20141328 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan_20141222

Stream Mitigation Plan
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Wake County, North Carolina
N CEEP Project I D No. 96074
Cape Fear River Basi n: 03030004- 020010
USACE Action I D No. SAW- 2013 -02009
December 2014

Stream Mitigation Plan
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Wake County, North Carolina
N CEEP Project I D No. 96074
Cape Fear River Basi n: 03030004- 020010
USACE Action I D No. SAW- 2013 -02009
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
1652 M ai I Servi ce Center
Rat ei gh, N C 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
December 2014
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II 8
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
M i chael Baker Engi neeri ng, I nc. ( Baker) proposes to restore 4,5401 i near f eet (L F) of stream, and enhance
4,007 L F of stream a1 ong three unnamed tri butari es (UTs) to Thomas Creek. The Thomas Creek Restorati on
Proj ect si to (prof ect) i s I ocated i n Wake County, N orth Carol i na (N C) (Fi gure 2. 1), approxi matel y 1.5 mi I es
southwest of the Communi ty of N edv H i 11. The proj ect i s I ocated i n the Cape Fear Ri ver Basi n wi thi n N C
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03 -06 -07 and in the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) of
Harris Lake (HU 03030004 - 020010), as listed by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). The
purpose of the proj ect i s to restore and/or enhance stream and ri pari an buffer f uncti ons a1 ong i mpai red stream
channel s at the si te. A recorded conservati on easement consi sti ng of 22.7 acres (Fi gure 3.1) wi I I protect a1 I
stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity. Examination of available hydrology and soil data indicate
the proj ect wi I I potenti a1 I y provi de numerous water quad i ty and ecol ogi cad benef i is wi thi n the H arri s Lake
subwatershed, as wel I as to the Cape Fear Ri ver Basi n.
Based on the N CEEP 2009 Cape Fear Ri ver Basi n Restorati on Pri on ti es (RB RP) pl an, the Thomas Creek
Restorati on Proj ect area i s I ocated i n an exi sti ng targeted I ocal watershed (TL W) wi thi n the Cape Fear Ri ver
Basi n (2009 Cape Fear RB RP), and i s I ocated wi thi n the M i ddl a Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks
Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area (LWP Fact Sheet). The restoration strategy as stated in the RBRPfor
the Cape Fear 0303004 8 -di gi t Cata1 og U ni t (CU) i s to promote Low I mpact Devel opment, stormwater
management, restorati on and buffer protecti on i n urbani zi ng areas, and buffer preservati on el seNhere.
The pri many goal s of the proj ect are to i mprove ecol ogi c f uncti ons through the restorati on and enhancement
of streams and buffers i n a degraded, urbani zi ng area as descri bed i n the N CEEP 2009 Cape Fear RB RP, and
are i denti f i ed bet ow:
• Create geomorphi cal I y stabl a condi ti ons a1 ong the unnamed tri butari es throughout the si te,
• Protect and i mprove water quad i ty by reduci ng streambank erosi on, and nutri ent and sedi ment i nputs,
• Restore stream and f I oodpl ad n i nteracti on by connecti ng hi stori c f I ow paths and promoti ng natural
f I ood processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• 1 mprove aquati c and terrestri a1 habi tat through i mproved substrate and i n- stream cover, addi ti on of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature.
To accompl i sh these goal s, the f of I owi ng obj ecti ves have been i denti f i ed:
• Restore exi sti ng i nci sed, erodi ng, and channel i zed streams by provi di ng them access to thei r rel i c
f I oodpl ei ns,
• 1 mpl ement agri cut tural BM Ps to reduce nonpoi nt source i nputs to recei vi ng waters,
• Prevent cattl e f rom accessi ng the conservati on easement boundary by i nstal I i ng permanent f enci ng
and thus reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquatic habitat vat ue by providing more bedform diversity, creati ng natural scour pools and
reduci ng sedi ment f rom accel erated streambank erosi on,
• R ant nati ve sped es ri pari an buff er vegetati on a1 ong streambank and f I oodpl ei n areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve
streambank stabi I i ty and ri pari an habi tat connecti vi ty, and shade the stream to decrease water
temperature,
• Control i nvasi ve sped es vegetati on wi thi n much of the proj ect area and, i f necessary, Conti nue
treatments during the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

The proposed proj ect al i gns wi th overal I N CEEP goal s, whi ch focus on sedi ment, nutri ent and other non-
point source (N PS) pot I utant management. Specific N CEEP RBRP goal s i ncl ude restori ng streams and
ri pari an areas, mai ntai ni ng and enhanci ng water quad i ty, i ncreasi ng storage of f I oodwaters, and i mprovi ng f i sh
and wi I dl i fe habi tat. The proposed natural channel desi gn (N CD) approach wi I I resul t i n a stabl a ri pari an
stream system that will reduce excess sediment and nutrient i nputs to the Harris Lake subwatershed, while
i mprovi ng water qual i ty condi ti ons that support terrestri al and aquati c sped es, i ncl udi ng pri on ty speci es
i denti f i ed i n the Cape Fear Ri ver Basi n RB RP (N CEEP, 2009) .
Thi s mi ti gati on pl an has been wri tten i n conformance wi th the requi rements of the f of I owi ng:
• Federal rut a for compensatory mi ti gati on proj ect si tes as descri bed i n the Federal Regi ster Ti td e 33
Navi gati on and Navi gabl a Waters Vol ume 3 Chapter 2 Secti on § 332.8, paragraphs (c) (2) through
(c) (14).
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program I n -Lieu Fee I nstrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern N CEEP operati ons and procedures for the del i very of compensatory mi ti gati on.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

Table ES.1 Thomas Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Existing
Design
SMU
Reach
Design
Reach
Reach
Credi t
Credit
Stationing
Approach
Length
Length;
Ratio
SMUs
(LF)
(LF)
Comment
Unnamed Tributaries to Thomas Creek (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, T1, T2)
Restoration will continue from Reach R2 with
a Priority Level I I approach to tie into existing
bedrock at the downstream project extent. A
si ngl a thread meanderi ng channel wi I I be
41 +81 to
constructed mostly in Iinewith the existing
R1
R
397
266
1:1
266
44 +47*
channel ; energy wi I I be di ssi pated by
incorporating a step pool sequence. Work
will include vegetation planting in disturbed
riparian buffer areas, and permanent cattle
excl usi on fenci ng around the easement.
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level II approach initially but will transition
to Priority Level I near the stream crossing.
Priorty I I is favored in the upstream portion of
he reach due to the existi ng locations of
mature trees. However, in the downstream
R2
R
1,995
2,107
1:1
2,087
20 +74 to
ti on work will consist of rasing the
41 +81*
reambed el evati on and constructi ng a new
channel off-line. Work will also include
planting nati ve vegetati on in disturbed
riparian buffer areas and permanently
excluding cattle from the easement with
enci ng.
Restoration will pri marl y consist of Priority I
restoration though there are sections where
R3
11 +30 to
Priority I I wi I I be i mpl emented. The
(downstream
R
937
949
1:1
929
20 +74*
reambed wi I I be rased along the upstream
section)
portion of the reach, and a bankful l bench,
here necessary, wi I I be graded to provide
connecti on to a geomorphi c fl oodpl ai n.
Enhancement Level I I wi I I be i mpl emented
al Ong the reach. A 50 -foot ri pari an buffer wi I I
R3
(upstream
E 11
130
130
5:1
26
10 +00 to
be planted with native vegetation along each
11 +30*
bank and a conservation easement wi I I be
section)
establ i shed. I nvasi ve Sped es wi I I be removed
throughout the buffer area.
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level I and I I approach. Work will involve a
R4
10 +10 to
combination of rasing a section of the
(downstream
R
327
361
1:1
361
13 +71*
reambed along the upstream portion of the
section
reach, and grading a bankfulI bench to provid
connection to a geomorphic fl oodpl ai n.
Enhancement Level I I wi I I be i mpl emented to
pl ant a 50 -foot ri pari an buffer on each bank
R4 (upstream
E 11
870
870
10:1
87
0 +99 to
and establish a conservation easement.
section)
9 +69 *
I nvasi ve Sped es wi I I not be removed per an
agreement with the NCI RT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE V 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level I approach, and wi I I i nvolve a
combination of rasing the elevation of a
R5
section of streambed and constructing a new
(downstream
R
883
1064
1:1
1044
29 +45 to
channel off-line. Work will also include
section)
40 +09*
planting nati ve vegetati on in disturbed
riparian buffer areas and permanently
excluding cattle from the easement with
fencing.
Enhancement Level I I wi I I be i mpl emented to
R5
28 +08 to
pl ant a 50 -foot ri pari an buffer on each bank
(upstream
E 11
137
137
5:1
27
29 +45*
and protect with a conservation easement.
section
I nvasi ve speci es wi I I also be removed.
Enhancement Level I I wi I I be i mpl emented to
R6
12 +10 to
pl ant a 50 -foot ri pari an buffer on each bank
(downstream
E 11
1618
1618
5:1
320
28 +08*
and establish a conservation easement.
section)
I nvasi ve speci es wi I I also be removed.
Work will follow an Enhancement Level I
approach and wi I I consist of the
i mpl ementati on of a step pool sequence and
R6
10 +00 to
erti cal bank gradi ng, to i nc1 ude fl oodpl a n
(upstream
E I
210
210
1.5:1
140
12 +10*
benches. Work wi I I also i ncl ude native
section)
egetati on pl anti ng i n di sturbed ri pari an
buffer areas. A conservation easement will be
establ i shed.
Enhancement Level I I wi I I be i mpl emented to
R7
13 +60 to
pl ant a 50 -foot ri pari an buffer on each bank
(downstream
E 11
286
286
5:1
57
16 +46*
and protect with a conservation easement.
section)
I nvasi ve speci es wi I I also be removed.
Enhancement Level I I is proposed for the
reach. Work wi I I i nc1 ude mi nor streambank
R7
opi ng and stabi I i zati on, use of i n- stream
(upstream
E 11
360
360
2.5:1
144
10 +00 to
structures to provide grade control, and
section)
13 +60*
vegetati on planting in disturbed riparian
buffer areas. A conservation easement will be
established.
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
10 +00 to
Level I I approach and tie i n to Reach R2.
T 1
E 1
242
253
1.5:1
155
12 +53*
Work wi I I al so i ncl ude vegetati on pl anti ng i n
disturbed riparian buffer areas.
Enhancement Level I I is proposed for the
reach. Work wi I I i nc1 ude mi nor streambank
10 +00 to
sl opi ng and stabi I i zati on, I i mi ted use of i n-
T2
E 11
171
158
2.5:1
63
11 +58*
stream structures, vegetation planting in
disturbed riparian buffer areas, and permanent
cattl a excl usi on fenci ng around the easement.
*Note: Crossings have been removed from the potential
Total
-
5,706
SM U s provi ded i n thi s tabl e.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................... ............................... 1 -1
2.0 SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................. ............................... 2 -1
2.1 PROJECT D ESCRI PTI ON ......................................................................................................... ............................2
-1
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Tr ends ............................................................ ...............................
2 -2
2.1.2 Successional Trends and Watershed Overview ............................................................ ...............................
2 -2
2.2 VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................... ............................2
-4
2.3 WATERSHED MAP ............................................................................................................. ...............................
2 -5
2.4 SOILS MAP ........................................................................................................................... ............................2
-6
2.5 CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP ............................................................................................. ...............................
2 -7
2.6 HISTORICAL CONDITIONSMAPS ....................................................................................... ...............................
2 -8
2.7 LIDARMAP ....................................................................................................................... ...........................2
-11
2.8 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................ ...............................
2 -12
2.8.1 Reach RI .................................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -12
2.8.2 Reach R2 .................................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -13
2.8.3 Reaches R3 and R4 .................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -14
2.8.4 Reaches RS and R6 .................................................................................................... ...............................
2-15
2.8.5 Reaches R7, T1, and T2 ............................................................................................. ...............................
2 -16
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ............................................................................. ............................... 3 -1
3.1 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT SUMMARY INFORMATION .................................................. ............................3
-1
3.1.1 Potential Constraints ................................................................................................... ...............................
3 -1
3.2 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FIGURE .............................................................................. ............................3
-2
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ........................................................................................... ............................... 4 -1
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS .................................................................................. ............................... 5 -1
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .................................................................................... ............................... 6 -1
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN .......................................................................................... ............................... 7 -1
7.1 TARGET STREAM TYPE(S), WETLAND TYPE(S), AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ..................... ...............................
7 -1
7. 1.1 Target Stream Types ........................................................................................................ ...............................
7 -1
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types ...................................................................................................... ...............................
7 -1
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities ............................................................................................... ...............................
7 -1
7.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................... ...............................
7 -1
7.3 DATAANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. ............................7
-5
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................................................... ............................... 8 -1
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ..................................................................................... ............................... 9 -1
9.1 STREAM MONITORING ...................................................................................................... ...............................
9 -1
9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions ..................................................................... ...............................
9 -2
9.1.2 Cross Sections .............................................................................................................. ...............................
9 -2
9.1.3 Pattern ......................................................................................................................... ...............................
9 -2
9.1.4 Longitudinal Profile ..................................................................................................... ...............................
9 -2
9.1.5 Bed Material Analvses ................................................................................................. ...............................
9 -3
9.1.6 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................ ...............................
9 -3
9.2 VEGETATION MONITORING ............................................................................................... ...............................
9 -3
9.3 WETLAND MONITORING ................................................................................................... ...............................
9 -4
9.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING .................................................................... ...............................
9-4
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... ...............................
10 -1
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................ ...............................
11 -1
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................ ............................... 12 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VII 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 -1
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1
14.1 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................... ...........................14 -1
14.2 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... ...........................14 -3
15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................ ............................... 15 -1
16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA .................................................. ............................... 16 -1
16.1 USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS —PER REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT TO 1987 MANUAL.....
16 -2
16.2 NCWAM FORMS — EXISTING WETLANDS ...................................................................... ...............................
16 -3
16.3 NCDWRSTREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS .................................................................... ...............................
16 -4
16.4 FHWA CATEGORICAL ExCLUSION FORM ....................................................................... ...............................
16 -5
16.5 FEMACOMPLIANCE- NCEEPFLOODPLAINREQUIREMENTSCHECKLIST ......................... ...........................16
-6
17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES ................. ...............................
17 -1
17.1 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY ................................................................................................ ...............................
17 -1
17.1.1 Existing Conditions Assessment ............................................................................ ...............................
17 -1
17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions .................................................................. ...............................
17 -17
17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators ........................................................................ ...............................
17 -31
17.2 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................ ..........................17
-35
17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge ............................................................................. ...............................
17 -35
17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions) ....... ...............................
17 -35
17.2.3 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge ..................................................... ...............................
17 -37
17.3 SEDIM ENT TRANSPORTANALYSIS ..................................................................................... ..........................17
-39
17.3.1 Background and Methodology ............................................................................ ...............................
17 -39
17.3.2 Sampling Data Results ........................................................................................ ...............................
17 -39
17.3.3 Predicted Channel Response ............................................................................... ...............................
17 -42
17.4 Ex I STI N G V EGETATI ON A SSESSM ENT ................................................................................ ..........................17
-45
17.4.1 Maintained /Disturbed ......................................................................................... ...............................
17 -45
17.4.2 Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas ................................................................ ...............................
17 -45
17.4.3 Dry -Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest /Alluvial and Bottomland Forest ....................... ...............................
17 -46
17.4.4 Invasive Species Vegetation ................................................................................ ...............................
17 -46
17.5 SITE WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... ...............................
17 -46
17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment ..................................................................... ...............................
17 -46
17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations .................................................................. ...............................
17 -48
17.5.3 Climatic Conditions ............................................................................................. ...............................
17 -48
17.5.4 Soil Characterization .......................................................................................... ...............................
17 -49
17.5.5 Plant Community Characterization ..................................................................... ...............................
17 -49
17.5.6 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings ............................................................ ...............................
17 -50
17.6 SITE CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... ...............................
17 -52
17.6.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction ... ...............................
17 -52
17.6.2 In- stream Structures and Other Construction Elements ...................................... ...............................
17 -53
18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS ................................................................. ............................... 18 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VIII 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

LIST OF TABLES
Tabl e
ES.1
Thomas Creek Restorati on Prcj ect Overvi edv (Streams)
Tabl e
1.0
Summary I nformati on for Fi el d I nvesti gati ons to Determi ne I ntermi ttent/Perenni a1 Status
Tabl e
3.1
Site Protection I nstrument Summary
Tabl e
4.1
Basel i ne I nformati on
Tabl e
5.1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Tabl e
6.1
Credi t Rel ease Schedul e
Tabl e
7.1
Project Design Stream Types
Tabl e
8.1
Routine Maintenance Components
Tabl e
10.1
M oni tori ng Requi rements
Tabl e
17.1
Representati ve Exi sti ng Condi ti ons Geomorphi c Data for Prcj ect Reaches: Stream Channel
Classification Level I I
Tabl e
17.2
Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Tabl e
17.3
Natural Channel Desi gn Parameters for Prcj ect Reaches
Tabl e
17.4
Reference Reach Parameters Used to Determi ne Desi gn Rati os
Tabl e
17.5
N C Rural R edmont Regi onal Curve Equati ons
Tabl e
17.6
Comparison of Bankful l Areas
Table
17.7
Bankfull DischargeAnalysis Summary
Tabl e
17.8
Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Tabl e
17.9
Compari son of M onthl y Rai of a1 I Amounts f or Prcj ect Si to vs. Long -term Averages
Tabl e
17.10
N RCS Soi I Series (Wake County Soi I Survey, U SDA -SCS, 1970)
Tabl e
17.11
Proposed Bare -Root and L i ve Stake Sped es
Tabl e
17.12
Proposed Permanent Seed M i xture
Tabl e
17.13
Proposed I n- Stream Structure Types and Locations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IX 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

LIST OF FIGURES
Fi gure
2.1
Vicinity Map
Fi gure
2.2
Watershed Map
Fi gure
2.3
Soi I s M ap
Fi gure
2.4
Current Condi ti ons Ran V i edv
Fi gure
2.5
H i stori cal Condi ti ons R an Vi edv (1938)
Fi gure
2.6
H i stori cal Condi ti ons R an Vi edv (1959)
Fi gure
2.7
H i stori cal Condi ti ons R an Vi edv (1981)
Figure
2.8
Li DAR Map
Fi gure
3.1
Si to Protecti on I nstrument M ap
Fi gure
9.1
Proposed Monitoring Device Locations
Fi gure
16.1
FEM A Fl oodpl ad n M ap
Fi gure
17.1
Existing Cross Sections for Project Reaches
Fi gure
17.2
Exi sti ng Cross -Secti on Data for Prcj ect Reaches
Fi gure
17.3
M i ti gati on Work Ran
Fi gure
17.4
Reference Streams Location Map
Fi gure
17.5
Sedi ment Parti cl a Si ze Di stri buti on
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE X 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Si to Protection I nstrument
Appendix B Basel i ne I nformati on Data
Appendix C Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D Project Ran Sheets
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE XI 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Thomas Creek Proj ect i s I ocated i n the M i ddl a Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks Local
Watershed Plan (LWP) area (NCEEP, 2006; LWP Fact Sheet). The project si te watershed i Ind udes
H ydrol ogi c U ni t Code (H U C) 03030004- 020010 whi ch was i denti f i ed as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in EEF1 s2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RB RP) Plan (NCEEP, 2009; 2009
Cape Fear RB RE) and i s i denti f i ed i n the M i ddl a Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks LWP Proj ect
Atlas (Atlas Reference Designation).
EEP devel oped a I oval watershed pl an for the 180 square mi I e drai nage area that i ncl uded I and use
anal ysi s, water qual i ty moni tori ng and stakehol der i nput to i denti fy probl ems wi th water quad i ty, habi tat,
and hydro) ogy. The M i ddl a Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks LWP covered a I arge area so onl y a
subset of the watershed received further assessment. Thomas Creek was i n the porti on of the LWP that
di d not undergo f urther eval uati on and assessment. Addi ti onal I y, the H arri s Lake subwatersheds
(i nd udi ng Thomas Creek) were exd uded from the functional assessment process. Nutrient management
was ci ted as a key concern for the management of H arri s Lake, though i t was determi ned to be outsi de of
the rel event scope of i ssues i mportant to the rest of the study area
AN mal operati ons, agri cud tural devel opment, di sturbance of natural ri pari an buffers (ti mber harvesti ng)
and other vari ous I and -di sturbi ng acti vi ti es i n the Thomas Creek subwatershed have negati vel y i mpacted
both water qual i ty and streambank stabi I i ty a1 ong Thomas Creek and i is vari ous tri butari es. To i mprove
watershed heal th, the 2009 Cape Fear RB RP emphasi zed the need for i ncreased i mpl ementati on of
agri cud tural best management practi ces (BM Ps) i n the Thomas Creek watershed. N utri ents, sedi mentati on,
streambank erosi on, I i vestock access to streams, channel modi f i cati on, and the I oss of wetl ands and
ri pari an buffers were stressors observed by Baker staff wi thi n the watershed.
The pri many goal s of the proj ect, as descri bed i n the N CEEP 2009 Cape Fear RBRP, are to i mprove
ecol ogi c f uncti ons and to manage nonpoi nt source I oadi ng to the i mpai red reaches. These are i denti f i ed
bed ow:
• Create geomorphi cal I y stabl a condi ti ons ad ong the UTs throughout the si te,
• Protect and i mprove water qual i ty by reduci ng nutri ent and sedi ment i nputs,
• Restore stream and f I oodpl ad n i nteracti on by connecti ng hi stori c f I ow paths and promoti ng natural
f I ood processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• 1 mprove aquati c habi tat through i mproved substrate and i n- stream cover, addi ti on of woody
debris, and reduction of water temperature.
To accompl i sh these goal s, the f of I owi ng obj ecti ves have been i denti f i ed:
• Restore exi sti ng i nd sed, erodi ng, and channel i zed streams by provi di ng them access to thei r rel i c
f I oodpl ai ns,
• 1 mpl ement agri cultured BM Ps to reduce nonpoi nt source (N PS) I oadi ng to recei vi ng waters,
• Prevent cattl e f rom accessi ng the conservati on easement boundary by i nstal I i ng permanent
fencing and thus reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquati c habi tat val ue by provi di ng more bedform di versi ty, creati ng natural scour pool s
and redud ng sedi ment f rom accd erated streambank erosi on,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -1 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

Rant native species riparian buffer vegetation along streambank and f I oodpl ad n areas, protected
by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve
streambank stabi I i ty and ri pari an habi tat connecti vi ty, and shade the stream to decrease water
temperature,
Control i nvasi ve sped es vegetati on wi thi n much of the proj ect area and, i f necessary, conti nue
treatments during the monitoring period.
The proposed proj ect a1 i gns wi th overal I N CEEP goal s, whi ch f ocus on restori ng streams and ri pari an
val ue by mai ntai ni ng and enhanci ng water quad i ty, i ncreasi ng storage of f I oodwaters, and i mprovi ng f i sh
and wi I dl i f e habi tat, as wel I as sped f i c N CEEP RB RP goal s i nd udi ng, but not I i mi ted to, nutri ent and
other nonpoi nt source pot I utant management. The proposed natural channel desi gn (N CD) approach wi I I
resul t i n a stab) e ri pari an stream system that wi I I reduce excess sedi ment and nutri ent i nputs to the
Thomas Creek subwatershed, whi I e i mprovi ng water quad i ty condi ti ons that support terrestri a1 and aquati c
sped es, i nd udi ng pri on ty sped es i denti f i ed i n the Cape Fear Ri ver Basi n RBRP (N CEEP, 2009).
The proj ect wi I I i nvol ve the restorati on and enhancement of a rural R edmont stream system (U SACE,
2010, Schafal a et a1., 1990) whi ch has been i mpai red due to past agri cud tural conversi on and cattl e
grazi ng. Due to the producti vi ty and accessi bi I i ty of these smal I er stream systems, many have experi enced
heavy human and cattle disturbance. Though the upper portion of the mai nstem ( Reach R3) has a narrow
wooded buffer, some secti ons have become hi ghl y unstabl a and are experi end ng acti ve wi deni ng and
downcutti ng. The I ower mad nstem ( Reaches R1 and R2) f I ows through acti ve pasture, and i s downcutti ng
and wi deni ng as i t seeks to reestabl i sh stabl a stream pattern.
Restorati on practi ces wi I I i nd ude rai si ng the exi sti ng streambed el evati on, reconnecti ng the stream to i is
red i c f I oodpl ai n, and restori ng natural overbank f I ows to areas previ oust y drai ned by di tchi ng acti vi ti es.
The exi sti ng channel s to be abandoned wi thi n the restorati on areas wi I I be parti a1 I y f i I I ed to decrease
surface and subsurface drai nage and rai se the I oval water tabl e. Permanent cattl a excel usi on f end ng wi I I be
i nstal I ed around a1 I proposed reaches and ri pari an buffers where cattl a have access (R1, R2, I ower R5,
upper R4, T 1, and T2). V egetati on buff ers i n excess of 50 f eet wi I I be establ i shed a1 ong both si des of the
reaches and a conservati on easement consi sti ng of 22.7 acres (AC) wi I I be recorded protect the si to i n
perpetuity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -2 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Project Description
The Thomas Creek Restoration Project ( project) is located in Wake County, North Carol i na (N C)
(Figure 2.1), approximately 1.5 mi I es southwest of the Community of N env Hi I I, as shown on the
Project Si to V i d ni ty Map (Figure 2.1). To access the site from Rat ei gh, take Interstate 40 and head
south on US-1 towards Sanford, for approxi mately 12 mi I es. Take the ramp for Exit 89 to NeN
Hill /Jordan Lake. At the end of the ramp turn right on NeN Hill - Holleman Rd. and continuefor 0.8
miles to the stop sign at 01 US Highway 1. Turn left on 01 US Highway 1 and continue 1.1 miles
before turni ng I eft on Shearon H arri s Rd. The denti nati on wi I I be on the ri ght i n 0.5 mi I es. Turn ri ght
onto the gravel road and conti nue to the end to park among the farm bui I di ngs. The restorati on si to i s
to the west.
The proj ect si to i s I ocated i n the N C Di vi si on of Water Resources (DWR) subbasi n 03 -06-07 of the
Cape Fear Ri ver Basi n (Fi gure 2.2) and i nd udes numerous unnamed tri butari es (UTs) to Thomas
Creek. Soi I s and topographi c i nformati on (Fi gures 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) i ndi cafe that the proj ect
reaches are underlain by Wehadkee and Bibb soi Is, which are frequently flooded and considered
hydri c. See Figure 2.3 for soi I conditions outside of the f I oodpl ai n area Note that the GI S soi Is layer
i n Fi gure 2.3 does not I i ne up wel I wi th the streams and conservati on easement; however, the N RCS
1970 Wake County soi I survey conf i rms that the f I oodpl ai n soi I s for a1 I of the proj ect reaches are
Wehadkee and Bi bb soi I s
Prcj ect Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, and T 1 are shown as dashed bl ue-I i ne streams on the U SGS
topographi c quadrangl a map (Fi gure 2). Prcj ect Reaches R5, R6, R7, and T2 are not shown as bl ue-
I i ne streams, dashed or sol i d. Reaches R1, R2, R3, and R4 are I i sted as perenni al streams wi thi n the
proj ect I i mi is on the 1970 Wake County Soi I Survey. The remai ni ng reaches are al I shown i n the Soi I
Survey maps and are I i sted as i ntermi ttent, and assi f i ed streams. The presence of hi stori c vat I eys f or
each of the proj ect stream systems can be seen f rom L I DA R i magery f or the si to (Fi gure 2.7) and was
conf i rmed duri ng f i el d i nvesti gati ons.
Fi el d eval uati ons of i ntermi ttent/perenni a1 stream status were made i n I ate M arch 2012. These
eval uati ons were based on N C Di vi si on of Water Resources (N CD WR) M ethodol ogy for
I denti f i cati on of I ntermi ttent and Perenni al Streams and Thei r Ori gi ns, (v 4.11) stream assessment
protocol s. Tabl e 1 bell ow presents the resul is of the f i el d eval uati ons a1 ong wi th the assessed status of
each proj ect reach. Copi es of the N CD WR d assi f i cati on forms are I ocated i n A ppendi x B.
Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Project
Existing Project
NCDWR Stream
Watershed Drainage
Stream Status
Reach
Reach Length
Classification Form
Area (acres)
Based on Field
Designation
00
Score`
Analyses
R1
397
37.5
246
Perennial
R2
2,391
38
176
Perennial
R3
1,067
37 /25
68
Perennial /
1 ntermi ttent
R4
1,197
31
36
Perennial
R5
1,023
31
53
Perennial
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -1 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

R6
1,828
25
32
1 ntermi ttent
R7
646
35/20
14
Perennial /
I ntermi ttent
T1
222
23.75
49
1 ntermi ttent
T2
170
20.75
5
1 ntermi ttent
Note I. Watershed drainage area was approximated based on USGS topographic (NC Streamstats) and
LIDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
The project si to i s I ocated in the middle of the Durham - Sanford Tri assi c subbasi n (Figure 2.1). This is
part of the Chatham Group, whi ch consi sts of sedi mentary rock, i nd udi ng congl omerate,
fangl omerate, sandstone, and mudstone. Observati ons by f i el d staff i n the watershed i ndi cafe that the
proj ect area has sandstone and mudstone; as such, f i ne grai ned sedi ment i s preval ent, and materi al
coarser than gravel i s essenti al I y absent. Bedrock i s evi dent i n i sol aced I ocati ons, whi ch provi des
grade control for the streams in those locations.
The geomorphi c setti ng i s at the headwaters of the Thomas Creek subwatershed. M any of the proj ect
reaches are zero- or f rst- order. The zero-order streams i nd ude Reaches R6, R7, and T2, and the f rst-
order streams i nd ude Reaches R3, R4, and T 1. Reaches R2 and R5 are a second -order stream and
Reach R1 i s a thi rd -order stream. The f I oodpl ai ns are general I y narrow, though Reaches R5, R2, and
R1 have wi der avai I abl e f I oodpl ai ns, whi ch are typi cal I y i nacti ve due to i nci si on and channel i zati on.
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The proj ect i s si tuated i n a rural area of southern Wake County ( proj ect watershed percent
i mpervi ous cover I ess than 5 percent). The m4 on ty of the I and use wi thi n the proj ect watershed i s
compri sed of a mi x of forested and acti ve agri cul turd (cropl and and pasture) I ands. Red denti a1,
urban, and transportati on uses make up a smal I percentage of the remai ni ng I and use. Fi gure 2.2
shows the topography of the watershed for the proj ect area Soi I s data for the proj ect are shown i n
Figure 2.3. The project area (proposed conservation easement area) encompasses 22.7 acres of land
that i nd udes agri cul turd f i el ds, cattl a pastures, d ear cuts, ri pari an wetl ands, and narrow forested
buffer I ands (Fi gure 2.5). Pbtenti a1 for I and use change or f uture devel opment i n the area adj acent
upstream to the conservation easement is moderate, given the proximity to the Research Triangle
metropol i tan area
Over ti me, channel s have i nd sed and the proj ect reaches have become di sconnected f rom thei r
hi stori c f I oodpl ai n, whi I e the ri pari an buffer has been d eared or narrowed i n numerous I ocati ons to
i ncrease pasturel and and harvest ti mber. These processes and practi ces have contri buted excessi ve
sedi ment and nutri ent I oadi ng to the proj ect reaches and thei r recei vi ng waters: Thomas Creek,
Harris Lake, and the Cape Fear River.
2.1.2 Successional Trends and Watershed Overview
To convert the I and for agri cul tural use, I andowners hi stori cal I y d eared porti ons of the mature
forest and mani pul aced si to streams to i ncrease I and f or grazi ng and agri cul ture. Accordi ng to the
I andowner, whose fami I y purchased the property i n 1915, earl y settl ers moved the stream ( Reaches
R2 and R1) to one si de of the val I ey i n the 1800s to accommodate f armi ng of the f I oodpl ai n. The
hummocky f I oodpl ai n al ong Reach R2 appears to show where the excavated materi al had been
depod ted.
A hi stori cal aeri al photograph f rom 1938 (Fi gure 2.5) shows that the area had reverted to forestl and
and did not appear to be actively used for agriculture. However, a 1959 historical aerial photograph
(Fi gure 2.6) shows the area around Reaches R1, R2, I ower R5, T 1, and T2 had been cl eared agai n
acti A y to be used for agri cul ture purposes (presumabl y pasture). Thi s i s the same area that i s
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -2 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

presentl y grazed (2014). A 1981 hi stori cal aeri a1 photograph (Fi gure 2.7) shows the ti mber
surroundi ng the remai ni ng reaches (R3, R4, upper R5, R6, and R7) had been harvested i n 1979. 1 n
2011, much of the timber surrounding those same upper reaches (R3, R4, upper R5, R6, and R7)
was harvested agai n, I eavi ng a very narrow buff er (10 to 30 feet) al ong those stream channel s.
Fi gure 2.5 shows a 2012 aeri a1 photograph wi th d earl y narrow buffers.
Each proj ect reach has been heavi I y i mpacted f rom hi stori c I and use practi ces, predomi nantl y cattl e
farming and forestry uses. Within the project area, approximately 90 percent of the streambanks
have i nadequate (I ess than 50 f eet wi de) ri pari an buffers i n both the ri ght and the I eft f I oodpl ai ns.
H oof shear and/or shear stress have severel y i mpacted the streambanks a1 ong Reaches R1, R2, and
R5. The I ack of adequate and qual i ty buff er vegetati on, past I and use di sturbances, and current
cattl a acti vi ti es present a si gni f i cant opportuni ty for water qual i ty and ecosystem i mprovements
through the implementation of this project.
Baker staff conducted f i el d assessments that i nd uded an exi sti ng condi ti ons survey and
photographi c documentati on to eval uate and document the i mpacts of past I and use management
practi ces and current si to condi ti ons for each proj ect stream reach. The exi sti ng condi ti ons
assessment i s presented i n Secti on 17.1.1. Secti ons 7 and 17 descri be the restorati on approaches
proposed to achi eve f uncti onal upl i ft and i mprove overal I watershed heal th.
The proj ect si to i s I ocated i n the Tri assi c Basi n (see Fi gure 2. 1), whi ch has notori ousl y erodi bl e
soi I s. Addi ti onal I y, the proj ect watershed has fai rl y steep sl opes and hi gh runoff rates, and when
coup) ed wi th sand bed streams i t makes for chal I engi ng condi ti ons to conduct stream stabi I i zati on
work. Baker has taken steps to reduce ri sk of post- constructi on erodi on, i nd udi ng hi gher wi dth -to-
depth ratios to reduce stream power and frequent riffle grade control structures to prevent head cuts
from developing. Further discussion of the project approach is presented in Section 17.1.2.1
Proposed Desi gn Approach and Secti on 17.3 Sedi ment Transport Anal ysi s.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -3 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.2 Vicinity Map
PO
Jovdarr Lake `
WAKE
AZ
C H A A H'A' M
U
Project Location
`
Holly Spxirigs
f
rJ I
Harris
J
g`
q{ k 3
Note_
Site is located within targeted local
`
watershed 03030004020010
,fit
.... U
Yu
7
1t
Wake County
INTERNATIONAL
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 211 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.3 Watershed Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.4 Soils Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -6 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.5 Current Conditions Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -7 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.6 Historical Conditions Maps
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -9 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -10 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.7 LiDAR Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -11 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.8 Site Photographs
2.8.1 Reach Rl
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -12
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT
9/10/2014

2.8.2 Reach R2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -13
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT
9/10/2014

2.8.3 Reaches R3 and R4
Existing ford crossing on lower Reach R3 (5/8/2013)
I
Eroding right bank along the middle Reach R3 (4/16/2013)
View looking upstreamon Reach R3 at left bank with bedrock View looking upstream at minimal buffer vegetation followi
and tree in center of channel (5/9/14) 2011 clear cut along Reach R3 (4/16/2013)
Incised channel on lower Reach R4 targeted for restoration View looking upstream at reference section of upper Reach R4
(5/22/13) (2/7/14)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -14 9/10/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT

