Habitat along the majority of the
restoration reaches is poor in that there is little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for
fish cover or protection for other aquatic species. Vegetative and habitat diversity is poor
along the reaches, as well, and offers little benefit to the wildlife in the area. Site
photographs and morphological parameters are located in Appendix B.
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Drainage ABKF 1 Width Mean Width:Depth
Reach Area (ac) (ft) (ft) Depth (ft) Ratio Sinuosity Slope (ft/ft)
UT1
41
3.2
5.1
0.6
8.1
1.04
0.0066
UT2
146
4.6
4.8
1.0
5.0
1.02
0.0044
UT3
59
9.1
10.1
0.9
11.2
1.07
0.0093
UT4
82
6.2
7.5
0.8
9.1
1.13
0.0042
UT5
380
6.0
11
0.5
20.2
1.14
0.0040
UT6
79
4.3
5.1
0.8
6.2
1.05
0.0012
UT7
387
6.1
10.1
0.6
16.7
1.20
0.0040
UT8
56
4.9
9.5
0.5
18.2
1.06
0.0029
UT9
36
3.6
6.5
0.6
11.8
1.06
0.0080
UT10
306
7.8
13.7
0.6
24.0
1.06
0.0040
Muddy
2930
21.2
15.7
1.4
11.6
1.09
0.0011
Creek
'ABKF= cross - sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing
conditions data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
Best Mitigation Plan 24 October 2013

Table 8. Reach Summary Information
*Exotic invasive species are concentrated within a 50- to 100 -foot fringe on the outer edges of Muddy Creek's wide flood plain.
Best Mitigation Plan 25 May 2013
Muddy
Parameters
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT5
UT6
UT7
UT8
UT9
UT10
Creek
Length of reach (linear
1,854
2,861
1,522
1,189
4,086
593
3,183
1,138
1,171
1,096
9,214
feet)
Valley Classification
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Drainage area (acres)
41
146
56
82
380
79
387
56
36
306
2930
NCDWQ stream
32.50
31.50
33.00
33.75
36.75
30.50
38.50
30.50
32.00
34.00
43.25
identification score
NCDWQ Water Quality
N/A
C Sw
N/A
N/A
C Sw
N/A
C Sw
N/A
N/A
C Sw
C Sw
Classification
Morphological
Description (stream
G5c
G5c
E5
G5c /E5
C5
E5
C5
F5
E5
C5
E5
type)
Evolutionary trend
Stage II
Stage II
Stage VI
Stage II/VI
Stage I
Stage II
Stage I
Stage II
Stage VI
Stage VI
Stage VI
AuB
GoA
MCC
MCC
MCC
MCC
MCC
Underlying mapped
MkA
MkA
NbA
MCC
MCC
MCC
MkA
MkA
MkA
MkA
NbA
soils
NbB
NbB
NbB
MkA
MkA
MkA
NbA
NbB
NbB
NbB
NbB
RaA
NbB
well; mod.
well;
well;
well;
well;
well;
well;
well;
well;
Drainage class
well;
well
well
poorly
poorly
poorly
poorly
poorly
poorly
poorly
poorly
poorly
Soil Hydric status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Not hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Slope
0.66%
0.44%
0.93%
0.42%
0.40%
0.12%
0.40%
0.29%
0.80%
0.40%
0.11%
AE (high
AE (high
AE (high
AE (high
AE (high
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
risk)
risk)
risk)
risk)
risk)
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
Native vegetation
pasture,
cultivated
pasture
hardwood
hardwood
hardwood
hardwood
cultivated
hardwood
hardwood
hardwood
community
cultivated
forest
forest
forest
forest
forest
forest
forest
Percent composition of
exotic invasive
<5
<5
5
15
55
45
65
<5
15
20
5 -85*
vegetation
*Exotic invasive species are concentrated within a 50- to 100 -foot fringe on the outer edges of Muddy Creek's wide flood plain.
Best Mitigation Plan 25 May 2013

4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWQ
Stream Identification Form version 4.11 (Appendix B) and are a mix of E5, C5, G5c, or F5
stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification system ( Rosgen, 1994).
The design reaches have been separated into eleven distinct sections that are described in
Section 4.2.3. Channel characteristics are summarized in Table 7, Table 8, and Appendix
B.
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Best Site is difficult due to the existing network of
ditches and low, depressional areas located throughout the site. Several models, regression
equations, and the Coastal Plain regional curves were used to develop existing discharges.
Land use and slope were considered when the discharge calculations were developed. All
hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are discussed in Section 7.3.1. Data and analysis of the
hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as Appendix C.
4.2.3 Channel Morphology
4.2.3.1 UT1
UT1 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles
(41 acres), and flows in a southerly direction
through cultivated fields and pasture to the
confluence with Muddy Creek. The planform of
this G -type channel is generally straight and is
entrenched throughout. The approximate
bankfull cross - sectional area is 3.2 square feet
with approximate dimensions of 5.1 feet wide
and 0.6 feet deep, while the cross - sectional area
of the channel at top of bank is 22.8 square feet.
The existing length of UT1 is 1,854 linear feet,
and the dominant bed material is fine sand. The
gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0066 Downstream view of UT 1.
ft /ft. The reach is severely oversized and exhibits
moderately unstable banks. The riparian buffer is primarily comprised of pasture grasses
with some shrubby vegetation growing within the channel. The channel scored 32.5 points
on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.2 UT2
UT2 is a significantly oversized perennial channel located in a cultivated field. The reach is
approximately 2,861 linear feet, and flows south to its confluence with Muddy Creek. It has a
drainage area of 0.23 square miles (146 acres). UT2, a G -type channel, is typically 4.8 feet
wide and 1.0 feet deep near bankfull, and 16.5 feet wide with a max depth of 4.0 feet at top
of bank. The approximate bankfull cross sectional area is 4.6 square feet. The existing slope
of UT2 is 0.0044 ft /ft, and the dominant bed material is fine sand. The channel scored 31.5
points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.3 UT3
UT3 is located to the south of Muddy Creek, opposite of UT2, and flows to the north and into
Muddy Creek. This reach has a drainage area of 0.09 square miles (56 acres). Widths range
from 2.6 feet along the upper segment that exhibits characteristics of a headwater system,
Best Mitigation Plan 26 October 2013

to 9.8 feet along the lower end where there is a well- defined single thread channel. The
existing cross - sectional area changes from approximately 1.6 square feet upstream, to 8.1
square feet downstream. The existing slope is 0.0093 ft/ft and is classified as an E /C5
stream type with an existing length of 1,522 linear feet. The buffer is impacted along the
entire reach; cattle have access to the upper end, and there is a hog waste lagoon adjacent
to the right bank along the lower end. The banks are stable, and mature hardwood
vegetation is present along the left bank. The channel scored 33 points on the NCDWQ
Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.4 UT4
UT4 is a stable to moderately stable channel
located to the west of UT3 and discharges to
Muddy Creek. This reach has a drainage area of
0.13 square miles (82 acres) and has a slope of
0.0042 ft/ft. The upstream of a farm crossing has
been significantly altered by ditching and
agricultural activities. The historic valley is
present, but has been hydrologically isolated
from the contributing watershed by ditching. In
addition, cattle access has led to habitat
degradation and sediment input to the
downstream channel. This section is a G -type
channel and has an approximate bankfull cross -
sectional area of 6.4 square feet and an area of
26.8 square feet at top of bank.
Downstream view of UT4.
The channel downstream of the crossing is relatively stable and exhibits a meandering
pattern. UT4 has a fine sand bed and is an E5 stream type downstream of the culvert. The
channel is typically 7.5 feet wide and 1.0 foot deep. Due to the stable nature of the
downstream reach of UT4, Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed from
just downstream of the crossing to the confluence with Muddy Creek. Headwater Valley
Restoration is proposed upstream of the crossing. The channel scored 33.75 points on the
NCDWQ Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.5 UT5
UT5 is a stable, meandering channel that flows in a southerly direction from NC HWY 24 to
Muddy Creek. UT5 has a drainage area of 0.59 square miles (380 acres) and has an
existing length 4,086 linear feet. The riparian buffer is comprised of an intact hardwood
forest with localized areas of privet, and provides a variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
The reach is a C5 stream type, has an average cross - sectional area of 6.0 square feet, and
a slope of 0.0040 ft/ft. The channel scored 36.75 points on the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.6 UT6
UT6 is a straightened, oversized perennial channel located adjacent to a cultivated field.
The reach is approximately 593 linear feet, and flows southeast to its confluence with UT5. It
has a drainage area of 0.12 square miles (79 acres). UT6, a G -type channel, is typically 5.1
feet wide and 1.2 feet deep near bankfull, and 9.3 feet wide with a max depth of 1.7 feet at
top of bank. The approximate bankfull cross sectional area is 4.3 square feet. The existing
slope of UT6 is 0.0012 ft /ft, and the dominant bed material is fine sand. The existing channel
is characterized by vertical un- vegetated banks and a dense privet understory within the
Best Mitigation Plan 27 October 2013

forested buffer. The channel scored 30.5 points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
(Version 4.11).
4.2.3.7 UT7
UT7 is a stable, meandering channel that flows
in a southerly direction east of Lyman Road
down to its confluence with UT5 before
discharging to Muddy Creek. UT7 has a
drainage area of 0.60 square miles (387 acres)
and has an existing length 3,183 linear feet. The
riparian buffer is comprised of an intact
hardwood forest with localized areas of privet
and provides a variety of aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. The reach is a C5 stream type, has an
average cross - sectional area of 6.1 square feet,
and a slope of 0.0040 ft/ft. The channel scored
38.5 points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification
Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.8 UT8
Downstream view of UTT
UT8 has a drainage area of 0.09 square miles (56 acres), and flows in an easterly direction
through a cultivated field east of Lyman Road down to the confluence with UT7. This reach
has previously been straightened and enlarged and is a G -type channel. The approximate
bankfull cross - sectional area is 4.9 square feet with approximate dimensions of 9.5 feet wide
and 0.7 feet deep, while the cross - sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 29.0
square feet. The existing length of UT8 is 1,138 linear feet, and the dominant bed material is
fine sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0029 ft /ft. The reach is severely
oversized and exhibits moderately unstable banks. The riparian buffer is primarily comprised
cleared agricultural land. The channel scored 30.5 points on the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.9 UT9
UT9 is a stable, channelized channel located just east of a small residential area and
adjacent to a cultivated field. The reach is approximately 1,171 linear feet, and flows
southeast to its confluence with Muddy Creek. It has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles
(36 acres). UT9, a E/C -type channel, is typically 6.5 feet wide and 1.1 feet deep with a
cross - sectional area of 3.6 square feet. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0080
ft/ft. The active channel is meandering within the larger excavated channel bottom, and the
riparian buffer is an intact hardwood forest with localized areas of privet. The channel scored
32 points on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11).
4.2.3.10 UT10
UT10 is the downstream -most tributary within the Best Site and flows in a westerly direction
from a farm crossing west of Lyman Road down to Muddy Creek. UT10 has a drainage area
of 0.48 square miles (306 acres) and has an existing length 1,096 linear feet. The riparian
buffer is comprised of a mature hardwood forest that provides a variety of aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. The reach is a C5 stream type, has an average cross - sectional area of
7.8 square feet, and a slope of 0.0040 ft/ft. The channel scored 34 points on the NCDWQ
Stream Identification Form (Version 4.11).
Best Mitigation Plan 28 October 2013

4.2.3.11 Muddy Creek
Muddy Creek is a stable swamp stream system with intact hardwood forest floodplain,
extending from approximately 0.3 miles west of Edwards Road to 0.5 miles south of Lyman
Road. Muddy Creek has a drainage area of 4.6 square miles (2,930 acres) at the
downstream limits and has an existing length of 9,214 linear feet. The gradient of the reach
is approximately 0.0011 ft /ft. The existing channels are highly variable in size due to
numerous branching channels and relic beaver impoundments. The channel displays
characteristics of either E5 or C5 stream types, except where beaver impacts are present.
The Muddy Creek floodplain is a swamp complex composed of many side channels, relic
beaver impoundments, and high quality riverine wetlands. There are a limited number of
areas of buffer encroachment and invasive species (privet) along the riparian corridor. The
channel upstream of the confluence with UT5 scored 43 points on the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form (Version 4.11) and scored 43.5 points downstream of UT5.
4.2.4 Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in
"Assessing Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions" by Johnson
(2006) was used to assess channel stability for the Best Site existing channels and
reference reach. This method may be rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different
physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.
The original CSA method was designed to evaluate thirteen stability indicators in the field.
These parameters are: watershed characteristics, flow habit, channel pattern,
entrenchment /channel confinement, bed material, bar development, presence of
obstructions /debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence, average bank angle, bank
vegetation /protection, bank cutting, mass wasting /bank failure, and upstream distance to
bridge. As this method was initially developed to assess stability at bridges, a few minor
adjustments were made to remove indicators that contradict stability characteristics of
natural channels in favor of providing hydraulic efficiency at bridges. First, the "channel
pattern" indicator was altered such that naturally meandering channels scored low as
opposed to straightened /engineered channels that are favorable for stability near bridges.
Secondly, the last indicator, "upstream distance to bridge," was removed from the
assessment as bridges are not a focus of channel stability for this project. Lastly, the "bed
material" indicator was removed since all project streams are sand bed channels and would
subsequently score high (poorly), as this indicator focuses on coarse substrate. The eleven
indicators were then scored in the field, and a rating of excellent, good, fair, or poor was
assigned to each project reach based on the total score. (See Appendix B for the CSA field
form.)
The CSA results (scores and ratings) for the Best Site project and reference reaches are
provided in Table 9. Project Reaches UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT6, and UT8 all received "Fair"
ratings, while Reaches UT5, UT7, UT9, UT10, and Muddy Creek received a "Good" rating.
Overall, the existing project streams appear to be physically stable as there is little active
erosion present; however, all channels proposed for either restoration or Enhancement
Level I have been straightened and entrenched, and some are actively maintained. These
characteristics are reflected in the poor CSA scores for channel pattern and bank
vegetation /protection. Most reaches scored poorly for watershed characteristics since the
surrounding land use is dominated by agriculture activities or recent clear cutting up to top of
bank (Figure 4).
Best Mitigation Plan 29 October 2013

Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results
*Excellent (0 < Score <= 33), Good (33 < Score <= 66), Fair (66< Score <= 99), Poor (99 < Score <= 132)
4.2.5 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained
channels and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other
factors may be taken into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other
factors that may be used are wrack lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull
bench; however, complete confidence should not be placed on these indicators. Along the
proposed restoration and enhancement reaches, the channel is generally entrenched and
actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non - existent.
Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other
hydrologic analyses, existing cross - sections, and in -house spreadsheets to estimate
bankfull area and bankfull discharge.
4.2.6 Vegetation
Current land use around the project is primarily agricultural and forestry. Land use
immediately surrounding the project consists of CAFOs, livestock grazing, row crop
production, and forestry. The CAFOs consist of 11 active hog houses. There are two
lagoons storing waste upslope of the project area and a single lagoon immediately adjacent
to one proposed restoration reach. The remaining channels are adjacent to cultivated fields,
active pasture, or disturbed forested areas. The channels have been straightened and
dredged in the past to promote drainage. Ditches have been constructed to remove surface
water.
Areas in actively managed pasture appear to be Bermuda or similar perennial warm season
grass over seeded with a cool season grass. The cultivated fields are cotton, corn and
Best Mitigation Plan 30 October 2013
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT4
UT5
UT6
UT7
UT8
UT9
UT10
MC
Reach
1
Watershed
11
10
11
10
10
11
11
7
10
10
11
10
4
characteristics
2
Flow habit
7
7
10
8
7
7
7
5
6
4
6
3
1
3
Channel pattern
10
10
3
10
3
4
10
3
8
2
7
1
2
4
Entrenchment /channel
7
8
3
10
8
3
7
2
8
2
2
2
1
confinement
5
Bed material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
Bar development
10
2
10
10
11
5
9
4
8
3
5
2
1
7
Obstructions /debris
3
2
9
3
5
6
3
5
2
4
4
2
5
dams
8
Bank soil texture and
10
10
7
10
11
11
11
7
10
10
9
11
3
coherence
9
Average bank angle
10
10
10
10
11
2
11
6
10
9
5
7
4
10
Bank
10
11
7
5
5
6
3
6
9
7
3
2
4
vegetation /protection
11
Bank cutting
8
6
5
8
7
4
5
6
6
5
4
2
2
12
Mass wasting /bank
3
6
6
6
7
3
3
4
4
3
4
1
3
failure
13
Upstream distance to
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
bridge
Score
85
82
81
90
82
62
80
55
81
59
60
43
30
Rating*
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Excellent
*Excellent (0 < Score <= 33), Good (33 < Score <= 66), Fair (66< Score <= 99), Poor (99 < Score <= 132)
4.2.5 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained
channels and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other
factors may be taken into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other
factors that may be used are wrack lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull
bench; however, complete confidence should not be placed on these indicators. Along the
proposed restoration and enhancement reaches, the channel is generally entrenched and
actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non - existent.
Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other
hydrologic analyses, existing cross - sections, and in -house spreadsheets to estimate
bankfull area and bankfull discharge.
4.2.6 Vegetation
Current land use around the project is primarily agricultural and forestry. Land use
immediately surrounding the project consists of CAFOs, livestock grazing, row crop
production, and forestry. The CAFOs consist of 11 active hog houses. There are two
lagoons storing waste upslope of the project area and a single lagoon immediately adjacent
to one proposed restoration reach. The remaining channels are adjacent to cultivated fields,
active pasture, or disturbed forested areas. The channels have been straightened and
dredged in the past to promote drainage. Ditches have been constructed to remove surface
water.
Areas in actively managed pasture appear to be Bermuda or similar perennial warm season
grass over seeded with a cool season grass. The cultivated fields are cotton, corn and
Best Mitigation Plan 30 October 2013

soybeans. Many of the cultivated fields in the project area are alternated annually between
corn and soybeans. The actively managed hay fields appear to be Bermuda or similar
perennial warm season grass over - seeded with a cool season grass. The upland forested
community is young, mixed pine- hardwood forest. Areas at higher elevations are typically
dominated by loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda) and have a dense understory. Lower and wetter
landscapes have a forest of mixed loblolly pine and hardwoods or are predominately
hardwoods. The hardwood species include willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus Americana), and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). A mid -story layer is comprised of water oak (Quercus nigra), tulip poplar, red
maple (Acer rubrum), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). Shrubs and woody
vines are locally dense and include sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), redbay (Persea
borbonia), American holly (Ilex opaca), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), wax myrtle (Morella
cerifera), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and
swamp greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia). Some exotics were noted, including Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The common
herbaceous plants observed are giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), smallspike false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrical), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areo /ata), lizard's tail (Saururus
cernuus), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). All naturally vegetated areas were
classified by their community type, and their boundaries were approximately located on field
maps (Figure 9). Detailed observations of vegetation species, soils, and hydrology were
recorded in each community type. Table 10 describes each natural community.
Table 10. Natural Community Summary
Existing Land Use Percent of Natural Community
Study Area (Schafale and Weakley Community)
Agriculture — Development < 1 NA
Agriculture — Row Crops 7 NA
Agriculture — Pasture /Hayfields 6 NA
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 80 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
(Blackwater Subtype)
Concentrated Animal Feeding < 1 NA
Operation
Mixed Pines /Hardwoods 7 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Coastal Plain
Pine Plantation < 1 NA
Residential < 1 NA
4.2.7 Quantitative Habitat Assessment
A quantitative habitat assessment was performed in November 2011 on the reference reach
and in June 2012 for existing Best Site Reaches UT1 and UT2 to measure the volume of
woody debris and fish cover. These data were used to establish a baseline for measuring
functional uplift and to determine the placement and volume of woody debris in the design
reaches. The total available woody debris (not buried) in the design reaches exceeds the
reference reach on a per linear foot basis. In addition, surveys conducted pre- and post -
construction in the restoration reaches will enable EBX to quantify habitat gains over time.
The length of each sample reach was thirty to forty times the base -flow wetted width of the
channel with a minimum reach size of 150 feet. The sample reach was divided into ten
Best Mitigation Plan 31 October 2013

transects spaced evenly over the entire reach. Transect length was five feet upstream and
five feet downstream of the transect midpoint, and extend the full width of the channel.
Parameters measured at each transect were small woody debris (SWD), fish cover,
substrate material, and riparian composition. At each transect, the channel bed form was
noted and an average width and depth recorded. The following is an analysis of the habitat
assessment data.
4.2.7.1 Small Woody Debris Methods and Results
Small woody debris was measured at the reference reach in order to design SWD habitat
structures similar to those found in the reference reach (Appendix B). SWD greater than 0.2
inches in diameter were measured in each reference reach transect. Large woody debris
was eliminated from analysis since these are analogous to structures such as log vanes and
log toes currently applied to most restoration designs.
Transects were identified as either shallow or pool bed form types resulting in three pools
and ten shallows measured at the reference reach. Measurements of SWD were summed
for each bed form type and divided by the number of corresponding transects to get the
average volume of SWD per pool or shallow. The average volume was then divided by the
average transect area to get the volume of SWD per square foot. The average design reach
bed form area was calculated by assuming a length of ten feet (based on reference
transects) and multiplying that by the average bottom cross section width. The average
volume was multiplied by the ratio of average reference reach transect area to the average
area in the design reach to obtain the volume of SWD to be installed at each fixed pool and
at select locations along the design shallows.
WK Dickson currently uses wattles, dead brush, and woody debris bundles in the design of
restoration channels. Based on the reference reach SWD analysis, these SWD structures
will be concentrated in pool habitats and throughout shallows in volumes and size classes
similar to those found in the reference reach. Wattles are woody branch structures tied
together and embedded into the bank so that the free ends stick out into the wetted channel.
Dead brush structures are shrub or tree tops that are anchored to the bottom of the channel.
Woody debris bundles are bundles of sticks one to four inches in diameter and one to four
feet long that are anchored to the streambed. Although root wads serve as bank stability
structures, they also provide a significant amount of SWD volume to the restoration reach.
The average volume of each SWD structure is presented in Table 11. A combination of
structures listed in Table 11 will be used in the design to attempt to achieve the calculated
average volume per bed form type listed in Table 12.
Table 11. Average volume (cubic inches) of SWD structures used in the design reach.
SWD Average
Volume
Woody Debris Bundle
509
Dead Brush
589
Wattle
42
Root Wad
562
Leaf Pack
120
Best Mitigation Plan 32 October 2013

Table 12. Small Woody Debris calculations for the reference and design reach.
Pool 5115 1705 61% 1175 1743
Total 8334 2165 100% 1628 2455
In addition to the habitat assessment conducted at the reference site, Reaches UT1 and
UT2 of the project site were assessed in order to measure representative habitat gains over
time post- construction. Based on these assessments, there is a large disparity of SWD
volume between the reference reach and the design reaches (Chart 1). Small woody debris
assessment results for Reaches UT1 and UT2 were very low compared to the reference
reach results. Due to Reaches UT1 and UT2 flowing through open agricultural fields, no
adjacent buffers are present to contribute woody debris. The only woody debris present is
washed in from upstream.
800
700
a
600
�= 5W
400
0 300
9
a 200
04
a° 100
d
Average SWD Per Reach
Reference Reach UT 1 UT2
Assessed 1 50'Reaches
Chart 1. Average volume (cubic inches) of SWD per assessed reach. This chart represents existing
conditions in all assessed reaches.
Woody debris collected in streams provides habitat for macroinvertebrates, fish, and
amphibians, and increases stream productivity by retaining carbon in the channel. While it
would be difficult to replicate the volume and spatial distribution of SWD found in the
reference channel, this quantitative habitat assessment provides guidance for improving
habitat conditions through specifically placed and sized SWD structures, and provides a
means for assessing functional gains over time. WK Dickson has included these structures
in the design plans (Appendix D).
Best Mitigation Plan 33 October 2013
Average
Average
Channel
Total
Average
volume to be
volume to be
bed
volume
volume in
Percent applied to
applied to
form
( 3)
i n
reference
3)
of WD design Reach 1
design Reach 2
reach (in
per 10 LF of
per 10 LF of
channel (in3)
channel (in3)
Shallow
3219
460
39% 453
712
Pool 5115 1705 61% 1175 1743
Total 8334 2165 100% 1628 2455
In addition to the habitat assessment conducted at the reference site, Reaches UT1 and
UT2 of the project site were assessed in order to measure representative habitat gains over
time post- construction. Based on these assessments, there is a large disparity of SWD
volume between the reference reach and the design reaches (Chart 1). Small woody debris
assessment results for Reaches UT1 and UT2 were very low compared to the reference
reach results. Due to Reaches UT1 and UT2 flowing through open agricultural fields, no
adjacent buffers are present to contribute woody debris. The only woody debris present is
washed in from upstream.
800
700
a
600
�= 5W
400
0 300
9
a 200
04
a° 100
d
Average SWD Per Reach
Reference Reach UT 1 UT2
Assessed 1 50'Reaches
Chart 1. Average volume (cubic inches) of SWD per assessed reach. This chart represents existing
conditions in all assessed reaches.
Woody debris collected in streams provides habitat for macroinvertebrates, fish, and
amphibians, and increases stream productivity by retaining carbon in the channel. While it
would be difficult to replicate the volume and spatial distribution of SWD found in the
reference channel, this quantitative habitat assessment provides guidance for improving
habitat conditions through specifically placed and sized SWD structures, and provides a
means for assessing functional gains over time. WK Dickson has included these structures
in the design plans (Appendix D).
Best Mitigation Plan 33 October 2013

4.2.7.2 Fish Cover Methods and Results
Fish cover measurements were taken at each transect along the reference reach and Best
Site Reaches UT1 and UT2. Fish cover area was visually calculated within the ten -foot
transect length. Fish cover types include small woody debris and brush, aquatic
macrophytes, overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, and boulders. For each transect a
percentage of total fish cover and individual cover type areas were calculated (Chart 2).
Location and general habitat data was recorded for each fish cover measurement to assess
spatial distribution.
100
90
80
70
w BO
ca
50
0
40
a.
30
20
10
Comparison of Average Fish Cover Between the Reference Reach
and Best Site Restoration Reaches
Shallkrws
Entire Reach
aReference Reacts OUT 1 OUT 2 i
Chart 2. Average percent of fish cover per channel bed form type in the reference reach
The fish cover analysis revealed that the average area of fish cover is nearly four times as
high in Best Site Reaches UT1 and UT2 as in the reference reach. This is because the
streambed along the assessed portion of Reach UT1 and UT2 was mostly covered by
macrophytc vegetation and was devoid of any significant woody debris or undercut banks.
Fish cover from low growing brush will increase in the restoration reaches after the riparian
planting occurs. Woody debris structures will also provide additional fish cover habitat and
resting areas for fish swimming upstream.
4.2.7.3 Substrate Composition
Substrates were divided into eight classes as follows: coarse /fine particulate organic matter,
silt /clay /muck, fine sand, coarse sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock (Chart 3).
Channel width and water depth were measured at each transect in four equally spaced
intervals from bank to bank. Substrate coverage was visually determined between widths
measured at each major change in substrate type.
Best Mitigation Plan 34 October 2013

100
90
80
70
0
LO
60
U
50
U
a 40
30
20
10
Comparison of Substrate Between the Reference Reach and
Best Site Restoration Reaches
❑ Reference Reach
❑ UT 1
El UT 2
C /FPOM Silt /Mud Fine Coarse Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
Sand Sand
Chart 3. Comparison of substrate composition between the reference reach and the restoration
reaches.
The substrate composition analysis revealed that the reference reach has slightly more
organic matter substrate (C /FPOM) than UT1 and UT2. These differences may be attributed
to a couple of factors, including the maturity and close proximity of riparian plants to the
reference reach, and channelization of UT1 and UT2 which typically results in flushing of
organic matter and a lack of carbon retention. Macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity
has been tied to the ability of a channel to retain carbon. Several design structures and
vegetation plantings can be used to increase organic substrate composition. Constructed
leaf packs will be installed in select locations for immediate macroinvertebrate colonization.
SWD bundles will serve to collect organic matter flowing downstream increasing carbon
retention. By adding sinuosity and creating a better floodplain connection, adding SWD in
select locations, and creating pool habitats, substrate composition will more closely
resemble reference reach conditions.
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands
The US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts wetlands
within the project site (Figure 7). The floodplain along Muddy Creek is mapped as PF01A
(Palustrine Forested Broad - Leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded) and PF01 C
(Palustrine Forested Broad - Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) in the watershed of UT2
north of NC HWY 24. Additional wetlands are shown above the headwaters wetland of UT 3
Best Mitigation Plan 35 October 2013

and UT 4, and mapped as PF01 /4A (Palustrine Forested Broad - Leaved Deciduous/ Needle -
Leaved Temporarily Flooded).
A wetland delineation was performed in June 2012. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (DOA 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA -NRCS 2010). Wetland
boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered wetland survey tape (pink /black
striped). Flag locations were surveyed under the direction of a Professional Licensed
Surveyor (PLS) with GPS and conventional survey (Figure 4; Table 13).
Table 13. Wetland Summary Information
Best Mitigation Plan 36 October 2013
Muddy Creek
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Parameters
Floodplain
UT1
UT3
UT4
UT5 /6
UT7
UT10
Size of Wetland
90.65
0.21
2.09
0.51
5.79
3.6
1.63
(acres)
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Wetland Type
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Muckalee
Muckalee
Marvyn
Muckalee
Marvyn
Muckalee
Mapped Soil Series
Muckalee
Rains
Rains
Marvyn
Gritney
Noboco
Gritney
Gritney
Noboco
Noboco
Poorly
Poorly
Poorly
Poorly
Drainage Class
Poorly
Poorly
Poorly
Well
Well
Well
Mod. well
Mod. well
Mod. well
Mod. well
Hydric with
Hydric with
Hydric with
Hydric with
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Inclusions
Inclusions
Inclusions
Inclusions
Runoff&
Runoff&
Flooding,
Runoff&
Runoff&
Runoff&
Runoff &
Runoff &
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Flooding
Groundwater
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Minimal
Grating,
impairments,
Grazing,
Grazing,
Grazing,
Culvert,
Hydrologic
Minor ditching,
Grazing
Grazing,
Culvert,
Dredging,
Culvert,
Culvert,
Impairment
dredging,
Culvert
Incised
Incised
Incised
Incised
Roadway
channel
channel
channel
channel
crossing
Native vegetation
Forested
Forested
Forested
Forested
Forested
Forested
Forested
community
Percent composition
of exotic invasive
5%
0%
1 to 2%
1 to 2%
15%
15%
5%
vegetation
Best Mitigation Plan 36 October 2013

Figure 7. Project Site NWI Wetlands Map
Best Mitigation Plan 37 October 2013
� 24
PLJBHx
-a
` 3
f
P,l=[71C
PUBIx
V
pig
+
PFU114
r
s
.
�
P,EMiC ►d � 5
PFOV2F
PFD "C'
PUBHx
j
Source:1 National Wetlands Inv- tory is Data
Figure 7. Legend
j�
NWI Map Proposed Streams
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Proposed Easement
0 750 1.500 3,000 Target Parcels
1 inch = 1,500 feet Feet Z& NWI Wetlands
Best Mitigation Plan 37 October 2013