2.8.4 Reaches R5 and R6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -15
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT
9/10/2014

2.8.5 Reaches R7, TI, and T2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -16
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- DRAFT
9/10/2014

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The I and requi red f or the constructi on, management, and stewardshi p of thi s mi ti gati on proj ect i nd udes
porti ons of the fol I owi ng parcel s. A copy of the I and protecti on i nstrument i s i nd uded i n Appendi x A.
Table 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project 96074
Parcel
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Landowner
PIN
County
Number
Instrument
Page Numbers
Protected
I rvi n Woodrow
CE -1
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
- --
02653/0235
1.51
1 rvi n Woodrow
CE -2
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
- --
02653/0235
6.52
1 rvi n Woodrow
CE -3
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
- --
02653/0235
6.01
1 rvi n Woodrow
CE -4
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
- --
02653/0235
0.10
I rvi n Woodrow
CE -5
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
- --
02653/0235
1.12
1 rvi n Woodrow
Goodwin and
Michael L.
CE -6
Goodwin
0619368876
Wake
- --
08959/0108
1.98
1 rvi n Woodrow
CE -7
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
- --
02653/0235
0.01
I rvi n Woodrow
CE -8
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
- --
02653/0235
1.31
Michael L.
CE -9
Goodwin
0619473680
Wake
- --
08959/0105
1.26
Michael L.
CE -10
Goodwin
0619473680
Wake
- --
08959/0105
0.41
Michael L.
CE -11
Goodwin
0619473680
Wake
- --
08959 / 0105
2.50
Baker has obtai ned a d gned opti on agreement f or a conservati on easement f rom the current I andowners for
the Thomas Creek Restorati on Prcj ect area. The easement and survey pl at i s under revi edv at the State
Property Off ce (SPO) and wi I I be hel d by the State of North Carol i na. Once recorded at the Wake County
Courthouse, the secured easement wi I I a1 I ow Baker to proceed wi th the restorati on proj ect and restri cts the
I and use i n perpetui ty.
3.1.1 Potential Constraints
No fatal f I aws have been identified at the ti me of this mitigation plan. Fi ve exi sti ng farm crossi ngs al ong
Reaches R3, R4, R5, R6, and T1 will be i mproved as part of this project. No existing or proposed easements
for power and telephone uti I i ti es are located within the project boundary. Riparian buffer wi dths wi I I beat
I east 50 feet f rom top of bank a1 ong both streambanks (100 foot mi ni mum total buff er wi dth) for a1 I of the
proposed stream reaches. I n fact, many of the proj ect buffers are more than 120 feet i n total I ength. None of
the proposed proj ect reaches are I ocated wi thi n a FEM A regul aced f I oodpl ad n (Fi gure 16.1); thus, FEM A
permi tti ng or documentati on i s not requi red. Baker has noti f i ed the I ocal f I oodpl ai n admi ni strator and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

learned that Wake County has requirements for a f I ood study and permit fees if culverts are instal I ed
(Appendix B). Consequently, Baker has decided that ford crossings wi I I be used, which do not require f I ood
studies or permit fees. Other regulatory factors discussed in Section 16, Appendix B were a1 so not
determi ned to pose potenti al si to constrai nts. Constructi on access and stagi ng areas have been i denti f i ed
and wi I I be determi ned duri ng f i nal desi gn.
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
The conservati on easement f or the proj ect area i s shown i n Fi gure 3.1 and copi es of the recorded survey pl at
wi I I be i ncl uded i n Secti on 15, Appendi x A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -2 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -3 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Pro'ectInformation
Project Name
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
County
Wake
Project Area acres
22.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and
longitude)
35.6636 N, - 79.9547 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physi og raph i c Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14-
digit
03030004 / 03030004020010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03 -06 -07
Project Drainage Area acres
246 Reach R1 mai n stem at downstream extent
Pro ect D rai nage A rea Percent I mpery i ous
<1%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02/ Forest 66% Agriculture 19% 1 mperviousCover 1%
Reach S mmary Information
Parameters
Reach RI
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (I i near feet)
425
1,995
2,000
342
871
Valley Classification R en
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
D rai nage A rea (acres)
246
176
62
36
1 62
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
37.5
1 38
1 37/25
31
31
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream t
Bc
F (upstream)/
Gc downstream
Gc (upstream)/
Bc (downstream)
Bc
Bc
Evol uti onary Trend
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
U nderl yi ng M apped Soi I s
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drai nage Class
Poorl V drai ned
Poorl V drai ned
Poorl V drained
Poorl v drai ned
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
H dric
H dric
H dric
H dric
H dric
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.0165
0.0083
0.0073
0.0102
0.0172
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Smal l Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive
V
Vegetation
<5%
25%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach R7
Reach T1
Reach T2
Length of Reach (I i near feet)
1,828
646
242
171
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
D rai nage A rea (acres)
32
14
49
5
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
25
35/20
23.75
20.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream t
G5c (upstream)/
135c downstream
G5 (upstream)/
135c downstream
135c
135c
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Evol uti onary Trend
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
U nderl yi ng M apped Soi I s
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
D rai nage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly d rai ned
Poorly d rai ned
Poorlydrained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.015/0.025
0.025
0.020
0.041
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetati on Communi ty
Piedmont SmalI Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive
Vegetation
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Re` ulato ` Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Watersof the United States— Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Watersof the United States— Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categoric—al Exclusion (Appendix B
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fi sheri es H abi tat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -2 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan, Wake County - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Mitigation Credits
Non - riparian
Nitrogen
Phosphoru
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient
s Nutrient
Offset
Offset
Type
R, E1, E2
R
E
Totals
5,656 SM U
0.0
0.0
Project Com onents
Project Component or
J P
Stationing/
Existing
Restoration or
Restoration
Mitigation
Reach ID
Location
Footage/
Approach
Restoration
Footage
Ratio
Acreage
Equivalent
Reach R1
41 +81 —44 +47
397 LF
Restoration
266 SMU
R
1:1
Reach R2
20 +74 —41+81
1, 995 LF
Restoration
2,087 SM U
R
1:1
Reach R3 (upstream section)
10 +00 —11 +30
130 LF
Enhancement
26 SM U
130 LF
5:1
Level I I
Reach R3 (downstream
secti on )
11+30 —20+74
940 LF
Restoration
929 SM U
R
1:1
Reach R4 (upstream section)
0+99-9+59
870 LF
Enhancement
87 SM U
870 LF
10:1
Level I I
Reach R4 (downstream
section)
10 +10 -13 +71
327 LF
Restoration
361 SMU
R
1:1
Reach R5 (upstream section)
28 +08 -29 +45
142 LF
Enhancement
27 SMU
137 LF
5:1
Level I I
Reach R5 (downstream
secti on)
29 +45 —40+09
883 LF
Restoration
1,044 SM U
R
1:1
Reach R6 (upstream section)
10 +00 —12 +10
210 LF
Enhancement
140 SM U
210 LF
1.5:1
Level I
Reach R6 (downstream
Enhancement
section)
12 +10 -28 +08
1,618 LF
Level 11
320 SMU
1,598 LF
5:1
Reach R7 (upstream section)
10 +00 —13 +50
360 LF
Enhancement
240 SM U
360 LF
1.5:1
Level I
Reach R7 (downstream
Enhancement
secti on)
13 +50 —16 +46
286 LF
Level 11
57 SM U
286 LF
5:1
Reach T1
10 +00 —12 +53
242 LF
Enhancement
155 SM U
253 LF
1.5:1
Level I
Reach T2
10 +00 —11 +58
171 LF
Enhancement
63 SM U
158 LF
2.5:1
Level I I
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
AC
AC
SF
AC
Ri ven ne
Non -
Ri veri ne
Restoration
4,687
Enhancement 1
535
Enhancement 11
580
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases wi I I be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-bui It survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shad I any mitigation project be debited unti I the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authori zati on is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consul tali on with the N CI RT, wi I I determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules
bel ow. I n cases where some performance standards have not been met, credi is may sti I I be red eased dependi ng
on the sped f i cs of the case. M oni tori ng may be requi red to restart or be extended, dependi ng on the extent to
whi ch the si to fad I s to meet the sped f i ed performance standard. The rel ease of proj ect credi is wi I I be subj ect
to the cri teri a descri bed i n Tabl e 6.1 as f of I ows:
Table 6.1 Credit Release Schedule
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
0
1 nitial Al location - see requirements below
30%
30%
1
Fi rst year moni tori ng report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
40%
2
Second year monitori ng report demonstrates performance standards
50%
are being met
10%
(60%')
3
Thi rd year monitori ng report demonstrates performance standards
60%
are being met
10%
(70%")
4
Fourth year monitori ng report demonstrates performance standards
65%
are being met
5%
(75%")
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
75%
are being met.
10%
(85%")
6
Si xth year moni tori ng report demonstrates performance standards
80%
are being met.
5%
(90 %)
7
Seventh year monitori ng report demonstrates performance standards
90%
are being met and project has received closeout approval.
10%
(100 %)
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The i ni ti a1 a1 I ocati on of rel eased credi ts, as sped f i ed i n the mi ti gati on pl an can be red eased by the N CEEP
wi thout pri or wri tten approval of the D E upon sati sfactory compl eti on of the fol I owi ng acti vi ti es:
a A pproval of the Fi nal M i ti gati on R an
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

b. Recordati on of the preservati on mechani sm, as wel I as a ti tl a opi ni on acceptabl a to the
USA CE covering the property
c. Compl eti on of proj ect constructi on (the i ni ti a1 physi cal and bi of ogi cal i mprovements to the
mi ti gati on si te) pursuant to the mi ti gati on pl an; Per the N CEEP I nstrument, constructi on
means that a mi ti gati on si to has been constructed i n i is enti rely, to i ncl ude pl anti ng, and an
-&bui I t report has been produced. As-bui I t reports must be seal ed by an engi neer pri or to
proj ect d oseout, i f appropri ate but not pri or to the i ni ti a1 al I ocati on of rel eased credi ts.
d. Recei pt of necessary DA permi t authori zati on or wri tten DA approval for proj ects where DA
permi t i ssuance i s not requi red.
Subsequent Credit Releases
Al I subsequent credi t rel eases must be approved by the D E, i n consul tali on wi th the N Cl RT, based on a
determi nati on that requi red performance standards have been achi eved. For stream proj ects a reserve of 10%
of a si te's total stream credi is shat I be rel eased after two bankf ul I events have occurred, i n separate years,
provi ded the channel i s stabl a and al I other performance standards are met. I n the event that I ess than two
bankf ul I events occur duri ng the moni tori ng peri od, rel ease of these reserve credi is shat I be at the di screti on
of the N Cl RT. As proj ects approach mi I estones assod aced wi th credi t rel ease, the N CEEP wi I I submi t a
request for credi t rel ease to the D E al ong wi th documentati on substanti ati ng achi evement of cri teri a requi red
for rel ease to occur. Thi s documentati on wi I I be i ncl uded wi th the annual moni tori ng report.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -2 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Stream Type(s), Wetland Type(s), and Plant Communities
7.1.1 Target Stream Types
The primary goal when targeting a stream type was to select ad to -speci f i c desi gn approach that would
return rural pi edmont stream f uncti ons to a stabl a state pri or to past di sturbances. Current assessment
methods and data anal yses were uti I i zed for i denti fyi ng I ost or i mpai red f uncti ons at the si to and to
determi ne overal I mi ti gati on potenti a1. Among these are revi ewi ng exi sti ng hydrogeomorphi c
condi ti ons, hi stori cad aeri al s and L i DA R (L i ght Detecti on and Rangi ng) mappi ng, eval uati ng stabl e
reference reaches, and a compari son of resul is f rom si mi I ar past proj ects i n rural pi edmont stream
systems.
After exami ni ng the assessment data col I ected at the si to and expl on ng the potenti al f or restorati on, an
approach was devel oped that woul d address restorati on of stream f uncti ons wi thi n the proj ect area
Topography and soi I s on the si to i ndi cafe that the proj ect area most I i kel y f uncti oned i n the past as smal I
tri butary stream system, eventual I y f I owi ng downstream i nto the I arger L i ttl e Whi to Oak Creek system,
whi ch i s now the H arri s Lake reservoi r. Pri or to sel ecti ng the proposed desi gn approach, Baker
consi dered assi gni ng an appropri ate stream type for the correspondi ng val I ey that al so accommodates
the exi sti ng and f uture hydro) ogi c condi ti ons, as wel I as sedi ment suppl y. Thi s deci si on was based
pri mari I y on the desi red perf ormance of the stream of the channel s gi ven the val I ey sl ope and wi dth.
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
N o wetl and restorati on or enhancement i s i nd uded i n thi s mi ti gati on proj ect.
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities
Native species riparian vegetation will be establ i shed in the riparian buffer throughout the site.
Schafal a and Weakl ey' s (1990) gui dance on vegetati on communi ti es as wel I as the U SA CE Wed and
Research Program (WRP) Technical NoteVN- RS-4.1 (1997) were referenced during thedevedopment
of ri pari an pl anti ng I i sts for the d te. I n general, bare root vegetati on wi I I be pl anted at a target deed ty
of 680 stems per acre. L i ve stakes wi I I be pl anted al ong the channel s at a targeted deed ty of 40 stakes
per 1,000 square feet. U d ng tri angul ar spaci ng al ong the streambanks, the I i ve stakes wi I I be spaced
two to three feet apart i n meander bends and six to ei ght feet apart i n the strai ght secti ons between the
toe of the streambank and bankf ul I el evati on. Si to vari ati ons may requi re sl i ghtl y di ff erent spaci ng.
Baker pref ers to have a row of I i vestakes near the toe i n case of drought condi ti ons, when basef d ow may
onl y sustai n I i vestakes at that el evati on.
I nvasi ve sped es vegetati on, such as Chi nese pri vet (Ligustrum sinense) and mud ti f I ora rose (Rosa
mult flora) wi I I be removed to a1 I ow nati ve sped es pl ants to become establ i shed wi thi n the
conservati on easement. Larger nati ve tree sped es wi I I be preserved and harvested woody materi a1 wi I I
be uti I i zed to provi de streambank stabi I i zati on cover and/or nesti ng habi tat. H ardwood sped es wi I I be
pl anted to provi de the appropri ate vegetati on for the restored ri pari an buffer areas. Sped es wi I I i nd ude
tut i p popl ar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ri ver bi rch (Betula nigra), arrowwood vi burnum (Viburnum
dentatum), persi mmon (Diospyros virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii).
7.2 Design Parameters
Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference reach
data, regi me equati ons, eval uati on of moni tori ng resul is f rom past proj ects, and best prof essi onal
judgment. Eval uati ng data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from multiple Piedmont
stream proj ects provi ded perti nent background i nformati on to determi ne the appropri ate desi gn
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

parameters gi ven the exi sti ng condi ti ons and overal I si to potenti a1. The desi gn parameters for the si to
(shown i n Secti on 17, Appendi x C) a1 so consi dered current gui del i nes f rom the U SA CE.
The restorati on acti vi ti es and structural el ements are j usti f i ed for the fol I owi ng reasons:
1. M any of the stream secti ons are i nci sed ( Bank H ei ght Rati os greater than 1.5) wi th acti ve bank
erosi on.
2. Cattl a access has resul ted i n si gni f i cant degradati on through the I ower reaches ( Reaches R1, R2, T 1,
and I ower R5) of the site,
3. Past agri cul tural and si I vi cul tural acti vi ti es, such as channel i zati on and ti mber harvesti ng, have
resul ted i n streambank erosi on, excessi ve sedi mentati on, and the I oss of woody vegetati on wi thi n the
ri pari an zone;
4. Enhancement or preservati on measures al one woul d not achi eve the hi ghest possi bl e I evel of
f uncti onal I i ft f or many porti ons of the degraded stream system.
For desi gn purposes, the stream channel s were di vi ded i nto ni ne reaches I abel ed Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7, T 1, and T2, as shown i n Tabl e 7.1. Sel ecti on of a general restorati on approach was the f i rst
step i n sel ecti ng desi gn cri teri a for the proj ect reaches. The approach was based on the potenti al for
restorati on as determi ned duri ng the si to assessment and the sped f i c deli gn parameters were devel oped so
that pl an vi edv I ayout, cross -secti on di mensi ons, and prof i I e coul d be descri bed for devel opi ng
construction documents. The design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative val ues
for the sell ected stream types and to a1 I ow natural vari abi I i ty i n stream di mensi on, f acet sl ope, and bed
features to form over I ong peri ods of ti me under the processes of f I oodi ng, re-col oni zati on of vegetati on,
and watershed i of I uences.
Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach i
Proposed
Stream Type
Approach/Rationale
Restoration: Priority Level I I Restoration will ensue below the confluence
of Reaches R2 and R5 to ti e i nto the exi sti ng bed el evati on by the
downstream extent of the project. The restored channel wi I I be designed as
Reach R1
C
a Rosgen C type channel. The existing channel will be stabilized and a
floodplain bencheswill be incorporated along this reach. Riparian buffers
in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both sides of Reach
R1.
Restoration: A combination of Priority Level I and 11 approacheswill
provide floodplain reconnection and long -term channel stability. In upper
Reach R2, below the confl uence of Reaches R3 and R4, the existi ng
channel i s i n the process of formi ng stabl e, but narrow and I ocal i zed,
floodplain benches. The exi sti ng pattern will be used with minor
al terati ons to provide improved bedform di versi ty and floodplain benching
will be incorporated to both widen and provide continuity throughout the
reach.
Reach R2
C
Once Reach R2 enters the open field Oust downstream from Reach T2) it
becomes less si nuous and lacks riparian buffer along the streambanks.
Here, Priority Level I restoration will be targeted by constructing a Rosgen
'C' stream type channel off Ii ne in order to reconnect the channel with its
historic fl oodpl ai n and restore adequate meander geometry.
These restoration techniques wi 11 create a stable channel with appropriate
bedform diversity, as well as improve channel function by improving
aquatic habitat, increasing overbank flooding frequency, restorating
riparian and terrestrial habitats, and excluding cattle from accessing the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -2 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach f
Proposed
Approach /Rationale
Stream Type
stream. The design width /depth ratio for the channel wi 11 be 14, and over
time, the channel may narrow to an E -type channel due to deposition of
sediment and streambank vegetation growth. Riparian buffers in excess of
50 feet wi I I be restored along both sides of Reach R2.
A 20 -foot wide ford stream crossing will be constructed near the transition
from upper to I ower Reach R2. Gates wi I I be i ncl uded to restri ct I i vestock
access to the crossing.
Enhancement: Level I I Enhancement wi I I be i mplemented i n the upper 130
feet of Reach R3. The channel is mostly stable thoughout this upper
section; however, the riparian buffer width is narrow. A 50 -foot buffer will
be pl anted on both si des of the exi sti ng channel, i nvasi ve sped es wi I I be
removed, and a conservation easement will protect the area in perpetuity.
Restoration: The remaining downstream portion of Reach R3 will be
restored using Rosgen Priority Level I and II Restoration. In the transition
Reach R3
E/C
area from enhancement to restoration there is a significant headcut that has
been restrained by trees roots. This headcut will be stabilized with a grade
control log jam and restoration will continue below it. A restoration
approach is warranted because the channel is incised and the streambanks
are eroding, particularly on the outside of meander bends. The ri pari an
buffer along Reach R3 will be planted with native riparian vegetation to a
width of at least 50 feet from the top of the streambanks.
An existing ford crossing at the lower end of Reach R3 will be enhanced.
Cattle do not and wi I I not have access to this crossing.
Enhancement: Reach R4 begi ns as a stab) e, 870 -foot reference qual i ty
section; thus, Enhancement Level II is proposed. ThiswiII include
suppl emental pl anti ng to restore the ri pari an buffer and establ i shi ng
conservation easement. I nvasi ve sped es wi I I not be removed per
agreement with the NCI RT during the post - contract site visit. This
agreement is due to a low credit ratio of 10:1 for this upper section.
Restoration: The downstream portion of Reach R4 wi I I be designed as a
Reach R4
Rosgen 'E/C' stream type. Grade control structures wi I I be i mpl emented to
C
dissipate flow energies and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, bankfull benches
will be incorporated to promote stability, and the riparian vegetation will
be reestablished. This section of Reach R4 wil l be designed as a Rosgen C
type channel. The design width /depth ratio for the channel wil l be 13.
Riparian buffers i n excess of 50 feet wi 11 be restored along both sides of
Reach R4 in its entirety. A stable existing ford crossing at the upper end of
Reach R4 wi 11 remain. Cattle do not and wil I not have access to this
crossi ng.
Enhancement: Reach R5 begins as a stable channel; thus, Enhancement
Level I I wi I I be i ncorporated i n the upstream extent of the reach. Work wi I I
Reach R5
C
i ncl ude supplemental native pl anti ng to restore the riparian buffer, invasive
species control, and establishing a conservation easement to protect the
reach.
Restoration: Priority Level I restoration will begin, approximately 145 feet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -3 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach f
Proposed
Approach /Rationale
Stream Type
from the origin of Reach R5 at an active headcut and will continue
throughout the remainder of Reach R5 to address an i ncised channel and
eroding streambanks. The new channel will be constructed mostly off -
Iine. This approach will restore floodplai n connections, will allow channel
pattern to accommodate the preservation of desirable native species, and
will restore natural channel functions.
An existing ford crossing will be moved slightly upstream and improved.
Gates wi I I be i ncl uded to restri ct I i vestock access to the easement.
Enhancement: Due to a steep val I ey slope of 3.7 %, Baker wi I I stabi I ize
approximately 210 feet of the upstream section of Reach R6 by
implementing Level I Enhancement to form afIoodplain bench near the
existing channel elevation
The stream channel on the lower 1,618 feet of Reach R6 is relatively stable
despite typically high bank height ratiosof greater than 2.5. Consequently,
Reach R6
Bc
Baker proposes Enhancement Level I I including supplemental planting,
i nvasi ve sped es control, and conservati on easement establ i shment to
enhance and protect the reach.
Ri parian buffers i n excess of 50 feet wi I I be restored or enhanced along
both sides of Reach R6. An existing stream crossing near the upstream end
of Reach R6 wi I I remai n as part of the proposed proj ect. L i vestock wi I I not
have access to this area.
Enhancement: The upstream section of Reach R7 is unstable and a headcut
is actively migrating upstream. Level II Enhancement wi I I be i mpl emented
in this section, Seven grade control structures will be used to promote
channel stability and bedform diversity. Minor grading of isolated sections
of the streambanks, as well as gully stabilization of atributary ditch will be
i ncl uded. A credit ratio of 2.5:1 is proposed for the upper 360 feet of this
reach.
Reach R7
Bc
The lower section of Reach R7 wil l employ Level I I Enhancement but the
practi ces wi I I focus on suppl emental pl anti ng, i nvasi ve sped es control, and
conservation easement establishment. The lower section is proposed at a
lower 5:1 credit ratio.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or enhanced along
both sides of Reach R7. No stream crossi ngs wi I I be included on Reach
R7.
Enhancement: Reach T1 is a tributary that has been historically re- routed
to form a channel ized ditch running perpendicular to the mai nstem of
Thomas Creek. Putting the stream back in its historic path is not feasible,
however, due to a I ateral constrai nt between the property I i ne to the east
and a need to provide a cattle crossi ng on the reach.
Reach T1
C
A Level I Enhancement approach wiI I be employed to form a step pool
channel along T1 that will conform to the existing valley and allow flow
energies to be di ssi pate verti cal ly. The channel will continueoff -line once
it attains the Reach R2 floodplain. A 1.5:1 credit ratio is proposed for
Reach T1.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -4 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach f
Proposed
Stream Type
Approach /Rationale
Riparian buffers i n excess of 50 feet wi 11 be restored along both sides of
Reach T1. An existing ford crossing at the upstream end of Reach T1 will
be i mproved and gates wi I I be i nstal I ed to el i mi nate I i vestock access to the
stream and easement.
Enhancement: Reach T2 i s a tri butary that runs from a conti nuous spri ng to
Reach R2. The channel is mostly impacted by heavy cattle use, though a
Reach T2
Bc
headcut has migrated upstream and grade is currently held by tree roots.
Baker will implement Level II Enhancement to provide grade control, to
strai I i ze bank slopes, to excl ude cattle from the reach, and to restore the
riparian buffer. A 2.5:1 credit ratio is proposed for Reach T2 .
7.3 Data Analysis
Baker compi I ed and assessed watershed i nformati on such as drai nage areas, hi stori cal I and use, geol ogi c
setti ng, soi I types, and terrestri al pl ant communi ti es. The resul is of the exi sti ng condi ti on anal yses a1 ong
with reference reach data from previous projects were used to develop a proposed stream restoration
desi gn for the proj ect reaches. N umerous secti ons of the exi sti ng channel s throughout the proj ect have
been strai ghtened/channel i zed or moved i n the past. Thi s mani pul ati on has i mpacted channel s so that they
are now overl y wi de and deep f or thei r respecti ve drai nage areas. Addi ti onal I y, detai I ed topographi c
surveys were conducted al ong the channel and f I oodpl ai n to determi ne the el evati on of the stream where
i It f I ows throughout property, and to vat i date the vat I ey d gnatures shown on the L i DA R i magery (Fi gure
2.6).
The desi gn approach f of I ows a step -wi se methodol ogy i n whi ch di mend onl ess rati os f rom successf ul past
proj ect experi ence, and to a I esser extent reference reaches, are used to restore stabl a di mend on, pattern,
and prof i I e, as wel I as proper bankf ul I sedi ment transport competency for the proposed reaches. The
stream channel desi gn i nd uded anal yd s of the hydrol ogy, hydraul i cs, shear stress, sedi ment transport,
and appropri ate channel di mend ons. Cri ti cal shear stress and boundary shear stress anal yses were used
veri fy that the desi gn channel s wi I I not aggrade nor degrade.
The Thomas Creek proj ect i nd udes several headwater reaches that are steeper and have narrow vat I eys.
Often thi s setti ng may be associ ated wi th Bc stream types. H owever, the entrenchment rati o on the
restored channel s wi I I be greater than 2.2, whi ch makes ei ther an E or a C channel. Though the channel s
wi I I no I onger be i nd sed or entrenched, narrower vat I ey wi dths and boundary condi ti ons that prevented
pattern adj ustments commonl y assod ated wi th C or E meander geometry. Thi s typi cal I y transl ates to
shorter ri ff I es wi th hi gher sl opes, and thus hi gher stream power. H i gher stream power i s amel i orated to
some extent by i ncreasi ng the wi dth- to-depth rati os than the nearby reference reach. Addi ti onal I y,
constructi ng hi gher wi dth- to-depth rati os (e.g., 11 -14) wi I I put I ess stress on the ne�vl y constructed
streambanks. The channel may narrow wi th ti me as vegetati on becomes establ i shed and i f sedi ment
deposits al ong the channel.
The channel substrate throughout the proj ect area i s predomi natel y sand wi th mi ni mat gravel.
Consequentl y, Baker col I ected bul k sedi ment sampl es i n order to eval uate bed materi al characteri sti cs,
d assi fy the stream type, and compl ete sedi ment transport and stabi I i ty anal yses.
Regi onal curve equati ons, devel oped for the N orth Carol i na R edmont, (H arman et al., 1999) esti mate a
bankf ul I cross - secti onal area of approxi matel y 11.2 square f eet f or the downstream termi nus of Reach
R1' s 0.384 square mi I e watershed (see A ppendi x C, Tabl e 17.5). Rosgen' s stream cl assi f i cati on system
(Rosgen, 1996) depends on the proper i denti f i cati on of the bankf ul I el evati on. The exi sti ng upper and
mi ddl a secti ons of the mad n stem ( Reach R3 & R2) were d assi f i ed as channel i zed B5c- F5 stream types
based on thei r cal cul ated entrenchment rati os (where the bankf ul I areas were based on an esti mati on of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -5 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

bankf ul I area f rom the publ i shed N C R edmont regi onal curve), channel sl ope, and channel substrate
(sand). Entrenchment rati os of greater than 1.4 put the channel i n the Bc category though the channel i s
d earl y i nci sed wi th bank hei ght rati os of 1.9 to 3.3.
Bedform di versi ty and ri ff I e/pool feature formati on throughout the i mpai red reaches i s poor and habi tat
di versi ty i s mi ni mad. The pool s i n the i mpai red proj ect reaches are typi cal I y not noti ceabl y deeper than
the ri ff I es. The ri pari an buff er vegetati on i s scattered and margi nal ad ong most the reach areas. Each
stream di spl ays I i mi ted meander geometry due to thei r current channel i zed condi ti ons and val I ey
formati on.
The exi sti ng and proposed condi ti ons data i ndi cate that the mi ti gati on acti vi ti es wi I I resul t i n the re-
establ i shment of a f uncti onal stream and f I oodpl ai n ecosystem. The restorati on and enhancement efforts,
i nd udi ng si to protecti on f rom a conservati on easement, wi I I promote the greatest ecol ogi cal benef i t, a
rapi d recovery peri od, and a j usti f i abl a and reduced envi ronmental i mpact over a natural recovery that
woul d otherwi se occur through erosi onal processes wi th assod aced i mpacts on water quad i ty and f I oodi ng.
Currentl y, sedi ment, excess nutri ents, and cattl a excrement are enteri ng the system f rom adj acent farm
f i el ds and pastures where exi sti ng ri pari an buffer wi dths are margi nal or non -exi stent. Redud ng
streambank sedi ment I oadi ng and removi ng cattl a wi I I provi de ecol ogi cal upl i ft by i mprovi ng water
quad i ty and promoti ng the restorati on of di verse aquati c and terrestri a1 habi tats that are appropri ate for the
pi edmont ecoregi on and I andscape setti ng.
Addi ti onal I y, by red si ng the streambed and reconnecti ng the acti ve f I oodpl ad ns, the maxi mum degree of
potenti a1 upd i ft wi I I be provi ded, restori ng stream, buffer, and wetl and f uncti ons whenever possi bl e.
U pl i ft wi I I a1 so be provi ded to the system by i mprovi ng and extendi ng wi I dl i fe corri dors that connect wi th
wooded areas near the downstream extent of the proj ect. The water quad i ty of Thomas Creek wi I I be
i mproved by redud ng nutri ent and sedi ment i nputs, and provi di ng cattl a excl usi on fend ng ad ong a1 I
tributaries. Approximately 22.7 acres of riparian buffer will be restored and/or protected in perpetuity by
a conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -6 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The d to wi I I be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the d to wi I I be performed at I east
once a year throughout the post - constructi on monitori ng peri od unti I performance standards are met. These
si to i nspecti ons may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
mai ntenance wi I I be most I i kel y i n the f i rst two years fol I owi ng d to constructi on and may i nd ude the
fol I owi ng components as descri bed i n Tabl e 8.1:
Table 8.1 Routine Maintenance Components
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Stream
Routi ne channel maintenance and repai r activities may include modi fyi ng in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coi r matting, and supplemental installations of
I ive stakes and other target vegetation along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated
storrrmater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require mai ntenance to
prevent streambank failures and head - cutting until vegetation becomes established.
Wed and
N/A
Vegetation
Vegetation wi II be maintai ned to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routi ne vegetati on mai ntenance and repai r acti vi ti es may i ncl ude suppl emental
pl anti ng, pruni ng, and ferti I i zi ng. Exoti c i nvasi ve pl ant speci es wi I I be control I ed by
mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any i nvasi ve pl ant speci es control requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA)
rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Si te boundari es wi I I be demarcated i n the f i el d to ensure cl ear di sti ncti on between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, or other means as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and /or replaced on an
as needed basis.
Farm Road Crossing
The farm road crossi ngs withi n the site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and dam breeching /dewatering and /or removal. Beaver
management will be performed in accordancewith US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
rules and regulations using accepted trapping and removal techniques only within the project
boundary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving N CDOT and N CEEP
full -del i very projects. The success criteria for the project si to wi I I fol I ow the mitigation plans developed for
these proj ects, as wel I as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SM G) i ssued i n Apri 12003 and October 2005
(U SACE and N CDWR) and N CEEP' s recent supplemental guidance document Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation dated November 7, 2011. Al I monitoring
acti vi ti es wi I I be conducted for a peri od of 7 years, unl ess the si to demonstrates comp) ete success by year 5
and no concerns have been i denti f i ed. An earl y d osure provi d on may be requested by the provi der for some
or al I of the moni tori ng components. Earl y d osure may onl y be obtai ned through wri tten approval f rom the
USACE in consultation with the NCI RT.
Based on the design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the project reaches. For
reaches that i nvol ve a combi nati on of tradi ti onal Restorati on (Rosgen Pri on ty Level s I and/or I I ) and
Enhancement Level I (stream bed/bank stabi I i zati on) approaches, geomorphi c moni tori ng methods wi I I
fol I ow those recommended by the 2003 SM G and the 2011 N CEEP suppl emental gui dance. For reaches
i nvol vi ng Enhancement Level I I approaches, moni tori ng efforts wi I I focus pri maxi I y on vi sued i nspecti ons,
photo documentation, and vegetation assessments. The monitoring parameters shad I be consistent with the
requi rements descri bed i n the Federal Rul a for compensatory mi ti gati on d tes i n the Federal Regi ster Ti td e 33
Navi gati on and Navi gaol a Waters Vol ume 3 Chapter 2 Secti on § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Sped f c
success cri teri a components and eval uati on methods are descri bed bel ow and report documentati on wi I I
fol I ow the N CEEP Basel i ne M oni tori ng Document temp) ate and gui dance (v 2.0, dated 10/14/2010).
Further descri pti on of the performance standards are provi ded bet ow; however, a bri of synopsi s i s I i sted here:
• Two bankf ul I di scharge events wi thi n a f i ve year peri od (two events cannot be i n the same cad endar
yam)
• Cross secti ons wi I I be surveyed to demonstrate channel stabi I i ty.
• Pattern (p1 ani metri c survey) and prof i I e (I ongi tudi nal prof i I e survey) are measured as part of the
basel i ne survey (year 0) and shout d be checked by vi sued moni tori ng i n subsequent years.
• One constructed ri ff I e substrate sampl a wi I I be compared to exi sti ng ri ff I e substrate data col I ected
duri ng the ded gn phase and any si gni f i cant changes (i.e.; aggradati on, dggradati on) wi I I be noted
after streambank vegetati on becomes establ i shed and a mi ni mum of two bankf ul I f I ows or greater
have been documented.
• At year f i ve, pl anted tree stem deed ty must be no I ess than 260, 5 -year of d, pl anted trees per acre.
The f i nal vegetati ve success cri teri a wi I I be the survi val of 210, 7 -year of d, pl anted trees per acre at
the end of the seven -year moni tori ng peri od, whi ch must average 10 feet i n hei ght.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphi c moni tori ng of the proposed restorati on reaches wi I I be conducted once a year for f i ve to
seven years f of I owi ng the compl eti on of constructi on to eval uate the effecti veness of the restorati on
practi ces. M oni tored stream parameters i nd ude stream di mend on (cross secti ons), pattern (p1 ani metri c
survey), prof i I e (I ongi tudi nal prof i I e survey), and vi sued observati on wi th photographi c documentati on.
The success cri teri a for the proposed Enhancement Level I I reaches/secti ons wi I I fol I ow the methods
descri bed under Photo Reference Stati ons and V egetati on M oni tori ng. The methods used and rel ated
success criteria are described below for each parameter. Figure 9.1 shows approximate locations of the
proposed monitoring devices throughout the project site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankf ul I events within the monitoring period wi I I be documented by the use of a
crest gauge and photographs. Three crest gauges wi I I be i nstal I ed on the f I oodpl ai n wi thi n f i ve to ten
feet (hori zontal ) of the restored channel. I Instal I i ng the gage on the f I oodpl ai n reduces the ri sk of i t bei ng
washed away by stormf I ow. The crest gauges wi I I record the hi ghest watermark between si to vi si ts, and
the gauges wi I I be checked at each si to vi si t to determi ne i f a bankf ul I event has occurred. Photographs
wi I I be used to document the occurrence of debri s I i nes and sedi ment depod ti on on the f I oodpl ai n
duri ng moni tori ng si to vi si ts.
Two bankf ul I f I ow events must be documented wi thi n the f i ve- to seven -year moni tori ng peri od. The
two bankf ul I events must occur i n separate years, otherwi se, the moni tori ng wi I I conti nue unti I two
bankf ul I events have been documented i n separate years.
9.1.2 Cross Sections
Permanent cross secti ons wi I I be i nstal I ed at an approxi mate rate of one cross secti on per twenty
bankf ul I wi dths or an average di stance i nterval (not to exceed 500 L F) of restored stream, wi th
approxi matel y twel ve (12) cross secti ons I ocated at ri ff I es, and f i ve (5) 1 ocated at pool s. Each cross
secti on wi I I be marked on both streambanks wi th permanent monuments usi ng rebar cemented i n pl ace
to establ i sh the exact transect used. A common benchmark wi I I be used for cross sections and to
faci I i tate easy compari son of year - to-year data The cross -secti on surveys wi I I occur i n years one, two,
three, f i ve, and seven, and must i nd ude measurements of Bank H ei ght Rati o (B H R) and Entrenchment
Rati o (ER). The moni tori ng survey wi I I i nd ude poi nts measured at al I breaks i n sl ope, i nd udi ng top of
streambanks, bankf ul 1, i nner berm, edge of water, and that weg, i f the f eatures are present. Ri ff I e cross
secti ons wi I I be d assi f i ed usi ng the Rosgen Stream Cl assi f i cati on System.
There shoul d be I i ttl a change i n as-bui I t cross secti ons. I f changes do take pl ace, they wi I I be
documented i n the survey data and eval uated to determi ne i f they represent a movement toward a more
unstabl a condi ti on (e.g., down -cutti ng or erosi on) or a movement toward i ncreased stabi I i ty (e.g.,
settl i ng, vegetati ve changes, deposi ti on al ong the streambanks, or decrease i n wi dth/depth rati o). U si ng
the Rosgen Stream CI assi f i cati on System, ail monitored cross sections should fail within the
quanti tati ve parameters (i.e. B H R no more than 1.2 and ER no I ess than 2.2 for 'C' stream types)
def i ned for channel s of the desi gn stream type. Gi ven the smal I er channel si zes and meander geometry
of the proposed steams, bank pi ns wi I I not be i nstal I ed A ess moni tori ng resul is i ndi cafe acti ve I ateral
erosi on.
Reference photo transects wi I I be taken at each permanent cross secti on. Lateral photos shout d not
i ndi cafe excessi ve erosi on or conti nui ng degradati on of the streambanks. Photographs wi I I be taken of
both streambanks at each cross secti on. The survey tape wi I I be centered i n the photographs of the
streambanks. The water I i ne wi I I be I ocated i n the I ower edge of the f rame, and as much of the
streambank as possi bl a wi I I be i Ind uded i n each photo. Photographers shat I make an eff ort to
consi stentl y mai ntai n the same area i n each photo over ti me.
9.1.3 Pattern
The pl an vi ew measurements such as si nuosi ty, radi us of curvature, meander wi dth rati o wi I I be taken
on newt y constructed meanders duri ng basel i ne (year -0) onl y. Subsequent vi sual moni tori ng wi I I be
conducted twi ce a year, at I east five months apart, to document any changes or excessive I ateral
movement i n the pl an vi ew of the restored channel.
9.1.4 Longitudinal Profile
A I ongi tudi nal prof i I e wi I I be surveyed for the enti re I ength of restored channel i mmedi atel y after
constructi on to document as-bui I t basel i ne condi ti ons for the f i rst year of moni tori ng onl y. The survey
wi I I be ti ed to a permanent benchmark and measurements wi I I i nd ude that weg, water surf ace, bankf ul 1,
and top of I ow bank. Each of these measurements wi I I be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., ri ff I e,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -2 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

pool) and at the maxi mum pool depth. The I ongi tudi nal prof i I e shoul d show that the bedform features
i nstal I ed are condi stent wi th i ntended desi gn stream type. The I ongi tudi nal prof i I es wi I I not be taken
duri ng subsequent moni tori ng years unl ess verti cal channel i nstabi I i ty has been documented or remedi al
acti ons/repai rs are deemed necessary.
9.1.5 Bed Material Analyses
After constructi on, there shoul d be mi ni mad change i n the bul k sampl a data over ti me gi ven the current
watershed condi ti ons and sedi ment suppl y regi me. Si gni f i cant changes i n parti d e si zes or si ze
di stri buti on i n otherwi se stabl a ri ff I es and pool s soul d warrant addi ti onal sedi ment transport anal yses
and cad cud ati ons. A substrate sampl a wi I I be col I ected where certai n constructed ri ff I es are i nstal I ed as
part of the proj ect. One constructed ri ff I e substrate sampl a wi I I be compared to exi sti ng ri ff I e substrate
data col I ected duri ng the desi gn phase and any si gni f i cant changes (i.e.; aggradati on, degradati on) wi I I
be noted after streambank vegetati on becomes establ i shed and a mi ni mum of two bankf ul I f I ows or
greater have been documented.
9.1.6 Visual Assessment
Vi sual moni tori ng assessments of a1 I stream secti ons wi I I be conducted by qual i f i ed personnel twi ce per
moni tori ng year wi th at I east f i ve months i n between each si to vi si t. Photographs wi I I be used to
vi sued I y document system performance and any areas of concern ref aced to streambank stabi I i ty,
condi ti on of i n- stream structures, channel mi grati on, headcuts, I i ve stake mortal i ty, i mpacts f rom
i nvasi ve pl ant sped es or ani mal sped es, and condi ti on of pool s and ri ff I es. The photo I ocati ons and
descri pti ons wi I I be shown on a pl an vi edv map per N CEEP' s moni tori ng report gui dance (v 1.5, June
2012).
The photographs wi I I be taken f rom a hei ght of approxi matel y f i ve to si x f eet to ensure that the same
I ocati ons (and vi edv di recti ons) at the si to are documented i n each moni tori ng peri od. A seri es of photos
over ti me wi I I be al so be used to subj ecti vel y eval uate channel aggradati on (bar formati ons) or
dggradati on, streambank erosi on, successf ul maturati on of ri pari an vegetati on, and effecti veness of
sedimentation and erosion control measures.
9.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successf ul restorati on of the vegetati on on a si to i s dependent upon hydro) ogi c restorati on, pl anti ng of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. I n order to
determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants wi I I be installed and monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CV S-N CEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 ( Lee at a1., 2007). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be a minimum of 2% of the planted
portion of the si to wi th a minimum of five (5) plots established randomly within the planted riparian
buffer areas per Monitoring Levels land 2. No monitoring quadrants wi I I be establ i shed within the
undi sturbed wooded areas of Reaches R4, R5, R6, and R7. The si ze of i ndi vi dual quadrants wi I I be 100
square meters for woody tree species.
V egetati on moni tori ng wi I I occur i n the fal 1, pri or to the I oss of I eaves. I ndi vi dual quadrant data wi I I be
provi led and wi I I i nd ude sped es di ameter, hei ght, densi ty, and coverage quanti ti es. Rel ati ve val ues wi I I
be cal cut ated, and i mportance val ues wi I I be determi ned. I ndi vi dual seed) i ngs wi I I be marked such that
they can be f ound i n succeedi ng moni tori ng years. M ortal i ty wi I I be determi ned f rom the di fference
between the provi ous year's I i vi ng, pl anted seed) i ngs and the current year's I i vi ng, pl anted seed) i ngs.
At the end of the f i rst f ul I growi ng season (f rom base) i ne/year 0) or after 180 days between M arch 1 � and
November 30th, sped es composi ti on, stem densi ty, and survi val wi I I be eval uated. For each subsequent
year, vegetati on pl ots shal I be moni tored for seven years i n years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or unti I the f i nal success
cri teri a are achi eved. The restored si to wi I I be eval uated between M arch and N ovember. The i nteri m
measure of vegetati ve success f or the si to wi I I requi re the survi vat of at I east 320, 3 -year of d, pl anted trees
per acre at the end of year three of the moni tori ng peri od. At year f i ve, densi ty must be no I ess than 260,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -3 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

5-year of d, pl anted trees per acre. The f i nal vegetati ve success cri teri a wi I I be the survi val of 210, 7 -year
of d, pl anted trees per acre at the end of the seven -year moni tori ng peri od, whi ch must average 10 feet i n
hei ght. H owever, i f the performance standard i s met by year 5 and stem dend ti es are greater than 260, 5-
year of d stems/acre, vegetati on moni tori ng may be termi nated wi th approval by the U SACE and the
NCI RT.
Whi I e measuri ng sped es dend ty and hei ght i s the current accepted methodol ogy for eval uati ng
vegetati on success on mi ti gati on proj ects, sped es deed ty and hei ght al one may be i nadequate for
assessi ng pl ant communi ty heal th. For thi s reason, the vegetati on moni tori ng pl an wi I I i ncorporate the
oval uati on of addi ti onal pl ant communi ty i ndi ces, nati ve vol unteer sped es, and the presence of i nvasi ve
species vegetation to assess overal I vegetative success.
Baker wi I I provi de requi red remedi al acti on on a case by -case basi s, such as: repl anti ng more wet/drought
tol erant sped es vegetati on, conducti ng beaver management/dam removal, and removi ng undesi rabl e/
i nvasi ve sped es vegetati on, and wi I I conti nue to moni for vegetati on performance unti I the correcti ve
acti ons demonstrate that the si to i s trendi ng towards or meeti ng the standard requi rement. Exi sti ng mature
woody vegetati on wi I I be vi sual I y moni tored duri ng annual si to vi si is to document any mortal i ty, due to
constructi on acti vi ti es or changes to the water tabl e, that negati A y i mpact exi sti ng forest cover or
favorable buffer vegetation.
Addi ti onal I y, herbaceous vegetati on, pri mari I y nati ve sped es grasses, wi I I be seeded/pl anted throughout
the site. During and immediately following construction activities, ail ground cover at the project site
must be i n compl i ance wi th the N C Erosi on and Sedi mentati on Control Ordi nance.
9.3 Wetland Monitoring
N o wetl ands are proposed at the si to theref ore no such moni tori ng wi I I be i nd uded.
9.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
N o stormwater BM Ps are proposed at the si to therefore no such moni tori ng wi I I be i nd uded.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -4 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Figure 9.1 Proposed Monitoring Device Locations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -5 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual moni tori ng reports contai ni ng the i nformati on def i ned wi thi n Tabl e 10.1 bel ow wi I I be submi tted to
NCEEP by December 31� of the each year duri ng whi ch the moni tori ng was conducted. The moni tori ng
report shat I provi de a proj ect data chronol ogy for N CEEP to document the proj ect status and trends,
popul ati on of N CEEP databases f or anal ysi s, research purposes, and assi st i n ded si on maki ng regardi ng
proj ect d ose -out. Proj ect success cri teri a must be met by the f i na1 moni tori ng year pri or to proj ect cl oseout,
or moni tori ng wi I I conti nue unti I unmet cri teri a are successf ul I y met.
Table 10.1 Monitoring Requirements
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Re, uired
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per Apri 1 2003 USACE
Pattern data, including bank erosion pi ns/arrays i n
X
Wilmington District
As- buiItYear
pool cross - sections, will be collected only if there
Pattern
Stream M i ti gati on
and as needed
are i ndi cati ons through prof i le and di mensional
Guidelines
data that si gni f cant geomorphol ogi cal
adj ustments occurred.
As per April 2003 USACE
WiImingtonDistrict
Stream M i ti gati on
Monitoring
Cross secti ons to be mon i tored over seven (7)
X
D i mensi on
Guidelines and November
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
years and shal I i ncl ude assessment of bank hei ght
2011 NCEEP Monitoring
and 7
ratio (BHR) and entrenchment ratio (ER).
Requi rements
For restoration or enhancement I components,
As per November 2011
As-bui It Year
3,0001 i near feet or less, the enti re length wi I I be
X
Profile
NCEEP M onitori ng
and as needed
surveyed. For mitigation segments i n excess of
Requi rements
thi s footage, 30% of the length or 3,000 feet wi I I
besurveyed, whichever is greater.
As per Apri 12003 USACE
A substrate sampl a wi I I be col 1 ected if constructed
WiImingtonDistrict
Stream M i ti gati on
Monitoring
ri f f I es are i nstal I ed as part of the proj ect. One
X
Substrate
Guidelines and November
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
constructed riffle substrate samplewill be
2011 NCEEP Monitoring
and 7
compared to existi ng riffle substrate data col eected
Requi rements
during the design phase.
As per Apri 12003 USACE
A Crest Gauge and /or Pressure Transducer wi I I be
X
Surf ace Water
WiImingtonDistrict
Annual) y
instalIedonsite ; the devicewiIIbeinspectedona
Hydrology
Stream M i ti gati on
quarterly /semi - annual basis to document the
Guidelines
occurrence of bankfulI events on the project.
X
Vegetation
NCEEP -CVS Guidance
Monitoring
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
Vegetation will be moni tored usi ng the Carol i na
and 7
Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols.
Exotic and
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will
X
Nuisance
Semi- Annually
be visually assessed and mapped a minimum of 5
Vegetation
months apart.
Representati ve photographs wi I I be taken to
As per November 2011
capture the state of the restored channel and
X
Visual
NCEEPMonitoring
Semi - Annually
vegetated buffer conditions. Stream photos will
Assessment
Requirements
and as needed
be preferably taken i n the same location when the
vegetation is mi n mat to document any areas of
concern or to identify trends.
X
Proj ect
Semi- Annually
Locati ons of fence damage, vegetati on damage,
Boundary
boundary encroachments, etc. wiI l be mapped
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for dose -out by the Interagency Review Team (I RT) the si to wi I I be transferred to a third
party for I ong term management as descri bed i n EEF' s I n L i eu Fee I Instrument. Thi s party shad I be respond bl e
for peri odi c i nspecti on of the si to to ensure that restri cti ons requi red i n the conservati on easement or the deed
restriction documents (s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions
shad I be negoti aced pri or to si to transfer to the respond bl e party.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, N CEEP wi I I implement the post- constructi on monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance wi I I be performed as described previously in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the si td s abi I i ty to achieved to
performance standards arejeopardized, NCEEPwiI I notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Correcti ve Acti on. The R an of Correcti ve Acti on may be prepared ud ng i n -house techni cal staff or may
requi re engi neeri ng and consul ti ng servi ces. Once the Correcti ve Acti on R an i s prepared and f i nd i zed
NCEEPwil l:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary
and/or requi red by the USACE.
3. Obtai n other permi is as necessary.
4. 1 mpl ement the Correcti ve Acti on R an.
5. Provi de the USACE a Record Dradvi ng of Correcti ve Acti ons. Thi s document shad I depi ct the extent and
nature of the work performed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV Hand Appendix I I I of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's I n -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided the
U SACE -Wi I mi ngton District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements
assumed by N CEEP. This commitment provides f i nanci a1 assurance for al I mitigation projects implemented
by the program.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 13 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
Thi s document i s consi stent wi th the requi rements of the federal rul a for compensatory mi ti gati on si tes as
descri bed i n the Federal Regi ster Ti tl a 33 N avi gati on and N avi gaol e Waters Vol ume 3 Chapter 2 Secti on
§ 332.8 paragraphs (c) (2) through (c) (14). Specifically the document addresses the folIowing
requi rements of the federal rul e:
(2) Objectives. A descri pti on of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that wi I I be provided, the method of
compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in
whi ch the resource f uncti ons of the compensatory mi ti gati on proj ect wi I I address the needs of the
watershed, ecoregi on, physi ographi c provi nce, or other geographi c area of i nterest.
(3) Site selection. A descri pti on of the factors consi dered duri ng the si to sel ecti on process. Thi s shoul d
i nd ude consi derati on of watershed needs, onsi to a1 ternati ves where appl i cabl e, and the practi cabi I i ty of
accompl i shi ng ecol ogi cal I y sel f- sustai ni ng aquati c resource restorati on, establ i shment, enhancement,
and/or preservation at the compensatory mitigation site. (See§ 332.3(d).)
(4) Site protection instrument. A descri pti on of the I egal arrangements and i nstrument, i nd udi ng si to
ownershi p, that wi I I be used to ensure the I ong -term protecti on of the compensatory mi ti gati on si to (see §
332.7(a)).
(5) Baseline information. A descri pti on of the ec;ol ogi cal characters sti cs of the proposed compensatory
mi ti gati on si to and, i n the case of an appl i cati on for a DA permi t, the i mpact si te. Thi s may i nd ude
descri pti ons of hi stori c and exi sti ng pl ant communi ti es, hi stori c and exi sti ng hydrol ogy, soi I condi ti ons, a
map showi ng the I ocati ons of the i mpact and mi ti gati on si te(s) or the geographi c coordi nates for those
si te(s), and other si to characteri sti cs appropri ate to the type of resource proposed as compensati on. The
basel i ne i of ormati on shoul d a1 so i nd ude a del i neati on of waters of the U ni ted States on the proposed
compensatory mi ti gati on si te. A prospecti ve permi ttee pl anni ng to secure credi is f rom an approved
mi ti gati on bank or i nd i eu fee program onl y needs to provi de basel i ne i nformati on about the i mpact si te,
not the mi ti gati on bank or i nd i eu fee si te.
(6) Determination of credits. A descri pti on of the number of credi is to be provi ded, i nd udi ng a bri of
expl anati on of the rati onal e f or thi s determi nati on. (See § 332.3(f).)
(7) Mitigation work plan. Detai I ed wri tten specs f i cati ons and work descri pti ons for the compensatory
mi ti gati on proj ect, i nd udi ng, but not I i mi ted to, the geographi c boundari es of the proj ect; constructi on
methods, ti mi ng, and sequence, source(s) of water, i nd udi ng connecti ons to exi sti ng waters and upl ands;
methods for establ i shi ng the desi red pl ant communi ty; pl ans to control i nvasi ve pl ant specs es, the
proposed gradi ng pl an, i nd udi ng el evati ons and sl opes of the substrate, soi I management; and erosi on
control measures. For stream compensatory mi ti gati on proj ects, the mi ti gati on work pl an may al so
i nd ude other rel evant i nformati on, such as pl an form geometry, channel form (e.g. typi cal channel cross -
secti ons), watershed si ze, desi gn di scharge, and ri pari an area pl anti ngs.
(8) Maintenance plan. A descri pti on and schedul a of mai ntenance requi rements to ensure the conti nued
vi abi I i ty of the resource once i ni ti a1 constructi on i s compl eted.
(9) Performance standards. Ecol ogi cal I y -based standards that wi I I be used to determi ne whether the
compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. (See § 332.5. )
(10) Monitoring requirements. A descri pti on of parameters to be moni tored i n order to determi ne i f the
compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

needed. A schedul e f or moni tori ng and reporti ng on moni tori ng resul is to the di stri ct engi neer must be
i nd uded. (See § 332.6.)
(11) Long -term management plan. A descri pti on of how the compensatory mi ti gati on proj ect wi I I be
managed after performance standards have been achi eved to ensure the I ong -term sustai nabi I i ty of the
resource, i nd udi ng I ong -term f nand ng mechani sms and the party respond bl a for I ong -term
management. (See § 332.7(d).)
(12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes i n si to condi ti ons
or other components of the compensatory mi ti gati on proj ect, i nd udi ng the party or parti es respond bl a for
i mpl ementi ng adapti ve management measures. The adapti ve management pl an wi I I gui de deci si ons f or
revi si ng compensatory mi ti gati on pl ans and i mpl ementi ng measures to address both foreseeabl a and
unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See§ 332.7(c).)
(13) Financial assurances. A descri pti on of f i nand al assurances that wi I I be provi ded and how they are
suff i d ent to ensure a hi gh I evel of conf i dence that the compensatory mi ti gati on proj ect wi I I be
successfully completed, i n accordance wi th i ts performance standards (see § 332.3(n)). 2) Objectives. A
descri pti on of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that wi I I be provi ded, the method of compensati on (i.e.,
restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource
f uncti ons of the compensatory mi ti gati on proj ect wi I I address the needs of the watershed, ecoregi on,
physi ographi c provi nce, or other geographic area of i nterest.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -2 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

14.2 References
33 CFR 328.3, (b), (c)
40 CFR 230.3, (t)
Arcement, G.J., and V.R. Schnei der. 1989. Gui de for Sel ecti ng M anni ng' s Roughness Coeff i ci ents for
N atural Channel s and Fl oodpl ei ns. U ni ted States Geol ogi cal Survey Water -Suppl y Paper 2339.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/w=sp­­­­/­­­2339/report.pdf
Buck Engi neeri ng, a U ni t of M i chael Baker. 2007. Sedi ment Transport i n Sand Bed Streams — a Report for
NCEEP. Cary, NC.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, Nedv
York.
Earth Tech. 2003. Stream and Wed and Restorati on R an, Li ttl a Beaver Creek, Wake County, NC.
Submi tted to N C Wetl and Restorati ons Program, N CD EN R, Rai ei gh.
Federal I nteragency Stream Restorati on Worki ng Group (Fl SRWG). 1998. Stream corri dor restorati on:
Pri nci pl es, processes and practi ces. N ati onal Techni cad I nformati on Servi ce. Spri ngf i el d, VA.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankf ul I hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Assod ati on. June 30-Jul y 2, 1999. Bozeman, M T.
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Desi gn Revi edv Checkl i st. US Fi sh and Wi I dl i fe Servi ce,
Chesapeake Bay Fi el d Off i ce, Annapol i s, M D and U S Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, Off i ce
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington D.C. EPS843 -B -12 -005
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the Ameri can Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776:1234-1279.
Leopold, L.. B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some
Physi ographi c I mpl i cati ons. Geol ogi cal Survey Professi onal Paper 252. US Dept of I nteri or,
Washington, D.C.
Leopold, L. B., M .G. Wol man, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San
Francisco, CA. (151).
Natural Resource Conservation District (N RCS). 1970. Wake County Soil Survey. USDA. Available U RL:
http: / /www.nres. usdagov / Internet /FSE— MANUSCRIPTStnorth carolinalwakeNC1970 /text.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources(DWR). 2005. Cape Fear River BasinwideWater Quality
Ran, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC. Available U RL:
http://ported.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basi n/capefear /2005.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (D WQ). 2006. Water Quality Stream Classifications for
Streams in North Carolina. N CD EN R, November 2006. Raleigh, N C.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Reference Reach Database In publication.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2006. Kenneth and Parker Creeks/Harris
Lake Local Watershed Plan, Factsheet.. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina [Onl i ne WWW] . Avai I abl e U RL:
http: / /www.nceep. net/ servicesilwpsiHarris- Kenneth/NEW Harris %2OLake.pdf.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -3 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2009. Upper Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina [ Onl i ne WWW] . Avai I abl e U RL:
http://[e-mail]/restplans/Upper Cape Fear RBRP 2009.pdf. .
North Carolina FI oodpl ai n Mapping Program.2011. [Onl i ne WWW] . Available U RL:
http://www.ncfloodmgps.com.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. Cited from http: / /www. geology. enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm
N orth Carol i na N atural H eri tape Program (N H P) El ement Occurrence Database (L i sti ng of State and
Federal I y Endangered and Threatened Sped es of N orth Carol i na). N orth Carol i na Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 2010, 2011. [OnlineWWW].
Avai I abl e U RL: http://l49.168.1.196/nhp/.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A d assi f i cati on of natural rivers. Catena22:169 -199.
1996. Applied River Morphology. Wi I dl and Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency
Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 18 -26, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV: Subcommittee on
Sedi mentati on.
2006. Watershed Assessment ofRiver Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). San Fort Collins, CO.
(648).
SchaFal e, M . P., and A. S. Weakl ey. 1990. CI assi f i cati on of the natural communities of North Carolina,
thi rd approxi mati on. N orth Carol i na N atural H eri tape Program. Di vi si on of Parks and Recreati on,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape ofAlluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological
Survey Professi onal Paper 352 -B. U.S. Geol ogi cal Survey. Washi ngton, DC.
Si mon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 14(1):11 -26.
U ni ted States A rmy Corps of Engi neers. 1987. Corps of Engi neers Wetl ands Del i neati on M anual .
Technical Report Y -87 -1. Environmental Laboratory. USArmy Engineer Waterways Experiment
Stati on. V i cksburg, M S.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical N ote V N- rs -4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream M i ti gati on Gui del i nes, Apri 12003, U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers. Wi I mi ngton
District.
2010. 1 nteri m Regi onal Suppl ement to the Corps of Engi neers Wed and Del i neati on M anual : Eastern
M ountai ns and R edmont Regi on. ERDCIEL TR -10 -9, V i cksburg, M S.
http:// www. saN. usace.army.mil /Wetiands/JDs/EMP Piedmont.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
Personal communi cati on, 2011. N C B EH I /N BS rati ng curve.
U ni ted States Geol ogi cal Survey (U SGS) Land Cover Data 2002. [ON i ne VWVW] . Avai I abl e U RL:
http: // less.u5gs.gov /.
Walker, A. 2011 NC B EH I /N BS rati ng curve. N RCS Soi I Survey Division. Personal communication.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -4 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

2012. N C Rural M ountai n and R edmont Regi onal Curve. U npubl i shed, N RCS. Personal
Communication.
Wol man, W. G., and L. B. Leopol d. 1957. Ri ver Fl ood -pl ai ns — Some Observati ons on thei r Formati on.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282C: 87 -109.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -5 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Thi s page i ntenti onal I y I eft bl ank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -6 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 15 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

N
x O
o`I
� s �
° < W
aq
3: A m° W
= w X0 U^IN
01 �I � �2
X '
d W ��'� sQ< 0 XZZa °o
Q U B g�� YSF 1 z° E N
} Z rc o o �' v � d m aa11
V d ° m
Z rr92 §oO � 2 o W 0 � FZ U ° i N a W w M D o N
W u
aiw
OZ
rs
hr,;
S� i-9,1� -ail
m• ��o a� gg $i aq 4 a` w p o
w : -sad a41 r 19 < $ ngo
1]ll ���m� €8��d =8y T z
°om� c
gg o�
C) _ d�aoa � W z
Z z W m 0
€off �� v U z
~a < $ °� Z c
8 a a 0 O
AjE a a _ W z Z z
=s€ _ p m w
w H "
a �$ - a w
U sa o 0 0 0 0 w F- c)
1= =g �z� a - - - - - - -
^� c o F - �gzz
W nm 1mggn Ng },8{ ° W g E Qo0$GO
2 �"Uaw
^ ^^ €m' os�3 < =b r W } is W W Q
mm
z_z_ �J�� =Bgr, z <__ as _ - >.. y
W as BO �8 5 0 m ° W o o< Z I o z
z �'� �� F i a z 3 =s ° a
�° ON o Y Z
0 u dw�� w J at
g m ° � > Q p w p <a
zo >of M_
Z6 =8rz ' r °� o� i Vi
a° N U z
A <z3 a Qr
z g�°
U F- "x
O Ou
G m
LL
O
W z
H rc
a —
€ �_�
g m _ l ° ,-
e g�aW �T gq pfllp -�W g_ ,>e 6 Nall:
LL m sJE� �8 1 F�j J13 �� €'� �� b N�
U i � Eff RMJ=11;a � z. yes€ = a ;� Yoaoa
i��F d W ckl� 3, iz j =�z'�i Ba = = m �Z YS�'� � ME a °a"ao
N b F o10 sw rX §19-1 b ' ff € "$.6 &'>
U?? F8te 8 °�� z = -g $ �g -alto Sm
nn $ 7 '< °: 0 Boo P� �Fr�W� <'a a S $ ° "� °8
K , �� z = a �F €E �S rn�maja
0 $I I888'S r�@ eb>Y 3< � 119.1669P $_ � b S wwz mua°
oCi =g.. 6 w $ i '� .eiWz 8� @ ^{ o b, < ..rbgo $ & _
j¢p{ ?�r�.� ZO ,� ° s p�p{{ �� yZO �r,�,'d $-$+F�r{'B ZOgi ail Z9 zd 1� ZZ� c €= <
3 W � s p, 5 < ° Y F � o <� <�id �P `g<$� �w < v < F °�i �_ Z
am i = 0>8 �. QF8� = <'`�� i o agZ FFF> Flu o
� m spas ��� ��� � � � � • �o � ��� �� .. -
<
.z
z
m
°
m
U
a
m
°
a
m
°
a
m
U
a
m
°
a
m
U
a
m
U
a
m
U
a
m
U
a
m
U
a
v�
vNi
f0
o
r0
°
O
�
�
o
O
n
N
a
�
5m
'C3"
Nm
W°
cm
W°
im
W°
W°
im
Wm
vo
vo
Y!"
vo
YSe
vo
vo
YS°
ii°
o0

9LJ666 0 30 -(LLOZ) f9 aVN 3N CN
rn
K�
z
'S N
z
w
0
mm WWWWW -7*
* 0-
�ly pp a LLJ
L'j
K V)
IRE
Ow Z�
1, 0 0 5
1
Z- E N
b
, �51%T-Nq, , ME
�9:2AA A A �2
2 b
z 'p—
z
z
z z
ft 0
z iz
�z N.
N
z
0
26
r: 0. w w
0 V) w m 0 on
rom ILL I- I 'l.
G 0
VT.— �E Z
wvV.— ..R 9
1:
z
w
w
w L)
V)
-z 0
Z
>. LLJ z
z 0
N'l 0 ......... I > L'i
DUKE E )G I W W C) z
S IT
S 4C
oa 15289, P�
PIRM91470
37
80
M ME mw Z z z
Ni Q� I' 1 -1 w w
(r<) : u2j
Ja L)
87
V) 0
>
P 0 - ii !z
. V) t5 * =)
U < 0 0 C)
0
> 0
of LLJ Lu
Ld
cn z uJ
Z
0 L)
0 z
L)
6 < <
Z
LLI 0 <a
ry 3 z e Of
,18'0091 <
Sl.ZC.Ca s cn C)
X < iz
O T- O z
= WO
F-
LL
0,6
11 Z.
w
z
Z—
o
zl-;�
Jom
8
Win
F=-,
z
=>
m
op'.
N
04
wg,
4 z
z
-q ll �
LL
in
0
z
N c,4
z
n�
r
g
"q
z
Lj
w
F
z
.1
1
Z
z
II
W
z
z
L LLj
Lj
Z�
Z
o
z
Z
L,
L 0
x
6"
z
111 11
x
W. td
o
x
'Z!
0
x •
N
Z,
w;1.
Z
FL,�
-ai
R
w
P
z
�g w
I
o
z
o
OR
x
Z°
r:
I N
o
0
z
z
8
z
K
w
I �; m
z
z
z
0
Q.
O'd
w
--)( — X
x x
X x
x x
x
Z
0-
Z
z
26
r: 0. w w
0 V) w m 0 on
rom ILL I- I 'l.
G 0
VT.— �E Z
wvV.— ..R 9
1:
z
w
w
w L)
V)
-z 0
Z
>. LLJ z
z 0
N'l 0 ......... I > L'i
DUKE E )G I W W C) z
S IT
S 4C
oa 15289, P�
PIRM91470
37
80
M ME mw Z z z
Ni Q� I' 1 -1 w w
(r<) : u2j
Ja L)
87
V) 0
>
P 0 - ii !z
. V) t5 * =)
U < 0 0 C)
0
> 0
of LLJ Lu
Ld
cn z uJ
Z
0 L)
0 z
L)
6 < <
Z
LLI 0 <a
ry 3 z e Of
,18'0091 <
Sl.ZC.Ca s cn C)
X < iz
O T- O z
= WO
F-
Z
53
g 0
ITLO 091
0 z,o
Oz 2 P-
z <
w az
C) 6 `,o
Z -i z olto,
W
z
0 <
l �,
w LzMo z
0
z z 2 z M oz -
P 0a <
YY
> z
z z
I
00 z z
0 R W°Ua
z
0,6
w
w
z
0
3:
0
Jom
z
=>
m
N
04
wg,
4 z
-q ll �
LL
in
0
z
N c,4
x
z
"q
0
8
1
Z
z
II
W
z
z
Z�
Z
o
x
6"
z
111 11
Z
53
g 0
ITLO 091
0 z,o
Oz 2 P-
z <
w az
C) 6 `,o
Z -i z olto,
W
z
0 <
l �,
w LzMo z
0
z z 2 z M oz -
P 0a <
YY
> z
z z
I
00 z z
0 R W°Ua
z

Prepared by and return to:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. O. Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
Revenue $
SPO File Number:
EEP Project Number: : 85g5s
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of November, 2014, by IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN and wife, MARY
FRANCES GOODWIN ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is 4300 Shearon Harris Road, New
Hill, NC 27562, to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of
North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include
said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for
the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and
riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
Page 1 of 11

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Balser
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is
to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program with an effective date of 28 July, 2010,
which supersedes and replaces the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Buckhorn Township, Wake County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more particularly
described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 149.99 acres and being conveyed
Page 2 of 11

to the Grantor by deeds recorded in Deed Book 2653 at Page 235 and Deed Book 2653 at Page
233 of the Wake County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the areas
of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and purposes
hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The
Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Thomas Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows:
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Tracts Number CE -1, CE -2, CE -3, CE -4, CE -5, CE -7 and CE -8 containing
a total of 16.58 acres as shown on a Plat entitled "Thomas Creels
Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina- Ecosystem
Enhancement Program on the Property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin &
Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin & Bethany Goodwin ",
dated September 27, 2014, certified by Marshall Wight, PLS Number L-
5034 and recorded in Plat Book , Page
, Wake County Registry.
TOGETHER with an easement for access, ingress, egress and regress as
described on the above - referenced recorded plat and this Conservation
Easement Deed.
The Conservation Easements described above are hereinafter referred to as
the `Basement Area" or the "Conservation Easement Area" and are further
set forth in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
Page 3 of 11

Lei \ o
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area by
the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived
from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational uses,
including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation Easement
Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey plat
or as specifically allowed within a fence maintenance zone as described in section D or a
Road or Trail described in section H.
The Grantor reserves the right, for himself, his successors and assigns, to operate motorized
vehicles within Crossing Area(s) described on the survey recorded in Plat Book , Page
of the County Registry as "reserved stream crossing ". Said crossing shall not
exceed feet in width, and must be maintained and repaired by Grantor, his successors or
assigns to prevent degradation of the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited with the following exception:
Page 4 of 11

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there is a fence within the Conservation Easement Area, the
Grantor reserves the right to mow and maintain vegetation within 10 feet of the Conservation
Easement boundary as shown on the Survey Plat and extending along the entire length of the
fence. The Grantor, his successors or assigns shall be solely responsible for maintenance of the
fence for as long as there is livestock on the Grantor's property adjacent to the Conservation
Easement Area.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and commercial
uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement Area with the following exception:
Only roads and trails located within the Conservation Easement Area prior to completion of the
construction of the restoration project and within crossings shown on the recorded survey plat may
be maintained by Grantor, successors or assigns to allow for access to the interior of the Property,
and must be repaired and maintained to prevent runoff and degradation to the Conservation
Easement Area. Such roads and trails shall be covered with pervious materials such as loose gravel
or permanent vegetation in order to minimize runoff and prevent sedimentation.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except interpretive
signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Conservation Easement
Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement,
signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned
vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock,
peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
Page 5 of 11

discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1652.
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage,
maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources in
the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights
granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and manmade
materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe the
project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project boundaries
and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property within the Conservation Easement Area to restrict livestock
Page 6 of 11

access. Although the Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the
right to maintain, repair or replace the fence at the sole discretion of the Grantee and at the expense
of the Grantor, who agrees to indemnify the Grantee for any costs incurred as a result of
maintenance, repair or replacement of the fence if such costs are required to protect the
Conservation Easement Area from repeated incidents of grazing or other prohibited activities.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
11 �'D111T17tZ11�1�►Y' : ► 1 u 1
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features
in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall,
except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have
ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the
breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this
Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover
damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and
authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Conservation
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief,
if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be
irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to
Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the right,
with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall
be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
Page 7 of 11