Figure 8. Project Site Land Use
Best Mitigation Plan 38 October 2013
H
■
Land Use
open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
- Developed, Medium Intensity
- Developed, High Intensity
- Barren Land (RocklSandrCiay)
- Deciduous Forest
R
- Evergreen Forest
Q Mixed Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland7Herbaceous
#
Q Pasture/Hay
- cukivated crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
Source: 2006 National Land Cover Oataset
Figure 8, Legend
Land Use
NC Highway
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
State Roads
0 700 1.40D 2MO
Feet
Proposed Streams
1 inch = 1.500 feet
Q Proposed Easement
Best Mitigation Plan 38 October 2013

Figure 9. Project Site Natural Communities
Best Mitigation Plan 39 October 2013
R
!
1
4
f
Ai
t
Natural Communities
Agricultural Development
v
Agricultural Pasturel Hayfield
}.,. -
Agricultural Row crops
Agricultural Sod Farm
Bottomiand Hardwood Forest
MAFo
Commercial Property
5
Mixed Pine - Hardwood
- t
Pine
"+
Residential
Source: 2012 WiilUicfsoii StaffQeilneatlon
I?oadsrHighways
Figure 9.
Legend
Natural Communities
NC Highway
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
L2
State Roads
0 750 1.500 3.000
Feet
Proposed Streams
1 incur = 1.500 feet
Q Proposed Easement
I
Best Mitigation Plan 39 October 2013

4.3.1.1 Riverine Wetland on Floodplain Muddy Creek
The Muddy Creek floodplain is a riverine wetland swamp complex composed of many side
channels, relic beaver impoundments, and shallow temporal habitat. In all areas of Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement on Muddy Creek, the permanent conservation
easement will extend outward a minimum of 50 feet from the outermost channel or outward
to the edge of the riverine wetland, whichever is greater. As a result, the protected corridor
will range from 200 feet to 500 feet wide, far in excess of the standard preservation corridor
width. Although significant elevation changes are absent, this wetland system has a diverse
range of habitat, including sloughs, backwater depressions, and beaver impoundments,
many of which are temporal and ephemeral. The current natural community is mature forest
with a well - developed shrub stratum. Herbaceous cover occurs in the relatively open areas
created by beaver impoundments and canopy gaps. This wetland is seasonally saturated to
permanently inundated. Hydrology is primarily elevated groundwater table, temporal
depressional storage, and overbank flow from Muddy Creek. The only constraint appears to
be a single road crossing at Lyman Road.
4.3.1.2 Riparian Wetland on UT 1
This disturbed wetland is located along UT1 outside of the W1 restoration area on the east
side of the channel. The current land use is pasture. Vegetation is a mix of pasture
grass /weeds with smartweed (Polygonum sp.) and soft rush (Juncus effusus) common. This
wetland is seasonally saturated by runoff and seepage from an upslope pond.
4.3.1.3 Riparian Wetland on UT 3
This linear wetland is located along UT3 on both sides of the channel. The current land use
is pasture. The stream is currently within its historic flow pattern and stable despite cattle
access. Vegetation is a mix of trees and pasture grass /weeds. Future stability of the channel
may be compromised due to loss of woody regeneration and continued cattle impacts. This
wetland is seasonally saturated. Due to its lower landscape position, this wetland collects
runoff and seepage from an upslope wetland.
4.3.1.4 Riparian Wetland on UT 4
This wetland is located along both sides of UT4 where the channel descends to the Muddy
Creek floodplain. This wetland extends from the floodplain of Muddy Creek up the valley of
UT 4, terminating at the base of a sharper topographic break. This wetland is seasonally
saturated and hydrology is from groundwater seepage along the slope and overbank flows
from Muddy Creek and UT4. The current land use is forested with access by livestock.
Vegetation is a mix of trees and saplings. Few shrubs are present. A low density of
herbaceous vegetation consists of various grasses, sedges, and rushes as well as common
weeds.
4.3.1.5 Riparian Wetland on UT 5/6
This wetland is located along UT5 in two segments. The nearly level lower segment occurs
on both sides of the channel and connects to the Muddy Creek floodplain. The upper
segment is located on both sides of UT5 and extends to the left bank of UT 6. This wetland
is seasonally saturated from high groundwater. Evidence of overbank flows is present where
the channel is shallow. The current natural community is mature forest. This wetland is
buffered by a narrow forest buffer between cultivated fields. Vegetation is a mix of trees,
saplings, and shrubs. Chinese privet is common along much of the wetland and the adjacent
Best Mitigation Plan 40 October 2013

forested buffer. Due to the dense canopy and shrub stratum, only a low density of
herbaceous vegetation is present.
4.3.1.6 Riparian Wetland on UT 7
This wetland is located along the floodplain of UT7, connecting to the Muddy Creek
floodplain downstream. The nearly level topography exhibits evidence of flooding in many
places, and this wetland is seasonally saturated from high groundwater. The current land
use is mature forest with a narrow forest buffer between cultivated fields. Vegetation is a mix
of trees, saplings, and shrubs. Chinese privet is common along the edge of this wetland and
the adjacent buffer. Due to the dense canopy and shrub stratum, only a low density of
herbaceous vegetation is present.
4.3.1.7 Riparian Wetland on UT 10
This wetland is located along the floodplain of UT10, connecting to the Muddy Creek
floodplain downstream. This wetland has nearly level topography, and is seasonally
saturated from high groundwater. The current vegetation is mature forest with a dense
shrub /sapling stratum. It has a narrow buffer with cultivated row crops adjacent to the upper
segment of the reach. Due to the dense canopy and shrub stratum, only a low density of
herbaceous vegetation is present.
A jurisdictional determination of the wetlands has not been made by the US Army Corps of
Engineers ( USACE), but the USACE has visited the restoration site. Wetland forms are
included in Appendix B. Onsite wetlands include riverine wetlands along Muddy Creek and
riparian wetlands along UT2, UT3, UT5, UT6, UT7, and UT10 (Figure 4).
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil
There are two sites adjacent to the stream restoration of UT1 and UT2 and one site along
the floodplain of Muddy Creek that contain relic hydric soil. Hydric soils within the proposed
wetlands (W1, W2, and W3) were verified through auger borings by a licensed soil scientist
(Appendix B).
Soil borings confirmed the proposed wetland restoration areas W1 and W2 have a thin
sandy horizon underlain by clayey textured subsoil and W3 has a deep sandy surface above
the clayey subsoil. The clayey subsoil functions as a restrictive horizon. All proposed
wetland restoration areas are near deeply incised and dredged stream channels. Ongoing
agricultural activities are present at each of the three proposed wetland restoration sites.
Area W1 is located within a pasture and W2 and W3 are located within a cultivated field.
The Best Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. The proposed wetland
restoration is located on the floodplains and landscape adjacent to the proposed stream
restoration. Wetland W1 also has adjacent ditching that further lowers the water table.
4.3.2.1 Proposed Wetland W1
Within W1, the majority of the mapped soils are Rains with limited Goldston soils. The Rains
soil is mapped within a shallow, concave — concave feature along the slope. This 3.66 -acre
wetland is located along the upstream portions of Reach UT1. The current land use is
pasture along the dredged channel. The typical hydric soils are loamy with a black loamy
surface and underlain by a grayish -brown clayey subsoil having dark yellowish brown
mottles. Soil in this area meets the hydric indicator for Depleted Matrix (F3) and Depleted
Best Mitigation Plan 41 October 2013

Below Dark Surface (F4). Some areas meet the sandy indicator for Dark Surface (S7). Along
the eastern property line, fill material appears to have been placed over hydric soil.
4.3.2.2 Proposed Wetland W2
Within W2, three soil map units are present, including Noboco, Autryville, and Marvyn, and
Gritney soils. The Noboco unit is narrowly linear along the drainage feature. The Autryville,
and Marvyn and Gritney soils parallel the lower slope and are likely remnants of old terrace
landforms to Muddy Creek. This 0.29 acre wetland is located along the downstream portion
of Reach UT2 and connects to the riverine wetland along Muddy Creek. The current land
use is row crop along the dredged channel. The site is located within a low lying terrace
adjacent to UT2 and the floodplain of Muddy Creak. Hydrology will be restored by removing
dredge material along the channel and raising the streambed elevation, bringing the water
table closer to the ground surface.
The typical hydric soils are sandy with a black surface and meet the hydric indicator for Thin
Dark Surface (S9). Within 24 inches is a very dark gray clayey horizon with common dark
yellowish brown mottles.
4.3.2.3 Proposed Wetland W3
Within W3, two soil map units are present, including Marvyn, and Gritney soils and
Muckalee loam. The Autryville, and Marvyn and Gritney soils parallel the lower slope and
are likely remnants of old terrace landforms to Muddy Creek. the Muckalee loam lies on the
floodplain of Muddy Creek. The current land use is row crop. This is broken into two similar
areas, W3a and W3b, each approximately 0.57 acres. These wetlands are located within a
shallow concave - concave landform at the edge of the Muddy Creek floodplain. Both
proposed wetlands were found to have similar soils. A shallow ditch has been constructed
upslope to redirect a shallow groundwater discharge and divert surface water runoff directly
to Muddy Creek. The site is located within a low lying terrace adjacent to and on the
floodplain of Muddy Creak and is connected to the riverine wetland along Muddy Creek.
Hydrology will be restored by filling and plugging the ditch, restoring the seepage discharge
to bring the water table closer to the ground surface and allow flooding by Muddy Creek.
Additional temporal habitat will be constructed to ameliorate surface leveling and smoothing
for agricultural use. The temporal habitat will be variable to mimic sloughs, oxbows, root -tips
and other shallow natural features.
The typical hydric soils are sandy with a black surface and meet the hydric indicator for Dark
Surface (S7). A loamy sand texture extended to at least 29 inches, indicating fill or
deposition. Indications of disturbance were observed throughout W3a and W3b. The
adjacent upland soil dividing W3a and W3b typically exhibited a shallow five inches or less
sandy loam surface above a sandy clay, supporting the potential for leveling of the surface
for agricultural use. Wetland W3 is described as a single wetland for qualitative
interpretation as they are adjacent, but are divided into two areas for the hydrologic water
balance calculation.
Best Mitigation Plan 42 October 2013

Table 14. Proposed Hydric Soils Parameter and Characteristics
Parameters Wetland W1 Wetland W2 Wetland W3
Size of Wetland within 3.66 0.29 1.17
Easement (Acres)
Proposed Wetland Type Riparian Riparian Riparian
Mapped Soil Series Rains Marvyn and Gritney soils, Marvyn and Gritney soils,
/ Muckalee
Drainage Class Poorly Well Well / Poorly
Hydric Soil Status Yes Yes, Hydric inclusions No / Yes
Source of Hydrology Runoff / overbank flows Runoff / overbank flows Runoff / Seepage
Flooding
Hydrological Impairment Ditched /Incised Ditched /Leveled /Incised Ditched /Leveled
channel channel
Native Vegetation Pasture Cultivated Cultivated
Community
Percent composition of 75% (Pasture grasses) N/A N/A
exotic /invasive species
The existing wetlands have been historically disturbed and lack the typical vegetation of
hardwood wetlands. Disturbance includes clearing and grubbing, cultivation, ditching, and
crowning. The wetlands are pasture or cultivated row crop and are effectively drained. Two
areas of hydric soil are proposed for wetland restoration.
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
Due to multiple landowners and scattered agricultural operations, numerous crossings are
required. Preliminary survey elevations have been measured to determine hydrologic
constraints to channel restoration. There are no known topographic constraints to raising the
channel bed elevation on UT1, UT2, and UT3. UT6 and UT8 are proposed as Enhancement
I due to elevation constraints associated with Priority Level 1 restoration and channel
condition. The existing spray configuration of the land- applied animal waste will need to be
adjusted to prevent spray occurring within the stream buffer. The hog waste lagoon adjacent
to UT3 will be relocated to an upland area outside the proposed buffer enhancement. There
are no overhead or underground utility conflicts with the proposed mitigation. The Best Site
is not located within five miles an air transport facility.
4.4.2 Site Access
There are no access constraints to the Best Site. To access the Site from the town of
Beulaville, travel east on NC HWY 24, go 1.75 miles past Lyman Road and take the farm
driveway on the right across from Penny Road. Go approximately 0.1 miles to the barn. The
Site begins through the gate on the left (UT1 /Wetland 1). The project also crosses Lyman
Road approximately 1.3 miles from NC HWY 24. The site protection instrument can be
found in Appendix A.
4.4.3 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass
Hydrologic trespass is a not a major concern for this project. The Best Site Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is located within a FEMA Zone AE, and the
Restoration reaches are outside of any FEMA floodway area (Figure 10). While designing
Best Mitigation Plan 43 October 2013

the Best Site project, appropriate measures were taken to reduce the chances of hydrologic
trespass of the adjacent agricultural fields and animal operations. The adjacent land use will
not be affected by the proposed design, and the property owners have been notified of any
potential impacts from hydrologic trespass within existing ditches. No detrimental impacts
are expected beyond the easement limits.
Table 15. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -
Yes
Yes
Appendix B
Section 404
Waters of the United States -
Yes
Yes
Appendix B
Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.1.3; Appendix B
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.1.4; Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) /Coastal Area
No
N/A
N/A
Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Best Mitigation Plan 44 October 2013

Figure 10. Project Site FEMA Map
Best Mitigation Plan 45 October 2013
���.
dd
•L
_ r
e
�
�t `
ham_
Ptit LU
Owl
w
�A
Source: +NC Flaod Map GIS pata'
® Figure 10. Legend
Proposed Streams
FEMA Map
Proposed Easements
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
0 750 1.500 3,0100
Target Parcels
Feet
1 inch = 1,500 feet
FEMA Zone AE -
Detailed 100yr. Floodplain
Best Mitigation Plan 45 October 2013

5 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design. Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be
consistent with the as -built condition.
The Best Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project # NC -95353
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Totals
10,213
5.12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Best Mitigation Plan 46 October 2013

Project Components
Project
Stationing/
Existing
Approach
Restoration or
Restoration
Mitigation
Component
Location
Footage or
(PI PII, etc.)
Restoration
Footage or
Ratio
or Reach ID
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
STREAM
UT1
0 +47 to 18 +00
1,551
PI
1,723
1,723
1 :1.0
Preservation &
UT1
18 +00 to 21 +03
303
61
303
1 :5.0
Buffer Enhancement
UT2
2 +30 to 30 +30
2,552
PI
2,770
2,770
1 :1.0
Preservation &
UT2
30 +30 to 33 +39
309
62
309
1 : 5.0
Buffer Enhancement
UT3
0 +00 to 8 +42
1,458
Ell
325
812
1 : 2.5
Preservation &
UT3
14 +58 to 15 +22
64
13
64
1 :5.0
Buffer Enhancement
PI (Headwater
UT4
5 +63 to 11 +03
534
510
510
1 :1.0
Valley)
Preservation &
UT4
11 +03 to 17 +58
655
131
655
1 : 5.0
Buffer Enhancement
Preservation &
UT5
0 +00 to 40 +86
4,086
809
4,043
1 : 5.0
Buffer Enhancement
UT6
0 +62 to 6 +00
538
El
359
538
1 :1.5
Preservation &
UT7
0 +44 to 32 +27
3,183
637
3,183
1 : 5.0
Buffer Enhancement
UT8
0 +75 to 9 +00
825
El
550
825
1 :1.5
Preservation &
UT8
9 +00 to 12 +13
313
63
313
1 : 5.0
Buffer Enhancement
Preservation &
UT9
0 +00 to 11 +71
1,171
234
1,171
1 :5.0
Buffer Enhancement
Preservation &
UT10
3 +37 to 11 +05
768
154
768
1 : 5.0
Buffer Enhancement
Preservation &
Muddy Creek
0 +35 to 92 +49
9,214
1,815
9,073
1 : 5.0
Buffer Enhancement
WETLAND
W1
Adjacent to UT1
3.66
Restoration
3.66
3.66
1 :1.0
W2
Adjacent to UT2
0.29
Restoration
0.29
0.29
1 :1.0
W3A
Between UT1 & UT2
0.58
Restoration
0.58
0.58
1 :1.0
W3B
Between UT1 & UT2
0.59
Restoration
0.59
0.59
1 :1.0
Best Mitigation Plan 47 October 2013