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property are
the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of
the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom the
Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made. Grantor
further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in
the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws,
and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall
notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
Page 8 of 11

addressed to:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
1 1
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment
of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
Page 9 of 11

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hand and seals, the
day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Irvin Woodrow Goodwin
Mary Frances Goodwin
1' •'1
COUNTYOF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife, Mary Frances Goodwin, Grantor,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2014.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
00375363/ 1
Page 10 of 11

Exhibit I
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Thomas Creek
Wake County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -1)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,012,542.06;
Y= 697,515.55, and identified as Control Point 4 9 on the above referenced plat and
running S 25° 3 718 " W, 169.24' to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 54 °19'17" E a distance of 132.92' to a point;
thence S 40 °59'15" E a distance of 323.58' to apoint;
thence S 31 °33'11" E a distance of 209.55' to apoint;
thence S 77 °02'43" W a distance of 115.55' to a point;
thence N 40 °31'07" W a distance of 488.30' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.51 acres, more or less
2. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -2)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:

Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,012,898.72;
Y= 697,017.65, and identified as Conservation Easement Point 4 4 on the above
referenced plat and running S 12'57'17" E, 25.00' to a point, which is the POINT AND
PLACE OF BEGINNING, Conservation Easement Point 4 7; thence continuing the
following courses and distances:
S 24 °39'31" E a distance of 283.46' to a point;
thence S 05 °44'07"
E a distance of 193.81' to a point;
thence S 12 °06'36"
E a distance of 233.90' to a point;
thence S 24 °15'58"
E a distance of 232.67 to apoint;
thence S 13 °54'44"
E a distance of 189.44' to a point;
thence S 37 °00'12"
E a distance of 169.40' to apoint;
thence S 13 °32'19"
E a distance of 147.50' to apoint;
thence S 52 °10'49"
W a distance of 153.77 to a point;
thence N 24 °36'02"
W a distance of 206.71' to a point;
thence N 26 °37'22"
W a distance of 301.56' to a point;
thence N 75 °14'57"
W a distance of 186.31' to apoint;
thence S 86 °49'49"
W a distance of 251.80' to a point;
thence N 08 °07'27"
W a distance of 128.87' to a point;
thence N 83 °26'24"
E a distance of 198.90' to a point;
thence N 88 °21'26"
E a distance of 197.20' to a point;
thence N 16'1618"
W a distance of 233.86' to a point;
thence N 04 °08'21"
W a distance of 352.89' to a point;
thence N 28 °07'40"
W a distance of 221.17' to a point;
thence N 77 °02'43"
E a distance of 132.00' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
6.52 acres, more or
less
3. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -3)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,300.1 l;
Y= 695,425.11, and identified as Control Point 4 2 on the above referenced plat and
running N 20 °59'17" W, 112.08', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING, Conservation Easement Point 4 25; thence continuing the following
courses and distances:

N 52'10'49" E a distance of 175.50' to a point;
thence S 59 °21'52"
E a distance of 85.82' to a point;
thence N 374722"
E a distance of 234.75' to a point;
thence N 12'17'05"
E a distance of 125.01' to a point;
thence N 24 °5745"
E a distance of 172.30' to a point;
thence N 03 °45'10"
E a distance of 349.26' to a point;
thence N 67 °09'01"
E a distance of 128.45' to a point;
thence S 33 °00'37"
E a distance of 77.33' to a point;
thence S 13 °16'40"
W a distance of 124.25' to a point;
thence S 86 °19'56"
E a distance of 76.80' to a point;
thence S 04'26'10"
W a distance of 115.09' to a point;
thence N 87°41' 13"
W a distance of 40.49' to a point;
thence S 13 °32'09"
W a distance of 131.05' to a point;
thence S 21 °27'04"
W a distance of 350.33' to a point;
thence S 38 °25'48"
W a distance of 199.80' to a point;
thence S 00 °57'32"
E a distance of 198.36' to a point;
thence S 13 °36'27"
W a distance of 283.21' to a point;
thence N 89 °47'40"
W a distance of 157.09' to a point;
thence N 12'18'52"
E a distance of 281.45' to a point;
thence N 46'18'42"
W a distance of 268.84' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
6.01 acres, more or
less.
4. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -4)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,781.41;
Y= 695,842.92, and identified as Control Point 4 4 on the above referenced plat and
running N 29 °57'07" E, 354.02', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 04 °26'10" E a distance of 114.62' to a point;
thence N 58 °26'41" E a distance of 44.27' to a point;
thence S 00 °48'03" W a distance of 112.62' to a point;
thence S 61 °06'55" W a distance of 51.41' to a point;

the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
0.10 acres, more or less.
5. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -5)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,853.71;
Y= 696,291.22, and identified as Control Point 4 5 on the above referenced plat and
running N 41 °31' 19" W, 180.02', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 42 °55'27" W a distance of 129.07' to a point;
thence N 07 °33'38" E a distance of 122.38' to a point;
thence S 88 °51'35" E a distance of 125.56' to a point;
thence S 88 °51'35" E a distance of 220.07' to a point;
thence S 44 °08'01" W a distance of 220.89' to a point;
thence S 67° 12'18 " W a distance of 130.11' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.12 acres, more or less
6. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -7)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,897.27;
Y= 697,065.50, and identified as Conservation Easement Corner 4 58 on the above
referenced plat, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence
continuing the following courses and distances:

N 55 °52'43" E a distance of 38.70' to the center of the stream
thence S 54 °34'14" E a distance of 13.61' to the center of the stream
thence S 08 °34'11" E a distance of 15.23' to apoint;
thence N 88 °26'35" W a distance of 45.41' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
0.01 acres, more or less.
7. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -8)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,526.91,
Y= 697,451.02, and identified as Control Point 48 on the above referenced plat, and
running N 25° 03'13" W, 98.14' to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING, Conservation Easement Point 4 72; thence continuing the following
courses and distances:
N 17 °45'43" W a distance of 132.26' to a point;
thence N 52 °39'59"
E a distance of 61.53' to the center of the stream;
thence S 22 °05'53"
E a distance of 64.76' to the center of the stream;
thence S 28 °53'58"
E a distance of 45.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 23 °10'07"
W a distance of 18.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 171745"
E a distance of 17.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 45 °14'50"
E a distance of 36.15' to the center of the stream;
thence S 64 °40'23"
E a distance of 30.26' to the center of the stream;
thence S 48 °13'45"
E a distance of 59.23' to the center of the stream;
thence S 21 °07'29"
E a distance of 43.28' to the center of the stream;
thence S 15 °29'47"
W a distance of 24.46' to the center of the stream;
thence S 82 °24'36"
E a distance of 13.96' to the center of the stream;
thence S 24 °17'41"
E a distance of 29.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 41 °21'36"
E a distance of 34.34' to the center of the stream;
thence S 43 °33'57"
W a distance of 20.50' to the center of the stream;
thence S 08 °46'51"
W a distance of 31.72' to the center of the stream;
thence S 17 °45'53"
E a distance of 24.19' to the center of the stream;
thence S 57 °40'46"
E a distance of 17.50' to the center of the stream;
thence S 27 °29'07"
E a distance of 44.60' to the center of the stream;
thence S 77 °38'19"
E a distance of 70.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 30 °04'56"
E a distance of 17.01' to the center of the stream;
thence S 88 °13'33"
E a distance of 38.77' to the center of the stream

thence S 21 °36'10"
E a distance of 27.18' to the center of the stream;
thence S 03 °44'53"
E a distance of 28.52' to the center of the stream;
thence S 12 °12'53"
W a distance of 24.93' to the center of the stream;
thence S 42 °09'41"
E a distance of 21.02' to the center of the stream;
thence S 79 °42'14"
E a distance of 12.72' to the center of the stream;
thence S 55 °36'32"
E a distance of 54.81' to the center of the stream;
thence S 55 °22'25"
W a distance of 43.55' to a point;
thence N 72 °38'57"
W a distance of 72.77' to a point;
thence N 48 °02'27"
W a distance of 176.82' to a point;
thence N 30 °01'52"
W a distance of 376.70' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.31 acres, more or
less.
7. Access to the Permanent Conservation Easements
Access to and through the permanent conservation easements described above and
conveyed herein, shall be (1) as provided in this deed,(2) as provided on the Plat
referenced above (see Note 8, Sheet 1 of 2), from the 60' Public Right -of -Way of
Shearon Harris Road, (NCSR 1134), to provide ingress, egress, and regress for purposes
of accessing the permanent conservation easements set forth above, and as shown on the
aforesaid map recorded in Plat Book Page of
the Wake County Registry.

Revenue $ DRAFT
SPO File Number: S
EEP Project Number: S
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of November, 2014, by MICHAEL L. GOODWIN and wife, BETHANY
GOODWIN and with respect to their life estate in the Property, Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife,
Mary Frances Goodwin, ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is 4232 Shearon Harris Road, New
Hill, NC 27562, to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of
North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include
said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for
the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and
Page 1 of 12

riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is
to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program with an effective date of 28 July, 2010,
which supersedes and replaces the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Buckhorn Township, Wake County, North Carolina (the "Property "), subject to a life estate in
Page 2 of 12

Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and Mary Frances Goodwin, and being more particularly described as
that certain parcel of land containing approximately 8.48 acres and being conveyed to the Grantor
by deeds recorded in Deed Book 8959 at Page 105 and Deed Book 8959 at Page 108 of the Wake
County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the areas
of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and purposes
hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The
Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Thomas Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows:
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Tract Number CE -6 containing a total of 1.98 acres as shown on a Plat
entitled "Thomas Creels Conservation Easement Survey for the State of
North Carolina- Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the Property of Irvin
Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin ", dated September 27, 2014, certified by Marshall
Wight, PLS Number L -5034 and recorded in Plat Book ,
Page , Wake County Registry.
TOGETHER with an easement for access, ingress, egress and regress as
described on the above - referenced recorded plat and this Conservation
Easement Deed.
The Conservation Easement(s) described above are hereinafter referred to
as the "Easement Area" or the "Conservation Easement Area" and are
further set forth in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
Page 3 of 12

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
libel:' : ►fiTi I7��.'l�Zifl7if:TTcT1�i1 'PiTi �.�T 1 `.
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area by
the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived
from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational uses,
including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation Easement
Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey plat
or as specifically allowed within a fence maintenance zone as described in section D or a
Road or Trail described in section H.
The Grantor reserves the right, for himself, his successors and assigns, to operate motorized
vehicles within Crossing Area(s) described on the survey recorded in Plat Book , Page
of the County Registry as "reserved stream crossing ". Said crossing shall not
exceed feet in width, and must be maintained and repaired by Grantor, his successors or
assigns to prevent degradation of the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited with the following exception:
Page 4 of 12

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there is a fence within the Conservation Easement Area, the
Grantor reserves the right to mow and maintain vegetation within 10 feet of the Conservation
Easement boundary as shown on the Survey Plat and extending along the entire length of the
fence. The Grantor, his successors or assigns shall be solely responsible for maintenance of the
fence for as long as there is livestock on the Grantor's property adjacent to the Conservation
Easement Area.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and commercial
uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement Area with the following exception:
Only roads and trails located within the Conservation Easement Area prior to completion of the
construction of the restoration project and within crossings shown on the recorded survey plat may
be maintained by Grantor, successors or assigns to allow for access to the interior of the Property,
and must be repaired and maintained to prevent runoff and degradation to the Conservation
Easement Area. Such roads and trails shall be covered with pervious materials such as loose gravel
or permanent vegetation in order to minimize runoff and prevent sedimentation.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except interpretive
signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Conservation Easement
Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement,
signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned
vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock,
peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
Page 5 of 12

discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1652.
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage,
maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources in
the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights
granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and manmade
materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe the
project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project boundaries
and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property within the Conservation Easement Area to restrict livestock
access. Although the Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the
Page 6 of 12

right to maintain, repair or replace the fence at the sole discretion of the Grantee and at the expense
of the Grantor, who agrees to indemnify the Grantee for any costs incurred as a result of
maintenance, repair or replacement of the fence if such costs are required to protect the
Conservation Easement Area from repeated incidents of grazing or other prohibited activities.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features
in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall,
except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have
ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the
breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this
Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover
damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and
authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Conservation
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief,
if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be
irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to
Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the right,
with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall
be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
Page 7 of 12

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V� M—1 f.Y11111M.1101 xlllk
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property are
the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of
the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom the
Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made. Grantor
further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in
the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws,
and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall
notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
Page 8 of 12

addressed to:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
1 1
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment
of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hand and seals, the
Page 9 of 12

day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Michael L. Goodwin
(SEAL)
Bethany Goodwin
NORTH CAROLINA �
Irvin Woodrow Goodwin
Mary Frances Goodwin
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Michael L. Goodwin, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2014.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Bethany Goodwin, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2014.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Page 10 of 12

COUNTY OF
1, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife, Mary Frances Goodwin, Grantor, who
have a life estate in the above - referenced Property, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2014.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
00375370/ 1
Page 11 of 12

Exhibit I
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Thomas Creek
Wake County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619368876) (CE -6)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Michael L. Goodwin and Bethany Goodwin subject to life estate of Irvin Woodrow
Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin, (PIN: 0619368876), more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,014,008.14;
Y= 696,634.95, and identified as Conservation Easement Point 4 53 on the above
referenced plat, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence
continuing the following courses and distances:
N 88 °51'35" W a distance of 220.07 to a point;
thence N 22 °32'12"
E a distance of 199.98' to a point;
thence N 48 °00'24"
E a distance of 146.34 'to a point;
thence N 43 °44'27"
W a distance of 163.93' to a point;
thence N 55 °52'43"
E a distance of 44.81' to a point;
thence S 88 °26'35"
E a distance of 45.41' to a point;
thence N 71 °26'09"
E a distance of 236.36' to a point;
thence S 15 °20'07"
W a distance of 95.71' to a point;
thence S 21 °05'31"
W a distance of 246.51' to a point;
thence S 51 °44'41"
W a distance of 85.27' to a point;
thence S 09 °48'44"
E a distance of 131.39' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.98 acres, more or
less.
2. Access to the Permanent Conservation Easements
Access to and through the permanent conservation easements described above and
conveyed herein, shall be (1) as provided in this deed,(2) as provided on the Plat
referenced above (see Note 8, Sheet 1 of 2), from the 60' Public Right -of -Way of
Shearon Harris Road, (NCSR 1134), to provide ingress, egress, and regress for purposes
of accessing the permanent conservation easements set forth above, and as shown on the
aforesaid map recorded in Plat Book Page of
the Wake County Registry.

Prepared by and return to:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. O. Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
Revenue $
SPO File Number: : . [
EEP Project Number: : 11 S
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of November, 2014, by MICHAEL L. GOODWIN and wife, BETHANY
GOODWIN, ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is 4232 Shearon Harris Road, New Hill, NC
27562, to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North
Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include
said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et sect., the State of
North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for
the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and
riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
Page 1 of 11

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Balser
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is
to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program with an effective date of 28 July, 2010,
which supersedes and replaces the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Buckhorn Township, Wake County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more particularly
described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 29.93 acres and being conveyed
Page 2 of 11

to the Grantor by deeds recorded in Deed Book 8959 at Page 105 of the Wake County Registry,
North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the areas
of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and purposes
hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The
Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Thomas Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows:
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Tract Number CE -9, CE -10 and CE -11 containing a total of 4.17 acres as
shown on a Plat entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation Easement Survey
for the State of North Carolina- Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
Property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael
L. Goodwin & Bethany Goodwin ", dated September 27, 2014, certified by
Marshall Wight, PLS Number L -5034 and recorded in Plat Book
, Page , Wake
County Registry.
TOGETHER with an easement for access, ingress, egress and regress as
described on the above - referenced recorded plat and this Conservation
Easement Deed.
The Conservation Easements described above are hereinafter referred to as
the "Easement Area" or the "Conservation Easement Area" and are further
set forth in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
Page 3 of 11

use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area by
the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived
from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational uses,
including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation Easement
Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey plat
or as specifically allowed within a fence maintenance zone as described in section D or a
Road or Trail described in section H.
The Grantor reserves the right, for himself, his successors and assigns, to operate motorized
vehicles within Crossing Area(s) described on the survey recorded in Plat Book , Page
of the County Registry as "reserved stream crossing ". Said crossing shall not
exceed feet in width, and must be maintained and repaired by Grantor, his successors or
assigns to prevent degradation of the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited with the following exception:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there is a fence within the Conservation Easement Area, the
Grantor reserves the right to mow and maintain vegetation within 10 feet of the Conservation
Easement boundary as shown on the Survey Plat and extending along the entire length of the
Page 4 of 11

fence. The Grantor, his successors or assigns shall be solely responsible for maintenance of the
fence for as long as there is livestock on the Grantor's property adjacent to the Conservation
Easement Area.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and commercial
uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement Area with the following exception:
Only roads and trails located within the Conservation Easement Area prior to completion of the
construction of the restoration project and within crossings shown on the recorded survey plat may
be maintained by Grantor, successors or assigns to allow for access to the interior of the Property,
and must be repaired and maintained to prevent runoff and degradation to the Conservation
Easement Area. Such roads and trails shall be covered with pervious materials such as loose gravel
or permanent vegetation in order to minimize runoff and prevent sedimentation.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except interpretive
signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Conservation Easement
Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement,
signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned
vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock,
peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
Page 5 of 11

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1652.
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage,
maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources in
the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights
granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and manmade
materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe the
project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project boundaries
and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property within the Conservation Easement Area to restrict livestock
access. Although the Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the
right to maintain, repair or replace the fence at the sole discretion of the Grantee and at the expense
of the Grantor, who agrees to indemnify the Grantee for any costs incurred as a result of
Page 6 of 11

maintenance, repair or replacement of the fence if such costs are required to protect the
Conservation Easement Area from repeated incidents of grazing or other prohibited activities.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
1 T�M-To ZIiX&I`N II/A0[a.7D1u1X17i�f.
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features
in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall,
except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have
ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the
breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this
Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover
damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and
authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Conservation
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief,
if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be
irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to
Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the right,
with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall
be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
Page 7 of 11

including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terns of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property are
the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of
the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom the
Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made. Grantor
further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in
the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws,
and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall
notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
Page 8ofII

addressed to:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
ummm1 1
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment
of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hand and seals, the
Page 9 of 11

day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Michael L. Goodwin
Bethany Goodwin
1` 1,
(SEAL)
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Michael L. Goodwin, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2014.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
1 1'
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Bethany Goodwin, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2014.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
00375372/1
Page 10 of 11

Exhibit I
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Thomas Creek
Wake County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619473680) (CE -9)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Michael L. Goodwin and Bethany Goodwin (PIN: 0619473680), more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,966.34;
Y= 697,137.08, and identified as Conservation Easement Point 4 78 on the above
referenced plat, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence
continuing the following courses and distances:
N 34 °05'36" W a Distance of 168.08' to a point;
thence N 68 °33'43"
W a Distance of 114.97' to a point;
thence N 20 °58'35"
W a Distance of 204.80' to a point;
thence N 33 °31'30"
W a Distance of 274.60' to a point;
thence S 52 °39'59"
W a Distance of 58.12' to the center of the stream;
thence S 22 °05'53"
E a Distance of 64.76' to the center of the stream;
thence S 28 °53'58"
E a Distance of 45.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 23 °10'07"
W a Distance of 18.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 171745"
E a Distance of 17.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 45 °14'50"
E a Distance of 36.15' to the center of the stream;
thence S 64 °40'23"
E a Distance of 30.26' to the center of the stream;
thence S 48 °13'45"
E a Distance of 59.23' to the center of the stream;
thence S 21 °07'29"
E a Distance of 43.28' to the center of the stream;
thence S 15 °29'47"
W a Distance of 24.46' to the center of the stream;
thence S 82 °24'36"
E a Distance of 13.96' to the center of the stream;
thence S 24 °17'41"
E a Distance of 29.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 41 °21'36"
E a Distance of 34.34' to the center of the stream;
thence S 43 °33'57"
W a Distance of 20.50' to the center of the stream;
thence S 08 °46'51"
W a Distance of 31.72' to the center of the stream;
thence S 17 °45'53"
E a Distance of 24.19' to the center of the stream;
thence S 57 °40'46"
E a Distance of 17.50' to the center of the stream;

thence S 27 °29'07"
E a Distance of 44.60' to the center of the stream;
thence S 77 °38'19"
E a Distance of 70.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 30 °04'56"
E a Distance of 17.01' to the center of the stream;
thence S 88 °13'33"
E a Distance of 38.77' to the center of the stream;
thence S 21 °36'10"
E a Distance of 27.18' to the center of the stream;
thence S 03 °44'53"
E a Distance of 28.52' to the center of the stream;
thence S 12 °12'53"
W a Distance of 24.93' to the center of the stream;
thence S 42 °09'41"
E a Distance of 21.02' to the center of the stream;
thence S 79 °42'14"
E a Distance of 12.72' to the center of the stream;
thence S 55 °36'32"
E a Distance of 54.81' to the center of the stream;
thence N 55 °22'25"
E a Distance of 67.67 to a point;
the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent conservation easement
containing 1.26 Acres,
more or less.
2. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619473680) (CE -10)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Michael L. Goodwin and Bethany Goodwin (PIN: 0619473680), more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,942.67;
Y= 697,064.26, and identified as Conservation Easement Corner 4 59 on the above
referenced plat, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence
continuing the following courses and distances:
N 08 °34'11" W a Distance of 15.22' to the center of the stream;
thence N 54 °34'14"
W a Distance of 13.61' to the center of the stream;
thence N 55 °52'43"
E a Distance of 58.66' to a point;
thence S 34 °29'49"
E a Distance of 41.24' to a point;
thence N 20 °27'13"
E a Distance of 170.45' to a point;
thence S 81 °28'24"
E a Distance of 52.21' to a point;
thence S 47 °44'24"
E a Distance of 87.98' to a point;
thence S 15 °20'07"
W a Distance of 40.86' to a point;
thence S 71 °26'09"
W a Distance of 236.36' to a point;
the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent conservation easement
containing 0.41 Acres,
more or less.

3. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619473680) (CE -11)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin, Michael L. Goodwin &
Bethany Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book
Page , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Michael L. Goodwin and Bethany Goodwin (PIN: 0619473680), more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,014,478.10;
Y= 697,471.39, and identified as Control Point 413 on the above referenced plat and
running S 67 °00'14" W, 410.81', to apoint CE 79, which is the POINT AND PLACE
OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 47 °50'15" E a Distance of 133.29' to a point;
thence N 41 °18'11"
E a Distance of 381.02' to a point;
thence N 31'25'43 "
E a Distance of 206.91' to a point;
thence S 60 °08'51"
E a Distance of 136.38' to a point;
thence S 23 °51'22"
W a Distance of 83.04' to a point;
thence S 35 °16'13"
W a Distance of 344.90' to a point;
thence S 42'1 Y40"
W a Distance of 156.69' to a point;
thence S 56 °31'16"
W a Distance of 190.46' to a point;
thence N 40'10'07"
W a Distance of 123.33' to a point;
the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent conservation easement
containing 2.50 Acres,
more or less
4. Access to the Permanent Conservation Easements
Access to and through the permanent conservation easements described above and
conveyed herein, shall be (1) as provided in this deed,(2) as provided on the Plat
referenced above (see Note 8, Sheet 1 of 2), from the 60' Public Right -of -Way of
Shearon Harris Road, (NCSR 1134), to provide ingress, egress, and regress for purposes
of accessing the permanent conservation easements set forth above, and as shown on the
aforesaid map recorded in Plat Book Page of
the Wake County Registry.

16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

l
Meeting Minutes
• IT, F-IR0 -r- -,;Z-1 Loll Z11 • , ki 1,1900-1 ZIN
EEP Contract No. 5549
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8400 Regency Parkway
Suate 604
Cary N Mh Carrri"27518
Phw,,e 91940115488
Fax: 919,4615490
Date Prepared:
October 18, 2013
Meeting Date, Time,
October 9, 2013, 9:00 am
Location:
On -site (Wake County, NC)
US4CE Todd Tugwell, Tyler Crumbley, James Lastinger
NCDWR Eric Kull Jennifer Burdette, Ginny Baker
Attendees:
NCEEP _9j TPearce, Jeff Suffer, Heather Smith
BakerSDott Hunt, Chris Fbessler
&abject:
Ste visit w/ NOFrf
Fboorded By:
Chris Fbessler
An on -site meeting was held on October 9th, 2013 to discussthe Thomas Creek Fbstoration (Full
Delivery) Project in Wake County, NG The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Familiarize the NOFrfwith the stream restoration project and discuss basic concepts for the
proposed mitigation plan;
2. Reach agreement on mitigation approaches and credit ratios for each project reach and section;
3. Identify and discuss potential concerns/ issues based on field observations.
After introductions, Chris Fbessler provided background approachesfor the project. Essentially, Baker
proposes a watershed -based approach to include nearly all of the intermittent and perennial reaches on
the property, aswell as enhancement and restoration to provide functional uplift. The site visit began in
the middle of Reach M and proceeded in a generally clockwise direction around the project area. All of
the project stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, M, FU, T1, and T2) were observed and
discussed. Observations and condusions for each reach are noted below.
Note: maps from the proposal and following thisvisit are included with this memo.
Leach W (middle & lower)
Group walked to middle of Reach M below wooded area and agreed with Priority 1 approach. After
discussing Reach T1, the group continued down Reach M and agreed with continuing a Priority 1
approach.
Leach T1
Initial discussion on T1 focused on whether this reach isjurisdictional or not. The soils are hydric but the
channel morphology is not well defined. The US4CEdescribed draft mitigation target of 30 consecutive
days of flow for ajurisdictional channel, astypically monitored by a pressure transducer. That
requirement will not apply for this project.
Recommendations were to keep channel at existing grade (instead of proposed Priority 1). The
mitigation plan should discussthe goals and functional uplift to be provided if restoration is
implemented. It was agreed that the Draft 30 -day flow standard would not apply to thisfeature, but it
still would be required to meet/ exceed j urisdict ional standards for flow when restored. The concern
from the I RFwas a removal from the groundwater if a R approach was conducted. S)ott Hunt had
mentioned perhaps utilizing trail cameras to document flow events in lieu of transducer

implementation. The IRFis interested in this approach and the potential utility of this methodology
Baker will try to implement this methodology if the budget allows.
The group moved slightly down valley and decided that a relic channel for T1 could be restored instead
of the existing channel. The existing channel is perpendicular to the valley / Fbach M and it will be filled.
The plan will be for T1 to follow the relic channel below a farm crossing as Priority 2 and gradually come
up to Priority 1 as it enters the design floodplain for Fbach M.
The NaFrf noted wetland pockets in the relic channel. These should be delineated and quantified for the
PCN; however, the impactsto them will be offset and considered temporary becausewetland pockets
should develop around a restored T1 channel, particularly in the floodplain of Fbach M.
Leach R1
Baker pointed out where Fbach R1 (below confluence of Fbach M and R5) is expected to transition from
Priority 1 to Priority 2 in order to match grade at the downstream end of the project area. Bedrock at
the downstream end will provide a stable point for the restored channel to tie to existing grade.
Leach R5
The proposed Priority 1 approach was accepted by NaFrf. Discussion about a stream crossing at this
location ensued and the NaRFexpressed a preference for culverted crossings and mentioned that
crossings can be included in the easement if language is included to allow for approved uses.
The group stopped at a headcut on upper Fbach R5 to observe the transition point from restoration
(downstream) to what was previously proposed as preservation (upstream). The NaRFexplained that
the existing vegetation condition did not warrant preservation statusand reallywhat should be
proposed is Enhancement Level 11 at a 5:1 credit ratio. This approach should be used on upper Fbach R5,
lower Reach M, and lower Reach F;1; supplemental planting should be done to bring the buffer width to
50 feet on both sides of the channel. No channel work will be done along these reaches.
Reach R7
As discussed above, lower FU will be enhanced using Enhancement Level II at 5:1 credit. Where shown
on proposal maps as Enhancement Level 11, approximately 100 feet upstream from confluence with M,
Baker will implement Enhancement Level II at 2.5:1 credit ratio. To attain this ratio, Baker will install
grade control structures approximately every 150 feet and stabilize the eroding side gullies by installing
additional grade control and bank stabilization measures. The grade control structures should maintain
and increase development of the benches forming along the channel, as well as re-wet some of the soils
along the channel. As with all project reaches i nd uded for mitigation credit, 50 -foot buffers will be
established. This Enhancement Level II section will extend upstream of the headcut where the group
stopped to complete an NCDWQ stream form. The mitigation plan should justify the 2.5:1 credit ratio.
The previously proposed preservation section located upstream from the headcut will be omitted from
the project.
Reach M
The group reconvened at the lower section of Reach M that was proposed for Enhancement Level I I at
2.5:1 credit ratio. The NaRFconcluded that though the reach is incised and has several headcuts, the
streambanks are not actively eroding and the hydrology is not likely to induce problematic erosion. Thus
it was conduded that the approach should be changed to Enhancement Level I I at a 5:1 ratio. No
channel work will be done along this reach. Invasive species vegetation removal and supplemental
planting will be completed to bring the riparian buffer width to 50 feet beyond both streambanks.
Continuing upstream on Fbach M, the NaRFrecommended Enhancement Level II at a5:1 ratio through
what had been previously proposed as preservation, the upstream extent of which is approximately 300
feet above the existing stream crossing. Thus, all of Fbach M up to this point will be implemented at
Enhancement Level 11 at a 5:1 ratio. The uppermost approximately 265 feet of this section has low bank

height ratios and unverified wetlands along it. However, just upstream from this stable section, the
channel is degraded and eroding in numerous locations. The NaRFaccepted . 4'6f proposal to
implement Priority 1 restoration on the uppermost 200 feet of Fbach M with the design target being
similar to the stable and wet reach just below it, albeit with a high quality, planted buffer.
Leach M
After a vigorous bushwhack across cutover terrain, the group reassembled on upper Fbach M. 9milar to
much of Fbach W the NaRFrecommended Enhancement Level II at 5:1 ratio on upper Fbach Fri,
instead of preservation as Baker proposed. Moving downstream, the 100 feet upstream from the dosed
stream crossingwill be targeted for Enhancement Level I or possibly restoration. The channel beginsto
degrade and show eroding banks in this section. Baker will evaluate the survey data to determine if
beginning restoration is appropriate upstream from the dosed crossing.
Below the dosed stream crossing the group noted awider floodplain, aswell as a degraded and eroding
stream channel. The NaFrf stated that they were OKwith Enhancement Level I at 1.5:1, as proposed, or
restoration, with a preference toward Priority 1 to provide functional uplift through floodplain wetting.
Baker expressed interest in implementing stream restoration in this section beginning with Priority 2
and transitioning to Priority 1 when the earthwork for the reach balances. The NaRFagreed with this
approach but cautioned that the existing condition survey would need to be analyzed in detail to
determine if Enhancement Level I or restoration is most appropriate.
Leach R4
The group debated the appropriate credit ratio for Fbach R4 after agreeing that an Enhancement Level I I
approach is warranted. SApplemental planting will be needed, particularly on the right bank, where the
buffer is presently 10 -20 feet wide. The livestock exclusion fence will need to be moved to allow for a
50 -foot buffer on the lower left to middle left bank. Todd Tugwell expressed a preference for
Enhancement Level 11 at a 10:1 ratio and stated his general disfavor crediting of invasive species
vegetation removal, considering that at the end of the project and beyond existing seed sources allow
many of the invasive plant species to become re- established. Baker accepted the 10:1 credit ratio but
will not do invasive species removal in this reach. 50 -foot bufferswill be established, with livestock
exclusion fencing on the left side adjacent to existing pasture.
The entire group did not walk along lower R4 but a restoration approach wastacitly accepted. Most of
this section will need to be Priority 2 as the incised channel is brought up to grade. Baker should
describe the functional uplift that will be attained through restoration in the mitigation plan.
Leach R2 (upper)
The group walked around to the origin of upper Fbach R2 at the confluence of M and R4. Continuation
of Priority 1 restoration is proposed in this section and the NaRFaccepted this approach.
Leach T2
This short reach begins at a spring at the base of a hill. Existing tree roots are providing grade control
though the channel is steep and downcutting pressure is evident. The NaRT recommended that
Enhancement Level I at a 1:1 credit ratio. Baker will install a grade control structure where T2 ties into
R2 at the R2 stream bank, and elsewhere, as appropriate.
Contacts
• Heather Smith will serve as the EEP Project Manager and main point of contact. Chris Fbessler
will be the Baker Project Manager and coordinate/ submit project deliverables directly with
Heather Smith for distribution to all NaRFteam members.
Action Items and Next Steps

• Project S�hedule Baker stated they are ready to proceed immediately with the Task 1
deliverable (Categorical Exclusion) and do not anticipate project delays.
• After thejurisdictional determination has been conducted, any wetland areasthat will be
impacted by the proposed work (filled or drained) will need to be identified and functional
replacement for those losses should be proposed and discussed in the draft mitigation plan.
• USNCE requires Jurisdictional (JD) stream /wetland calls for the project. Baker will coordinate
with James Lastinger for on -site JDverification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• 9gnage will be needed on all conservation easement areas. Thiswill help to exclude future
logging operations from the easement areas.
This represents Baker Engineering's interpretation of the meeting discussions. If you should find any
information contained in these meeting notes to be in error and /or incomplete based on individual
comments or conversations, please notify mewith corrections/ additions as soon as possible.
9ncerely,
Chris Fbessler, Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Fbgency Parkway, 9aite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: croesslerflMbakercorp.com

16.1 USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms — per regional
supplement to 1987 Manual
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -2 10/1/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

From: Lastinger, James C SAW
To: Scott Kim
Subject: RE: Thomas Creek JD (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:01:11 PM
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Scott,
The maps submitted are accurate. I have not issued a JD letter yet because I have not received surveys
to sign. If you want me to issue a JD now I can, and then sign the surveys later once they come in. It
is up to you. I apologize for any confusion.
James Lastinger
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
ADDRESS: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
Tel: [phone], x32
Fax: [phone]
Regulatory Homepage: http:/ /www.saw.usace.army.mil /WETLANDS
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us
ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
htt :>� //r-e uq latory.usacesurve .cy om /.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Scott King [ mailto: Scott. King9mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:27 PM
To: Lastinger, James C SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Thomas Creek JD (UNCLASSIFIED)
Good afternoon James,
We are finalizing the Mitigation plan for Thomas Creek and in speaking with the EEP project manager,
she said that since we don't have any official, finalized permit or letter from the Corps yet, we should
consider including a short email statement from the project manager stating that the stream /wetland
determinations are approved as per the JD application. I have included dated maps that you can
reference if you like. I know this sounds a little casual, but she does understand our situation and says
from experience that it's good to have something that shows that the stream /wetland calls were
discussed agreed upon at this early stage. She said she'd really just like a sentence or two saying you
agree with the findings presented in the JD application and as shown on the stream and wetland maps
dated 26 Aug 2014. I'll try and get the same sort of statement from DWR.
Thank you very much for your time James, I appreciate it.
-Scott
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Lastinger, James C SAW [mailto: James .C.Lastingergusace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:31 AM
To: Scott King
Subject: RE: Thomas Creek JD (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Scott,

From:
Kulz, Eric
To:
Scott King
Cc:
Burdette, Jennifer a; Baker,Virginia
Subject:
RE: Thomas Creek EEP mitigation site
Date:
Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:35:02 PM
S. ott :
` r - - " • - -• • - !Wrf 11RW9. -• • •• - �• • a •
calls for permitting. I don't see the need for another site visit, and frankly don't think anyone
• DWRcan get out there any time
IT1 71M,
From: Scott King [ mailto :Scott.King @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:37 PM
To: Kulz, Eric
Subject: Thomas Creek EEP mitigation site
Hello Eric,
In the course of getting a wetland /stream .D determination for the Thomas Greek EEP stream
restoration mitigation site near New Hill in Wake County, the Corps representative (James
Lastinger) dedined the need for another field visit as he didn't think there was anything
controversial about
the site and was fine with the submitted application and maps. However, for indusion in our
mitigation plan we would also like a letter from DWR regarding the applicability of stream
buffer and mitigation- requirement rules. We've usually just met the DWR rep in the field the
same day as the Corps, but since we aren't doing that in this case, I was wondering if someone
from DWRwould like to walk over the site with me one day to confirm? Unless you don't think
it warrants afield visit either. At the IRFwalkover last October, you, Jennifer Burdette, and
Ginny Baker were there from DWR We're calling all the project streams jurisdictional, but I
don't believe they should be subject
to any buffer rules as they're a part of the Cape Fear 04 catalog unit (site flows into Shearon
Harris reservoir, which empties into Buckhorn Creek then into the Cape Fear River). Attached
is an overview map of the project and easement, along with the original DWR stream forms.
Of course I can provide you with any other information you need about the project, just let
me know.
Thank you very
much, S)ott King
919- 219 -6339

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProiectlSite: 1 _,"
r a sp n.. CitvlCounty: �` Samnlinrt Date: f
ApplicantlOwner: 1/2 A '`_
t
c �_,..., , €. � r e State: d Sampling Point:
�
, "
investigator (s): ti� � t�K;,n �s Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc,): ;iT ^i .,,u ..: "n Local relief (concave, convex, none): r r w Slope (%):--L
Subregion (LRR or MLRA,): Lat: �t '` % Long: ( e "({ Datum: #
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are Climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area
— Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
No ' -
within a Wetland? Yes No
® Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
Remarks:
_ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
® Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Cron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (C3)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
— Thin Muck Surface (C7)
i Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (136)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Inundation visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B 13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
1:•_4! 1
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply)
— Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (131 4)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
® Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (1374)
Saturation (A3)
— Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
— Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
® Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Cron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (C3)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
— Thin Muck Surface (C7)
i Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (136)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Inundation visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B 13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes _ __- No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
1
v
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point;
Hydrophytic
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Vegetation
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
/,?S
Yes
i
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(A)
Remarks (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Total Number of Dominant
V\
3
Species Across All Strata:
t
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
7
Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OFT species x 1 =
Saplliog/Shrub, Stratum (Plot size:
FACW species x 2 =
I
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
2.
3.
4.
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
6
7,
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:-
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
c) r
2. F4
3 'oe, Co 0 1
4. ,lee
I
9
10.
11
Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover: ?
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1. V­ � _k
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytie Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is s1o'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
Total Cover
Present?
Yes
No_>11"_
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
V\
4,
"A ;7j,
. . . ... . ..... . . .....
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

OR
Sampling Point: '/V/ (
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(inches)-
Color (moist)---
0/. Color (moist) % Type' Toc
Texture Remarks
(MLRA 136,147)
(0111P -t-
100
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
® Other (Explain in Remarks)
fun
q- Q
i9 ?R1, 81 ( 1,
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil tndicators.
— Histosol (At)
— Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Black Histic (A3)
— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
— Stratified Layers (A5)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
— Thick Dark Surface (At 2)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Sandy Redox (S5)
— Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvoe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
6,
7
2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
— Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
® Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
— Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
— Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
® Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Redox Depressions (F8)
— Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
— Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
— Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
� I I 1 r
ProiectfSite: t P 'r � _ City /County: f (' t Sampling Date
Applicant /Owner : 0 Vz. -� � � , _, , � State: t ��.M Sampling Point: v
Investigator(s): , e ' r a, A Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): ce Z id- emave, onex, none):
Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): (C Lat: J' , < Long, % J j Datum: _
Soil Map Unit Name: v'(Y',', NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes —1-L No
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling paint locations, transacts, important features, etc.
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No I
--- Is the Sampled Area I
Hydric Soil Present? Yes . No within a wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes l No
Remarks:
=
Wetland Hydrology Indicators;
SeCondar Indicators minimum of two re aired
Primary Indicators f minimum of one is re uired° check all that apply)
— Surface soil Cracks (136)
i Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (814)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trans Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
i Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
— Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
v Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
— Iron Deposits (85)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC.Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No i Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No V Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _f No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: _
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2D

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover _Species? Status
� i V
91
7
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
2
7.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: i a t
a
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
10
3 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: ?
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
(
(P /A. , eq
Et
JV
4
Cems € 5
qzrnpling Point:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
I
NO
(A)
Q
F—A r_
1, 1 !J61 to a to
o
L
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC:
(NB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
10
3 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: ?
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
(
(P /A. , eq
Et
JV
4
Cems € 5
qzrnpling Point:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
7
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC:
(NB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
-Multi ply.by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is 50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0`
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 It (1
m) tall,
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
heiaht.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
,A'd ow 9,X
A
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont _ Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
needed to document the indicator or confirm
the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Toc
Texture Remarks
r(
Type: -C =Concentration, DmDe letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric SOIW:
— Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
— Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Po,lyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
— Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
® Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
— Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (176)
® Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) (LRR N,
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetiand hydrology must be present,
— Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type,
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.p

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydrric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks: t
Yes X No
4
Yes No
Yes Wiz, No
r
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
f /
'4 l+r,
ProjectlSite:,.,,_.
_ Surface Water (Al) _
City/County:
Sampling Date:
ApplicantiOwner: PIA
);2„ r
Drainage Patterns (1310)
�
State: Jarp IB7 g Point:—
Investigator(s): �- �. > f"
r ". ��_ -- x
Section, Township,
Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
,,, ; i °tr k.> a;l. , . Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): _
( Lat:
ate. �` ,�, 1 n
g: - �
Lon Datum: t,
Soil Map Unit Name:
f {2 r' I,a r „,
w
NWI classificatiom
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil
or Hydrology
significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Na
Are Vegetation Soil
or Hydrology
naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydrric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks: t
Yes X No
4
Yes No
Yes Wiz, No
r
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Prima Indicators minimum of one is re uired check all that a t
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
High Water Table (A2) —
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) —
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
® Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C:2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) —
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
— Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
— Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
— Ceornorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (B'7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
® Aquatic Fauna (1313)
® FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations.
Surface Water Present? Yes No -<
Depth (inches);
Water Table Present? Yes .�" No
Depth (inches): ,( I
Saturation Present? Yes Z No Depth (inches): •( rr Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes a No
gauge,
_ r
t �
photos, previous inspections), if available:
US Army Corps of Engineers Easter Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 .0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:.
, IA/
... . ......
'1 19 = Total Cover
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot sizei
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. "I ", i­�C�6
I
,x_ -,n r v (ck
2. r
That Are OBL, FACVV, or FAC:
(A)
j _,X z,
.
Total Number of Dominant
3. "e,
Prevalence Index = B/A
6.
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
(e)
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators:
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC:
f (A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of: Multipjyby
'1 19 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot sizei
FACW species x 2 =
c
FAC species X 3 =
FACU species x 4=
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
,x_ -,n r v (ck
2. r
3 r.
4.
5. & C, Z
If/
Prevalence Index = B/A
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
�K 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is C3.0'
Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
-7 20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2, 7- Ft _L
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.1
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
e I /
AC
4 ,A E� 11,
'A ,
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5. A LL11-
6. fc,"r F' o4 ro u OeL
7,
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
&
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
110
11.
Total Cover
50% of total cover
20% of total cover:
_11-1—
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
height,
Y
_AC
rA
2 2 z)
Hydrophytic
4
5.
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Total cover
5010 of total cover:
20% of total cover-
'�l
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
sheet.)
. ....... . ..............
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point-,
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to —document the indicator or confirm
the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
— Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
T
color (moist) % jWe'__. oc�
Texture Remarks
o �
i
5Typ2qfConcentra LionR= [ e pfe �on, F�M=Recluced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL= Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric, Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsi:---
— Histosol (At)
— Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
— Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
— Black Histic (A3)
— Fhin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
® Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
® Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
— Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) (LRR N,
iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_=
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Prglect/Site: citylCounty: ifs ! ._ Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: e, � �. �.4 § ems.,. State: A CC, . Sampling Point: �
cR
Investigator(s): o 41 Section, Township, Range:
C,. l =
p �t I °acs Local relief (concave" convex, none): Slope ( %). " r
Larrdfor'm (hillslo e, terrace, etc.): (si ,
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): f t La1. €15 • {e Long: Datum: ✓ -
Soil Map Unit N a m e L szk ' r° NI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No `
Remarks:, r
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators m€nimum of two re aired
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that apply.)
® Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
® drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131)
— Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
® Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in 'Tilled Soils (C6)
— Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
` Thin Muck Surface (C7)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CJ)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
® Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_.__ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
— Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present"? Yes No
_ Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
,,p
COY" ..=4..5'..�
5
yq� •,;,;, t p
4 y:..,f.. j F..z f "' +iY ` 0'.i
�4 Vty
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - -- Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
ee Stratum (Plot size: % Cover
-Species Status
0
rA(
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Percent of Dominant Species
2.
I
6.
7.
9.
Total Cover
50% of total cover'
20% of total cover
That Are OBL, FACK or FAG:
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Percent of Dominant Species
2.
Ji
1. (,I, tf yk_
(A/B)
3,
E j
2. dy, I
Multioly bv:
4
x 1 =
FACW species
5.,
4. 4
2-
6.
7.
9.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACK or FAG:
Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Percent of Dominant Species
Ji
1. (,I, tf yk_
(A/B)
Prevalence index vvorksheet:
E j
2. dy, I
Multioly bv:
rX C.
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
4. 4
2-
FACU species
X 4 =
U'PL species
X 5 =
7.
8.
5.
10.
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine. Stratum of ze: — 'j,
i F14 c
20
2- q 5 y Lk-111-1
D
4,
I —AIr
5.
Total Cover
50% of total cover: €m. 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
LL
.21 • 0 A •
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACK or FAG:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL FACK or FAC:
(A/B)
Prevalence index vvorksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multioly bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
X 4 =
U'PL species
X 5 =
Column Totals.
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevatence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks of on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapting/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 it in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point: �J/
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist)_... % Type', T—oc7— Texture Remarks
'T C= Concentration, D=Dep!fyqLn, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=PqEt_Ljning, M =Matrix.
Hydric. Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
— Histosol (Al) — Dark Surface (S7) — 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
— Histic Epipedon (A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
— Black Histic (A3) — Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147,148)
— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
® Stratified Layers (A5) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136,147)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface (F6) — Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) — Depleted Dark Surface (F7) — Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2) — Redox Depressions (F8)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) — Umbric, Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No IK-
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
( j
ProjecUSite: ti �ft� % ��r _ CftylCounty: 1,1c _ Sampling Date. �� �' � •,
ApplicanUOwner: i F.,.t VI -11 WAr ( State: ,'41 Sampling Point: ) a
Investigators) Section, Township, Range;
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): �1 �`��� ., Local relief (Concave, convex., n' one): ,
Slope
, ^ Subre ton ( LRR or MLRA : Let: Lon g
5 Datun1�
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes . No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ No
Are Vegetation Soil _. or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map slowing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes, No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
r ° I f`� Ilk
61 t V, 4
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators( minimum of one is required check alf that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (BB)
_ Surface Water (A1)
® True Aquatic Plants (B1 4)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
— high Water Table (A2)
— Hydrogen Sulfide odor (CI)
"a Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
— Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry- Season Water Tattle (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction to Tilted Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
® Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
® Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
� Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
MiCrotopographic Relief (13'4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No a Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No = Depth (inches): wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No
(includes capillary fringe)
__
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
_
Remarks:
._._ ._ .... ._._ _ ............ _.. _ _...._
ta!
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

�V,/ 7-
Sampling Point: j
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet;
Tree StratuW (Plot size: C3
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
I
L b, 'i ,A, f-• sd
t. F-
! ' .
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2,
i
4 J t i, ov\
� 0
Total Number of Dominant
3.
h�
7
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species g
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
�
IU
=Total
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover
OBL species x I
,�
Sa lingiShrub Stratum Plot size: 3 f
FACW species x 2
FAC species x 3
2,
ELL
FACU species x 4
3.
rAL
UPL species x 5
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4. "o° , Q,
5
valence Index = B/A
6,
Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
Z 2 - Dominance Test is 50%
9.
3 - Prevalence index is S3.0'
Total Cover
— 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
data, in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1 ",­
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Fxplain)
1.
Ur -
2.
L
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Elf L/-
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5-___
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6. �A"� U T IFAI C J
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
S.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9•
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (I
m) tall,
I&
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tail,
Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total a cover. r:
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size:
height.
- -
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
r I"
4� U
5.
Vegetation
Present? Yes k No
Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks:
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
r
—
- - -- -- - -- - _____-
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 'V\/
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
needed to document the indicator or confirm
the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
_(inches) _ Color (moist)
Color (moist) 1/. jype ToF
Texture Remarks
1,9
1( k
'Type: C Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL -Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils.
— Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (57)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
— Histic Epipedon (A2)
® P6yvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148); — Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
— Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
— Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
® Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
— Stratified Layers (A5)
trr Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F$)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) (LRR N,
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (56)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_=
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Project/smm__
Applicant/Owner:
investigator(s): _
LA0O0} nn
Sampling Date�
state: SamplingPoint:
0±1 Section, Township, Range:
Lanomnn(mllslope. terrace, etc,): U Local relief (conco,econve.none: Slope
Subrugwm(LRR or MLex)- Lat: Long: Datum: �IAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: r
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time myear? Yes No__ (if no, explain mRem,rks.)
Are Vegetation ____ Soil 'u, Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? vow mo____
Are Vegetation ___~ Soil .vr Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers innemarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
Yes
No Is the Sampled Area
No
within a Wetland?
Yes No
Welland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary indicators (minimum of two required)
Primafy Indicators( inimum of one is required; check all that apply)
— Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
— Surface Water (Al)
—
True Aquatic Plants (B 14)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
— High Water Table (A2)
—
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
— Saturation (A3)
—
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
— Moss Trim Lines (Bi 6)
— Water Marks (BI)
—
Presence of Reduced iron (C4)
— Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
— Sediment Deposits (B2)
—
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
— Drift Deposits (B3)
—
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
— Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
—
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI)
— Iron Deposits (135)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
— Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
— Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Microtopographic Relief (D41)
— Aquatic Fauna (B1 3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No _
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No _
Depth (inches):_
Saturation Present? Yes—
--- No_
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N o,
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
os Army Corps orEngineers sastemmnummnvarmpieumon— vorswnzo

VEGETATION (Four Strata) -Use scientific names ofplants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: Cover Species? Status
EA C
e.
9.
_Multiply by:
oaLno*ciey
- ------_ ------
F4cvv species
xz=_______
r*Copec/*,
Total Cover
pxco species
oomor total cover:
__Y 0 _2m:aox total cover: __�__�
Herb Stratum (plot size:
� E I
z�
a
*.
--_�--_
_--� l2±C 0
s.
0
,-A C_
r
B.
9.
10
11
Total cover
�
aomm total cover: _�[� zopam total cover:
_.���_
(Plot Woody Vine Stratum i )
� -I L?
z.
Sampling Point:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number ofDominant
That Are oaL.pxcw'o,Fxc: __-=L_-_ (A)
Tmammnbermommnant
Species Across All Strata: 69 (B)
Percent ofmmnmam °/
Toa�aoe�rAcw.orrxc: -Lc 4- (A/ B)
Total % Cover of:
_Multiply by:
oaLno*ciey
x1~_--------
F4cvv species
xz=_______
r*Copec/*,
v»-______-
pxco species
n*~_______
op/opo*/*s
xs=________
Prevalence Index =em~
wyunmphytm Vegetation Indicators:
_l' Rapid Test for *ydmpwyticVegetation
a Dominance Test is >50%
z Prevalence Index |u5zo
4 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks o,omo separate sheet)
Problematic H)mmphytic Vegetation' (sxplam)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
Tree m. (7a cm) or
more m diameter m breast height (oBH). regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub � Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than o in. omi and greater than m equal mz.moU
Herb -
All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
5 Vegetation
5 = Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: l?,T 20% of total cover�
Remarks� (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
i
us Army Corps mEngineers sa,temmounmm,mmpieumnn- vrrsmnzo

US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern MOUntams and Piedmont - Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist)
Color (moist) % �e _Loc'
Texture Remarks
Li
6"
91k(
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sells 3
— Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
— Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
— Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
— Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
— Stratified Layers (AS)
— Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
— Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
® Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
— Redox Depressions (F8)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
® lion-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Urnbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
— Stripped Matrix (S6)
— Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — No 11_1
Remarks:
i _7P"
iM
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern MOUntams and Piedmont - Version 2.0

a� - ?
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
[latitude (ex. 34. 872312); ' , S , t" � � )
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. —77.556611): — -� , b
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aeriaij- Photo /GIS- Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (ifnnvl-
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of v
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 'Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries. Habitat
Trout Waters ®Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? 4 F NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: - ce.. r `
14. Does channel appear on USES quad map?
YD ES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey ?` SNC) P
21. Estimated watershed land use: % residential
% Forested
22. Sankfull width. 14
% Commercial ®% Industrial tG' %q Agricultural
% Cleared / Logged ®% Other
r;
23. Sank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ®Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (> 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions„ enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 2 ( Commen
16 Evaluator's Signature Sate ?
This channel evaluation farm is intended to q used only as n guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to LISACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 -876 -8441 x 26.

a
* I hese characteristics are mass 6 in coastal streams.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached snap)
—.._. ._..... _..... �..._.._ a. u. _ - - s -... _..W... ......
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
7 aM
r
1. Applicant's name.: 4., 2, Evaluator's name. °u k
epi :rf
3, Date of evaluation: 4 . Time of evaluation:
� '�' �' � I'
5. Larne of stream. At.� 6. River basin: (2o P
7. Approximate drainage area: eta.__ S. Stream order: 12 ir It
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County :f
11, Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): 14 Latitude (ex.. 34 8723 t2): � � , i r . Longitude (ex ••- 77.55601 1): — '!R S
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Qrth© (Ac rEal} Photo % I s' Other 6 I Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Pr000sed channel work (if anv):
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions
17. Identity any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _"tidal Waters --Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (1 -1V) �
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point:? elli� NO If yes, estimate the venter surface area: e.:. &
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? AYE ; NO 20, goes channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? "r °E NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial ®% Industrial r � % Agricultural
% Forested 50% Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfuli width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): r
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: —Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): U Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 14pyl _ Date 1
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

MIUMMUT
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

FU ACE AID4 DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
. . .... .... ­­]
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -Ac*
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_i°�, ff 2. Evaluator's name:>
X..
r-
3. Date of evaluation: - 4. Time of evaluation: _ , 1 � ,
t ,
5. Name of stream. ( 4: 6. River basin :'
7. Approximate drainage area: W c.. 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 'ft 10. County: V4, fe
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872 3 12): ? s Longitude (ex.. -- 77.556511): " 14 ;�R • r ,F
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet t e ,i 1 Pho tt /rGCS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: 50
16. Site conditions at time ofvisi
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Y®Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
1.8. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES N If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NC)
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
% Forested
22. Bankfull width: L -C
% Commercial �% Industrial _ % Agricultural
%a Cleared / Logged _._% Other ( -
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2 -�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep (>I 0 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: 'Straight — Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments
a
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended (o be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 -876 -8441 x 26.

S 111 511,1004INE71 III
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

16.2 NCWAM Forms — Existing Wetlands
N C Wetl and Assessment Method (NCWAM) Forms were not i ncl uded f or this project,
as the NC Division of Water Resources and the USACE did not require them at the
ti me thi s proj ect was eval uated.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -3 10/1/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

16.3 NCDWR Stream Classification Forms
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -4 10/1/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

,. 5
�� j.

TVC". DWO Ctream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:.,.. _
Project/Site: ( nci, ;r. 1 ;�l :t , ..i
Latitude:
Evaluator:
r
County:: ('
Longitude:
Total Points: !. ___
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
Stream Determination (cirSle -gnaj
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial'
: ,_.
Other �Je w
e.g. Quad !Name:
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal = . 5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1", Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
t' 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
�2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1'
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
(J
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
�2 ..
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
D
12
3
8. Headcuts
fl' .
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1' _
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
=9.5_
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
0
a artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnlnnv Mihfntal = ) _ ) 1
12. Presence of Baseffow
0
1
< -2 ,)
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
r'.:
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
y ":1 ^.:
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 . -�
1
1.5
,16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
�3
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1
C; Rininnv lSiihtnfA = 1 `3 , a 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
4 :, 3, ,
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
�3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
. 0.
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
j,:`:.
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1 7 5.:....'s
25. Algae
0
�..
Q.,5 -
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL 1.5
Other = 0..;` -'
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
r
r
.J
Sketch:
r.>
I
�

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ' ;
a ry >
Project /Site: I r" I ":.
Latitude: ..a _B _ I , # <
Evaluator: ��) r;` a
(,
County: _ ' �'...
Longitude: ��
�' _'
.:z E
r
0
1
0.5
Total Points:
Stream Determination (clydfi O-ne)
Other - a,
2 �
Stream is at (east intermittent
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial)
e.g. Quad Name:
2
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30'
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
. "' °`2-:'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1'* Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
r_3`'__)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
1
2 �
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 -' '
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
. "' °`2-:'
3
6. depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1.5
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1-
2
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
8. Headcuts
0''
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
;;;0,
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
_:_71
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes'-
8 artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal W `)': )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
'" 1.,�.-
2
3
14. Leaf litter
l-5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
-> 4
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
'.DN
0.5
1
C.1.5 ..
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yew= 3.5
C. Biolow (Subtotal = (i •. )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(
2
1
0
20, Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
-
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
-> 4
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
C.1.5 ..
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
:. ';1' ".
1.5
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
0
FACW = 0.75; OBI-! 1.5 Other' .
1.5
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Gam•,. -� n` l
�r

P ! f
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �...... f)
Absent
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Strong
Evacuator
County: ;r
Longitude:
3
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
Total Points:
- �_..-
Stream Determination circle one
Other
( 3
Stream is at least intermittent
"� '`�
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e. Quad Name.
3
iP>_ 19 or erennial if>_ 30
0
1
``2'
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2..)
3
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3. in- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri lo- ool sequence
©
1
2
( 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
C,1_
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
``2'
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
(I
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
/ l`_,, %
2
3
9. Grade control
0
;` D.,. ��
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
{!1 5-
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0'., :: -3
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloay (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
�' 1; ,,�'
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
" 1.,..,:: '
2
3
14. Leaf litter
15_
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 _. }
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
i No = 0
Yes '= 3 1.
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = k l )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
:,3:.: -
2
1
0
19. Boated upland plants in streambed
(3 '`
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
,' 0._}
1
2
3
22. Fish
��,'�0
0.5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0�
0.5
�' 1.
.......... -.
1.5
24. Amphibians
p
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW ,,0131-
= 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p, 35 of manual.
Notes: kri _el'i "
Sketch: r

NC DWQ Stream Identilicaiion Form Version 4.11
Date: gg b� � � ,� .>
Project /Site: ` �
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:'
Longitude: <� 9
0
1
2
Total Points: r
t
-
Stream Deter rratign`(' ircle one)
Other ( t
Stream is at least intermittent °
Ephemeral ttntermittenf Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or Perennial if? 30'
f�
1
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = �
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
° 3'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1 1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
l :
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
�0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
24. Amphibians
2
3
9. Grade control
r" 0'-
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No,i :':
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
'' 1 ^)
2
3
13, Iron oxidizing bacteria
/'© J
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
'0 c. ;:::
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
6. -- `
0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3"
C. Biology Subtotal `F
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1._
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C.32.
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
ate...
1
2
3
22. Fish
f 'a
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
co _)
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
_ 1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Oth @r` =_0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods, See p. 35 of manual,
n
Sketch:
i

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: r //f hf F <
Project/Site: &! rdo l ",
Latitude: � y, 66 .)
Evaluator: f�, Hu
County: � f � � �
Longitude:
rn C r....
1
2
Total Points;
Stream Determinatjo circle one}
Other ftWJe a,J
Stream is at least intermittent ' ,. `
" '°
Ephemera niermitten Perennial
p
e. Quad Name:
g'
if � 19 or perennial if z 30'
0
(1(
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =' }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
77i_
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
(1(
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
/'0,51
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0,
' 1.r�
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
bm0'
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
/ ,0,
1 ..
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
L
2 32
3
9. Grade control
0
'` 0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No`= 0 .
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HVdrologV (Subtotal = { -.;S _ } 1...
12. Presence of Baseflow
'3
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
f9'
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
/° 1;'
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
1
0.5,: _„
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
/'0,51
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
3
C. Biolow (Subtotal = 1? . )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
'3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 -_
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos {note diversity and abundance}
O.-T;
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
41,
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 `_'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
COs;-
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0 ,.
05., - -`
1
1.5
25. Algae
�`Q „ry-
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other.,''
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
<,
Notes:
o
Sketch:
sF
r
i

NC DWQ Stream Identification Forma Version 4.11
Date: (,
Project/Site, `
Latitude:
Evaluator.
County: k
Longitude:
0
1
2
Total Points: `
Stream is least intermittent
tree termination (circle one)
Other (
1j"
phemera) Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
perennial ifs 30`
if ? 19 or erenn
/ }
0)
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = _J )
Ab§ppt
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1j"
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
/ }
0)
1
2
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
" 1 >
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
,''0 %
�1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
"0.:
1
2
3
S. Headcuts
0
11:
2
3
9. Grade control
0,
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
. 1:5' `
11. Second or greater order channel
No M "0 3
Yes 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = C;% r 5'
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 ;
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
; ' 0
1
2 ",:.:.:: -.,a
3
14. Leaf litter
1.S
1
= 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
, ' 01
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
i 0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No LO
Yes w 3
C. Biology (Subtotal
18. Fibr6U5 roots in streambed °
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2'' ;
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
'Z6
1
2
3
22. Fish
0)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
,� 0'''t
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians``',
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
, 0'
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in stroambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL M 1.5 Other
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
7 I
F
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Forms Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: ('o "�`" °' °
Latitude
Evaluator:;• :•, . :,
County:
Longitude:
0
1
2
Total Points:
Stream is least intermittent
Stream Deter i a ' n ircle one)
Other
at
Ephemeral i fermitte Perennial
P
e. Quad Name:
g'
it? 19 or perennial it? 30
0
�'1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
W
Moderate
Strong
1'* Continuity of channel bod and bank
0
7 ._
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
/" 9 '
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
�'1
2
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3)
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
"1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 •,.,,
" 1��..�
2
3
8. Headcuts
0.
1.:._
2
3
9.. Grade control
0
'w"' 0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0, �
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discvions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
=7
3
14. Leaf litter
z' 1.5._ - -?
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
-6 5 - '
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
i' 0 `_.
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high watt table?
No = 0
Yes'= 31
C. Blolow (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3._.' --
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3,; "
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1-1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
(`.0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
(`1:�:'
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1;::.. ='
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5 . ,,.
-771-)-
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0.75,- OBI
= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: lid
Sketch:
y

lit i
Irn
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Dater b �7, g°
-rte.
Project/Site: d"
Latitude r`
Evaluator. [f t °,.,
f
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: _. -. --
Stream is at least intermittent [ •PP$ <''
,-
Stream Deterpirftitio (circle one)
Other ;
i
Ephemeral 1ptermitte�ti t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if> 30*
�L2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =__LL_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
(- Y ` )
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
�L2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
�1�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
�1~
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
C 1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
.0..
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
!:1. -..
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
��'`1. _>
2
3
9. Grade control
0
% 0.5`
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
N9, 0 „
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 _
' _
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
" "0�
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
- 1:5,,�
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
` 0...: `
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris linos or piles
0
6.5 '
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = I 0 , )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
:�",:,,
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
f`3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
_ 0,
1 '
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
'` 0. ',i'
1
2
3
22. Fish
' '0 "
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
.0..
0.5
1
1._-,_W:
24. Amphibians
0
015
1
1 (`
25. Algae
0
C'0,5 .
1
1...
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified ,using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: CC 'r'i� �� " ��`�`-
" `..
e �,•.� :,
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: '> fit, /
ProjectlSite:
Latitude:
r
Evaluator } f 1 -
County: f
Longitude: Yi�'I,t
01.,:
<__1
2
Total Points: f
Stream Det , circle one)
Other .:��._�
Stream is at least intermittent
E hemera Perennial
p
e. Quad Name:
9
lfz 19 or erennial if >- 30*
0
�;' =1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
01.,:
<__1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
�;' =1
2
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 '
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0.
1
-' ,2
3
B. Depositional bars or benches
"% .0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
"__:.0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
:.1 ;;,:,::'_
2
3
9. Grade control
0
OW.S ",_.:•'
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 '
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
N - 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual f
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
<__1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
c 7 5.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
" '_ `0:',
0.5
1
1.5
16, Organic debris lines or piles
`.'0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yeses 3 .y
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 10 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
" 3' y
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
"'3 ?
2._-
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
' "1 :.-
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
°a` ='.
1
2
3
22. Fish
: d; ...-s
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0:j
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0 5 i
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL 1.5 'Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other
methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
%,; /a..

NC nWl1 .gfrenm Ydontlfientinn Form Version 4.11
Date: �� � � [ �,��,
Project /Site: '` ' "'' ^ r .v:r
Latitude; 5. C `/6
Evaluator:
Count y:
Longitude
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
of
1
Total Points: l�
stream Determination (circle w>Ie�
Other �r j � t
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent I
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if> 30*
{Perenni
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
I (/ )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3' ;
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
r
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0,,
1
2
3
5. Activelrolict floodplain
0
1
%"
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
%,.., ";
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
: 1 Y
2
3
8. Headcuts
CEO,
1
2
3
9. Grade control
<'U
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
(° 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No, ,0., "
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
Ft 14wirnlnrry (Ri ihtntal = ) 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
( "1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
-''a'-
3, f
z
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
�'05 ny
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
= _ 0.5 )
1
1.5
17. Soil -basod evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
C Biolog Subtotal = 10 �)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
% 3 _
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3, f
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
(: " r.
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
': 0....._.�
1
2
3
22. Fish
0....`::?
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1,y,;;'_
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5-
..1._.,. -�
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other - 0.'.
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: A f
Sketch:

0, Lto
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date; j" 1 r a
ProjectlStte. " t
Latitude:' "a
Evaluator: 1.
(, 1 t, r i.
County:
y
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
Lon itude:
g w A E
Total Points;
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Intermittent Perennial
Other ��, ; E
Name:
. L�
Ephemeral
e.g. Quad
rf? 19 or perennial ifz 30`
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-pool,
ripple -pool sequence
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
12.)
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
-
C3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1' ,
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
r27)
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
1
8. Headcuts
0
24. Amphibians
2 .
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1,5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1'
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No,, 0)
Yes = 3
aartiiicial' ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Wdroloav (Subtotal = .4 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 .
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
"'1 ` „?
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
K_.' .5:
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
�.%
1
. 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yets'= 3 s
C. Biolociv (Subtotal
10,P)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3,.. `
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 . -'
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
"'_`l_ 7
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
(};.?
1
2
3
22. Fish
4
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
X0,5.__ -'
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other =
Q.)
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: L, -- ( fe,
,,., .r
Sketch:

NC DCVO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
_ _ Gc 4"• Ca. r!
Date: � r" ).,\` `<r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_A-'�) -)
Project/Site: G "" ,`
Latitude:
t
Evaluator;;
County:
tongitude:
Total Points: :
�.-.
Stream Determination (cir�one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral lntermitte t'Perenniai
e.g. Quad Name:
if? f9 or erennial if? 30' 'J
0.5
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_A-'�) -)
Absent
Weak
Mode-rate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
C-- �_-'""
2 2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
r 3.
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1.5
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
�" 1 .'.>
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
24. Amphibians
2
3
9. Grade control
0
C 0_`;..N
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.° 0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No.,= a
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see disWsions in manual
B, H drola y (Subtotal= i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 _
r' 1y,;�
2
3
14. Leaf litter
_ .,5. -
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
Vin; "i,o'' - ::. - °j
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1..: -=
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = f { 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed.
3, '
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
°` 3,.:
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
?
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
TI
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
i. -�'
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5
Other_`'�:�"
-�
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: !nl n.,'r e���..;�
I_ per �.• t�� °F �� :�.
�.
Sketch:
'F

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
,,
Date: `� >
Project/Site: ���� t
res 1,
Latitude:a - =• t<a
Evaluator
Count
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (ei ��on`ej,
Other.J�'�_ y
Stream is at Least lnfermittent " J
Ephemeral Intermittent erenniai,
e.g. Quad Name:
LW ? 19 or perennial if ? 30` t
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I _�' ) A
Absent W
Weak M
Moderate S
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank 0
0 1
1 C
C-:2 3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0
0 1
1 3
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, }
0 1
1 3
}
3
-ripple-pool s
0 C
CLD 2
2 3
3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0
0 1
1 2
2'
6. Depositional bars or benches 0
0 t
t__1- 2
2 3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits �
� �"� 1
1 2
2 3
3
8. Headcuts a
a' • 1
1 2
2 3
3
9. Grade control 0
0
10. Natural valley 0
0 0
0.5 1
1' 9
9.5
11. Second or greater order channel N
No 0 Y
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal=
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 �- 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 "`..... :: = 2 3
14. Leaf litter !` `" 1':5 -`` 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0 5 .7 .._ 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 ,''"0:5" .,s 1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes, 3 )
C. Biology (Subtotal = . `J )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 ," ° °. 2 1 0
19. Rootod upland plants in streambed ����'_' -� 2 1 0
20, Macrobonthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 '` 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 , :,.' 0.5 _:_.....w 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 10.5_.. a, °� 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5;,1_,.,.. 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = .D..`,}
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
A
i D1�� K)m ,
C. Biology (Subtotal = . `J )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 ," ° °. 2 1 0
19. Rootod upland plants in streambed ����'_' -� 2 1 0
20, Macrobonthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 '` 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 , :,.' 0.5 _:_.....w 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 10.5_.. a, °� 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5;,1_,.,.. 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = .D..`,}
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
A
i D1�� K)m ,

r
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
A
Project /Site p.
Latitude::
Evaluator: f %..........
r
io
County: j �
Longitude:
��1
'
2
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle.:one)°
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
7 3
Ephemeral Intermitten /IGennlal,
e.g. Quad Name:
if? Igor perennial if >_ 30* •
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Mt- )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
r 2 ,,:� J
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
1
2..
�,
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
(1_
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0...
0
2
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
<:' "25_>
3
8. Neadcuts
0
25. Algae
2
3
9. Grade control
0
;: 0...5 .; j
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Na -'&
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = '1,5-)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1..
2
3
14. leaf litter
r�:,,5...�
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5._1w
^
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
; ::' ,1_...>
1.5
17. Soil -basod evidence of higl? water table?
No = 0
0.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 ._::i
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
g , ' y
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
� 0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
0;5,:...?
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1' ...
..
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW ''00.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes. %
i
Sketch:
f �

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j "�� ,�' ( =
Project /Site:
Latitude.
Evaluator:) /
F f
County: } if
Longitude..:.
Totai (Points: r
Stream is at least intermittent l
Stream Dete m io (circle one)
Other f . e
3
Ephemeral nterr►iitte t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial lfz 30x
/
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = i )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
.= 1 "_
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence....'
0
1
2 ?
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
' 1 '
2
3
5. Aetivelrelict floodplain
0
.. L112
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
Cu
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
f
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
c.. =w2)
3
9. Grade control
0
(75--175
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
„>
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 4 0 )
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = w„ )
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
C
2
3
13, Iron oxidizing bacteria
%`' fb' '
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5�:..
--
0.5
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
(, ::a_, =
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
f).5 TI
1
_ 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
yes= 3
C. Biologv (Subtotal= `,t , 2,'... )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2_,
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 ?
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
' 1 "
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
(�..
1
2
3
22. Fish
6_1 `'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0 5'
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
: "�0.5.� =''
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
;:. .5`.,..
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW (;':75. OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods: See p. 35 of manual. T
Notes:
t P
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ' 1�a l A r
Project /Site: f r V.4i �;::,� .
Latitude: 7,5-, .
s
Evaluator; s�j
r. f j �
unt Y� i g
Longitude:
..,F 1
2
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Str a ermination (circle one)
)intermittent
Other " ('tj /I
l r
J
emera Perennial
e.g. Quad !Name:
if? 19 or perennial ifz 30'
--
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ," )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
17
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
('0" 11 �)
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
T -1 ._-
2
3
5. Activetreliet floodplain
c`.:;TD'
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
3
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
6.
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5 _...
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 ..... -'
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = I )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
9
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
ij
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
�_ .6`1)
15. Sediment on plants or debris
('0" 11 �)
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles i.
' 0 ..,_.
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? ,,�✓, �¢ °: a
= 0
Yes = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal : . _'3- ) I `
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
°`'3,., ,.:�
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
Cl
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
..0.
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
© _'
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
:' "`:0,,.."
1
1.5
25. Algae
`: ?
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other 6. 7'
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
�t
r:
Sketch:
0