Component Summation
Restoration
Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non - Riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer
(square
feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non - Riverine
Restoration
5,003
5.12
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
1,363
Enhancement II
812
Creation
Preservation
19,882
High Quality
Preservation
Best Mitigation Plan 48 October 2013

6 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built
survey of the mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited
until the necessary DA authorization has been received for its construction or the District
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no
DA authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in
consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance
standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules
below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be
extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance
standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Table 16. Forested Wetlands Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
70%
performance standards are being met.
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met; Provided that
all performance standards are met, the IRT may
5
allow the NCEEP to discontinue hydrologic
10%
80%
monitoring after the fifth year, but vegetation
monitoring must continue for an additional two years
after the fifth year for a total of seven years.
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
90%
performance standards are being met.
Seveth year monitoring report demonstrates
7
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
100%
has received close -out approval.
Best Mitigation Plan 49 October 2013

Table 17. Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
(65 % *)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
(75 % *)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
70%
performance standards are being met.
(85 % *)
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
10 ° �0
80%
performance standards are being met.
95 %*
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
90%
performance standards are being met.
(100 % *)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
7
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
100%
has received close -out approval.
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released
by the NCEEP without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the
following activities:
a) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to
the USACE covering the property
c) Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to
the mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the NCEEP Instrument,
construction means that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to
include planting, and an as -built report has been produced. As -built reports must be
sealed by an engineer prior to project closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the
initial allocation of released credits.
d) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects
where DA permit issuance is not required.
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT,
based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For
stream projects a reserve of 15 percent of a site's total stream credits shall be released after
two bank -full events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all
other performance standards are met. In the event that less than two bank -full events occur
during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the
IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCEEP will submit
a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement
of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual
monitoring report.
Best Mitigation Plan 50 October 2013

7 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Stream and Wetland Types
7.1.1 Reference Stream Studies
7.1.1.1 Target Reference Conditions
The restoration portions of the project site are characterized by agricultural and livestock
practices. Several ditches exist in the watershed and contribute to the project site. Physical
parameters of the site were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the
target stream type. An iterative process was used to develop the final information for the site
design.
To develop the target reference conditions, physical site parameters were reviewed. This
included the drainage area, land use, soils mapping units from the Duplin County Soil
Survey for the watershed and Site, typical woody debris and habitat available and for the
area, as well as general topography. The "Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina" was also used to narrow the potential community types that would have existed at
the site (Shafale and Weakley, 2003).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region — Outer Coastal Plain,
• Similar drainage area,
• Similar land use onsite and in the watershed,
• Similar watershed soil types,
• Similar site soil types,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat — several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among coastal plain streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
Best Mitigation Plan 51 October 2013

Figure 11. Reference Reach Site Map
of
Reference Reach
1�
P
M_. Iw
Source: NCOnemap.com
z
Figure 11 . — Best Reference Reach
Best Retence Reach Q Drainage Area = 300.0 Ac
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Duplin County Parcels
0 750 1.500 3.000 2 ft- Contours
Fe eet
1 inch = 1. 500 feet
Best Mitigation Plan 52 October 2013

7.1.1.1 Reference Site Search Methodology
All the parameters used in Section 4.1 were used to find appropriate reference stream sites.
Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor
in locating suitable reference sites for the project. For this project, there was no
predetermined amount of reference sites needed as long as the site was suitable and met
nearly all the parameters. Eight potential reference sites were visited, and their
characteristics were noted. It is difficult to find reference sites on the coastal plain because
many have been disturbed by farming or urban development. Most streams tend to be
modified ditches and may have some of the characteristics that are sought in a reference,
but too few to make it an ideal reference for the project site. One reference stream site that
proves to be ideal in both geomorphology and habitat is located approximately six miles
southeast of the restoration site in a wooded corridor.
A GIS -based search was initially conducted for the identification of reference stream sites in
the outer coastal plain. The GIS process was based on a search through quadrangle maps,
aerial photography, and topography. Drainage areas for each reference site were
delineated. Soils and land use were considered for each site, as well as accessibility and
location in comparison to the restoration reach. Once sites were identified, all eight sites
were visited and assessed. Many of the references were affected by farming practices,
dense invasive species, and disturbed or altered floodplains along the streams. This was the
case for a few of the sites visited, and, therefore, the sites were not considered. One site
was identified for use as a reference site.
7.1.1.2 Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference stream flows northwest and drains into Cypress Creek (Figure 11). The reach
that was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 300 feet long. The drainage area for the
unnamed tributary to Cypress Creek (UT) is 0.47 square miles (300 acres). The land use in
the watershed is characterized by mostly southern yellow pine (86 percent), bottomland
hardwood forest /hardwood swamps (six percent), broadleaf evergreen forest (three
percent), managed herbaceous cover (three percent), and cultivation (two percent). Site
photographs of the reference stream are located in Appendix B.
The current State classification for the UT to Cypress Creek is undefined. However, Cypress
Creek is defined as Class C Sw (NCDWQ, 2005). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic
life, secondary recreation, and agricultural usage. The Sw is a designation for swamp
waters — waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different
from adjacent streams. Using Rosgen stream classification, the stream is classified as an E5
stream type.
7.1.1.3 Reference Soils Characterization
The soils found in and around the reference reach are mapped as Muckalee, Blanton, and
Murville, all of which are hydric soils. Muckalee is a Hydric B, loam soil, typically found on
slopes ranging from 0 to 1 percent slopes. Blanton is a Hydric B sandy soil, found on flats,
marines, and terraces with slopes from 1 to 6 percent. Murville soils are mucky fine sand
generally found in depressions with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. The soils immediately adjacent
to the reference reach have similar characteristics and properties to the soils found at the
Best Site Restoration Site.
Best Mitigation Plan 53 October 2013

7.1.1.4 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models /methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the
reference site. Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross - sectional area
were all factors considered when performing the calculations. Using a combination of
Coastal Plain Regional Curves, in -house spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional
flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge was found to be around 12 cubic feet per
second (ft3 /s). See Section 7.3.1.1 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic
analyses performed for this project.
7.1.1.5 Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, the reference reach is slightly larger than UT1 and
smaller than UT2 when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason for
using a scaling factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull
area of the reference channel. The new reach would then have the necessary dimensions of
that of either a smaller or larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. The
stream was typically five to eight feet wide and one to two feet deep. The cross sectional
area was typically around 6.7 square feet with a width to depth ratio around 9.0.
7.1.1.6 Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reach was stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portion
that was surveyed and analyzed. The stream appeared to maintain its slope and had
sufficient amounts of vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded fifty
feet on each side. The CSA results (scores and ratings) for the reference reach are provided
above in Table 9 (Section 4.2.4). The reference reach received an "Excellent" rating as the
channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well vegetated riparian buffer.
7.1.1.7 Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack
lines, vegetation lines, benches /inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of
the reference reach, bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this
bankfull stage is verified by the Coastal Plain Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses
using existing cross sections to calculate area and discharge. Evidence that can further
support the location of bankfull is the lack of any bench or berm features within the channel,
and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
7.1.1.8 Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a coastal plain small stream
swamp community. This community is approximately 15 to 20 years old, as evidenced by
the representative diameter at breast height (DBH) measurements. This community was
determined to have had past disturbance altering the species composition. Most of the
canopy species recorded are high dispersal species and have been observed to occur near
the restoration site. The following table lists the coverage estimates and species
encountered. The right bank is denoted as RB and the left bank is denoted as LB.
Best Mitigation Plan 54 October 2013

Table 18. Tree Communities at the Reference Reach for Best Site.
Transect
Location
Percent
Percent
Percent
Representative
")
Species
Coverage
Evergreen
Deciduous
DBH (
Nyssa biflora, Magnolia virginiana, Ilex
LB
80
15
85
8
opaca, Acer rubrum, Liriodendron
1
tulipifera
RB
90
15
85
12.5
Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar
styraciflua, Nyssa biflora, Ilex opaca,
LB
65
10
90
9
Liriodendron tulipifera, Ilex opaca,
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
RB
80
10
90
15
Liquidambar styraciflua, Nyssa biflora,
Liriodendron tulipifera
LB
90
10
90
10
Nyssa biflora, Acer rubrum, Liriodendron
3
tulipifera, Ilex opaca, Magnolia virginiana
RB
60
30
70
7
Ilex opaca, Magnolia virginiana, Nyssa
biflora, Liquidambar styraciflua
LB
85
10
90
10
Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron
4
tulipifera, Ilex opaca
RB
35
50
50
3
Ilex opaca, Magnolia virginiana,
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera, Magnolia
LB
90
10
90
8
virginiana, Acer rubrum, Fagus
grandifolia, Nyssa biflora, Liquidambar
5
styraciflua
e
RB
60
25
75
9
Nyssa biflora, Liquidambar styraciflua,
Ilex opaca, Liriodendron tulipifera
Liriodendron tulipifera, Magnolia
LB
90
10
90
8
virginiana, Acer rubrum, Fagus
grandifolia, Nyssa biflora, Liquidambar
6
styraciflua
RB
70
50
50
6
Magnolia virginiana, Ilex opaca, Nyssa
biflora
LB
75
10
90
10
Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer rubrum, Ilex
7
opaca, Q. michauxii
RB
60
40
60
8
Ilex opaca, Liriodendron tulipifera,
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer rubrum,
LB
55
20
80
7
Pinus taeda, Ilex opaca, Ligustrum
8
japonicum
RB
80
40
60
6
Quercus nigra, Liriodendron tulipifera,
Ilex opac, Acer rubrum
LB
70
25
75
10
Nyssa biflora,llex opaca, Liriodendron
9
tulipifera, Pinus taeda
RB
80
20
80
6
Liriodendron tulipifera , Ilex opaca,
Quercus nigra, Acer ruburm
LB
60
25
75
11.5
Nyssa biflora,llex opaca, Liriodendron
tulipifera, Pinus taeda
10
Pinus taeda, Quercus michauxii,llex
RB
80
15
85
11
opaca, Acer rubrum, Liquidambar
styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera,
Ligustrum japonicum
Best Mitigation Plan 55 October 2013

It is anticipated that a local seed source for these high dispersal species is present and will
disperse across much of the mitigation site. These species are often found in early
successional communities and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high
dispersal species often become aggressive in these sites, they are not included in the
Restoration Planting List (Section 7.2.3). Hardwood species typical of the target community
were observed in adjacent and nearby communities, and were judged to be more
appropriate for this site.
7.1.1.9 Stream Habitat Assessment — Woody Debris
The habitat assessment for the reference stream channel is included in the habitat
assessment discussion for Best Site (Section 4.2.7).
7.1.2 Reference Wetland Studies
Reference wetlands were not studied for similar hydrology or habitat. A reference wetland
site adjacent to the stream evaluated for habitat was evaluated for species composition, but
was determined to be impacted by timber management and was not a suitable community to
reference. A reference wetland within the proposed conservation easement will be
determined before construction is complete so groundwater monitoring can begin before or
at the same time as wetland restoration monitoring. Potential reference wetlands are located
along preservation reaches within the conservation easement.
7.2 Design Parameters
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries to Muddy Creek will be accomplished through
a combination of analytical and analog and /or reference reach -based design methods. The
result will be a combination of Priority Level I and headwater valley restoration for UT1, UT2,
and UT3. The cross - section geometry, planform, and profile will be modified to restore
appropriate capacity and sinuosity to the channelized, sand bed streams. The Priority Level
I stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single- thread meandering channel, with
parameters based on data taken from NC Coastal Plains Regional Curve tables and from
reference sites and hydrologic analyses described herein. Approximately 4,493 LF of stream
channel will be reconstructed. An additional 510 LF of headwater valley restoration will bring
the total restoration SMUs to 5,003. Enhancement Levels I and II will be applied to UT3,
UT6, and UT8 for an additional 2,087 LF of channel that is relatively stable and forested.
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement will be applied to 19,882 LF of Muddy Creek,
UT5, UT7, UT9, UT10 and the downstream portions of UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT8.
Stream buffers throughout the project site will be restored and protected in perpetuity.
Proposed mitigation for the Best Site involves headwater valley restoration and Priority
Level I stream restoration. The proposed mitigation design divides the site into eleven
distinct drainage features (Figure 12). Priority Level I restoration is proposed along two
tributaries and headwater valley restoration is proposed on one tributary.
Priority I restoration reaches will typically include a meandering stream pattern constructed
to mimic the natural planform of low- gradient, sand bed channels. The proposed sinuosity is
1.1, which is based on local reference reach conditions, existing site constraints, and
hydraulic modeling. As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent
overbank flows and a restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and
sediment transport throughout this coastal plain watershed.
Best Mitigation Plan 56 October 2013

Headwater valley restoration will follow current regulatory guidance and published research.
This restoration approach will result in a fully vegetated valley bottom following natural
existing contours. Any ditches or channels present will be backfilled and stabilized.
Vegetation will be enhanced across the entire headwater valley.
The proposed mitigation design divides the site into 11 distinct stream reaches and three
wetland restoration areas (Figures 12a and 12b). Priority Level I restoration is proposed on
two reaches, headwater valley restoration is proposed on one reach, Enhancement Level I
is proposed on two reaches, Enhancement Level II is proposed on two reaches, and Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed on nine reaches. Best Site has been
broken into the following design reaches:
UT1 (STA 0 +47 to STA 21 +03) — Eastern most tributary of the project totaling 1,723
linear feet of Priority 1 restoration and 303 linear feet of Stream Preservation and
Buffer Enhancement. Pasture and cultivated fields are located adjacent to the reach
through the restoration section, while mature hardwoods surround the downstream
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement section.
UT2 (STA 2 +30 to STA 33 +39) — Tributary just west of UT1 totaling 2,770 linear feet
of Priority 1 restoration and 309 linear feet of Stream Preservation and Buffer
Enhancement. Agricultural fields are located adjacent to the reach through the
restoration section, while mature hardwoods surround the downstream Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement section.
UT3 (STA 0 +00 to STA 15 +22) — Western most tributary of the project totaling 812
linear feet of Enhancement Level II and 64 linear feet of Stream Preservation and
Buffer Enhancement. The upper end originates as a headwater valley system where
there is cattle access, and a hog waste lagoon is located adjacent to the right bank in
the downstream section. Mature hardwoods are present along the western side of
the channel and surround the downstream Stream Preservation and Buffer
Enhancement section.
• UT4 (STA 5 +63 to STA 17 +58) — A headwater reach adjacent to UT3 totaling 510
linear feet of headwater valley restoration, and 655 linear feet of Stream Preservation
and Buffer Enhancement. The headwater valley portion has previously been
channelized and relocated to the west side of the valley. This reach is surrounded by
a hardwood forest.
• UT5 (STA 0 +00 to STA 40 +86) — Tributary located in the middle of the project
totaling approximately 4,043 linear feet of Stream Preservation and Buffer
Enhancement. This reach is surrounded by forest comprised of mature hardwoods
and localized areas of privet and flows into Muddy Creek.
• UT6 (STA 1 +50 to STA 6 +00) — Tributary just west of UT5 totaling approximately
450 linear feet of Enhancement Level I. This reach is adjacent to an agricultural field,
but has mature forested buffer with a dense understory of privet.
• UT7 (STA 0 +44 to STA 32 +27) — Tributary located near the middle of the project
totaling approximately 3,183 linear feet of Stream Preservation and Buffer
Best Mitigation Plan 57 October 2013