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: jam;;
Project /Site. (" t e„
Latitude: ZS. (4.
Evaluator:
Count y:
Longitude: • °r1 + 1.).
Total Points:
Stream Dote rm�a�tiocircle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = G , )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 ".Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
i 1 -`,)
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channol structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
'..� .
2
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
% 0.
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodpiain
0
'" f
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
;`'`0 :;::
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
. "0 ` _. "�
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
24. Amphibians
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
.1 "" `.. -`
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No'.µ 0 ".
Yes 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = K )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
C 1 '
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
." 1P
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.6 .,:::
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 `.. -'
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0..
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes "3'' ";;
C. Biology (Subtotal = V , 7.._.t
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3.
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 ':
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0... ='
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
::�...Q.5., ::'
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0 5 ...'
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
-:::0.5.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW., 0.7.5;
-' OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods, See p. 35 of manual,
Notes:
Sketch:
,,

NC". nWC1 gtrearrt Mentifieation Form Version 4.11
Date: � r l
Project/Site: f� . a
Latitude:
Evaluator: 1;
Count
Longitude.
Total Points:
Stream Determi n (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least Intermittent j
" �
E hemeral nter►nitten Perennial
p
e. Quad Name:
g
if? 19 or Perennial if 2t 30* "�
�
3
A. Geomorphology_ (Subtotal )
Absent
Weak
Moderato
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
......... �
-- '`
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
rf... L:v)
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
6
r `; ;7
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0` >
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
()'. - - %/
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0 ...
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
05,
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.'5 %
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o" 0 )......
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R HNArninnif ( _qiihfnfn1 = i 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1�
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
< 1 -�
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
D,5 '
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 __
0.5
1
1.5
ater tab
17. Soil -based evidence of high wle?
No = 0
`Ces'� 3
('. Rinlnrni 1Suhfnfal = °l . ` °),1 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3::,r'
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
=° " `3:a
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
'
1
2
3
22. Fish
0"
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0,57 -
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
....1`._.:)
1.5
25, Algae
0
"[1 �
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACV11- =�'0.7�;, OSi_ =
1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes. - ,��.,�h����,_-�_�, P-- •�r(� 1 - ....
Lzd rz5.pr
Sketch:

NN
NC DWQ Stream 1deiltifieation Form Version 4.11
Date:'
ProjectlSite: jt j f
Latitude: S
Evaluator:l
Count y' �
, 4R, r �
Longitude: } 5
0
.�
2
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
9 "
�t eam a mination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other ..�,,_..,_; € -i , E €
Name:
if? 19 or erennial if >- 3Q* ,J "
2
e.g. Quad
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = "f / )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
%1 ]
2
3
37 structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri ple -pool sequence
0
1 '�
C --
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.6
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
' "'D..%
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
t' o '
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
24. Amphibians
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
" = =_1 "_ -�
2
3
9. Grade control
0
<-0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
�= 0'''
Yes = 3
arlifEcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ura )
12. Presence of Baseflow
3
2,...,3
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
c " " "..,0.
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter .
1.5
1... .... ....
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
C- 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0_ .�
0.6
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes - 3
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2,...,3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
' =3' "".,
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
" "0 "° " ")
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
©'
1
2
3
22. Fish
�r'' p `�
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0
i ?.5 "3
1
1.5
25. Algae
f ° "0 r
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Othet! 0
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: I ") t7
Sketch:
n

16.4 FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -5 10/1/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Heather Smith February 4, 2014
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Subject: NCEEP stream mitigation project in Wake County.
Dear Ms. Smith,
Please find enclosed two hard copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the Thomas
Creek Restoration Project in Wake County, North Carolina. The project site is located
approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the community of New Hill, within North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) sub -basin 03 -06 -07 and the
targeted local watershed 03030004 - 020010 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
The proposed project is a full - delivery effort for the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) in response to RFP4: 16- 005020. Project goals include the
restoration and enhancement of nearly 8,400 feet of stream for the purpose of obtaining
stream mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin. The project mitigation plan is under
development, but based on estimates following the site visit with the IRT, it is anticipated to
include 4,868 feet of Restoration, 248 feet of Enhancement 1, and 3,241 feet of
Enhancement 2.
Based on information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) the following federally listed species
have been found in Wake County (see Table 1). As shown in the enclosed copies of letters
to these agencies, the proposed project has been found to have no effect on any federally
listed threatened or endangered species or the bald eagle. In addition, neither of these
agencies has replied with concerns about the project. The enclosed documentation also
covers correspondence with the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NC -HPO) or
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Table L Federallv Protected Vnecies for Wake Countv.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf Wedgernussel
E
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's Smnac
E
Picoides borealis
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
BGEPA
Notes: E — Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
T — Threatened denotes a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
BGPA — Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

This project would be considered a "Ground- Disturbing Activity" and the entire CE
"checklist" has been completed. Please note that only one set of figures is included in the
submittal; identical figures were sent to: USFWS, NCWRC, NC -HPO, and NRCS. The
actions associated with the construction of the referenced project have been determined not
to individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Submission of
this CE document fulfills the environmental documentation requirements mandated under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR Parts 1500 - 1508). If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at 919 -481 -5735 or via email at
kgilland2mbakercorp.com.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland, P.G.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: kgilland @mbakercorp.com

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document,
ii-r9 ect Name: Thomas Creek Stream Restoration Site
County Name: Wake
EEP Number: 96074
Project Spq_psor:- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
rroject;,oniaci Name: Chris Roessler
Project Contact Address: 8GOO Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary NC 27518
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
Heather Smith (healher.c.smith@ncdenr
Thomas Creek Restoration Project in Wake County, North Carolina is located approximately 1.5 miles
hwest of the community of New Hill, within North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DENR) sub-basin 03-06-07 and the targeted local watershed 03030004 - 020010 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
proposed project is a full-delivery effort for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in
mse to RFP#: 16-005020. Project goals include the restoration of approximately 8,400 feet of stream for the
ose of obtaining stream mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin, The project mitigation plan is under
lopment, but based on estimates following the site visit with the IRT, it is anticipated to include 4,868 feet of
oration, 248 feet of Enhancement 1, and 3,241 feet of Enhancement 2. This project would be considered a
:und-Disturbing Activity" and the entire CE checklist has been completed.
Date
Conditional Approved By:
F#=
911MLEMEEM
Z—
Date
EEP Project Manager
For Division Administrator
FHWA
k
For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
] N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
0 Yes
❑_ No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
0 No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
0 No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑
No
a❑
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑
No
❑
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑
Yes
❑
No
a❑
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
0 No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO /THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
a❑ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
a❑ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac uisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
0 Yes
• prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
• what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question
Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1.
Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
❑ Yes
Cherokee
Indians?
0 No
2.
Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
3.
Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
0 N/A
4.
Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Anti uities Act AA
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
0 No
2.
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
0 N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
0 No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1.
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
0 Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2.
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
0 No
❑ N/A
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated
Critical Habitat?
0 No
❑ N/A
5.
Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
6.
Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by
the EBCI?
0 No
2.
Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
0 N/A
3.
Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
0 N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1.
Will real estate be acquired?
0 Yes
❑ No
2.
Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
0 Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1.
Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
0 Yes
water
body?
❑ No
2.
Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1.
Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
0 No
2.
Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1.
Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
0 No
2.
Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
3.
Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
0 N/A
4.
Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
5.
Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
MJgratopL Bird Treat Act MBTA
1.
Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
0 No
2.
Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Wilderness Act
1.
Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
0 No
2.
Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal
agency?
❑ No
0 N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Ms. Kristin May
Resource Soil Scientist
530 West Innes Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
January 22, 2014
Subject: Prime and Important Farmland Soils RE: NCEEP Project, Thomas Creek
Stream Restoration Site, Wake County, NC
Dear Ms. May:
Enclosed please find a completed copy of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form
(AD -1006) and associated mapping for the subject site. Thank you for your assistance in
developing the form, the final adds to the material you provided. As stated in our
previous correspondence, the site is located in Wake County between the Lake Jordan
and Shearon Harris Reservoirs, southwest of the New Hill Community, as shown in
Figure 1. This stream restoration site proposes to restore Thomas Creek, a tributary to the
Shearon Harris Reservoir.
Again, we appreciate your assistance with the project and hope you have a wonderful
2014. I would be glad to provide a hard copy of the final information if it would be better
for you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
k illand( ,mbakercorp.com or by phone at (919) 481 -5735. Thank you again for your
assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland, P.G.
Baker Engineering, NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 2 (YC25
Name Of Project Ui pn bt Dsf f I Tuf bn Sf t Lpsbypo QspIf du
Federal Agency Involved d X B
Proposed Land Use Tuf bn Sf t Lpsbypo
County And State X bl f - OD
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 203(25
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ❑ opof 221
Major Crop(s)
Dps°
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 96/5 % 578 -:: 3
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 557 -562 %91
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
X bl f Dpvou' M TB
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
2 ®(25
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
32/3
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
32/3
1/1
1/1
1/1
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
1/3
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
22/1
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
1/1
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
95/7
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
55
1
1
1
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
23
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
22
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
23
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
31
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
26
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
21
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
1
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
6
10. On -Farm Investments
28
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
1
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
1
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
21:
1
1
1
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
55
1
1
1
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
21:
1
1
1
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
264
1
1
1
Site Selected:
7Datef Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes 0 No
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (10 -83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

Renee Gledhill - Earley December 27, 2013
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4617
Subject: EEP stream mitigation project in Wake County.
Dear Ms. Gledhill - Earley,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with
a potential stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate
property lines, areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed).
The Thomas Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and /or wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have
been identified as significantly degraded by past channelization and agricultural practices.
No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. As shown in the enclosed map
generated through HPOWEB, the nearest NRHP -listed site to the project area is the Allie
Lawrence Farm (1981)(WA1097), which is approximately 2,070 feet to the northeast of the
project terminus. We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to
determine the presence of any historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland, P.G.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Phone: [phone]
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Email: kgilland @mbakercorp.com
Cary, NC 27518

.�u. STATE q,.
7
C�
N orth Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State H istoric Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor PA McCrory
S cretay Bisai Kluttz
January 16, 2014
Ken Gilland
M i chael Baker E ngi neeri ng, I nc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Sjite 600
Cary, N C 27518
Re: Thomas Creek Stream Mitigation, Wake County, ER 13 -3040
Dear Mr. Gilland:
Thank you for your letter of December 27, 2013, concerning the above project.
OfficeofArchivesaid History
Deputy SBcretay Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. I f you hate questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill - Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 - 807 -6579 or renee.gledhilk
I ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
('fv-Rarnona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East bnes Street, Raleigh N C 27601 Mailing Addrew. 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone/ Fax: [phone]-6599

Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: EEP stream mitigation project in Wake County
Dear Mr. Jordan,
December 27, 2013
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential wetland and
stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property
lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed).
The Thomas Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and /or wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have
been identified as significantly degraded by past channelization and agricultural practices.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Wake County from your web site
(http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /species /cntylist/wake.html). The listed species are shown in
Table 1.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
Picoides borealis
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf Wed emusel
Endangered
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's Sumac
Endangered
Based on our review and field surveys, we have developed the following conclusions on the
potential effects of this project on federally listed species:
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Federal Status: Protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dark -brown to chocolate -brown in color. In flight, bald eagles can be identified
by their flat wing soar. Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within 0.5 mile)
with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source for
bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or
carrion.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13 mile
radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on December 20, 2013
using Google Earth color aerials. Shearon Harris Lake is large enough and sufficiently open
to be considered a potential feeding source and is within 1 -mile of the project study area.
Since there was foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area
and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted. No nests or large dominant
trees were observed. Due to the lack of habitat and minimal impact anticipated for this
project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Picoides borealis (Red - Cockaded Woodpecker)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: October 13, 1970
The red - cockaded woodpecker once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west
to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and
Missouri. The red - cockaded woodpecker is now found only in coastal states of its historic
range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina
moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations
found in the Piedmont and northern Coastal Plain are believed to be relics of former
populations.
The red - cockaded woodpecker is approximately 8 inches long with a wingspan of 14 inches.
Plumage includes black and white horizontal stripes on its back, with white cheeks and
under parts. Its flanks are streaked black. The cap and stripe on the throat and side of neck
are black, with males having a small red spot on each side of the cap. Eggs are laid from
April through June. Maximum clutch size is seven eggs with an average of three to five.
Red - cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and 120 years
old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. Dense stands are avoided. A
forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous
with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker. These birds
forage in pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees that are 10
inches or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded woodpecker is up to
500 acres. The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites. While other
woodpeckers bore out cavities in dead trees where the wood is rotten and soft, the red -
cockaded woodpecker is the only one that excavates cavities exclusively in living pine trees.
The older pines favored by the red - cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a fungus called
red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner wood to become
soft. Cavities generally take 1 to 3 years to excavate. The red - cockaded woodpecker feeds
mainly on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood - boring insects and spiders, and
occasionally fruits and berries.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Suitable habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker does not exist in the study area, therefore,
a half mile survey was not conducted. It was concluded that the project will not affect this
species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf wedgemussel)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family. Unionidae
The dwarf wedgemussel is a small freshwater mussel with a trapezoidal- shaped shell that is
usually less then 1.7 inches in length and is brown to yellowish brown in color. It is
historically known to exist from New Brunswick, Canada to North Carolina. Documented
populations in N.C. have occurred in Johnston, Wake, Orange, Nash, Wilson, Granville,
Person, Vance, Franklin and Warren Counties.
The dwarf wedgemussel inhabits creeks and rivers close to the banks, under overhangs, and
around submerged logs. It is also known to live on firm substrate of sand, gravel, and
muddy sand with a slow to moderate current, and requires clean water that is well
oxygenated and nearly silt free. Hosts for the dwarf wedgemussel larvae (glochidia) that
have been identified include the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), Johnny darter (E.
nigrum), and mottled sculpin (Cottus hairdi).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Thomas Creek is not in the Neuse or Tar River drainage basins, which are the only known
drainages that support dwarf wedgemussel populations. it has been determined that this
project will not affect this species.
(Rhus michauxii) Michaux's Sumac
Federal Status: Endangered
Plan Family: Anacardiaceae
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatus shrub that grows 0.7 to 3.3 feet in
height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to thirteen sessile, oblong -
lanceolate leaflets that are 1.6 to 3.6 inches long, 0.8 to 2 inches wide, acute, and acuminate.
The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simple or doubly serrate. Plants
flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of four to five greenish - yellow to
white flowers. The plant also produces fruit, a red drupe, through the months of August to
October.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods and roadsides. It is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows in open
habitat where it can get full sunlight and is often found with other members of its genus as
well as with poison ivy. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and
Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside shoulders
and cleared tracks. Surveys were conducted by Baker biologists throughout areas of
suitable habitat on September 17, 2013. No individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed.
it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a
wetland and /or stream restoration project on the subject property. A USGS map showing
the approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list and
conclusions are correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and
that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland, P.G.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
cc:
Perry Sugg, NCEEP
Phone: [phone]
Email: kgilland @mbakercorp.com

Shari L. Bryant December 27, 2013
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: EEP stream mitigation project in Wake County
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential wetland and
stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property
lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed).
The Thomas Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and /or wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have
been identified as significantly degraded by past channelization and agricultural practices.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Alamance County from your web site
(htlp. / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /nhp /database - search). The listed species are shown in Table 1.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
Picoides borealis
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf Wed emusel
Endangered
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's Sumac
Endangered
Based on our review and field surveys, we have developed the following conclusions on the
potential effects of this project on federally listed species:
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Federal Status: Protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dark -brown to chocolate -brown in color. In flight, bald eagles can be identified
by their flat wing soar. Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within 0.5 mile)
with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source for
bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or
carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13 mile
radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on December 20, 2013
using Google Earth color aerials. Shearon Harris Lake is large enough and sufficiently open
to be considered a potential feeding source and is within 1 -mile of the project study area.
Since there was foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area
and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted. No nests or large dominant
trees were observed. Due to the lack of habitat and minimal impact anticipated for this
project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Picoides borealis (Red - Cockaded Woodpecker)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: October 13, 1970
The red - cockaded woodpecker once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west
to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and
Missouri. The red - cockaded woodpecker is now found only in coastal states of its historic
range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina
moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations
found in the Piedmont and northern Coastal Plain are believed to be relics of former
populations.
The red - cockaded woodpecker is approximately 8 inches long with a wingspan of 14 inches.
Plumage includes black and white horizontal stripes on its back, with white cheeks and
under parts. Its flanks are streaked black. The cap and stripe on the throat and side of neck
are black, with males having a small red spot on each side of the cap. Eggs are laid from
April through June. Maximum clutch size is seven eggs with an average of three to five.
Red - cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and 120 years
old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. Dense stands are avoided. A
forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous
with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker. These birds
forage in pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees that are 10
inches or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded woodpecker is up to
500 acres. The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites. While other
woodpeckers bore out cavities in dead trees where the wood is rotten and soft, the red -
cockaded woodpecker is the only one that excavates cavities exclusively in living pine trees.
The older pines favored by the red - cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a fungus called
red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner wood to become
soft. Cavities generally take 1 to 3 years to excavate. The red - cockaded woodpecker feeds
mainly on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood - boring insects and spiders, and
occasionally fruits and berries.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker does not exist in the study area, therefore,
a half mile survey was not conducted. It was concluded that the project will not affect this
species.

Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf wedgemussel)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family. Unionidae
The dwarf wedgemussel is a small freshwater mussel with a trapezoidal- shaped shell that is
usually less then 1.7 inches in length and is brown to yellowish brown in color. It is
historically known to exist from New Brunswick, Canada to North Carolina. Documented
populations in N.C. have occurred in Johnston, Wake, Orange, Nash, Wilson, Granville,
Person, Vance, Franklin and Warren Counties.
The dwarf wedgemussel inhabits creeks and rivers close to the banks, under overhangs, and
around submerged logs. It is also known to live on firm substrate of sand, gravel, and
muddy sand with a slow to moderate current, and requires clean water that is well
oxygenated and nearly silt free. Hosts for the dwarf wedgemussel larvae (glochidia) that
have been identified include the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), Johnny darter (E.
nigrum), and mottled sculpin (Cottus hairdi).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Thomas Creek is not in the Neuse or Tar River drainage basins, which are the only known
drainages that support dwarf wedgemussel populations. it has been determined that this
project will not affect this species.
(Rhus michauxii) Michaux's Sumac
Federal Status: Endangered
Plan Family: Anacardiaceae
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatus shrub that grows 0.7 to 3.3 feet in
height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to thirteen sessile, oblong -
lanceolate leaflets that are 1.6 to 3.6 inches long, 0.8 to 2 inches wide, acute, and acuminate.
The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simple or doubly serrate. Plants
flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of four to five greenish - yellow to
white flowers. The plant also produces fruit, a red drupe, through the months of August to
October.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods and roadsides. It is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows in open
habitat where it can get full sunlight and is often found with other members of its genus as
well as with poison ivy. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and
Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside shoulders
and cleared tracks. Surveys were conducted by Baker biologists throughout areas of
suitable habitat on September 17, 2013. No individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed.
it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.

If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list is correct and
that NCWRC does not have any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland, P.G.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
cc:
Perry Sugg, NCEEP
Phone: [phone]
Email: kgilland @mbakercorp.com

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
15 January 2014
Ken Gilland
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Subject: EEP Stream Mitigation Project in Wake County
Dear Mr. Gilland:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -667e) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 113 -131 et seq.).
The proposed project would provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream and /or wetland
impacts. Several sections of channel throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded
from past channelization and agricultural activities. The project site includes Thomas Creek, a tributary
to Shearon Harris Reservoir in the Cape Fear River basin.
It appears NCWRC game lands are located adjacent to and immediately downstream of the
project site. It does not appear the proposed project will directly impact these game lands. However, if
any direct impacts to the game lands are proposed, then we ask the applicant to contact the NCWRC to
develop measures to minimize these impacts.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native,
forested buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and
sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in
significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Malling Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
15 January 2014
Thomas Creek Mitigation Site
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If we can provide further
assistance, please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Vann Stancil, NCWRC

k AIL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
Address- :Ii!'" PARKWAY, SUITE 600
CARY, NC 27518
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Wake
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and
authorized to administer oaths, affirmations, etc.,
personally appeared DEBORAH MAHAFFEY, who
being duly sworn or affirmed, according to law, doth
depose and say that he or she is Accounts
Receivable Specialist of The News & Observer a
corporation organized and doing business under
the Laws of the State of North Carolina, and
publishing a newspaper known as The News &
Observer, in the City of Raleigh, Wake County and
State aforesaid, the said newspaper in which such
notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement
was published was, at the time of each and every
such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of
the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a
qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section
1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina,
and that as such he or she makes this affidavit; and
is familiar with the books, files and business of said
corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication the attached advertisement for
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING was inserted in
the aforesaid newspaper on dates as follows:
01 /24/2014,01/29/2014
4Y "'t, LL cL� 14
D EBO RAH MAHAFFEY, Accounts Reclx "
le 8peciafist
Wake County, North Carolina
FWATOTIM
I- �n
0,

16.5 FEMA Compliance - NCEEP Floodplain Requirements
Checklist
The topography of the si to and I ocati on i n the upper watershed supports the desi gn wi thout creati ng the
potenti a1 for hydrol ogi c trespass. The si to i s not I ocated i n a FEM A mapped area and theref ore a
hydraul i c anal ysi s i s not requi red to obtai n a " N o- Ri se/N o- I mpact" certi f i cati on. Baker noti f i ed the
Wake County Fl oodpl ai n M anager about the proj ect. The N CEEP Fl oodpl ai n Checkl i st was provi ded to
the Wake County Fl oodpl ai n M anager al ong wi th appl i cabl e f i gures and i nformati on f rom thi s report.
Wake County has requi rements for a f I ood study and permit fees i f cul verts are i nstal I ed. Consequently,
Baker has ded ded that ford crossi ngs wi I I be used, whi ch do not requi re fl ood studi es or permit fees.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -6 10/1/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Ecos
ii�"
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the Foodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
Thomas Creek
County:
Wake
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county :
Wake County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
3720060800 (0608)
Consultant name:
Chris Roessler
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Phone number:
919 -481 -5737
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
FEMA Floodplain Checklist ThomasCr Figures_included.docx Page I of 10

Design Information
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. proposes to restore 4,748 linear feet (LF) of stream, and
enhance 2,874 LF of stream along Thomas Creek and several of its tributaries. The
project site is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of New Hill, NC (see Figure 1).
The project site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -06 -07 and the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Targeted Local Watershed 03030004 - 020010 of
the Cape Fear River Basin. The purpose of the project is to restore and /or enhance stream
and riparian buffer functions and improve area water quality where impaired stream
channel flows through the site. The project will provide numerous water quality and
ecological benefits within the Thomas Creek and Harris Lake watersheds, and the Cape
Fear River Basin. A recorded conservation easement consisting of approximately 20.1
acres will protect all stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
Reach
Length
Priority
Reach RI
266 LF
Restoration
Reach R2
2,087
Restoration
Reach R3
130 LF (upstream) and
929 LF downstream
Enhancement II
Restoration
Reach R4
336 LF
Restoration
Reach R5
142 LF (upstream) and
897 LF (downstream
Enhancement II
Restoration
Reach R6
210 LF (upstream) and
1, 598 LF (downstream)
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Reach R7
286 LF
Enhancement II
Reach TI
233 LF
Restoration
Reach T2
158 LF
Enhancement II
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
®Yes ENo
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
F Redelineation
F Detailed Study
F Limited Detail Study
F Approximate Study
F Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
AE Zone
FEMA Floodplain Checklist ThomasCr Figures_included.docx Page 2 of 10

® Floodway
® Non - Encroachment
None
A Zone
® Local Setbacks Required
® No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment/setbacks?
®Yes ENo
Land Acquisition (Check)
C State owned (fee simple)
F Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
I✓ Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
919 807 -4101
Is community /county participating in the NFIP program?
M Yes ® No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: State NFIP Engineer, 919 715 -8000
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Betsy Pearce
Phone Number: 919- 856 -7541
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
1✓ No Action
No Rise
Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
11-T -%A ITT ',
Other Requirements
List other requirements:
FEMA Floodplain Checklist ThomasCr Figures_included.docx Page 3 of 10

Comments:
Name: Chris Roessler Signature:
Title: Technical Manager Date: 8/28/2014
FENM Floodplain Checklist ThomasCr Figures_included.docx Page 4 of 10

WAKE Environmental
COUNTY Services
TEL [phone]
Fax [phone]
Water Quality Division
336 Fayetteville Street • Raleigh, NC 27602
www.wakegov.com
Wake County Flood Study Checklist
Under County ordinance, encroachments into Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) require Permit and Certification Requirements per
Article 14, Flood Hazard Areas, of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The purpose of a Flood Study Report is to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare by reducing public and private losses caused by flood conditions in SFHA. This checklist
shows what information needs to be provided and what issues need to be addressed when preparing a Flood Study Report. All items
listed may not be applicable to each site, nor is the list all- inclusive. It is meant to serve as a guide for the engineer preparing a Flood
Study Report.
Part 1 - For all Flood Studies
Part 2A For Minor Flood Studies (Drainage area less than 100 acres)
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW/D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Use of Bureau of Public Roads Culvert chart for inlet and outlet computations provided for review
Part 2B For Major Flood Studies (Drainage area greater than 100 acres).
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW /D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Provide Standard Step Method or equivalent computations and field surveyed cross sections locations on construction plans.
Delineate Crossings and Label On Map (1 "equals no more than 100') & Drawings
Provide flood study report narrative describing study objectives and include a su rnmary of findings
Existing and proposed watershed, sub - watershed, and land use boundaries with supporting Zoning overlaid. Wake-County
requires Flood Study reports to be designed for upstream built out conditions._
Include all assumption for supporting methodology used for detennining Cubic Feet per Second (Q100).
Drainage area worksheets delineating upstream drainage area in Acres.
Existing and proposed Tc/Tt flow paths used to calculate pre /post development flows.
Show /label all flood encroachment information, including field surveyed cross - sections referenced to station locations,
proposed culvert inverts, profile view, plan view, back slopes, all elevations, channel slope and sum of disturbed areas are
required.
Indicate the location and establishment of a temporary or permanent benchmark, note must be NAVD 88 for all SFHA's.
Documentation supporting applicant's choice of Manning "n" values for channel and/or over bank.
A velocity dissipater design specifying length, width, mean stone diameter, outlet velocity and detail is required for each
culvert.
Note the Minimum Finished Floor Elevation on lots that are affected by the SFHA 100yr floodplain . Example FFE = 268.4'
Should flood study design incorporate overtopping of PRIVATE driveway, specify stabilization scope and type of downstream
embankment. Overtopping shall not exceed 0.5 eet.
Place an *(asterisk) on all lots affected with flood hazards and add note to plans " * - Before Acquiring a Building Permit for
Lots Marked with an " * " the Builder May Need to Obtain a Flood Hazard Penmit from County Zoning Administration. The
Builders Engineer, Architect of Surveyor Must Certify on Any Pen-nit That All Flood Hazard Requirements Are Met. There
Shall be No Filling or the Erection of Penmanent Structures in the Areas of Wake County Flood Hazard Soils or Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Zones.
For submerged culverts to meet 404/401 certification, adjust the effective flow area in HEC -RAS report to reflect this
condition.
Srumrmarize the pre - construction and the post - construction BFE at the upstream and downstream property lines before and after
the proposed encroachment.
Should flood study report prove offsite backwater, applicant must secure and record any necessary backwater encroachment
easements. For on -site backwater, label backwater area with flood elevation plus 1'.
Overlay and Label Future Conditions / 500 year FEMA Floodplain.
Submit draft flood study as built compliance document.
Signature, Date And Professional Seal: for all Material to be reviewed.
Part 2A For Minor Flood Studies (Drainage area less than 100 acres)
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW/D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Use of Bureau of Public Roads Culvert chart for inlet and outlet computations provided for review
Part 2B For Major Flood Studies (Drainage area greater than 100 acres).
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW /D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Provide Standard Step Method or equivalent computations and field surveyed cross sections locations on construction plans.

From: Betsy. [e-mail] [mai Ito: Betsy. Pearce ,, akegov.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Chris Roessler
Subject: RE: EEP checklist for Thomas Creek
if you do a ford, you do not need the flood studies - I then just ask for a record plat showing the fords
and noting that a flood study may be required in the future in order to install pipes or bridges
Betsy Pearce, CFM, CPSWQ
Environmental Engineer / Consultant
Cape Fear Watershed Manager
Wake County Environmental Services
336 Fayetteville St / PO Box 550
Raleigh, NC 27602
919 - 856 -7541 Office
919 - 856 -2747 Fax
919 - 868 -6414 Mobile
Betsy. pearce@wakegov. com
From: Chris Roessler <Croessler @mbakerintl.com>
To: "Betsy. [e-mail]" <Betsy.Pearce @wakegov.com >,
Date: 09/05/2014 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: EEP checklist for Thomas Creek
Thank you, Betsy. One question - if we elect to not use a culvert (instead use a ford crossing), would
we not have to do the flood study? - Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., a unit of Michael Baker
I nternational
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 I [D] 919 - 481 -5737 1 [M]
919 - 624 -0905
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Betsy. Pearce@wakegov. com [ mai Ito: Betsy. PearceQLakegov.coml
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 10:03 AM
To: Chris Roessler
Subject: Re: EEP checklist for Thomas Creek
Chris,
Requirements for flood permit for each crossing - Minor <100 acres of drainage = $500 Major > =100
acres of drainage = $1000 (See attached file: Flood Study checklist_2012.pdf)
Betsy Pearce, CFM, CPSWQ
Environmental Engineer / Consultant
Cape Fear Watershed Manager
Wake County Environmental Services
336 Fayetteville St / PO Box 550
Raleigh, NC 27602
919 - 856 -7541 Office
919 - 856 -2747 Fax
919 - 868 -6414 Mobile
Betsy. pearce@wakegov. com