Enhancement. This reach is surrounded by forest comprised of mature hardwoods
and localized areas of privet and flows into UT5 before discharging to Muddy Creek.
• UT8 (STA 0 +75 to STA 12 +13) — Tributary just west of UT5 totaling approximately
825 linear feet of Enhancement Level I and 313 linear feet of Stream Preservation
and Buffer Enhancement. This reach is flat with agricultural fields located along both
sides of the channel.
• UT9 (STA 0 +00 to STA 11 +71) — Tributary located just south of the confluence of
UT5 and Muddy Creek totaling approximately 1,171 linear feet of Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement. This reach has been straightened, but is
stable and surrounded by mature hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
• UT10 (STA 3 +37 to STA 11 +05) — Downstream most tributary located just south of
the south of Lyman Road totaling approximately 768 linear feet of Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement. This reach originates at a farm crossing, is
stable, and is buffered by an intact hardwood forest.
• Muddy Creek (STA 0 +35 to STA 92 +49) — Primary drainage feature spanning the
entire project totaling approximately 9,073 linear feet of Stream Preservation and
Buffer Enhancement. This reach is a stable swamp system surrounded by swamp
complexes, beaver impoundments, and riverine wetlands within the floodplain
corridor.
UT1
Priority Level 1 restoration is proposed for UT1 to address all existing impairments,
particularly the greatly oversized channel and lack of bedform diversity. The design
approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley and
backfilling the existing stream. A minimum 50 foot buffer will be established and planted with
native riparian vegetation. Because the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation,
woody debris will be installed along the bed to improve in- stream habitat. Livestock will be
excluded with fencing installed along the easement boundary. An existing CMP culvert
located along the middle of the reach will be removed and relocated further downstream to
allow the landowner access to both sides of the property. Stream Preservation and Buffer
Enhancement is proposed for the downstream section of the channel where it flows through
a forested buffer down to the confluence with Muddy Creek.
UT2
Similar to UT1, Priority 1 restoration is proposed for UT2 to address historic straightening
and channel enlargement. The existing ditch will be backfilled, and the channel will be
relocated such that it meanders within the existing valley. A diffuse flow structure will be
installed at the ditch adjacent to the proposed crossing. The structure will be placed such
that flows from the existing ditch will be attenuated to establish sheet flow as the water
enters the restored channel. All areas within the minimum 50 foot buffer will be planted with
native riparian vegetation. An existing CMP culvert located along the middle of the reach will
be removed and replaced to allow the landowner access to the entire property. Additionally,
the existing culvert at the upstream end of UT2 will be upgraded and reset to more
effectively transition the existing channel upstream into the project stream. Priority Level I
restoration is appropriate for this channel because it is the only mitigation approach that will
address bed and bank instability, establish a forested riparian buffer, and significantly
Best Mitigation Plan 58 October 2013

enhance aquatic habitat. Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed for the
most downstream section, where the channel enters the existing forested buffer, down to its
confluence with Muddy Creek.
UT3
Enhancement Level II is proposed on Reach UT3 due to the channel's current stability and
appropriate size. The design approach on this reach will focus on improving the riparian
buffer. The existing hog lagoon located within buffer on the west side of the reach will
remain in place, preventing the generation of stream credits for approximately 600 linear
feet. Through this section, the left buffer will be extended out to a minimum of 75 feet along
the left bank, and the right buffer will extend just past top of bank. The existing crossing
located near the middle of the reach will be replaced and upgraded with an HDPE pipe,
allowing the landowner continued access across his property. Additional bank grading and
stabilization will be included in the culvert replacement. The grading of pools and the
installation of woody debris structures will be performed along the reach to improve aquatic
habitat. Upstream of the crossing, a 75 -foot buffer will be restored along the east bank
where the channel currently flows through an active pasture. A 100 -foot buffer is proposed
for the headwater origin point to further protect water quality from cattle access. Cattle will
also be excluded with fencing. All areas within the proposed buffer will be planted with
native riparian vegetation. Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed along
the downstream end where the channel enters the Muddy Creek floodplain.
UT4
Headwater valley restoration is proposed for the upper section of UT4. The existing channel
will be backfilled, and flow will be directed from its current position east back to the historic
valley location. A minor amount of earthwork is anticipated in the headwater valley
restoration apart from ditch plugging to tie the existing ditch back to the natural valley. Areas
within the 100 foot buffer that are disturbed or lack riparian vegetation will be planted. Cattle
will be excluded from the buffer through the installation of fencing. An existing CMP culvert
crossing located along the middle of the reach will be removed and relocated to the low spot
in the valley to allow the landowner continued access to an agricultural field west of the
channel. Downstream of the crossing, a smaller low flow channel will be constructed within
the natural valley. This segment will connect the upstream headwater valley section to the
existing channel approximately 200 feet below the crossing. Due to the stable nature of the
buffer along the downstream reach of UT4, Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is
proposed from just downstream of the crossing to the confluence with Muddy Creek.
UT5
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed on UT5. The channel is stable
throughout the proposed easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian
buffer is intact hardwood forest with localized areas of privet. Privet will be treated, and
disturbed areas will be re- vegetated with direct seeding of hardwood trees. The proposed
easement boundary will extend a minimum of 50 feet outward from the stream channel, or
the limit of adjacent riparian wetlands, whichever is wider.
UT6
Enhancement Level I is proposed on UT6. The design approach on this reach will focus on
bank stabilization, bedform diversity, and improving the riparian buffer. The existing channel
is impaired by channelization, vertical un- vegetated banks, and a dense privet understory in
the buffer. The grading of pools, grade control structures, and the installation of woody
Best Mitigation Plan 59 October 2013

debris structures will be performed along the reach to improve aquatic habitat. All disturbed
areas within the proposed buffer will be planted with native riparian vegetation.
UT7
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed on UT7. The channel is stable
throughout the proposed easement and the riparian buffer is an intact hardwood forest with
localized areas of privet. Privet will be treated, and disturbed areas will be re- vegetated with
direct seeding of hardwood trees. The proposed easement boundary will extend a minimum
of 50 feet outward from the stream channel, or to the limit of adjacent riparian wetlands,
whichever is wider.
UT8
Enhancement Level I is proposed on UT8. The design approach on this reach will focus on
bank stabilization, bedform diversity, and riparian buffer restoration. The existing channel is
impaired by channelization, localized bank instability, and cleared agricultural land in the
buffer. Stabilization activities will include grading a floodplain bench, installing grade control
structures, and installing woody debris structures to improve hydraulic efficiency and aquatic
habitat. All disturbed areas within the proposed buffer will be planted with native riparian
vegetation.
UT9
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed on UT9. The stream is
channelized, but is stable throughout the proposed easement. The active channel is
meandering within the larger excavated channel bottom. The riparian buffer is intact
hardwood forest with localized areas of privet. Privet will be treated, and disturbed areas will
be re- vegetated with direct seeding of hardwood trees. The proposed easement boundary
will extend a minimum of 50 feet outward from the stream channel, or to the limit of adjacent
riparian wetlands, whichever is wider.
UT10
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed on UT10. The channel is stable
throughout the proposed easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian
buffer is intact and is comprised of mature hardwoods. The proposed easement boundary
will extend a minimum of 50 feet outward from the stream channel or to the limit of adjacent
riparian wetlands, whichever is wider.
Muddy Creek
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement is proposed for the majority of Muddy Creek.
Invasive species management is proposed throughout the buffer areas where privet
infestation is severe. Privet treatment areas will be re- vegetated with direct seeding of
hardwood trees. The buffer will be restored and increased to a width of 75 feet along the
south side.
Best Mitigation Plan 60 October 2013

Figure 12. Project Site Conceptual Plan Design
Best Mitigation Plan 61 October 2013
Figure 12a, 0 BMPLocaffions
Conceptual Design
� stream crossing
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Proposed Fencing
0 250 500 1,000
2 R Contours
Feet
® Proposed Easement
1 Inch = 760 feet
Parcels
Best Mitigation Plan 61 October 2013

Best Mitigation Plan 62 October 2013
s
Figure 12b. EMPL<.cahcn;
Conceptual Design = 9peam crossing
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Proposed Fencing
0 400 800 1.600 ® Proposed Easement
Feet Pareets
1 inch = 1.064.84 feet 2 a Enntnurs
Best Mitigation Plan 62 October 2013

7.2.1.1 Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that
fall between model results for the 1 -year storm and the 1.5 -year flood frequency analysis for
each reach. The selected flows for the restoration reaches are 6ft3 /s for UT1 and 15ft3 /s for
UT2. Design flows selected for the enhancement reaches are 7ft3 /s, 11ft3 /s, 9ft3 /s, and 8ft3 /s
for Reaches UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT6, and UTB, respectively. These discharges will
provide frequent inundation of the adjacent floodplain.
The design discharges were selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog /reference reach closely matches the
results of the 1.1 -year flood frequency analysis,
• The results of the Hydraflow Hydrographs for the 1 -year storm fell above the results
of the 1.1 and 1.5 -year flood frequency analysis and takes factors in the high
percentage of agricultural land use,
• The results of the 1.1 -year flood frequency analysis matched well with the NC
regional curve (Doll et al., 2003), and
• Selecting design discharges around the 1.5 -year storm events allows frequent
inundation of the floodplain, while also preventing adjacent active agriculture land
from flooding at a high frequency.
7.2.1.2 Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration:
analog, empirical, and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it
is often best to utilize more than one method to address site - specific conditions or to verify
the applicability of design elements. This is particularly true in developed watersheds where
existing conditions do not always reflect current inputs and events, and sediment and
hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some time. Combinations of analytical and analog
methods were used to develop the stream designs for Best Site.
Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams,
and can entail many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes
continuity, roughness equations, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport
functions to derive equilibrium conditions. Since the project is located within a rural
watershed, restoration designs are based on hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, including
rainfall -runoff models to determine design discharges coupled with reference reach
techniques.
Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a "template" or reference
stream located near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al.,
2001). In an analog approach, the planform pattern, cross - sectional shape, longitudinal
profile, and frequency and locations of woody debris along the analog reaches are mimicked
when developing the design parameters for the subject stream. A scaling factor was
calculated from the survey data in order to correctly size the planform design parameters for
the project site. The scaling factors for each design reach were derived from the design
cross - sectional area and topwidth of each reach as follows:
Best Mitigation Plan 63 October 2013

The appropriate bankfull cross - sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was
calculated using an in -house spreadsheet based on Manning's Equation. The input
parameters included the design discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis
described above, and proposed slope based on site conditions and the sinuosity
measured for the analog reach.
2. The cross - sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the
width -depth ratios and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also
maintaining the CSA necessary to convey the design discharge.
3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design topwidth to the analog
topwidth (Table 19). For this project, several sections and planform geometry were
obtained at the analog site, resulting in an average width of 7.8 feet.
4. Pool cross - sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach
techniques and the analog approach. Design CSA areas were determined using the
measured analog ratios of shallow /ripple CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design
CSAs. The pool cross - sectional shape was adjusted within the in -house spreadsheet
as described above in step 2.
Table 19. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters
Reach
Drainage
Proposed Bankfull
Design
Analog Reach
Scaling
Area (ac)
CSA (ft)
Topwidth (ft)
Topwidth (ft)
Factor
UT1
41
3.90
6.4
7.8
0.8
UT2
146
8.90
9.2
7.8
1.2
UT4*
82
22.7
6
7.8
0.8
* The design for UT4 involves the construction of a small channel to convey flow through the natural
valley and does not involve full restoration.
7.2.1.3 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for shallows and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in
Appendix D. The cross - section dimensions were developed for the three design reaches by
using a WK Dickson in -house spreadsheet described in Section 7.2.1.2 of this report. The
cross - sections were altered slightly to facilitate constructability; however, the cross - sectional
area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved. Typical pool sections include
pools located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
7.2.1.4 Typical Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix D.
The meander pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and sized using the scaling
factors described in Table 19. The analog meander pattern was altered in some locations to
provide variability in pattern, to avoid onsite constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to
make the channel more constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the
Appendix C were applied wherever these deviations occurred.
7.2.1.5 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix C. These profiles extend throughout the
entire project for the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the
analog reach bed features that were sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and
Best Mitigation Plan 64 October 2013

bankfull energy gradients were determined for each design reach based on the existing
valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. Log structures will be utilized in the
design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat diversity and stability.
7.2.1.6 In- Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the
channel design to provide additional stability
and improve aquatic habitat. Native`
materials and vegetation will be used for
revetments and grade control structures',
where applicable. Additionally, woody debris'
will be placed throughout the channel at';`�
locations and at a frequency that is similar to
those mapped in the analog reaches. The
analog reach has woody debris throughout Sod mats blanket the top of bank of this stream in
the length of the channel, providing grade Bertie County.
control for shallows and forcing scour pools. Woody habitat features installed will include
leaf packs, dead brush, woody debris bundles, root wads, and wattles. Sod mats harvested
onsite will be installed along stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod
mats will only be harvested and used if comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod
mats that include aggressive turf grasses will be avoided. Sod mats (see photo above) are
natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut during construction,
and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded lower than
specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank
to act as a natural stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the
combination of coir fiber matting and seeding (see detail Appendix D). Other bank stability
measures include the installation of cuttings bundles at three to five foot intervals along the
tops of banks, live staking, root wads, and log toes. Typical details for proposed in- stream
structures and revetments are in Appendix D.
7.2.2 Wetland Restoration Approach
The Best Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland
restoration is closely tied to the stream restoration and raising the elevation of the
groundwater. The three wetland restoration areas proposed are located at the headwaters
of UT1, on the floodplain adjacent to the proposed UT2 stream restoration of Best Site, and
on the floodplain of Muddy Creek. Two of the proposed wetlands are near incised and
dredged stream channels and one is surrounded by ditches to divert surface and ground
water. Wetland W1 also has ditching that further lowers the water table. Hydrologic
modifications include channel dredging, drainage ditches, and crowning to promote rapid
surface drainage and increase subsurface drainage. These modifications effectively lower
the groundwater table and decrease the natural hydroperiod.
7.2.2.1 Wetland Restoration Summary
Wetland restoration activities will include plugging existing ditches, raising the elevation of
the local groundwater, restoring natural drainage patterns both above and below the ground
surface, roughing of the soil surface, planting wetland species, and permanent exclusion of
livestock. Grading will include filling and plugging ditches, removing crowned /fill material,
and surface roughing to create hydrologic retention and encourage species diversification.
Temporal habitat will be constructed create shallow aquatic habitat and water storage. This
will eliminate the surface leveling and smoothing for agricultural use. Combined with the
Best Mitigation Plan 65 October 2013

proposed stream restoration these actions will result in a sufficiently high water table and
flood frequency to support hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, resulting in
restored riparian wetlands.
The primary restoration activities will include restoring /constructing a stream channel that
floods the adjacent wetlands frequently (as described above) and construction of ditch plugs
(W1). A typical ditch plug will be 15 feet wide and extend above the ditch bank elevation
approximately six inches. Plugs are to be constructed of compacted fill (clay or sandy clay)
in 12 inch lifts with the upper 18 inches minimally compacted to facilitate plant growth. Plugs
are spaced such that successive plugs are no more than 12 inches in elevation below the
next plug up gradient. The existing stream channel will be partially filled, leaving unfilled
areas that will provide deeper pools for increased storage and to create diverse habitat.
Temporal habitat will be shallow with variable perimeter area and shape. Depth of the
temporal pool will be 8 to 14 inches deep to provide a range of water depth. Fencing will be
constructed to exclude livestock. The wetland and all disturbed areas will be disced and
planted.
7.2.2.2 Proposed Wetland Hydrology
In general, hydrology of a small stream swamp wetland system is derived from seasonal or
temporary overbank flooding of the adjacent stream channel and the seasonal high water
table elevation controlled by the stream water surface elevation. Many resources describe
the duration and frequency of flooding as highly inconsistent. As described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990), small stream swamp systems have highly variable flow regimes with floods
of short duration and periods of very low flow; however, smaller watersheds lead to a more
variable flooding regime. Additionally, the influence of channel overbank flow may vary
seasonally to yearly in magnitude, duration, and frequency (WRP Technical Note HY -EV-
2.1, 1993). It may be anticipated that the majority of flooding of riparian wetlands occurs
during the winter months and the early portions of the growing season. Surface water of
riparian wetlands may be present for extended periods during the growing season and
usually greater than 14 consecutive days, but is typically absent by the end of the growing
season in most typical years (EPA, 1995).
The Best Site was once an interconnected Coastal Plain small stream swamp system
subject to prolonged inundation as indicated by soils mapping, historical aerial photography,
and personal communication with landowners. Based upon the historical NRCS aerial
photography, the proposed wetland restoration areas were historically cleared, ditched, and
the streams channelized. The local land use patterns were established prior to 1958. The
W1 Site was cleared prior to 1993, with the dates of the ditching /channel incision less clear,
but appear to be established by 1977. Stream incision appears to have been progressive
and likely due to channel vegetation removal and maintenance. Based upon landowner
communication, this channel and the proposed W1 frequently have high flows and flooding
after rainfall events. Although frequently flooded, the drainage on this site removes surface
water rapidly and likely has a significant impact on lowering the local groundwater table. The
W2 and W3 sites were cleared and dredged prior to 1958 with little change apparent in the
historic aerial photography. Based upon similar landscape position, the project sites were
likely Coastal Plain small stream swamps.
The restoration plan for the Best Site wetlands consists of reconstructing the stream channel
with a higher bed elevation and plugging existing drainage ditches. The ditch plugs will
lengthen wetland hydroperiods by halting artificial subsurface drainage and preventing rapid
Best Mitigation Plan 66 October 2013

surface drainage. The stream design parameters will reconnect the stream to the floodplain
and provide seasonal overbank flows. These periodic flows will provide surface and
subsurface hydrology support to the newly restored Coastal Plain small stream swamp
system. This periodic flooding is vital to sustain plants and wildlife characteristic of riverine
wetlands (Ainslie, 2002).
The drainage area for the upstream portion of the project for Wetland W1 is approximately
35.6 acres square miles, for Wetland W2 approximately 1.4 acres, for Wetland W3a is 15.8
acres, and for Wetland W3b is 3.3 acres. The restored wetlands will have a variable flooding
regime due to the size of the drainage areas. The stream design modeling indicates that a
2.8 inch six -hour rainfall event will produce an out -of -bank flow for Wetlands W1 and W2.
Analysis of daily rainfall totals indicates that a 2.29 inch or greater daily rainfall total occurs
on average two times per year. The use of historic rainfall and stream modeling to estimate
flood events demonstrates that the wetland restoration area will be subject to inundation and
function as a riparian wetland system. However, limitations with the rainfall data set did not
allow for statistically rigorous analysis of flooding depth or return interval. A conventional
water balance was performed in addition to the above discussion.
7.2.2.3 Soils
Hydric soils within the proposed wetlands were verified through auger borings by a licensed
soil scientist (Appendix B). The soil in Wetlands W1 and W3 is mapped as Rains with
Wetland W2 mapped as Marvyn and Gritney soils. The stream channel bed will be raised,
reconnecting the floodplain with seasonal out -of -bank flows. Raising the stream bed will also
lessen the "dry shoulder" effect near the stream channel. l3MPs will treat stormwater flows
from offsite ditches prior to entering the wetlands. A preliminary assessment of hydrologic
trespass was performed on the site. It appears that the adjacent agricultural fields are
topographically elevated sufficient to provide drainage onto the floodplain without impacting
existing drainage. Restoration activities will include:
• Reconnecting low lying areas of hydric soil with the floodplain through stream
restoration;
• Plugging /filling agricultural drainage ditches to raise the seasonal groundwater
elevations;
• Constructing temporal habitat features;
• Planting native tree and shrub species commonly found in small stream swamp
ecosystems; and
• Creating a rough soil surface to aid in infiltration and storage by ripping and discing.
These hydrology restoration activities will result in an elevated seasonal high water table,
increased flood frequency and duration, and increased precipitation infiltration across all of
the restored wetlands.
It is estimated that riparian wetland restoration will be 3.66 acres for Wetland W1, 0.29 acres
for Wetland W2, 0.58 acres for Wetland W3a, and 0.59 acres for Wetland W3b. Minor
grading along the restored channels is proposed to remove fill excavated from channel
dredging and remove crowning in Wetlands W2 and W3. No fill is proposed beyond plugging
previously excavated channels and ditches. Soils in the wetland restoration area will be
tested for fertility, and soil amendments may be specified as needed. These wetlands
expand habitat along the easement and provide habitat diversity. Once constructed, these
Best Mitigation Plan 67 October 2013

wetlands will be monitored to document the success of hydrologic and vegetative
restoration.
Wetland W1
Proposed Wetland W1 is located in a concave - concave landform at the headwater of UT1
and has a natural constriction at the outlet. The soil is a sandy loam /loamy sandy underlain
by clayey textured subsoil that forms an effective restrictive layer to groundwater loss. This
area receives runoff from NC HWY 24. Based upon soil and landscape position, it is likely
this area has as a seasonal seepage along the upper boundary, but no evidence of seepage
was observed during the site evaluation. Therefore, no additional groundwater input was
used in the water balance.
Site modifications include removal of dredged and excavated materials, plugging the ditch,
and raising the streambed elevation to bring the water table closer to the ground surface.
Additional temporal habitat will be constructed to eliminate surface leveling and smoothing
for agricultural use. The temporal habitat will be variable to mimic sloughs, oxbows, root -tips
and other shallow natural features. During monitoring, beaver activity will be controlled to
allow the site to stabilize and vegetative community to establish. After the monitoring period,
the site is designed to promote and tolerate beaver activity. No hydrologic trespass is
anticipated due to beaver activity in this wetland. These modifications will increase storage
and eliminate the rapid loss of surface water. This area may receive limited overbank flows
due to location in the headwater of UT1. Subsoil ripping and roughing of the soil surface will
be performed to ameliorate soil compaction and create an uneven surface more conducive
for surface water retention, infiltration, and increase storage that would be present in natural
wetland systems.
Wetland W2
Proposed Wetland W2 is located in concave - convex landform at the toe slope along Muddy
Creek and UT2. The soil is a sandy loam /loamy sandy underlain by sandy clay loam and
sandy clay. This site is at a low elevation and is influenced by the water table on the
floodplain of Muddy Creek. It is unlikely that groundwater loss is significant during most of
the year. Therefore, no additional groundwater loss was used in the water balance. This
area has a small watershed, but flooding from UT2 and Muddy Creek will increase water for
available storage.
Hydrology will be restored by removing dredge material along the channel and raising the
streambed elevation, bringing the water table closer to the ground surface. Site
modifications include subsoil ripping, crown removal, and surface roughing of the area.
Additional temporal habitat will be constructed to eliminate the surface leveling and
smoothing for agricultural use. The temporal habitat will be variable to mimic sloughs, root -
tips and other shallow natural features. This will ameliorate past soil leveling and
compaction and create an uneven surface more conducive of infiltration and storage that
would be present in natural wetland systems.
Wetland W3
Proposed Wetland W3 is composed of two similar area (W3a and W3b) located in a
concave - concave landform at the toe slope along Muddy Creek. A low finger of soil
separates them. The soil in these areas is a loamy sand /sandy loam. The surrounding
upland is underlain by clayey subsoil that forms an effective restrictive layer that lateral flow
rides provide additional hydrological input. A ditch is located upslope of these areas and
alongside W3a that drains to Muddy Creek.
Best Mitigation Plan 68 October 2013

The soil is a sandy loam /loamy sand. The surrounding upland has a sandy clay loam and
sandy clay that form an effective restrictive layer that lateral flow rides provide additional
hydrological input. Both areas have small watersheds, but W3b receives groundwater
seepage along the toe of slope currently diverted by the upslope ditch.
Hydrology will be restored by filling ditches and enhancing the concave topography by
removing soil material where cultivation has filled low features and leveled the surface to
facilitate cultivation. Additional groundwater seepage currently diverted by the ditch will be
restored to these wetlands. Temporal habitat will be constructed to eliminate the surface
leveling and smoothing for agricultural use. Subsoil ripping and surface roughing of the area
will be performed to ameliorate soil compaction and create an uneven surface more
conducive of infiltration and storage that would be present in natural wetland systems.
7.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration
7.2.3.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project.
The selection of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach,
species present in the forest surrounding the restoration site, and what is typically native to
the area. Several sources of information were used to determine the most appropriate
species for the restoration project. The reference stream is located within a disturbed
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp — Blackwater subtype. Dominant species included
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), swamp tupelo
(Nyssa biflora), and red maple (Acer ruburm) in the canopy. Shrubs included sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana) and American holly (Ilex opaca). The absence of bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum) likely indicates past logging with poor regeneration at the site. The
reference site was chosen due to the stability of the channel, the physical structure of the
forest community, and to evaluate stream habitat. The species present are indicative of
early successional species that have high dispersal rates. The mitigation site also supports
many species typical of this community type due to its past disturbance history. The
adjacent Muddy Creek wetland contains areas of bald cypress, indicating the
appropriateness of including this species. Typically, a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
would occur along the stream banks and adjacent floodplain of the proposed restoration
site.
The restoration site has a relatively uniform topography, and three planting zones will be
utilized outside of the stream banks. The zones vary slightly in species composition and
percentage to ensure appropriate species are planted for the expected hydrologic regime.
The variation more closely mimics the natural range seen in this community type. Therefore,
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp will be the target community type and will be used for all
areas within the project, as well as for buffer around the site. The plant species list has been
developed and can be found in Table 20. Species with high dispersal rates are not included
because of local occurrence, adjacent seed sources, and the high potential for natural
regeneration. The high dispersal species include red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum.
The restoration of plant communities along Best Site will provide stabilization and diversity.
For rapid stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood, silky
willow, and black willow were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of
their rapid growth patterns and high success rates. Willows will also be quicker to contribute
Best Mitigation Plan 69 October 2013

organic matter to the channel. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around
them, and they stabilize the stream banks. When the other species are bigger, the black
willows and silky willows will slowly stop growing or die out because the other species would
outgrow them and create shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live stake species will
be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating
a three -foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced one per linear foot
with alternate spacing vertically. See Appendix D for a detailed planting plan. Zone 1 will be
upland and non - wetland areas and consist of species that tolerate dryer zones, but tolerate
some wet periods. Zone 2 will consist of wetland species tolerant of longer hydroperiods.
The Zone 3 species are the most tolerant of long hydroperiods and will be planted in the
lowest topography and in the temporal habitat areas. In W1 the more tolerant species will be
planted centrally and less tolerant species concentrated along the fringes due to the
likelihood of a future beaver impoundment.
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep
tilled /ripped before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed
during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation.
This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment
of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the site.
Table 20. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species - Riparian Areas
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator*
Percent
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
Composition
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
10%
Green ash
Fraxinus
FACW
10%
American sycamore
pennsylvanica
FACW
10%
Swamp Tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
5%
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
20%
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
20%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
10%
Water oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
5%
American sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
10%
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
10%
Bare Root Planting Tree Species - Wetland Areas
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator*
Percent
Composition
River Birch
Betula nigra
FACW
15%
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
FACW
20%
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
10%
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
15%
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
20%
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
20%
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
— Temporal Habitat Features
Best Mitigation Plan
70
October 2013

Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator*
Percent
Composition
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
FACW
5%
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
FACW
20%
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
15%
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
20%
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
20%
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
20%
Planting density approximately 680 bare root stems per acre.
Planted on a diamond grid to limit preferential linear
flow.
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator*
Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood
Corpus amomum
FACW+
45%
Silky willow
Salix sericea
OBL
45%
Black willow
Salix nigra
OBL
10%
*National Wetland Indicator Status from Draft Rating 2012 - Atlantic Gulf Coastal Plain.
7.2.3.2 On -Site Invasive Species Management
Control for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream
restoration, stream Enhancement Level I, and wetland restoration. Three areas outside the
grading limits are designated for invasive species control and consist of spot treatment or
full invasive control based upon density of aerial coverage: low (less than 10 percent aerial
coverage; medium (10 to 50 percent aerial coverage; and, high (greater than 50 percent
aerial coverage). Full invasive control will be required within all areas designated as high
density. (Where invasive coverage is greater than 50 percent, mechanical removal of top
growth and spraying of herbicide may be used.) Spot treatment will be required within all
areas designated as moderate density. (Where stems and coverage are greater than 10
percent, but less than 50 percent, individuals shall be cut and stumps sprayed with
appropriate herbicide.) Areas of low coverage will be evaluated on a case by case basis and
may be reclassified for spot treatment.
Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant
phenology and the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted so
as to minimize its effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native
vegetation. Treatment methods will include mechanical control (cutting with loppers,
clippers, or chain saw and chemical control (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and quirt
techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the site and
properly disposed of. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground
pesticide applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(NCDA &CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide
labels and NC and Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species
treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and
herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in all reporting
documents. In areas where full invasive control is performed, seed from appropriate
bottomland mast producing species will be planted in the fall following the first full year after
invasive control is performed. Records will be kept of date collected, species, provenance,
approximate density of each species (pounds /acre), and location planted. Mast seed planted
will be recorded. These records will be included in all reporting documents.
Best Mitigation Plan 71 October 2013

Areas where full invasive species control is performed will be direct seeded with bottomland
mast - producing species. The seeding will take place the first fall after invasive species
control is performed. These areas will be monitored for additional invasive species control.
7.2.4 Best Management Practices
Due to the rural nature of this project, individual stormwater best management practices
(BMPs) will not be required. However, diffuse flow structures will be applied at locations
where ditches or other forms of concentrated flow enter the conservation easement. These
structures will consist of a pool (forebay) located just outside the conservation easement
that will attenuate runoff combined with grading and stabilization techniques that will diffuse
flow upon entering the buffer. All diffuse flow structures will be installed within the
conservation easement so that landowners will not have access to the structures. Failure or
maintenance of the structures is not anticipated as these structures will be installed in low -
gradient areas, and the areas proposed to diffuse flow will be well vegetated and matted.
Stormwater management issues resulting from future development of adjacent properties
will be governed by the applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. It is
recommended that any future stormwater entering the site maintain pre - development peak
flow. Any future stormwater diverted into the project should be done in a manner as to
prevent erosion, adverse conditions, or degradation of the project in any way.
7.2.5 Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep
tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during
construction will be stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This
process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of
vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the site.
7.3 Data Analysis
7.3.1 Stream Data Analysis
7.3.1.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to
determine and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to
provide regular floodplain inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of
results and eliminates reliance on a single model. Peak flows (Table 21) and corresponding
channel cross - sectional areas were determined for comparison to design parameters using
the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• Intellisolve's Hydraflow Express Hydrographs,
• NC and VA/MD Regional Curves for the Coastal Plain, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Coastal Plain.
Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on
all nearby USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mil) which passed
the Dalrymple homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for
Best Mitigation Plan 72 October 2013