Figure 16.1 FEMA Floodplain Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -7 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND
ANALYSES
17.1 Channel Morphology
17.1.1 Existing Conditions Assessment
17.1.1.1 Reach Classification
The proj ect channel s are smal 1, perenni al and i ntermi ttent streams wi th a total drai nage
area of approxi matel y 0.275 square mi I es for Reaches R2, T2, T 1, R3, and R4, and 0.097
square miles for Reaches R5, R6, and R7 (Figure 2.2). The combined, total watershed
area at the bottom of Reach R1 i s 0.384 square mi I es. H i stori cal I y, the proj ect streams
have been negati vel y i mpacted due to agri cut tural conversi on and cattl a grazi ng. The
mai n stem of Thomas Creek ( Reaches R1, R2, & R3) i s sparsely vegetated, and some
sections have become extremely unstable and are actively incising and widening.
For anal ysi s purposes, Baker I abel ed the exi sti ng unnamed tri butari es Reach R1, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7, T 1, and T2. The exi sti ng reach I ocati ons are shown on Fi gures 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 17.2, and 17.4. The mai n stem begi ns at the northernmost proj ect boundary
as Reach R3 and f I ows south towards a f arm access road towards the conf I uence wi th
Reach R4. Duri ng f i el d veri f i cati on wi th the U SACE of i ntermi ttent or perenni a1 status
and subsequent si to vi si is wi th N CEEP, Reaches R1, R2, I ower R3, R4, R5, and I ower R7
were determi ned to be a perenni a1 stream based on a mi ni mum score of 30 for perenni a1
streams and/or the presence of bi of ogi cal i ndi cators usi ng the N CDWR Determi nati on of
the Ori gi n of Perenni a1 Streams stream assessment protocol s and gui del i nes (DWQ,
2010; see NCDWR stream forms in Appendix B). The remaining project reaches (upper
R3, R6, upper R7, T 1, and T2) were si mi I arl y determi ned to be i ntermi ttent.
Baker staff conducted geomorphi c f i el d assessments that i nd uded an exi sti ng condi ti ons survey and
photographi c documentati on to eval uate and document the i mpacts of past I and use management
practi ces and current si to condi ti ons f or each proj ect stream reach. Data col I ected on the reaches
i nd uded representati ve cross secti ons, I ongi tudi nal prof i I es, and sedi ment sampl es. The fol I owi ng
paragraphs summari ze these f i ndi ngs and the resul is were used to assi gn the geomorphi c condi ti ons
for the proj ect stream reaches. Secti ons 7 and 17 f urther descri be the restorati on approaches
proposed to achi eve f uncti onal upl i ft and i mprove overal I watershed heal th.
Reach R1
Reach R1 extends upstream from the downstream extent of the project at the property
I i ne to the conf I uence between Reach R2 and Reach R5. I is val I ey I ength i s
approxi mate) y 365 f eet i n I ength. Reach R1 has a drai nage area of 247 acres. Cattl e have
direct access to this reach. Reach R1 is significantly incised and moderately high bank
hei ght rati os, whi ch typi cal I y exceed 2.0. At the downstream end of the reach, thi s
i nd si on has reached bedrock; however, wi thout protecti ve measures i n pl ace the i nd si on
may conti nue to mi grate upstream. Further bank scour and channel wi deni ng are a1 so
I i kel y to conti nue i f I eft unaddressed. Evi dente of acti ve bank erosi on a1 ong Reach R1
was observed a1 ong approxi matel y 90 percent of the reach, predomi nantl y i n the form of
surf i ci a1 scour. Cattl a access to Reach R1 and are causi ng I ocal i zed erosi on at several
crossi ngs. Though there are some i sol ated mature trees a1 ong the streambanks,
approxi mate) y 70 percent or more of the reach has no trees on at I east one of the
streambanks. Baker plans to i ncorporate the mature trees i nto restoration design where
f easi bl e.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Based on exi sti ng condi ti ons, Reach R1 i s d assi f i ed as an i nci sed " Bd' Rosgen stream
type, due to a moderate entrenchment rati o of 1.8. The surveyed bank hei ght rati o,
however, was 2.5, which is indicative of severe incision.
The bed materi a1 i n Reach R1 i s mostl y composed of sand wi th I ess than 4 percent
si I t/d ay and 1 percent gravel.
Cattl a have access to a1 I of Reach R1.
Reach R2
Reach R2 begi ns at the conf I uence of Reaches R3 and R4 and di rectl y upstream f rom Reach R1. I t
f I ows southward through acti vel y grazed pasture to i is conf I uence wi th Reach R5. The exi sti ng
I ength of Reach R2 i s 1,995 f eet i n I ength. Reach R2 has drai nage areas of 176 acres at the
downstream end. Cattl a use the reach often for wateri ng and I oaf i ng and have extensi vel y trampl ed
the streambanks. Reach R2 has been si gni f i cantl y degraded through the removal of the ri pari an
buffer, cattl a access, and rel ocati on of the channel to the ri ght si de of the va11 ey fl oor. Accordi ng to
the I andowner, whose f ami I y purchased the property i n 1915, the stream was moved i n the 1800s to
accommodate f armi ng of the f I oodpl ad n. The hummocky f I oodpl ai n a1 ong Reach R2 appears to
show where the excavated materi a1 was deposi ted.
Reach R2 I acks bedform di versi ty, wi th ri ff I es consti tuti ng I ess than approxi matel y 20
percent of the channel. There are very mi ni mad coarse gravel accumulations (i.e., 4
percent of total) i n the ri ff I es; i t i s essenti a1 I y a sand bed system. The degree of i nc si on
a1 ong Reach R2 vari es accordi ng to the presence of headcuts and bedrock kni ckpoi nts,
but the bank hei ght rati o i s f requentl y greater than 1.5. Evi dente of acti ve bank erosi on
a1 ong Reach R2 vari es consi derabl y, f rom 60 percent at the top, to a I ow of 30 percent i n
the mi ddl e, and back to 90 percent on the I ower one thi rd. Thi s erosi on i s i n the form of
surf i c a1 scour. Currentl y, mass wasti ng i s not evi dent.
The I ower two thi rds of Reach R2 have buff ers consi sti ng of acti ve cattl a pasture a1 ong
both banks, wi th mi d- successi onal or mature trees I argel y scattered or absent. M ost often,
the streambank cover i s I i mi ted to fescue and other typi cad pasture grasses and forbs. I n
addi ti on, mud ti f I ora rose (Rosa mult flora) i s abundant on the streambanks i n thi s secti on
of the reach. The buffer i n the top thi rd of the reach i nd udes a mature forest stand but
cattl a have removed a1 I smal I er vegetati on through grazi ng, resul ti ng i n an unnatural I y
open understory. As such, more than 80 percent of the I engths on both banks have
I ongitudi na1 breaks or i nterrupti ons of the exi sti ng tree I i ne i n I engths greater than 20 feet.
The enti re I ength of Reach R2 i s acti vel y subj ect to water quad i ty stressors, mai nl y i n the
form of direct livestock access.
Based on exi sti ng condi ti ons, Reach R2 has a Rosgen stream type d assi f i cati on of " F" i n
the upstream segment and " Gd' i n the downstream segment, wi th bank hei ght rati os of
3.3 and 2.2, respecti vel y. Exi sti ng condi ti ons cross secti onal survey of theupper porti on
of Reach R2 show a bank hei ght rati o of 3.3 and an entrenchment rati o of 1.4, whi I e
I ower porti on of Reach R2 has a bank hei ght rati o of 2.2, as wel I as an entrenchment rati o
of 1.4.
Cattl a have access to a1 I of Reach R2.
Reach R3
Reach R3 on gi nates south of 01 d U S H i ghway 1, j ust upstream of where i t enters the
northern sector of the proj ect property. The drai nage area for Reach R3 i s 62 acres. Due
to I oggi ng i n 2011, the mature ri pari an buff er i s I ess than 50 feet wi de a1 ong the enti re
I ength of both streambanks, and often I ess than 20 feet. However, successi onal trees
and/or understory sped es are present a1 ong the enti re I ength, I ess the two exi sti ng stream
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -2 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

crossings. I nvasi ve vegetation is present throughout the reach, but not abundant. The
upper porti on of Reach R3 (above Stati on 11 +30) i s general I y stable; however, condi ti ons
are I i kel y to be threatened i f downstream headcuts are a1 I owed to conti nue mi grati ng
upstream . The I ower 940 feet of Reach R3 i s i nci sed wi th bank hei ght rati os above 2.0.
Channel scour i s typi cad a1 ong 30 to 40 percent of thi s secti on of the reach, mai nl y i n
secti ons where tree roots are not present to provi de streambank protecti on. Bedform
di versi ty i s I acki ng due to a I ow percentage of ri ff I es. The f I oodpl ad n a1 ong R3 does not
appear to have been hi stori cad I y a1 tered.
Based on exi sti ng condi ti ons, Reach R3 has a Rosgen stream type d assi f i cati on of " G" i n
the mi ddl a segment and " Bd' i n the downstream segment, wi th bank hei ght rati os of 2.3
and 3.2, respectively.
Cattl a do not have access to Reach R3 and the f I oodpd ad n has not apparently been a1 tered.
Reach R4
Reach R4 begi ns at the northern property I i ne j ust downstream f rom the conf I uence of
two smal I drai nages i n the northeast end of the proj ect si te. The drai nage area for Reach
R4 i s 37 acres. The upper 870 -foot secti on of Reach R4 i s very stabl a and wi I I be used as
a reference reach for the project (see Secti on 17.1.3). The lower 336 -foot segment of
Reach R4 i s i nd sed and I ateral I y unstabl a channel due to a headcut that has mi grated
upstream to thi s poi nt . The buffer on the I ower I eft bank narrows to approxi matel y 20 to
30 f eet and i nvasi ve sped es vegetati on are somewhat abundant. The surveyed bank
hei ght rati o i s 3.0. The buffer remad ns I argel y adequate north of the I ower parcel I i ne
(and barbed wi re fence) but very mi ni mad south of the I i ne. Active channel scour i s
evident in approximately 40 percent of the downstream segment.
The bed materi a1 i n Reach R4 i s mostl y composed of sand wi th I ess than 7 percent
si I t/d ay and 2 percent gravel.
Reach R4 has a Rosgen stream type cl assi f i cati on of " E" i n the upstream reference
segment and " BC i n the downstream segment, wi th bank hel ght rati os of 1.0 and 3.0,
respectively.
Reach R5
Reach R5 begi ns at the conf I uence of Reaches R6 and R7 and f I ows downstream f or
1,016 feet to its confl uence with Reach R2 to form Reach R1. The drainage area for
Reach R5 i s 63 acres. Reach R5 i s di vi ded by a headcut I eavi ng the upstream segment
stable and the downstream segment an unstable. The upstream segment of Reach R5 is
143 f eet I ong. Acti ve channel scour i s I ess than 10 percent i n thi s segment and the
ri pari an buff er i s of moderate to hi gh quad i ty wi th adequate wi dth and a combi nati on of
overstory and understory vegetation species. The unstable downstream segment of Reach
R5 i s 873 f eet i n I ength. I t i s mostl y i nd sad and contai ns three acti ve headcuts, i nd udi ng
the one mentioned above. Active channel scour is approximately 70 percent on Either
bank for most of the I ower porti on of thi s segment and decreases to about 30 percent
towards the top. A headcut on gi natesf rom Reach R1 and stops at an exi sti ng stream
crossi ng. There are some areas of channel wi deni ng i n thi s I owest secti on, though for the
most part the channel is narrow and deep. Another headcut I ocated about 50 feet
upstream f rom the f ord crossi ng i s sl owl y mi grati ng because tree roots are i mpedi ng i is
progress.
The I ower 660 feet of Reach R5 i s I ocated wi thi n an acti ve cattl a pasture. The ri pari an
buffer wi thi n thi s secti on i s of poor qual i ty wi th onl y mi ni mad wi dth and canopy
diversity. Cattl a access i n the upper 380 feet of I ower secti on of Reach R5 i s restri cted by
fend ng; therefore thi s secti on has a wi der, more natural and i ntact ri pari an buffer with
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -3 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

adequate canopy di versi ty. H owever, the channel i nci si on i n the I ower porti on of thi s
reach i s so severe that the tree stabi I i ty al ong the channel i s threatened.
Reach R5 has a Rosgen stream ty pe cl assi f i cati on of " C" i n the stabl a upstream segment
and " BC i n the unstabl a downstream segment, wi th bank hei ght rati os of 1.0 and 2.4,
respectively.
Reach R5 i s ad so a sand bed stream wi th 3.4 percent si I t/d ay, 1.3 percent gravel, and the
remai nder sand.
Cattle have access to the lower two-thirds of Reach R5.
Reach R6
Reach R6 begi ns at the conf I uence of several drai nage swat es i n the northwest quadrant
of the proj ect property and extends 1,828 f eet downstream to the conf I uence wi th Reach
R7, where Reach R5 begi ns. The drai nage area for Reach R6 i s 32 acres. The ri pari an
buffer on the I ower approxi matel y 300 feet of Reach R6 i s of adequate wi dth and qual i ty.
However, for the upper 1,500 feet of Reach R6, the riparian buffer is roughly only 20 to
30 f eet wi de on each si de of the channel.
Reach R6 begi ns upstream of several mi grati ng headcuts. The smal I drai nages converge
i nto an i nci sed and erodi ng channel that runs for 210 feet. Thi s upstream segment consi sts
of approximately 70 percent bank scour. Though the riparian buffer throughout the reach
remai ns narrow, the i nci sad channel trand ti ons i nto a stabl a secti on where ri pari an
wetl ands are present. M ovi ng downstream, channel i nstabi I i ty resumes al ong the mi ddl e
segment of Reach R6. H ere, the channel i s i nci sed, but bank scour i s I i mi ted to
approxi matel y 30 percent due to protecti on provi ded by tree roots. M oderate i nci si on i s
present i n the upper porti on of the I ower 300 feet of Reach R6. The remai nder of the
reach i s not i nci sed. Bank scour throughout thi s porti on i s mi ni mal and approxi matel y 10
percent.
Reach R6 has a Rosgen stream ty pe cl assi f i cati on of " G" i n the unstabl a upstream
segment and " Bd' i n the unstabl a mi ddl a segment, with bank hei ght rati os of 4.4 and 2.9
and entrenchment rati os of 1.4 and 1.5, respecti A y. Cross secti ons were not surveyed i n
the upstream or downstream stabl a segments but bank hei ght rati o assessments i ndi cafe
the upper area i s not i nci sed (B H R < 1.1) whi I e the I ower area ranges f rom not i nci sad to
mi ni mal I y i nci sed (B H R — 1.2). Enhancement acti vi ti es wi I I be targeted for the whol e
reach, wi th actual work on the channel I i mi ted to the upper 210 -foot segment.
Cattl a do not have access to any of Reach R6.
Reach R7
Reach R7 on gi nates on the western edge of the proj ect property and extends 636 feet
downstream to the conf I uence wi th Reach R6. The drai nage area f or Reach R7 i s 14 acres
and i s fed by a spri ng and a wetl and j ust upstream of the proj ect area The proj ect reach
begi ns at a headcut that has mi grated through the mi ddl a segment of R7 and caused
severe i nci si on, porti cul arl y i n the upper 100 feet. The proj ect work wi I I begi n on Reach
R7 by stabilizing this headcut and continuing with enhancement activities focused on
stabi I i zati on for the next 360 f eet. The ri pari an buffer on the I ower had f of Reach R7 i s of
adequate quad i ty though i t i s often I ess than 50 feet i n wi dth. The buffer on the upper hal f,
however, i s overl y narrow wi th an esti mated wi dth of onl y 20 to 30 feet on each si de of
the channel.
Channel bank scour is limited to 20 percent, resulting from temporary protection
provi ded by tree roots, as wel I as I i mi ted and i sod ated bench formati on. A cross secti on
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -4 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

was surveyed i n the mi ddl a segment of Reach R7, whi ch i ndi cafes a Rosgen stream
d assi f i cati on of " Bd' wi th a bank hei ght rati o of 4.2.
The bed materi a1 for Reach R7 i s mostl y sand, wi th 8.5% si I t/d ay and 0.5% gravel. Cattl e
do not have access to thi s reach.
Reach TI
Reach T 1 i s a tri butary that enters the mi ddl a of Reach R2. I t has a drai nage area of
approxi matel y 49 acres, drai ni ng through a farm pond and subsequentl y through adj acent
forested land owned by Progress Energy. Approximately 253 feet of Reach T1 are
i nd uded i n the proj ect. I t i s I ocated i n acti ve pasture and has a1 most no trees a1 ong i is
banks. Buffer vegetati on i s I argel y I i mi ted to fescue and other typi cal pasture grasses.
Bank scour i s evi dent al ong approxi matel y 40 percent of the channel I ength. A cross
secti on was surveyed and i ndi cafes a Rosgen stream d assi f i cati on of " BC wi th a bank
hei ght ratio of 2.6.
Cattl a have access to al I of Reach T 1.
Reach T2
Reach T2 i s a tri butary that emanates f rom a spri ng and enters the upper segment of
Reach R2. AI 1 171 feet of Reach T2 i s i nd uded i n the proj ect. Cattl a use the channel as a
wal I ow and much of i is I ength i s i mpacted by tramp) i ng. A headcut has mi rated upstream
through Reach T2 from Reach R2, though tree roots have prevented ml or I ateral
degradation. Bank scour i s esti mated at 30 percent. A cross section was surveyed and
i ndi cafes a Rosgen stream d assi f i cati on of " Bd' wi th a bank hei ght rati o of 3.6.
Cattl a have access to al I of Reach T2.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -5 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for Project Reaches:
Stream Channel Classification Level II
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach' RI
Reach R2
Parameter
XSRl
XSR2a I XSR2b ' I XSR2c
Existing Reach Length (ft)
400
1,995
D rai nage Area (sq. mi.)
0.384
0.275 / 0.153 / x
Bankful I Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
44.6
35.0 / 22.9 / x
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
Rosgen Stream Type
135c
G5c
F5
-
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
9.0
6.5
9.4
7.5
BankfulI Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
1.26
1.19
0.64
2.09
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)
7.2
5.4
14.8
3.4
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
11.2
7.7
6.0
15.7
BankfulI Max Depth (dn,bkf) (ft)
1.94
1.59
1.39
2.58
Floodprone Width (WfpJ (ft)
16.2
9.03
13.2
78
Entrenchment Ratio (WfpaANbkf) (ft)
1.8
1.4
1.4
11.1
Bank Height Ratio **
2.5
2.2
3.3
-
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
43 +00
35 +65
21 +75
24 +60
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
BankfulI Mean Velocity, Vbkf
3.9
3.9
3.8
-
(Qbkf /Abkf) (ft/s)
Channel Materials (Particle Sze Index - d50) * **
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95(mm)
0.15/0.27/0.34/0.75 /
0.11/0.22/0.32
1.39
/0.85/1.89
A verage V a1 l ey SI ope (ft/ft)
0.0050
0.0098
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.0028
0.0082
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * **
1.18
1.17
*BankfulI discharge estimated using published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al.,
1999)
* *High bank height rati os (val ues greater than 2.0 indicatesysterrmide sell f- recovery is
unlikely)
* * * Sedi ment sampl es taken a1 ong mai n stem only (Reaches R4 & R5) gi ven shorter reach
I engths, proxi mi ty to upstream i mpoundments, and si mi I ar substrate mated al.
* ** *Additional meander geometry information such as meander wi dth, meander length, and
radiusof curvature were not measured. The channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has
been strai ghtened /channel i zed, and /or i s cl assi f ed as a step -pool channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -6 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Parameter
Reach R3
Reach
R4
Reach
R5
XSR3a
XSR3h
XSR4a
XSR5a
Existing Reach Length (ft)
895
320
1,023
D rai nage Area (sq. mi .)
0.106 / 0.064
0.056
0.097
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
16.5/12.2
11.1
16.5
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
135c
135c
135c
135c
BankfulI Width (Wbkf) (ft)
5.3
4.5
4.5
4.4
BankfulI Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.8
0.67
0.7
1.04
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)
6.5
6.7
6.4
4.2
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
4.3
3.0
3.1
4.5
BankfulI Max Depth (dn,bkf) (ft)
1.54
1.03
1.44
1.55
Floodprone Width (Wfp� (ft)
9.5
6.7
9.9
7.8
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa V Vbkf) (ft)
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.8
Bank Height Ratio **
3.2
2.3
3.0
2.4
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
15 +60
11 +00
21 +15
36 +80
BankfulI Mean Velocity, Vbkf =
(Qbkf /Abkf) (ft/s)
3.8
4.1
3.6
3.7
Channel Materials (Particle Sze Index - d50) * **
d16 / d35/ d50/ d84/ d95 (mm)
/
0.14/0.29/0.41 1.16/ 3.05
-
-
AverageValleySlope(ft/ft)
0.0182
0.0105
0.0133
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.0150
0.0121
0.0177
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * **
1 1.22
1.16
1.42
* BankfulI discharge estimated using NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999)
* *High bank height rati os (val ues greater than 2.0 i ndi cate systerrmi de self-recovery is
unlikely)
* * * Sedi ment sampl es were taken at representati ve ri ffl es along mai n stem
* ** *Additional meander geometry information such as meander wi dth, meander length, and
radiusof curvature were not measured. The channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has
been straightened /channel i zed, and /or i s cl assi f ed as a step -pool channel.
Parameter
Reach R5
Reach R6
XSR5h
XSRSc
XSR6h
XSR6c
Existing Reach Length (ft)
1,023
1,817
DrainageArea (sq. mi.)
0.083
0.050
0.019
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
14.4
10.2
5.1
Feature Type
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
C5
-
135c
G5c
BankfulI Width (Wbkf) (ft)
8.9
5.9
4.3
3.2
BankfulI Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.4
2.11
0.59
0.55
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)
23.6
2.8
0.86
5.8
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
3.4
12.5
2.5
1.8
BankfulI Max Depth (dn,bkf) (ft)
0.83
2.58
0.86
0.9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -7 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Floodprone Width (Wfp� (ft)
>30
99
6.5
4.5
Entrenchment Ratio (WfpJWbkf) (ft)
5.4
16.8
1.5
1.4
Bank Height Ratio **
1.0
1.0
2.9
4.4
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
29 +10
34 +00
23 +00
11 +25
BankfulI Mean Velocity, Vbkf=
(Qbkf /Abkf) (ft/s)
4.2
-
4.1
2.8
Channel Materials (Particle Sze Index - d50) * **
d16 / d35/ d50/ d84/ d95 (mm)
0.15 / 0.30 / 0.40
/0.86/1.48
-
-
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0134
0.025
0.0361
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.0177
0.0148
0.025
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * **
1.31
1.13
1.13
* BankfulI discharge estimated using NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999)
* *High bank height rati os (val ues greater than 2.0 i ndi cate systerrmi de self-recovery is
unlikely)
* * * Sedi ment sampl es were taken at representati ve ri ffI es al ong mai n stem ( Reaches R4 &
R5)
* ** *Additional meander geometry information such as meanderwidth, meander length, and
radiusof curvature were not measured. The channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has
been straightened /channel i zed, and /or i s cl assi f ed as a step -pool channel.
Parameter
Reach R7
Reach Tl
Reach T2
XSR7
XSTl
XST2
Existing Reach Length (ft)
635
182
180
D rai nage Area (sq. mi .)
0.022
0.077
0.008
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
5.7
14.0
2.7
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
B5
135c
135c
BankfulI Width (Wbkf) (ft)
3.6
7.2
2.1
BankfulI Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.43
0.39
0.38
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf /dbkf)
8.4
18.6
5.6
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
1.6
2.8
0.8
BankfulI Max Depth (dn,bkf) (ft)
0.64
0.66
0.6
Floodprone Width (Wfpj (ft)
5.4
10.8
3.4
Entrenchment Ratio (WfpJWbkf) (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.6
Bank Height Ratio **
4.2
2.6
2.3
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
14 +15
11 +50
10 +95
BankfulI Mean Velocity, Vbkf=
(Qbkf /Abkf) (ft/s)
3.6
5.0
3.4
Channel Materials (Particle Sze Index - d50) * **
d16 / d35/ d50/ d84/ d95 (mm)
0.12 / 0.29 / 0.43
/0.87/1.39
-
-
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.036
0.0120
0.0417
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.025
0.0203
0.0414
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * **
1.11
1.09
1.17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -8 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

17.1.1.2 Valley Classification
The project site is located in southwest Wake County within the R edmont hydrophysi ographi c
region of North Carolina Undisturbed Piedmont valleys in this region are generally classified as
Val I ey Type ` V I I' ( Rosgen, 2006), al though i t i s understaood thi s d assi f i cati on does not descri be
sped f i c I andforms wi thi n the provi nces through the mi d -Atl anti c/southeast regi on. The provi nce i s
characteri zed by broad, rot I i ng, i nterstream di vi des across vari abl a steep sl opes a1 ong wel I -def i ned
drai nage ways. The underl yi ng geol ogi c uni t of the proj ect area consi sts of sandstone i nterbedded
with si I tstone (Tres/si 2) within the Triassic Basin geologic formation and Level III Ecoregi on
(Geol ogi c M ap of North Carolina, NC Geol ogi cal Survey, 1998). The area receives moderately
hi gh red of a1 I amounts wi th pred pi tali on averagi ng 46.9 i nches per year (N RCS, 1970).
17.1.1.3 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
Baker performed general topographic and pl ani metric surveying of the project site and
produced a 1 -foot contour map based on survey data i n order to create pl an set base
mapping (see Section 18.0, Appendix D). Fourteen representative cross sections and
I ongi tudi nal prof i I es were a1 so surveyed to assess the current condi ti on and overal I
stabi I i ty of the stream channel s. The exi sti ng ri ff I e cross -secti on data and I ocati ons are
shown in Figure 17.1 and compared with the Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
shown i n Tabl e 17.2. The representati ve exi sti ng ri ff I e cross secti ons have a typi cal Bank
H ei ght Rati o (B H R) of greater than 1.5. Some of the cross -secti on data i I I ustrate the
presence of exi sti ng berms or overburden f rom channel i zati on and the I ack of natural
f I oodpl ai n deposi ts.
Consi stent bankf ul I i ndi cators were chat I engi ng to f i nd i n the f i el d, though i n the end they
became more evi dent. The i ndi cators tended to agree wi th the bankf ul I cross -secti onal
area esti mates f rom the N C Rural R edmont Regi onal Curve and i n some cases were
sl i ghtl y smal I er (i.e., approxi matel y 10 %) than the regi onal curve ( Reaches R1, R2, R5).
Thus, for the most part, Baker used the regi onal curve to size the channels but sized them
down sl i ghtl y i f the bankf ul I i ndi cators were consi stent and suggested a smal I er cross -
secti onal area was more appropri ate.
The I ongi tudi nal prof i I es show the channel sl opes vary f rom 0.0082 to 0.018 ft/ft and
have average val I ey sl opes of 0.0098 to 0.025 ft/ft wi th several I ong ri ff I e secti ons and
i of requentl y spaced pool s. The si nuosi ty for the reaches i s ty pi cal I y between 1.1 and 1.2,
a resul t of pri or strai ghteni ng/channel i zati on and val I ey morphol ogy. Long secti ons of
the proj ect reaches are moderatel y entrenched and unstabl a as shown on the cross -secti on
data This likely i ndi cases a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
downcutti ng, streambank erosi on), especi a1 I y i n porti ons of the reach where numerous
acti ve headcuts are present (verti cal i nstabi I i ty) or streambanks are acti vel y erodi ng
(lateral instability).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -9 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No.
96074
Rating
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
-Stability
Stable (low risk of degradation)
1.0 -1.05
Moderately unstable
1.06-1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation)
1.3 - 1.5
Highly unstable
> 1.5
Notes: ( Rosgen, 2001)
The channel stabi I i ty assessment i ncorporated qual i tati ve and quanti tali ve d to
observati ons ud ng detai I ed topographi c data col I ected for the proj ect. Concl ud ons
reached f rom these methods were used to def i ne overal I channel stabi I i ty and determi ne
appropri ate restorati on approaches for the si te. The reaches were i denti f i ed as perenni a1
and i ntermi ttent streams that on gi nate f rom a watershed that i s predomi nantl y forested
wi th agri cul tural I and and two homes wi th associ aced farm bui I di ngs compri d ng the
remai ni ng I and use. Due to past channel mani pul ati on, a ml on ty of the reaches are
moderatel y to severel y i nci sed as evi denced by bank hei ght rati os greater than 1.5.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -10 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.1 Existing Cross Section Locations for Project Reaches
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -11 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.2 Existing Cross Sections for Project Reaches
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-12 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
11.3
L 9
1.26
1.94
7.17
2.5
1.8
95.8
98.69
Cross Section R1
101
-
100
99
.2 98
------------------
97
96
----------
95
94
93
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station ---- Bank full --- -o- - - -- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Gc
7.7
L 6.46
1.19
1.59L
5.42
2.2
1.4
101.16
102.99
Cross Section R2a
112
110
108
0 106
> 104
102
100
98 -
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station Bankfull --- -0- - -- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
F
6
9.43
0.64
1.39
14.84
3.3
1.4
91.22
94.46
Cross Section R2b
106
104
102
100
0 98
-
> 96
-
w 94
-
92
- ---------------
90
-
88
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station Bank full --- -o - - -- Floodprone I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-12 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

I
Stream
IBKF
BKF
l
BKF
Max BKF
I
I
I
I
I
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
4.3
5.27
0.81
1 1.54
1 6.53
3.2
1.8
96.5
99.85
Cross Section R3a
102
-
101
100
.2 99
98
----------------------
97
----- - - - - --
96
95
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station Bankfull ---- Floodprone
I
Stream
BKF
I BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
3
4.51
0.67
1 1.03
1 6.71
2.3
1.5
98.6
99.89
Cross Section R3b
104
-
103
102
0
101
> 100
.T
Lu 99
98
-
97
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station Bankfull ---- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
I
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
3.1
4.48
0.7
1.44
1 6.4
3
2.2
90.5
93.41
Cross Section R4a
100
-
98
96
. 2
94
Lu92
---------------------------
90
88
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station c.)---- Bankfull ---- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-13 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

I
Stearn
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
I
Feature
Type
BKF Area
! Width _i
Depth
Depth
WID
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev!
Riffle
Bc
4.5
4.35
1.04
1 1.55
1 4.18
1 2.4
1.8
98.5
100.73
Cross Section R5a
103
102
101
100
------- - - - - --
M
>� 99
w 98
97
96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station c - - -- Bankfull ----o - - -- Floodprone
I
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
! Width _i
Depth
Depth
WID
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev!
Riffle
Cc
1 3.4
1 8.95
0.38
0.83
23.57
0.8
5.4
95.5
95.34
Cross Section R5b
99.5
99
98.5
98
o 97.5
r 97
d 96.5
w 96
--
95.5
95
94.5
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station ty - - -- Bankfull --- -o - - -- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
I Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
! Width _i
Depth
Depth
WID
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev!
Riffle
G
1.8
3.21
0.55
1 0.9
1 5.79
4.4
1.4
96.8
99.86
Cross Section R6c
102
101
100
0 99
r
>� 98
w 97
96
95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station a - - -- Bankfull - - - -o Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -14 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-15 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT
Stream
I BKF
I BKF
Max BKF
I
I
1131HIRatiol
I
I
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
BC
1.6
3.63
0.43
1 0.64
1 8.39
4.2
1.5
97
99.06
Cross Section R7
101.5
-
101
100.5
100
cc 99.5
99
> 98.5
98
97.5
97
- ------
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station ---- Bankfull ---- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
I Depth
I W/D
1131HRabol
ER
I BKF Eley
T013 Elev
Riffle
BC
2.12
0.6
5.6
98.76
I 100 .34
Cross Section T2
103
102.5
102
101.5
0 C 101
ml 00.5
> 100
99.5
99
98.5
98
97.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station ry ---- Bankfull e Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
I
I
1131HRatiol
I
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
ER
BKF Elev
T013 Elev
Riffle
Bc
2.78
7.2
0.39
1 0.66
1 18.6
2.6
1.5
107.15
108.21
Cross Section T1
110.5
110
x109.5
.2 109
15108.5
.2 108
407.5
------ - - - - --
107
106.5
106
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station 7
F --- Bankfull Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-15 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

17.1.1.4 Bank Erosion Prediction (BEHUNBS)
Sedimentation from streambank erosion is a significant pollutant to water quality and aquatic
habi tat. Predi cti ng streambank erosi on rates and annual sedi ment yi el ds usi ng the Bank Assessment
for N on -poi nt source Consequences of Sedi ment (BA N CS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001 a)
consi ders two streambank erodi bi I i ty esti mati on tool s: the Bank Erosi on H azard I ndex (B EH 1), and
N ear Bank Stress (N BS). Thi s rati ng method i s used to descri be exi sti ng streambank condi ti ons and
stati sti cal I y quanti fy the erosi on potenti a1 of a stream reach i n f eet/year. Si nce i t i s an
esti mati on/predi cti on method, the i ntent i s to be used as a ref ati ve compari son for pre - and post-
restoration conditions.
Publ i shed curve data were i ni ti a1 I y devel oped f rom si tes i n Col orado wi th varyi ng sedi ment
sources, vegetati on, and f I uvi a1 geomorphi c processes characteri sti c of that regi on. Al though the
publ i shed BEH I /N BS curve i s not di rectl y appl i cabl a to pi edmont streams i n N orth Carol i na, i t can
provi de a f ramedvork to devel op si mi I ar rel ati ons i n other hydrophysi ographi c regi ons. Therefore,
Baker used I ocal unpubl i shed N C pi edmont B EH I and N BS rati ngs (obtai ned through personal
communi cati on wi th N RCS, Wei ker, 2011) to esti mate sedi ment I oss and support f i el d observati ons
and streambank hei ght measurements taken duri ng exi sti ng condi ti ons assessment.
The BEH I /N BS esti mates f or the exi sti ng condi ti ons (pre - constructi on) were determi ned i n the
f i el d. The ml on ty of B EH I rati ngs vari ed f rom 'I ow' to 'moderate' wi th a f env mi ddl a secti ons
rati ng on the ` hi gh' category based on changes i n the vel od ty gradi ent and shear stress, and depth
of i nci si on. Thi s i s typi cal of a parti a1 I y degraded stream system wi th acti ve streambank erosi on i n
I ocal i zed areas. After stabi I i zi ng streambanks usi ng the proposed restorati on measures, post -
constructi on BEH I /N BS esti mates typi cal I y predi ct a si gni f i cant decrease i n sedi ment I oadi ng
throughout the enti re proj ect area, especi a1 I y consi deri ng the I i mi ted sedi ment suppl y enteri ng the
system from the upstream drainages.
17.1.1.5 Channel Evolution
Channel stabi I i ty i s def i ned as the stream's abi I i ty to transport i ncomi ng f I ows and
sedi ment I oads suppl i ed by the watershed wi thout undergoi ng si gni f i cant changes over a
geol ogi cal I y short ti me -scat e. L ane (1955) proposed a general i zed ref ati onshi p of stream
stabi I i ty; i t states that the product of sedi ment I oad and sedi ment si ze i s i n bat ance wi th
the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream power. A change i n any one of these
vari abl es i nduces phyd cad adj ustment of one or more of the other vari abl es to compensate
and mai ntai n the proporti onal i ty.
Longi tudi nd I y, the water and sedi ment f I ows del i vered to each subsequent secti on are the
resul t of the watershed and upstream (or downstream, i f backwater) condi ti ons. Water
and sedi ment pass through the channel, whi ch i s def i ned by i is shape, materi a1, and
vegetati ve condi ti on. Fl ow and sedi ment are ei ther stored or passed through at each
secti on a1 ong the reach. The resul ti ng physi cal changes are a bat and ng act between
gravi ty, f ri cti on, and the sedi ment and water bei ng del i vered i nto the system (Leopol d et
a1., 1964).
Observed stream response to induced instability, as descri bed by Si mon' s (1989) Channel
Evolution Model, involve extensive modifications to channel form resulting in profile,
cross - secti onal , and pl an form changes, whi ch often take decades or I onger to achi eve
resol uti on. The Si mon (1989) Channel Evol uti on M odel characteri zes typi cal evol uti on i n
six stages:
1. Pre- modified
2. Channel i zed
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -16 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

5. Aggradati on and widening
6. Quasi -equi I i bri um.
The channel evol uti on process i ni ti aces once a stabl e, wel I - vegetated stream that i nteracts
f requentl y wi th i is f I oodpl ai n i s di sturbed. Channel i zati on, dredgi ng, changi ng I and use,
removal of streamd de vegetati on, upstream or downstream channel modi f i cati ons, and/or
change in other hydrologic variables result in adjustments in channel morphology to
compensate for the new condi ti on(s). Di sturbance commonl y resul is i n an i Increase i n
stream power that can cause degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane,
1955). I Inc si on eventual I y I eads to over- steepeni ng of the streambanks and, when cri ti cal
streambank hei ghts are exceeded, the streambanks begi n to fad I and erosi on or mass
wasti ng of soi I and rock I eads to channel wi deni ng. I Inc si on and wi deni ng conti nue
movi ng upstream i n the form of a head -cut. Eventual I y the mass wasti ng sl ows, and the
stream begi ns to aggrade. A new, I ow -fl ow channel begi ns to form i n the sedi ment
deposi ts. By the end of the evol uti onary process, a stabl a stream wi th di mensi on, pattern,
and profi I e si mi I ar to those of undi sturbed channel s forms i n the deposited al I uvi um. The
new channel i s at a I ower el evati on than i is on gi nal f orm, wi th a new f I oodpl ad n
constructed of al I uvi a1 materi al (Fl SRWG, 1998).
The proj ect reaches are predomi nantl y i n Stages 4 or 5 of the Sd mon Channel Evol uti on
M odel . Thi s i ndi cates that the f I oodpl ad n connecti on has been severel y compromi sed by
verti cal degradati on and the channel s wi I I I i kel y experi ence conti nued erosi on pri or to the
channel form stabi I i zi ng on i is own (Stage 6 — Quasi -equi I i bri um). Whether a gi ven reach
i s i n Stage 4 or 51 argel y depends on when the headcut passed through; i f i t has been
recent) y then the channel i s I i kel y to be i n Stages 3 or 4, whi I e i f wi deni ng has al ready
occurred then i t i s I i kel y to be i n Stage 5. Reaches that are i n Stage 5 i nd ude R1 and
upper R2. Reaches that are i n Stage 4 i Inc) ude I ower R2 and R6. The remai ni ng reaches
(R3, R4, R5, R7, and T 1) are somewhere between Stages 4 and 5, wi th ty pi cal I y the
downstream end i n Stage 5 and the upstream end i n Stage 4. Thi s i s not al ways the case,
however, as Reach R5 (lower restoration section) continues to degrade and widen at the
downstream end, whi I e the upstream end i s general I y aggradi ng and wi deni ng.
Where Reaches are i n Stage 5, Pri on ty 2 restorati on tends to be more appropri ate to
advance the channel to Stage 6. 1 n other reaches, Pri on ty 1 restorati on can essenti al I y
move the channel back more or I ess to Stage 1.
17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions
After exami ni ng the assessment data col I ected at the si to and expl on ng the potenti a1 f or
restoration, an approach was developed that would address restoration and enhancement of
stream f uncti ons wi thi n the proj ect area whi I e mi ni mi zi ng di sturbance to exi sti ng wooded
areas and protecti ng exi sti ng, ACOE -veri f i ed j uri sdi cti onal wetl ands. Pri or to i mpacts f rom
past channel mani put ati on, topography and soi I s on the si to i ndi cafe that the proj ect area most
I i kel y f uncti oned i n the past as a smal I tri butary stream system wi th assod aced hi I I sl ope seep
wetl ands, eventual I y f I owi ng i Into the I anger Thomas Creek system.
Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore and/or enhance this type of system.
Fi rst, an appropri ate stream type for the val I ey type, sl ope, and desi red stream functi ons was
sel ected and desi gned to i mprove hi stori c f I ow patterns wi thi n the proj ect area. Then a deli gn
pl an was devel oped i n order i mprove the f I oodpl ad n hydro) ogy and base f I ow i nteracti on
i mpai red by current cattl e i mpacts, acti ve degradati on, and other agri cut tural I and
mani put ati ons.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -17 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