USGS regression equations. Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the
1.1 -, 1.5 -, and 2 -year peak discharges based on the gauge data. Discharges were then
computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those predicted by the
discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2 -year discharge equations.
Intellisolve's Hydraflow Express Hydrographs
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall- runoff process and establish peak flows
for the watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model
HEC -1 because it allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor for the Coastal Plain
conditions. Using a standard Type III distribution in HEC -1, the model will use a 284 peak
shape factor, which is the outdated standard for a coastal environment. This results in
conservatively high peak flows that may not be appropriate for a stream restoration design.
NRCS staff has recommended using peak shape factors between 60 and 100 for the
Coastal Plain. Hydraflow Express allows the user to make this adjustment to the peak shape
factor.
Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Coastal Plain regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz
(2003) and the Virginia /Maryland (Krstolic et al., 2007) Coastal Plain regional curves for
discharge were used to predict the bankfull discharge for the site. The NC regional curves
predicted flows that are similar to those predicted by the 1.1 -year flood frequency, while the
VA /MD curves are comparable to flows predicted by the 1.5 -year flood frequency equation.
The regional curve equations for NC discharges by Doll et al. (2003) (1) and Sweet and
Geratz ( 2003) (2) and VA /MD (3) discharges are:
(1) Qbkf 16.56 *(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkf=8.49 *(DA)076 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qbkf= 28.3076 *(DA)0.59834 (Krstolic et al., 2007)
Where Qbkf= bankfull discharge (ft3 /s) and DA= drainage area (mi).
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood -peak discharges
(Gotvald, et al., 2009). The regression equations were developed from gauge data in
different physiographic regions of the Southeastern United States. For this analysis, there
was only concern for the 2 -year return interval. The equation for the rural Coastal Plain
(Hydrologic Region 4) is:
[al
Q2= 60.3 *(DA)0.649
Table 21. Peak Flow Comparison
Drainage
Reach
Area (Ac)
Hydraflow
Hydrograrograph
S Q1
FFQ
Q1.1
FFQ
Q1.5
Regional
Curve Q
(1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
Regional
Curve Q
(3)
Regonal Design/
Regression Calculate
Egns. Qz d Q
Analog
285
- --
11
23
9
5
17
36 13
UT1
41
10
2
5
2
1
5
10 6
UT2
146
22
6
14
6
3
12
23 15
UT3
59
8
2
7
3
1
7
13 7
Best Mitigation Plan
73
October 2013

Drainage
Hy w
FFQ
FFQ
Regional
NC Regional
Regional
Regonal Design/
Reach Area (Ac)
Hydrograrograph
Q1.1
Q1.5
Curve Q
Curve Q (2)
Curve Q
Regression Calculate
1.3 0.0028
s Q1
1.6
0.24
(1)
(3)
Egns. Qs d Q
UT4 82
14
3
9
4
2
8
16 11
UT6 79
11
3
8
4
2
8
16 9
UT8 56
9
2
6
3
1
7
12 8
The fact that the regional curves predict flows similar to the 1.1 -year flood frequency
analysis indicates that the bankfull flows occur in the region with a frequency of
approximately once a year. The developers of the NC Coastal Plain regional curves report
an average recurrence interval of 1.12 years for the gauged streams included in their study.
7.3.1.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design
creates a stable sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically,
sediment transport is assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size
at specified flows. Various sediment transport equations may be easily applied when
estimating entrainment for gravel bed streams; however, these equations are not as
effectively applied to sand bed channels where the entire bed becomes mobile during
geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, more sophisticated modeling techniques were
used to analyze the stream design for this project. The following methods and functions
were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:
• Stable Channel Design Function — Copeland Method (HEC -RAS),
• Shear Stress, and
• Velocity.
Stable Channel Design
Design cross - section dimensions as determined from the analog approach were evaluated
using the stable channel design functions within HEC -RAS. These functions are based upon
the methods presented in the SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels developed by
the USACE Waterways Experiment Station. The Copeland Method was developed
specifically for sand bed channels (median grain size restriction of 0.0625 mm to 2 mm) and
was selected for application at Best Site. The method sizes stable dimensions as a function
of slope, discharge, roughness, side slope, bed material gradation, and the inflowing
sediment discharge. Results are presented as a range of widths and slopes, and their
unique solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve stable
channel configurations. The stable design output parameters are listed in Table 22. The
results are acceptable and match closely with the design reach parameters.
Table 22. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach Q (ft /s) Bottom
Depth (ft) Energy
Composite
Velocity
Shear Stress
Width (ft)
Slope (ft /ft)
n value
(ft/s)
(Ibs /ft )
UT1 6 4
0.7 0.0052
0.040
1.7
0.21
UT2 15 4
1.3 0.0028
0.045
1.6
0.24
Shear Stress Approach
Best Mitigation Plan 74 October 2013

Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel
shear stresses are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size,
and gradation), cohesiveness of bank materials, and vegetative cover. The shear stress
approach compares calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress
is the force exerted on a boundary during the resistance of motion as calculated using the
following formula:
(1) =7RS
= shear stress (lb /ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 Ib /ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 23. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear
Allowable Shear Stress'
Reach Stress at Bankfull
Critical Shear
2
Stress (Ibs /ft)
Sand/Silt/Clay
y
Vegetation
Stage (Ibs /ft2)
(Ibs /ft2)
(I bS/ft2)
UT1 0.18
>0.003
0.03 to 0.26
0.2 to 0.95
UT2 0.15
>0.003
0.03 to 0.26
0.2 to 0.95
'(Fischenich, 2001)
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Best Site design
reaches fall between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and
the allowable limits. Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable.
Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and
bank materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a
simple method to aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 24 compares the proposed
velocities calculated using Manning's equation with the permissible velocities presented in
the Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NRCS, 2007).
Table 24. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning's "n" Design Velocity (ft /s) Allowable Velocity' (ft/s)
value Fine Sand Coarse Sand
UT1 0.05 1.7 2.0 4.0
UT2 0.05 1.6 2.0 4.0
'(NRCS, 2007)
Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was
performed by characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance
and windshield surveys, existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were
analyzed to assess existing and past watershed conditions and to determine if any changes
occurred that would significantly impact sediment supply. As discussed in Section 2.2.3,
the land use throughout the site, and primarily around restoration reaches UT1 and UT2,
has changed little since 1958. Much of the project area has been used extensively for
Best Mitigation Plan 75 October 2013

agricultural purposes over the past 50 years; and current land use is composed of
approximately 44 percent forest cover and hardwood swamp, 47 percent cultivated land,
three percent residential and six percent managed herbaceous cover and pasture. Since
1958, there have been several significant land disturbing events. During the 1980's and
1990's, two separate CAFOs with lagoons were constructed near reaches UT3 and UT4.
The other event occurred between 1983 and 1993 when portions of the forested headwaters
of UT1 were cleared and converted to pasture. Overall, the project watershed is stable and
is largely forested where the majority of the forested areas are located within the
headwaters of the project watershed and along many of the tributaries to Muddy Creek.
Land use has remained relatively constant within this rural watershed, and significant land
disturbing activities are not anticipated for the future.
A large percentage of the cultivated areas are located in the middle and lower portions of
the project watershed. Additionally, the land use within the watersheds of restoration
reaches UT1 and UT2 is comprised of over 60 percent agriculture fields and less than 20%
forest. Observations and assessments of these reaches show little signs of aggradation or
degradation and that the streams are physically stable. Much of the headwaters of the
project watershed (upstream of the project site) are largely a mix of forest, scrub /shrub, and
cultivation, where the majority of the forested areas are located adjacent to streams. All of
the existing project streams appear to be physically stable and show little to no signs of
deposition, indicating that the reaches are able to effectively transport the sediment supplied
by their respective watersheds. It is anticipated that sediment supply will decrease as
buffers are enhanced and widened, and flow from existing agricultural ditches will be
diffused before entering the proposed channel. Since sand bed streams are mobile, and
therefore more sensitive to changes in flow and sediment regimes, a design approach has
been used where the proposed channel is designed to maintain geometry and handle
stresses slightly greater than what will be applied under the design conditions. Additionally,
grade controls have been integrated throughout the design to provide vertical stability.
7.3.1.1 Hydraulic Analyses
Hydraulic evaluations were performed for the restoration design reaches of UT1 and UT2.
These analyses were performed to confirm that the restoration designs will convey the
design discharge, provide more frequent overbank flooding, and that significant structures
will perform as designed.
HEC -RAS Analysis
A hydraulic analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design results in a
channel that will convey the design discharge and provide for frequent flooding of the
adjacent riparian floodplain and wetlands. Channel characteristics, including cross - sectional
dimension, slope, and roughness, were used to analyze and adjust design parameters
calculated by the analog /reference reach approach.
HEC -RAS was used to perform the hydraulic analysis. This model is a hydraulic model
developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center to perform
one - dimensional (1 -D) steady and unsteady flow calculations. The model uses
representative geometric data (cross- sections) and hydraulic computation routines.
Design cross - sectional dimensions determined through the analog /reference reach
approach were evaluated using the 1 -D steady flow analysis component and the channel
design functions within the HEC -RAS Model (Version 4.0.0). The cross - sectional dimensions
Best Mitigation Plan 76 October 2013

for reaches UT1 and UT2 were iteratively adjusted based on the model results to produce a
channel design that will regularly flood the adjacent riparian areas. Model results are
presented in Appendix C. The results are organized by reach, discharge, and STA number
and include water surface elevation, velocity, flow area, stream power, and shear stress.
7.3.2 Wetland Data Analysis
7.3.2.1 Wetland Hydrologic Analysis
In general, hydrology of a small stream swamp wetland system is derived from seasonal or
temporary overbank flooding of the adjacent stream channel and the seasonal high water
table elevation controlled by the stream water surface elevation. Many resources describe
the duration and frequency of flooding as highly inconsistent. As described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990), small stream swamp systems have highly variable flow regimes with floods
of short duration and periods of very low flow; however, smaller watersheds lead to a more
variable flooding regime. Additionally, the influence of channel overbank flow may vary
seasonally to yearly in magnitude, duration, and frequency (WRP Technical Note HY -EV-
2.1, 1993). It may be anticipated that the majority of flooding of riparian wetlands occurs
during the winter months and the early portions of the growing season. Surface water of
riparian wetlands may be present for extended periods during the growing season and
usually greater than 14 consecutive days, but is typically absent by the end of the growing
season in most typical years (EPA, 1995). Field indicators of surface inundation include
water - stained leaves, drifts lines and water marks on trees (EPA, 1995). In the absence of
surface water, the water table is often near the ground elevation.
Due to the direct relationship between stream flow and riparian wetland hydrology the
proposed stream was designed to provide periodic overbank flow within the bounds of the
proposed wetland.
7.3.2.2 Wetland Water Balance
The proposed wetland restoration areas are located adjacent to the headwater of UT1 and
at the downstream end of UT2 and on the floodplain of Muddy Creek. Runoff from the local
watershed will also provide hydrologic input and will provide the opportunity for nutrient and
pollutant removal in these wetlands. To determine the general input from the watershed in
terms of providing significant hydrology needed to sustain saturated conditions, a general
water balance analysis was performed.
In order to determine suitable hydrology for the proposed Wetland Creation/ Enhancement
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, existing hydrologic conditions were evaluated through
a water balance analysis. This water balance is a model for water depths and potential
drawdown for the proposed wetland construction. A watershed approach was applied and
methods outlined in Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands (Pierce, 1993) were
followed.
The water balance presented in this report was determined from the following equation:
S = P + R + G — ET — I. Where S is storage, P is precipitation, R is runoff, G is groundwater,
ET is evapotranspiration, and I is infiltration (Pierce, 1993).
It is expected that regular occurrences of overbank flooding will provide significant
hydrologic input into these wetlands that is not shown in these water balance calculations.
Long -term rainfall was obtained from the North Carolina Climate Office, and potential runoff
Best Mitigation Plan 77 October 2013

was estimated using methodology detailed in Urban Hydrology for Small Watershed -
Technical Release 55 (USDA -NRCS 1986).
Groundwater
Due to landscape position and the geology of the coastal plain, groundwater can provide
significant input to a wetland system. Where present, the amount of groundwater input is
difficult to estimate. Within the lower landscape positions it was assumed that any
groundwater is relatively static, any discharge elevation is just below the wetland and does
not provide direct hydrologic input, but prevents infiltration, resulting in both values being
zero. For Wetland 3b, groundwater discharge was determined to be a large enough quantity
to estimate. A conservative estimate of 117 cubic feet /day was used across the wetter
period extending from January through April with May at two thirds and November -
December at one half to approximate drawdown and replenishment periods of the
hydrological cycle.
Precipitation
Daily precipitation data and temperature data from the Warsaw (COOP) weather station has
been compiled for a 28 -year period of record from January 1, 1984 through September 31,
2012 (The North Carolina State Climatologist http : / /www.nc - climate.ncsu.edu /; Attachment
A). The Warsaw Station was used, as it is the closest station to the site with a large portion
of the records available. Out of 330 months, 18 were absent, primarily before 1996. Average
monthly precipitation values were then calculated from these data and applied to the water
balance calculations.
Precipitation only calculates runoff from the small local watershed to the wetland restoration.
The larger drainage area encompassed by the adjacent channel is not evaluated, but will
contribute overbank flows to provide additional input to wetland hydrology.
Evapotranspiration
A long -term record of weather data for the area is missing or not collected. (Daily
temperature data available from the Warsaw (COOP) weather station has been compiled for
a 28 -year period of record from January 1, 1984 through September 31, 2012 (The North
Carolina State Climatologist http : / /www.nc - climate.ncsu.edu /; Attachment A). An alternative
estimate for Evapotranspiration was calculated based on daily temperatures by a method
defined by Richard Allen et al. (2006).
ET, = 0.0023(Tmean +17.8) (Tmax -Tmin f5
Where;
ET,,
reference crop evapotranspiration [mm day -11
Tmean
daily mean air temperature [ °C]
Tmax
daily maximum air temperature [ °C]
Tmin
daily minimum air temperature [ °C]
Ra
extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m -2 day -1]
Values for Ra for different latitudes are given in a table provided by the authors, where
values "deviate from values that are averaged over each day of the month by less than one
percent for all latitudes during non - frozen periods ..."
Runoff Calculations
Runoff onto the wetland creation /enhancement site was determined by using the TR -55
Curve Number Method as described by Pierce 1993. Rainfall is defined as each 24 -hour
Best Mitigation Plan 78 October 2013

rainfall total as recorded by the local weather station. The drainage area for the local
watershed of each proposed wetland was delineated using 7.5 Minute USGS topographic
quadrangle for Drake, North Carolina; (Figure 2).
Determination of days producing runoff is based upon the minimum rainfall amount needed
to produce runoff (Q). The value of Q for the drainage area was calculated from daily
precipitation values over the period of record. The equation for calculating runoff is as
follows:
E24
Q
S
A 24 -hour rainfall record was determined using precipitation data.
Runoff determined using precipitation data and watershed characteristics specific to
the site.
The potential maximum retention after runoff begins (inches). This is related to soil
and soil cover conditions of the watershed through the Curve Number (see below).
Where P24 is the maximum rainfall occurring in a 24 -hour period (over the period of record),
CN is the composite curve number, and S is the storage capacity of the soil. A composite
curve was calculated by subdividing the watershed with respect to soil hydrologic group and
land use then determining the appropriate curve number for each subdivision using tables
published by the USDA (1986). The area and curve number were multiplied, summed and
divided by the total watershed area to calculate the composite curve number as described
below.
CN = I (CN * SubdividedArea)
(WatershedArea)
By this method the composite curve number for proposed wetland creation /enhancement
site was;
Wetland ... ............................... Composite CN
1 ................... ........................... 74.7
2 ............... ............................... 75.9
3a............. ............................... 71.8
Best Mitigation Plan 79 October 2013
(P24 — 0.25)2
Q
=
(P24 + 0.85)
S
_ 010001_10
I\
CN JJ
100
z
P24 —0.2
—10
C
�jj
1000
1
P24
+ 0.8
_
10
CN
J
E24
Q
S
A 24 -hour rainfall record was determined using precipitation data.
Runoff determined using precipitation data and watershed characteristics specific to
the site.
The potential maximum retention after runoff begins (inches). This is related to soil
and soil cover conditions of the watershed through the Curve Number (see below).
Where P24 is the maximum rainfall occurring in a 24 -hour period (over the period of record),
CN is the composite curve number, and S is the storage capacity of the soil. A composite
curve was calculated by subdividing the watershed with respect to soil hydrologic group and
land use then determining the appropriate curve number for each subdivision using tables
published by the USDA (1986). The area and curve number were multiplied, summed and
divided by the total watershed area to calculate the composite curve number as described
below.
CN = I (CN * SubdividedArea)
(WatershedArea)
By this method the composite curve number for proposed wetland creation /enhancement
site was;
Wetland ... ............................... Composite CN
1 ................... ........................... 74.7
2 ............... ............................... 75.9
3a............. ............................... 71.8
Best Mitigation Plan 79 October 2013

3b............. ............................... 78.3
Runoff
Daily runoff (R) was calculated from the amount of precipitation (P) for each day. Those
days that returned positive values (i.e. runoff occurred) were then summed to return the
monthly runoff (R) produced within the watershed area. Those events that return positive
values (i.e. runoff occurred) are then summed to return the amount of runoff (R) produced
by each acre in the watershed. Once runoff values were calculated for the drainage area, it
was necessary to adjust these values to reflect the amount of water seen on the site as
follows:
R = (Watershed Runoff) * (Watershed Area) / (Site Area)
These runoff values are then summed each month for the entire period and averaged for the
watershed. Runoff for each wetland is summarized in Appendix C.
Infiltration
The proposed wetland creation / enhancement area is mapped as Rains and Goldsboro soil.
Soil borings in these areas indicates the soil is closer to Rains. The Rains mapping unit is
poorly drained and has a loamy surface underlain by clayey subsoil found in lower
landscape positions. The Goldsboro mapping unit is moderately well drained and has a
loamy surface underlain by clayey subsoil found in higher landscape positions.
Infiltration into the soil on the site was based upon the permeability range (0.0 to 0.05 in /hr)
indicated for hydrologic soil group D soils (USDA 1986). During months where the seasonal
high water table is above 12 inches, the infiltration was assumed to be negligible and set to
zero. The Rains soil typically has a seasonal high water table from December through April
ranging from zero to 12 inches in depth. Infiltration is calculated by converting permeability
from centimeters per second (cm /sec) to inches per month (in /mo). Infiltration is expected to
be low or near zero during these months, and was estimated to be zero for the water
balance calculation.
Hydrograph
The calculated data has been compiled and a hydrograph has been plotted illustrating the
monthly average flow of water in and out of the proposed wetland construction area
(Appendix C). These values are represented in acre - inches. Results of this analysis
indicate that there is a period of drawdown during the months of April and November. These
results also indicate that runoff and direct precipitation will, in average years, provide
adequate wetland hydrology during most of the growing season at the wetland restoration
area.
Conclusions
This water balance analysis was conducted to evaluate the existing hydrology of the
proposed wetland restoration area and to determine if the proposed wetland design is
appropriate for this site. The modeling presented in this report indicates that there is
sufficient hydrology at appropriate times of the year to support wetland vegetation.
Field observations indicate that existing conditions of the proposed wetland restoration area
includes hydric soils and proximity to the floodplain. These observations suggest that
overbank flows from the restored stream channel will play a significant role in overall site
Best Mitigation Plan 80 October 2013

hydrology, especially Wetland W2. However, without more detailed data with regards to the
fluctuating groundwater table, this information is unreliable and also unpredictable.
Therefore, conducting a water balance analysis assures a minimum water source to the site.
It is expected that regular occurrences of overbank flooding will provide significant
hydrologic input into these wetlands not shown in these water balance calculations.
7.3.3 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs
described in this document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods
was determined to be appropriate for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes
of disturbance are known and have been abated, and there are minimal infrastructure
constraints. The original design parameters were developed from the measured
analog /reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The parameters were then
analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and numerical
simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the
restoration of natural Coastal Plain sand -bed channel features and stream bed diversity to
improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design
bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain, restoring a portion of the hydrology for the
existing wetlands.
A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the
restoration channel and from the farm path built adjacent to the channel. However, many
segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood storage. Native
woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress, provide
grade control, and increase habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel will be established
along the project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community, a Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp — Blackwater subtype community, will be established to include a diverse
mix of species. Three zones will be used depending upon expected hydrologic conditions.
Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during
construction.
Reductions in nutrients and other pollutants will be achieved with the buffer restoration work,
providing substantial benefits to the watershed. The proposed Best Site Mitigation Site
includes a large Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement area along the floodplain of
Muddy Creek and hydrologically connects the proposed restoration areas. Wetlands W1,
W2, and W3 are proposed adjacent to the stream restoration of the Best Site Mitigation Site.
8 MAINTENANCE PLAN
NCEEP shall monitor the site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of
the site a minimum of once per year throughout the post- construction monitoring period until
performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most
often in the first two years following site construction and may include the following:
Best Mitigation Plan 81 October 2013

Table 25. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking
of in- stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting,
and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank
failures and head - cutting.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing
of loose coir matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and
other target vegetation within the wetland. Areas where stormwater and
floodplain flows intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to
prevent scour.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair
activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and
fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by
mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be
identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other means
as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and /or
replaced on an as needed basis.
Utility Right -of -Way
Utility rights -of -way within the site may be maintained only as allowed
by Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions,
rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Ford Crossing
Ford crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements.
Best Mitigation Plan 82 October 2013

9 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Best Site stream restoration will follow accepted and approved
success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent
NCEEP and agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
9.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
9.1.1 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven -year monitoring period. The
two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will
continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
9.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place, they
should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable
condition (for example down - cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an
increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or
decrease in width /depth ratio). Cross - sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream
classification method, and all monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
9.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation,
bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel
or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive
erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of images over time
should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
9.2 Wetland Success Criteria
The NRCS does not have a current WETs table for Duplin County upon which to base a
normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data was
determined to be from Sampson County. The growing season is from March 26 to
November 14. Based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit
occurring in five of ten years, the growing season for Sampson County is 242 days long.
Successful establishment of wetland hydrology will be demonstrated by a wetland
hydroperiod of nine percent or greater of one growing season (22 days) at each
groundwater gauge location. In growing seasons with less than normal rainfall, no hydrology
data will be used.
If a gauge location fails to meet these success criteria in the seven year monitoring period
then monitoring may be extended, remedial actions may be undertaken, or groundwater
modeling may be used to demonstrate the limits of wetland restoration.
9.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the
site will follow NCEEP Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02
Best Mitigation Plan 83 October 2013

acres in size, and cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation
monitoring will occur annually in the fall of each year. The interim measures of vegetative
success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted three -year old trees per acre
at the end of Year 3, 260 five -year old trees at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative
success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of
Year 7.
9.4 Scheduling /Reporting
A mitigation plan and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the mitigation site. The report will
include all information required by NCEEP mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations,
photographs and sampling plot locations, gauge locations, and a description of initial
species composition by community type. The report will also include a list of the species
planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring will follow CVS-
NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0. Level 1 and Level 2 monitoring will
be conducted. The baseline report will follow Baseline Monitoring Report Template and
Guidance version 2.0 (10/14/10).
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and
progress toward achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be
assessed to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be
undertaken for five years or until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to
NCEEP. The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by
NCEEP in Version 2.0 of the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template.
Best Mitigation Plan 84 October 2013

10 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring
report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project
status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist
in decision making regarding project close -out. The success criteria for the Best Site stream
and wetland mitigation will follow current accepted and approved success criteria presented
in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, NCEEP requirements, and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented Table 26. Monitoring reports
will be prepared annually and submitted to EEP.
Table 26. Monitoring Requirements
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003
Additional surveys will be performed if
USACE Wilmington
Pattern
District Stream
Baseline
monitoring indicates instabilityor
significant channel migration
Mitigation Guidelines
As per April 2003
Baseline,
USACE Wilmington
Years
Dimension
Surveyed cross sections and bank pins
District Stream
12,35, and
Mitigation Guidelines
7
As per April 2003
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed if
Profile
Baseline
District Stream
monitoring indicates instability
Mitigation Guidelines
Crest Gauges and /or Pressure
As per April 2003
Transducers will be installed on site; the
Surface Water
USACE Wilmington
devices will be inspected on a
Annual
Hydrology
District Stream
quarterly /semi - annual basis to document
Mitigation Guidelines
the occurrence of bankfull events on the
project
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Groundwater
recording devices will be installed on site;
Annual
Hydrology
the data will be downloaded on a quarterly
basis during the growing season
Vegetation will be monitored using the
Vegetation
Annual
Carolina Vegetation Survey(CVS)
protocols
Exotic and
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Nuisance
Annual
vegetation will be mapped
Vegetation
Locations offence damage, vegetation
Project
Semi-
damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
Boundary
annual
will be mapped
Stream Visual
Annual
Semi - annual visual assessments
Wetland Visual
i
lAnnual
Semi - annual visual assessments
10.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size,
condition, and location. The survey will include a complete profile of Thalweg, water surface,
Best Mitigation Plan 85 October 2013

bankfull, and top of bank to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will
not be required in annual monitoring reports unless requested by NCEEP or USACE.
Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes placed near the top of bank every 100
feet.
10.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring
year by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor,
invasive species, and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will
include a complete streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed
representative locations to record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem
areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view
exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be
used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos
should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase
in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing
degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
10.3 Cross Sections
Permanent cross - sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with
half in pools and half in shallows. All cross - section measurements will include bank height
ratio and entrenchment ratio. Cross - sections will be monitored annually. There should be
little change in as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to
determine if they represent movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width /depth ratio).
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2
within restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of
two bankfull events documented in the seven -year monitoring period.
10.4 Bank Pin Arrays
Bank pin arrays will be used as a supplemental method to monitor erosion on selected
meander bends where there is not a cross section. Bank pin arrays will be installed along
the outer bend and upstream third and downstream third of the meander. Bank pins will be
installed just above the water surface and every two feet above the lowest pin. Bank pin
exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event, and the exposed pin will be driven flush
with the bank.
10.5 Surface Flow
UT1, W1, and the headwater valley restoration area on UT4 will be monitored to document
intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation,
photo documentation of dye tests, and installation of groundwater gauges and continuous
flow monitoring devices (pressure transducers).
10.6 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland
restoration areas. This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer
Best Mitigation Plan 86 October 2013

gauges installed in representative locations across the restoration areas and reference
wetland. The gauges will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be
calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation will follow current regulatory and
EEP guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators
will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
10.7 Vegetative Success Criteria
Vegetative monitoring success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site
will follow NCEEP Guidance dated 7 November 2011. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a
minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area. The
following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or
volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will occur each year during the monitoring period.
The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320
planted three -year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3 and 260 five -year old trees per
acre at the end of Year 5. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210
trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7 of the monitoring
period.
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and controlled so that none become
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the site. If necessary, EBX will develop
a species- specific control plan.
10.8 Remedial Actions
The Mitigation Plan will include a detailed adaptive management plan that will address how
potential problems are resolved. In the event that the site, or a specific component of the
site, fails to achieve the defined success criteria, EBX will develop necessary adaptive
management plans and /or implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in
coordination with NCEEP and the review agencies. Remedial action required will be
designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and will include identification
of the causes of failure, remedial design approach, work schedule, and monitoring criteria
that will take into account physical and climatic conditions. If tree mortality affects 40 percent
or greater of the canopy in a stream or wetland restoration area, then a
remedial /supplemental planting plan will be developed and implemented for the affected
area(s).
Best Mitigation Plan 87 October 2013

11 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be
transferred to the State of North Carolina (State). The State shall be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the
deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement
and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship
Program currently houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest -
bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the
Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3).
Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The
NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested
in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
Best Mitigation Plan 88 October 2013

12 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, EEP will implement the post- construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as
described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is
determined that the site's ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized,
EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of
Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may require engineering
and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized EEP will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring
requirements as necessary and /or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall
depict the extent and nature of the work performed.
Best Mitigation Plan 89 October 2013

13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In-
Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by
EEP. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented
by the program.
Best Mitigation Plan 90 October 2013

14 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 References
Duplin County, North Carolina. Available online at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /. [Accessed 25
October 2011.1
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open - Channel Hydraulics, McGraw -Hill, New York
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS /OBS- 79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Faber - Langendoen, D., Rocchio, J., Schafale, M., Nordman, C., Pyne, M., Teague, J., Foti,
T., Comer, P. (2006), Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for
Wetland Mitigation. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical
Note No. EMRRP- SR -29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-
HRT -05 -072.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and J.F. Franklin. (2002), Conserving forest biodiversity: A
comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design
Handbook (NEH 654), USDA
NCDENR 2005. "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan." Division of Water Quality.
http: / /Portal.ncdenr.org/ web /wq /ps /bpu /basin /capefear /2005. (February 2013).
NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina."
Water Quality http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /home. (February 2012).
Best Mitigation Plan 91 October 2013

NCDENR 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists - Category 5." Water Quality Section.
http: / /Portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /home. (August 2012).
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for
recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262 -274
Pierce, G.J. 1993. Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands. Wetland Training Institute,
Inc. Poolesville, MD.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2„ d edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa
Springs, CO
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
Tweedy, K. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater
Systems. Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice,
November 2008, Asheville, NC. Unpublished Conference Paper, 2008.
http: / /www.bae.ncsu.edu /programs/ extension /wqg /srp /2008conference /tweedy paper.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1, January 1987.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02 -2,
December 24, 2002.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), 1959. Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Memorandum: Application of
Best Management Practices to Mechanical Silvicultural Site Preparation Activities for the
Establishment of Pine Plantation in the Southeast. US Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(http: / /water.epa.gov /lawsregs /guidance /wetlands /silv2.cfm #one)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version
2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC /EL TR- 10 -20. Vicksburg, MS:
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), Web Soil Survey; http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (Decemeber 2011).
Best Mitigation Plan 92 October 2013

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010.
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt,
and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, (USEPA, 1999) 1999. EPA Manual.
Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services. http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /. (November
2012).
USDA -NRCS. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
Young, T. F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework for assessing and reporting on
ecological condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee. EPA Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC.
Best Mitigation Plan 93 October 2013

14.2 Appendix A — Site Protection Instrument(s)
Conservation Easement Deeds
Preliminary Plats
Note: This appendix will be updated as the easement deeds and plats become available.
Best Mitigation Plan October 2013

14.3 Appendix B — Baseline Information Data
Best Baseline Information Table
Best USACE Routine Wetland Data Forms
Best Mapped Soil Series and Boring Logs
Best NCDWQ Stream Determination Data Forms
Reference Reach NCDWQ Stream Determination Data Forms
Best Existing Conditions Cross Section Charts
Best NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Data Forms
Best Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Best Channel Stability Assessment Forms
Best EDR Report
Best Environmental Screening and Resource Agency Correspondence
Best CE
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD 1006)
EDR Reports
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Best Correspondence
(See included CD for Appendix B)
Best Mitigation Plan October 2013

14.4 Appendix C — Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Best Morphological Parameters
Reference Reach Existing Cross Section and Profile Charts
Best Stable Channel Hydraulic Design Output
HEC -RAS Data Output
Best Water Balance
Best Mitigation Plan October 2013

14.5 Appendix D— Best Design Plan Sheets (11"x17")
Best Mitigation Plan October 2013