17.1.2.1 Proposed Design Approach and Criteria Selection
For desi gn purposes, the stream channel s used the same ni ne reach I abel s as the exi sti ng
reaches: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, T 1, and T2 ( see Figure 17.3). Sel ecti on of a general
restorati on approach was the f i rst step i n sel ecti ng desi gn cri teri a f or a1 I reaches. The
approach was based on the potenti a1 for restorati on as determi ned duri ng the si to
assessment. N Batt, sped f i c desi gn parameters were devel oped so that pl an vi edv I ayout,
cross - secti on di mensi ons, and a I ongi tudi nal prof i I e coul d be i mpl emented for devel opi ng
constructi on documents. The deli gn phi I osophy i s to use these parameters as conservati ve
val ues for the sel ected stream types and to a1 I ow natural vari abi I i ty i n stream di mensi on,
facet sl ope, and bed features to form over I ong peri ods under the processes of fl oodi ng,
re-col oni zati on of vegetati on, and I ocal watershed i of I uences.
The Thomas Creek project i nd udes several headwater reaches that are steeper and have
narrow val I eys. Often thi s setti ng may be assod aced wi th Bc stream types. H owever, the
entrenchment rati o on the restored channel s wi I I be greater than 2.2, whi ch makes ei ther
an E or a C channel. Though the channel s wi I I no I onger be i nd sed or entrenched,
narrower val I ey wi dths and boundary condi ti ons prevented pattern adj ustments
commonl y associ aced wi th C or E meander geometry. Thi s typi cal I y transl aces to shorter
ri ff I es wi th hi gher sl opes, and thus hi gher stream power. H i gher stream power i s
amel i orated to some extent by i ncreasi ng the wi dth- to-depth rati os than the nearby
reference reach. Addi ti onal I y, constructi ng hi gher wi dth- to-depth rati os (11 -14) wi I I put
I ess stress on the newt y constructed streambanks. Addi ti onal Iy, grade control structures
were i ncorporated to mad ntai n stabi I i ty despi to steeper ri ff I e sl opes. The radi i of curvature
rati os of between 2 and 3 were fol I owed, so structures are I ess common i n the channel
bends.
After selecting an appropriate design approach for the site based on field assessments and
f uncti onal I i ft potenti a1, proposed stream desi gn val ues and desi gn cri teri a were sel ected
using common reference ratios and guidelines (Harman, Starr, 2011). Table 17.3 presents
the desi gn parameters used for the proposed reaches. Fol I owi ng i ni ti a1 appl i cati on of the
desi gn cri teri a, Baker staff made detai I ed ref i nements to accommodate the exi sti ng val I ey
type and channel morphol ogy. Thi s step mi ni mi zes unnecessary di sturbance of the
ri pari an area, can hel p reduce the number of i n- stream structures, and a1 I ows f or some
natural channel adj ustment fol I owi ng constructi on. The desi gn pl ans have been tai I ored to
produce a cost and resource efficient design that corresponds to the tools of construction.
One overarchi ng desi gn comment about the Thomas Creek si to i s warranted si nce there
are general I y steep val I ey sl opes combi ned wi th sand bed streams. Thi s makes grade
control chat I engi ng because there i s hi gher stream power and shear stress, but not
adequate bed materi a1 si ze or resi stance to match those erosi ve f orces. Consequentl y, the
risk of channel degradation is exceedingly high. Stability in the reference reaches is
pri maxi I y mai ntai ned through a combi nati on of appropri ate/natural meander geometry,
and, more i mportantl y, extend ve mature tree roots runni ng a1 ong and beneath the
streambed. M eander geometry can help flatten channel slopes and is achievable through
the desi gn process, but mature tree roots i n the streambed are general I y not achi evabl a at
the early stages right after construction.
Baker has consi dered thi s desi gn chal I enge and offers the f of I owi ng sol uti on. Fi rst,
f requent grade control i s necessary. L i mi ti ng thi s to the ri ff I e secti ons i s pref erred si nce
thi s i s where most gradi ent i s typi cal I y I ost i n a stream. Second, usi ng more natural grade
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -18 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

control to mimic reference reach conditions is preferred. This favors woody materi ad in
the form of I og j am constructed ri ff I es, I og rol I ers, and I og wei rs. These structures wi I I be
used i n perenni al streams (submersi on prevents rapi d breakdown of wood by f ungi) and
where woody materi al i s avai I abl a (i.e., wi thi n a parti cul ar reach i f cl eari ng i s needed to
i mpl ement restorati on/enhancement). H owever, i n more i ntermi ttent streams and i n
I ocati ons where trees are not abundant (I ower Reach R2), more rock materi al may be
incorporated to build constructed riffles and step pools. These structures are necessary to
mai ntai n grade control gi ven the steeper channel /ri ff I e sl opes and sandy bed materi al.
Baker has i nvesti gated other sources of wood, such as nearby sl ash pi I es on Duke Energy
I and, but i n the absence of suff i ci ent woody materi ad for structures, rock wi I I be
substituted.
Reach Rl Restoration
Reach R1 i s si gni f i cantl y i nci sad, though the top -of -bank wi dth vari es f rom qui to narrow
towards the conf I uence of Reaches R1 and R2, to rather wi de at cattl a crossi ngs i n the
mi ddl a of the reach. A Pri on ty Level I I restorati on approach wi I I be i ni ti ated at the upper
end of Reach R1 i n order to return the channel to the exi sti ng grade wi thi n approxi matel y
250 feet at the downstream extent of the proj ect. The I ower part of Reach R1 has i nci sed
to an existing bedrock feature and the streambanks are actively eroding.
The restored channel wi I I be constructed al ong the exi sti ng channel, and wi I I be desi gned
i ni ti al I y as a Rosgen 'C' stream type as i t i s I owered to meet bedrock at the downstream
end. I n- stream structures such as constructed ri ff I es wi I I be i nstal I ed to control grade,
di ssi pate scour energi es, and el i mi nate the potenti al for upstream channel i nci si on.
Addi ti onal I y, I og vanes and wei rs wi I I be i ncorporated f or step -pool f ormati on, bank
stabi I i ty, and habi tat di versi ty.
The desi gn wi dth/depth rati o for the channel wi I I be 14, and over ti me, the channel may
narrow due to deposi ti on of sedi ment and streambank vegetati on growth. Channel
narrowi ng shoul d not ri sk downcutti ng because any narrowi ng woul d be i n response to
stabi I i zi ng processes (i.e., tree establ i shment, poi nt bar f ormati on). The bankf ul I
f I oodpl ai n bench woul d provi de energy di ssi pati on when that i s needed to mai ntai n
channel stabi I i ty.
Channel banks wi I I be graded to stabl e, 2:1 or f I after sl opes, bankf ul I benches wi I I be
i ncorporated to f urther promote stabi I i ty, and ri pari an vegetati on wi I I be re- establ i shed to
the conf I uence.
Ri pari an buff ers i n excess of 50 f eet wi I I be restored or protected al ong ad I of Reach R1.
N o stream crossi ng or breaks i n the easement are proposed al ong thi s reach. I nvasi ve
sped es control wi I I be conducted.
Reach R2 Restoration
Work al ong Reach R2 wi I I i nvol ve a combi nati on of Pri on ty Level I and I I restorati on
approaches to provi de f I oodpl ai n reconnecti on and promote I ong -term channel stabi I i ty.
Presentl y, the reach i s i nci sed and erodi ng. The upper end i s overl y wi de and i ni ti ad bench
formati on has ensued i n some areas. M ature hardwood trees are abundant for the f rst 600
feet of exi sti ng channel, after whi ch the channel enters pasture and hugs the ri ght si de of
the valley for 1,300 feet.
To preserve the exi sti ng canopy and i mprove the f I oodpl ai n wi dth of a stabi I i zi ng
channel, Pri on ty Level I I restorati on i s proposed f or the upstream porti on of Reach R2. I n
thi s upper secti on of Reach R2, the desi gn wi I I target a Rosgen 'CS stream type and wi I I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -19 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

be bui I t as a nested channel with a wi dth/depth ratio of 14 and an entrenchment ratio of
greater than 2.2.
Once Reach R2 begi ns the channel i zed section that fl ows through pasture, Pri on ty Level
I restorati on wi I I be i mpl emented. Thi s reach wi I I be deli gned as a Rosgen 'C5' stream
type, though i ni ti al I y the vat I ey i s narrower and thus the pattern i s more typical of a ` 135c'
stream type. The design wi dth/depth ratio for the channel wi I I be 14 with 2.5:1 ri ff I e si de
sl opes, and over ti me, the channel may narrow due to sedi ment deposi ti on and
streambank vegetati on growth. Channel narrowi ng shoul d not ri sk downcutti ng because
any narrowi ng woul d be i n response to stabi I izi ng processes (i.e., tree establ i shment,
poi nt bar formati on). The bankf ul I f I oodpl ai n woul d provi de energy di ssi pati on when that
is needed to maintain channel stability.
Thi s approach wi I I al I ow restorati on of a stabl a channel form wi th appropri ate bedform
di versi ty, as wet I as i mproved channel f uncti on through i mproved aquati c habi tat, more
f requent overbank f I oodi ng, restorati on of ri pari an and terrestri al habi tats, excl usi on of
cattl a and associ aced pot I utants, and decreased erosi on and sedi ment I oss f rom
streambank erosion.
M apped j uri sdi cti onal wetl ands i n the I ower Reach R2 f I oodpl ai n wi I I be ei ther protected
duri ng the constructi on process or enhanced through the gradi ng acti vi ti es. Weil and
enhancement may be achieved by raising the streambed and thus increasing the hydro
peri od, as wel I as the wetted area Addi ti onal I y, wetl and vegetati on wi I I be i mproved.
Ri pari an buffers i n excess of 50 feet wi I I be restored al ong ad of Reach R2. One stream
crossi ng and break i n the easement i s proposed al ong Reach R2, at the transi ti on f rom
Pri on ty Level I I to Pri on ty Level 1. 1 nvasi ve sped es control wi I I be conducted.
Reach R3 Restoration
Work al ong Reach R3 wi I I i nvol ve a combi nati on of Pri on ty Level I and I I restorati on
approaches to provi de f I oodpl ai n reconnecti on and promote I ong -term channel stabi I i ty.
I n i is exi sti ng condi ti on, the reach i s i nci sed and acti A y erodi ng. The I andowner had
much of the ti mber a1 ong Reach R3 harvested i n 2011; theref ore, restorati on acti vi ti es
can be conducted wi th mi ni mad i mpact to exi sti ng mature trees. These techni ques wi I I
al I ow restorati on of a stab) a channel form wi th appropri ate bedf orm di versi ty, as wel I as
i mproved channel f uncti on through i mproved aquati c habi tat, more f requent overbank
f I oodi ng, restorati on of ri pari an and terrestri al habi tats, and decreased sedi mentati on f rom
streambank erosi on. Appropri ate bedform di versi ty i n thi s case may be def i ned as
ri ff I e/pool sequences accordi ng to cad cud aced pool - to-pool spaci ng and f acet sl opes, whi ch
I ead to a stab) e I ongi tudi nal prof i I e and di verse mi crohabi tat f or aquati c organi sms.
Thi s reach wi I I be desi gned as a Rosgen 'E/C' stream type. The deli gn wi dth/depth rati o
for the channel wi I I be 12 to account for a steeper vat I ey sl ope and to reduce stress on the
streambanks. A hi gher wi dth- to-depth rati o yi el ds a rel ati A y hi gher channel wi dth and
I ower depth, whi ch reduces stream power. M eander geometry of a stab) a E/C stream type
i s possi bl a gi ven the narrower val I ey wi dth; consequent) y, addi ti onal grade control
structures wi I I be i nstal I ed to mai ntai n channel stabi I i ty.
M apped j uri sdi cti onal wetl ands i n the upper Reach R3 f I oodpl ai n wi I I be ei ther protected
duri ng the constructi on process or enhanced through the gradi ng acti vi ti es. Weil and
enhancement may be achi eyed by rai si ng the stream bed and thus i ncreasi ng the hydro
peri od, as wel I as the wetted area Addi ti onal I y, wetl and vegetati on wi I I be i mproved.
I nvasi ve sped es control wi I I be conducted.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -20 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Ri pari an buffers i n excess of 50 feet wi I I be restored a1 ong al I of Reach R3. One stream
crossi ng/easement break i s proposed al ong Reach R3. An exi sti ng ford crossi ng wi I I be
enhanced. Cattl a do not and wi I I not have access to thi s crossi ng.
Reach R4 Restoration and Enhancement
Work on Reach R4 wi I I i nvol ve restorati on approaches on a 330 -foot secti on of the
downstream end to i is conf I uence wi th Reach R3.
The pri many source of i mpai rment f or Reach R4 i s i nci si on caused by a headcut that has
mi grated up f rom Reach R2. An exi sti ng ford crossi ng has stopped the mi grati on of the
headcut; consequently, immediately upstream from it Reach R4 is highly stable and has
been used as a reference reach. The upper 870 -foot secti on of Reach R4 wi I I be i nd uded
as an Enhancement Level I I reach. The ri pari an buffers are I argely adequate but wi I I be
suppl emental I y pl anted so that they are at I east 50 feet wi de. The fence a1 ong the eastern
edge, where cows have access, wi I I be repl aced. Per agreement wi th the I RT, i nvasi ve
sped es control wi I I not be conducted i n upper Reach R4.
Al ong the downstream end of Reach R4, the channel i s i n poor condi ti on due to i nci si on.
Thi s reach secti on wi I I be restored through usi ng Pri ority Level I I restorati on and the use
of I og j ams and constructed ri ff I es to control grade, di ssi pate energi es, and el i mi pate the
potenti a1 for upstream channel i nci si on. Channel banks wi I I be graded to stabl a sl opes,
and bi oengi neeri ng measures wi I I be i ncorporated to f urther promote stabi I i ty and re-
establ i shment of ri pari an vegetati on. Thi s secti on of Reach R4 wi I I be desi gned as a
Rosgen 'C5' stream type. The desi gn wi dth/depth rati o f or the channel wi I I be 13.
Fl oodpl ai n benches wi I I be i ncorporated to i ncrease the entrenchment rati o to greater than
2.2, thus reducing stress on the restored channel.
Ri pari an buff ers i n excess of 50 f eet wi I I be restored a1 ong al I of Reach R4. The exi sti ng
ford crossi ng above the proj ect reach wi I I be mai ntai ned as a ford crossi ng si nce I i vestock
wi I I not have access to i t. Addi ti onal I y, an exi sti ng downstream bri dge crossi ng wi I I be
removed. I nvasi ve sped es control wi I I be conducted i n I ower Reach R4.
Reach R5 Enhancement and Restoration
Work on Reach R5 wi I I conti nue the enhancement approach (pl anti ng, i nvasi ves sped es
control, and easement establ i shment) f rom I ower Reaches R6 and R7. Thi s work wi I I
extend to the top 142 f eet of Reach R5, at whi ch poi nt the approach wi I I swi tch to
Pri on ty Level I restorati on, begi nni ng at an acti ve headcut. The f i rst 200 feet of the
Pri on ty I secti on i s i n a forested area and the I ower 700 f eet are i n acti ve pasture. The
benef i is of thi s approach i nd ude: f I oodpl ai n reconnecti on; I i mi ted i mpact to desi rabl e
nati ve sped es trees a1 ong the exi sti ng channel; and f ul I restorati on of a natural channel
pattern and appropriate stream functions.
Lower Reach R5 wi I I be desi gned as a Rosgen 'C5' stream type wi th a wi dth/depth rati o
of 13 and 2.5:1 ri ff I e si de sl opes. Log structures to mai ntai n pool s and grade control wi I I
be empl oyed. The ne�v channel wi I I be constructed both off -I i ne f rom and on -I i ne wi th
the exi sti ng channel. Exi sti ng mature trees wi I I be preserved wherever possi bl e. At the
downstream end of the reach, mi ni mal f I oodpl ai n benchi ng wi I I be requi red. Though the
restored reach wi I I be el evated by more than two feet f rom the exi sti ng channel, benchi ng
wi I I be requi red i n the I ower 150 feet to match the el evati on of proposed Reach R2.
M apped j uri sdi cti onal wetl ands i n the upper Reach R5 f I oodpl ai n wi I I be ei ther protected
duri ng the constructi on process or enhanced through the gradi ng acti vi ti es. Weil and
enhancement may be achi eyed by rai si ng the stream bed and thus i ncreasi ng the hydro
peri od. Addi ti onal I y, wetl and vegetati on wi I I be i mproved.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -21 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Ri pari an buff ers i n excess of 50 f eet wi I I be restored a1 ong a1 I of Reach R5. The exi sti ng
stream crossi ng near the downstream end of Reach R5 wi I I be repl aced and i mproved as
part of the proposed project. A ford crossi ng with gates wi I I be i nstal I ed to provide access
across the stream. The ne�v crossi ng wi I I be fenced a1 ong the si des to excl ude cattl a from
enteri ng the restored stream. Fi nal I y, i nvasi ve speci es control wi I I be conducted.
Reach R6 Enhancement
Work on Reach R6 wi I I i Involve two di sti nct enhancement approaches. The upstream,
210 -foot segment i s i nci sad, degraded, and wi deni ng; as such, Level I Enhancement wi I I
be empl oyed to I ower the bank angl es and create f I oodpl ai n benchi ng. The proposed
channel di mensi on wi I I i nd ude a wi dth- to-depth rati o of 14 wi th 2.5:1 ri ff I e si de sl opes,
a1 I owi ng the channel to narrow as vegetati on establ i shes. Combi ned wi th pl anti ng of
nati ve ri pari an buffer, thi s wi I I el i mi pate f uture channel erosi on on the reach and enabl e
I ong -term stabi I i ty.
I n the proposal stage, Baker had proposed Pri on ty Level I restorati on f or thi s upper
segment of Reach R6. The concept was to make thi s segment si mi I ar to a reference -
qual i ty segment j ust bel ow i t. H owever, the survey reveal ed that the i nci sed segment i s
much steeper (val I ey sl ope i s 0.037 ft/ft) than the reference segment and thi s i s I i kel y the
cause of the i nstabi I i ty. As such, i t i s not feasi bl a to recreate the ref erence segment and
more of a stabi I i zati on (enhancement) approach wi I I be targeted.
Bel ow the upstream, degraded secti on, the mi ti gati on approach wi I I trend ti on to
Enhancement Level I I that focuses on easement establ i shment, i nvasi ve speci es control,
and buffer planting; no channel work is proposed. Though the bank height ratios exceed
2.0 i n some I ocati ons, the I RT f el t that i t i s i mportant to mad ntai n the exi sti ng vegetati on
and the smal I er stream channel si ze i s such that f urther erosi on i s I i kel y to be I i mi ted, pl us
the benef i t of doi ng f urther work i s I i mi ted.
One exi sti ng stream crossi ng on upper Reach R6 wi I I be mai ntai ned and I eft out of the
conservation easement. The crossing will remain in its current condition since it is stable
and cattl a do not have access to i t.
Pbrti ons of the ri pari an buffer a1 ong Reach R6 have been d eared as part of the 2011
ti mber harvest, i ncreasi ng the i mportance of pl anti ng the appropri ate ri pari an sped es.
Desi gn parameters for upper Reach R6 wi I I be consi stent wi th comparabl e ` Bc' stream
types for the proj ect. Desi gn parameters for thi s secti on are i nd uded i n Tabl e 17.3, but
not for the downstream end of Reach R6 because only Enhancement Level I I approaches
wi I I be consi dered and di mend on, pattern, and prof i I e wi I I have no adj ustments.
Reach R7 Enhancement
Sd mi I ar to Reach R6, work on Reach R7 i nd udes two different enhancement approaches.
The upstream segment i s degradi ng and very steep wi th a channel sl ope i n the f i rst 160
feet of 0.044 ft/ft, so the approach i s to stabi I i ze the head cuts and channel gradi ent, as
wel I as the unstabl a si de sl opes on the upper 350 feet of Reach R7. Thi s work wi I I
i nvol ve i Instal I i ng constructed ri ff I es, I og wed rs, and rock step structures, bank sl opi ng and
matting, and riparian buffer planting. Rock structures, though not natural in a sand bed
system, provi de some i nsurance because they are not subj ect to rotti ng before grade
stabi I i zi ng vegetati on can become establ i shed.
Wetlands are located j ust above the project reach and the ad m is to prevent the headcut
f rom mi grati ng through and degradi ng thi s aquati c resource. Thi s work i s proposed at an
Enhancement Level I credi t rati o (1.5:1). At the post - contract si to vi si t wi th Baker and
NCEEP, the NCI RT recommended a 2.5:1 rati o for Enhancement Level I I but the steeper
gradi ent requi res at I east seven i n- stream structures to stabi I i ze the channel, as wel I as
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -22 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

addi ti onal bank sl opi ng and matti ng, maki ng the I evel of effort more consi stent wi th an
Enhancement Level I approach.
The I ower 286 -foot segment of Reach R7 i s most) y stabl e wi th f I oodpl ai n benches
devel opi ng i n many I ocati ons. The work here wi I I be si mi I ar to I ower Reach R6 and
upper Reach R5, i nd udi ng easement establ i shment, i nvasi ve sped es control, and ri pari an
buffer planting. No stream crossings are planned for Reach R7.
Reach TI Enhancement
Work on Reach T 1 wi I I i nd ude Enhancement Level I because i t i nvol ves a combi nati on
approaches, i nd udi ng restoration at the downstream end to tie into the Thomas Creek
f I oodpl ad n ( Reach R2) . As di scussed wi th the N Cl RT at the prel i mi nary si to vi si t, Reach
T 1 appears to have been moved f rom i is on gi nal I ocati on so that i t i s now f I owi ng
perpendi cul ar to Thomas Creek. After thi s meeti ng, the i ni ti al i ntent was to do restorati on
by routi ng the f I ow through the rel i c channel. H owever, because of the property boundary
I ocati on, i t i s not f easi bl a to reroute the streamf I ow to the rel i c channel whi I e al so
i nd udi ng a 50 -foot buffer and a necessary cattl a crossi ng (i.e., there i s I i mi ted avai I abl e
space i n thi s area). Consequentl y, the channel wi I I be enhanced i n i is exi sti ng I ocati on by
i ni ti al I y f end ng out an undi sturbed wetl and area, i nstal I i ng a step -pool sequence, and
transi ti oni ng to a meanderi ng channel that i s constructed off I i ne unti I i is conf I uence wi th
the mai nstem ( Reach R2).
Thi s reach wi I I be deli gned as a Rosgen 'C5' stream. The desi gn wi dth/depth rati o for the
channel wi I I be 13, and over ti me, the channel wi I I I i kel y narrow due to f i ne sedi ment
deposition and streambank vegetation growth.
These techni ques wi I I al I ow restorati on of a stabl a channel f orm wi th appropri ate
bedform di versi ty, as wel I as i mproved channel f uncti on through i mproved aquati c
habi tat, more f requent overbank f I oodi ng, restorati on of ri pari an and terrestri al habi tats,
excl usi on of cattl a and assoc ated pol I utants, and decreased erosi on and sedi ment I oss
from streambank erosion.
M apped j uri sdi cti oval wetl ands al ong Reach T 1 wi I I be protected at the upper end. Bel ow
the crossing, they will be enhanced through the construction process by incorporating
them as f I oodpl ai n benches, red si ng the stream bed, and thus i ncreasi ng the hydro peri od.
Addi ti onal I y, wetl and vegetati on wi I I be i mproved.
Ri pari an buff ers i n excess of 50 feet wi I I be restored al ong ad I of Reach T 1. One stream
crossi ng/ break i n the easement i s proposed al ong upper Reach T 1. An erodi ng exi sti ng
ford crossi ng wi I I be i mproved by addi ng channel rock and fend ng wi I I be i nstal I ed to
excl ude cattl e f rom the easement area Fi nal I y, i nvasi ve sped es control wi I I be
conducted.
Reach T2 Enhancement
Work on Reach T2 wi I I i nd ude Level I I Enhancement to mad ntai n channel stabi I i ty and
excl ude cattl e. The Reach T2 channel has two I ocati ons wi th steep drops i n el evati on
whi ch woul d I i kel y become headcuts i f tree roots were not there to prevent that.
Furthermore, the channel lacks any pool habitat. Thus, Baker proposes to incorporate
grade control structures to stabi I i ze the headcuts and form pool s that provi de i ncreased
bedform diversity.
Ri pari an buff ers i n excess of 50 feet wi I I be restored ad ong al I of Reach T2. Cattl e, whi ch
currentl y use thi s channel as a favori to wal I ow area, wi I I be permanentl y excl uded. N o
stream crossi ngs are proposed on thi s reach. Fi nal I y, i nvasi ve sped es control wi I I be
conducted.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -23 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.3 Natural Channel Design Criteria for Project Reaches
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Composite Reference
Values
Design Values'
Rationale
Reach RI
Reach R2
Reach RI
Reach R2
upper/lower
Rosgen Stream Type
C5
C5
C5
C5
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
_
44.6
23.0/29.7
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.5-5
3.5 -5
4.0
3.8/3.9
V =Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
_
_
11.2
6.0/7.7
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
-
12.5
9.2/10.4
Abkf * W l D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
_
0.9
0.7/0.7
d -A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
12-18
10-15
14
14/14
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
_
>25
>18
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf ( ft/ft)
1.4-2.2
> 2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
-
1.1
0.8/1.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.1-1.4
1.2
1.2/1.4
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob /Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0 -1.1
1.0 -1.1
1.0
1.0
Note
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
_
-
105
75-107
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
7 -14
7 -14
8.4
7.8 -11.1
Note
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
_
-
25-35
17- 26/20 -30
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
2-3
2 - 3
2-2.8
2 - 3
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
_
-
30
32 -45
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5-8
3.5-8
2.4
3.3-4.7
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length /Valley length)
1.1-1.3
1.2 -1.5
1.22
1.20
Note
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
.005-.015
.002-0.01
.01
.01
Sval / K
Channel Slope, Schan ( ft/ft)
_
-
0.022
0.0047/0.0083
Average Slope Riffle, Sri (ft/ft)
_
-
0.028
0.0094/0.02
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif /Schap
1.2-1.5
1.2-1.5
1.3
2.0/2.4
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool ( ft/ft)
_
-
0.0001
0.0006/0.0014
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool /Schap
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
0.0
0.16/0.1
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
_
2.4
1.7/1.9
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool /Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.2
2.4/2.7
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
-
17.5
12.0/14.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool /Wbkf
1.1-1.7
1.1-1.7
1.4
1.3/1.4
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
-
24-60
25- 55/45 -75
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.5-7
3.5-7
3.6-5.5
2.7 -6.0/
4.3 -7.2
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -24 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Notes:
1 A `C' stream type is appropriate for a lower slopes (generally less than 0.015 ft/ft), wider all uvial val Ieys (generally
greater than 100 ft). A ` Bc' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (general I greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankfull discharge analysiswas estimated using Manning'sequation (n = 0.04) to represent post- construction
conditions.
3 The W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference reach streams, as
wel I as sedi ment transport anal yses and past proj ect eval uati on.
4 Required for Rosgen stream classification.
5 Ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar design channels as well NC Piedmont reference reach streams.
6 A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfulI will spread onto afIoodplain. This minimizes
shear stress in the channel and maximizesfIoodplain functionality, resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
7 Design Val ueswere chosen based on small piedmont stream reference reach data and past project evaluation.
8 Due to the small l channel sizes, facet slopes were not calculated for the proposed design. Past project experience has
shown that these minor changes in slope between bedform features form naturally within the constructed channel,
provided that the overall design channel slope is maintained after construction.
9 Design Values were chosen based on reference reach comparison and past project evaluation. It is more conservative to
design a pool wider than the riffle. Overtime, the pool width may narrow from sediment deposits and vegetation growth,
which is considered to be a positive evolutionary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values'
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R3
Reach R4
Rosgen Stream Type
E/C5
C5
E/C5
C5
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
-
16.5
11.1
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.5-5
3.5-5
3.8
3.6
V =Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
_
_
4.1
3.1
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
_
7.0
6.3
Abkf * W /D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
_
0.7
0.5
d =A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
10-14
10-14
12(11-13)
13(12-14)
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
-
>16
>13
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf ( ft/ft)
>2.2
> 2.2
>2.2
>2.1
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
0.7
0.6
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.1-1.4
1.2
1.2
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob /Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0 -1.1
1.0 -1.1
1.0
1.0
Note
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
_
-
70-80
60-75
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
5 -12
7-14
9 —11.5
9.5-12
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
_
-
15-21
12-18
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
2-3
2 - 3
2-2.7
2 - 3
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
_
_
18-28
20-29
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5-10
3.5-8
2.6-4.0
3.2-4.6
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -25 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Sinuosity, K (TW length /Valley length)
1.2 -1.5
1.2 -1.5
1.2
1.13
Note
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.005—
0.005—
0.0182
0.024
0.015
0.015
Channel Slope, Schan ( ft/ft)
_
-
0.015
0.017
Average Slope Riffle, Sri (ft/ft)
_
-
0.031
0.029
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif /Schap
1.1-2.0
1.1-2.0
2.1
1.7
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool ( ft/ft)
_
-
0.005
0.005
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool /Schap
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
0.3
0.2
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
-
1.5
1.1
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool /Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.5
2.2
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
-
10.0
8.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1-1.5
1.3
1.4
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
_
28-48
28-43
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2-6
2 - 6
3.7-6.3
4.6-7.0
Note 7
Notes:
1 A `C' stream type is appropriate for a lower slopes (generally less than 0.015 ft/ft), wider all uvial val leys (generally
greater than 100 ft). A ` Bc' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (generally greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankfull discharge analysiswas estimated using Manning'sequation (n = —0.04) to represent post- construction
conditions.
3 The W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference reach streams, as
well I as sedi ment transport anal yses and past proj ect eval uati on.
4 Required for Rosgen stream classification.
5 Ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar design channels as well NC Piedmont reference reach streams.
6 A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfulI will spread onto afIoodplain. This minimizes
shear stress in the channel and maximizesfIoodplain functionality, resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
7 Design Val ueswere chosen based on small piedmont stream reference reach data and past project evaluation.
8 Due to the small l channel sizes, facet slopes were not calculated for the proposed design. Past project experience has
shown that these minor changes in slope between bedform features form naturally within the constructed channel,
provided that the overall design channel slope is maintained after construction.
9 Design Values were chosen based on reference reach comparison and past project evaluation. It is more conservative to
design a pool wider than the riffle. Overtime, the pool width may narrow from sediment deposits and vegetation growth,
which is considered to be a positive evolutionary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values'
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R5
Reach R6
Reach R5
Reach R6
Rosgen Stream Type
C5
135c
C5
135c
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
-
12.0
5.0
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.5-5
4 -6
3.3
3.3
V =Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
_
_
3.6
1.5
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
-
6.8
4.6
Abkf * W /D
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -26 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
_
0.5
0.3
d -A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
10-14
12-18
13
14
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
-
>16
>9
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf ( ft/ft)
> 2.2
1.4-2.2
>2.3
>2.0
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
0.7
0.4
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.1-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.4
1.3
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob /Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0 -1.1
1.0 -1.1
1.0
1.0
Note
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
-
N/a
60-90
N/a
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
7-14
N/a
8.8 -13.2
N/a
Note
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
-
N/a
14-20
N/a
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
2-3
N/a
2-3
N/a
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
-
N/a
28-45
N/a
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5-8
N/a
4.1-6.6
N/a
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length /Valley length)
1.2 -1.5
1.1-1.3
1.42
1.05
Note
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.005-
0.015
0.005-
0.015
0.0134
0.033
Channel Slope, Schan ( ft/ft)
_
-
0.0124
0.030
Average Slope Riffle, Sri (ft/ft)
_
-
0.0265
0.040
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif /Schap
1.1-2.0
1.1-1.8
2.1
1.3
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool ( ft/ft)
_
-
0.0025
0.02
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool /Schap
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
0.2
0.7
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
-
1.3
1.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool /Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.6
3.3
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
_
9.0
6.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool /Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1-1.5
1.32
1.3
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
-
25-55
N/a
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.5-7
2-6
3.7 - 8.1
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -27 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Notes:
1 A `C' stream type is appropriate for a lower slopes (generally less than 0.015 ft/ft), wider all uvial val Ieys (generally
greater than 100 ft). A ` Bc' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (general I greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankfull discharge analysiswas estimated using Manning'sequation (n = —0.04) to represent post- construction
conditions.
3 The W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference reach streams, as
wel I as sedi ment transport anal yses and past proj ect eval uati on.
4 Required for Rosgen stream classification.
5 Ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar design channels as well NC Piedmont reference reach streams.
6 A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfulI will spread onto afIoodplain. This minimizes
shear stress in the channel and maximizesfIoodplain functionality, resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
7 Design Val ueswere chosen based on small piedmont stream reference reach data and past project evaluation.
8 Due to the small l channel sizes, facet slopes were not calculated for the proposed design. Past project experience has
shown that these minor changes in slope between bedform features form naturally within the constructed channel,
provided that the overall design channel slope is maintained after construction.
9 Design Values were chosen based on reference reach comparison and past project evaluation. It is more conservative to
design a pool wider than the riffle. Overtime, the pool width may narrow from sediment deposits and vegetation growth,
which is considered to be a positive evolutionary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values'
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R7
Reach TI
Reach R7
Reach TI
Rosgen Stream Type
B5c
B5c
B5c
B5c
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
-
5.0
13.9
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4-6
4 - 6
3.33
3.66
V =Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
_
_
1.5
3.8
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
-
4.6
7.0
Abkf * W /D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
-
0.3
0.6
d =A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
12-18
12-18
14
13
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
-
N/a
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf ( ft/ft)
1.4-2.2
1.4-2.2
N/a
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
-
0.4
0.7
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.3
1.17
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob /Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0 -1.1
1.0 -1.1
1.0
1.0
Note
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
N/a
N/a
N/a
13.5-18
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
N/a
N/a
N/a
2.0-2.6
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -28 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.1-1.3
1.1-1.3
1.11
1.16
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.005—
0.005—
0.036
0.005
0.015
0.015
Sval / K
Channel Slope, Schan ( ft/ft)
_
-
0.032
0.004
Average Slope Riffle, Sri (ft/ft)
_
-
N/a
0.0135
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif /Schap
1.1-1.8
1.1-1.8
N/a
3.4
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool ( ft/ft)
_
-
N/a
0.0001
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool /Schap
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
N/a
0.0
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
-
1.0
1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool /Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
3.3
2.0
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
-
6.0
9.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1-1.5
1.3
1.32
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
-
N/a
25-42
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2-6
2 - 6
N/a
3.7-6.2
Note 7
Notes:
1 A `C' stream type is appropriate for a lower slopes (generally less than 0.015 ft/ft), wider all uvial val leys (generally
greater than 100 ft). A ` Bc' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (generally greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankfull discharge analysiswas estimated using Manning'sequation (n = —0.04) to represent post- construction
conditions.
3 The W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference reach streams, as
well I as sedi ment transport anal yses and past proj ect eval uati on.
4 Required for Rosgen stream classification.
5 Ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar design channels as well NC Piedmont reference reach streams.
6 A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfulI will spread onto afIoodplain. This minimizes
shear stress in the channel and maximizesfIoodplain functionality, resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
7 Design Val ueswere chosen based on small piedmont stream reference reach data and past project evaluation.
8 Due to the small l channel sizes, facet slopes were not calculated for the proposed design. Past project experience has
shown that these minor changes in slope between bedform features form naturally within the constructed channel,
provided that the overall design channel slope is maintained after construction.
9 Design Values were chosen based on reference reach comparison and past project evaluation. It is more conservative to
design a pool wider than the riffle. Overtime, the pool width may narrow from sediment deposits and vegetation growth,
which is considered to be a positive evolutionary step towards stability.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -29 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.3 Mitigation Work Plan
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -30 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators
Reference reach surveys are val uabl a tool s used for compari son. The morphol ogi c data
obtai ned such as di mend on, pattern, and prof i I e can be used as a templ ate for desi gn of a
stabl a stream i n a si mi I ar val I ey type wi th si mi I ar bed materi al, as wel I as wi th si mi I ar
watershed I and use. I n order to extract the morphol ogi cal rel ati onshi ps observed i n a stabl e
system, di mend onl ess rati os are devel oped f rom the surveyed ref erence reach. These rati os
can be appl i ed to a stream desi gn to a1 I ow the desi gner to ` mi mi c' the natural, stabl e f orm of
the target channel type.
Whi I e reference reach data can be a usef ul ad d i n desi gni ng channel di mend on, pattern, and
prof i I e, there are I i mi tati ons i n smal I er stream systems. The f I ow patterns and channel
formati on f or most reference reach quad i ty streams i s often control I ed by sl ope, drai nage areas
and large trees and/or other deep rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters,
such as radius of curvature, are particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios
observed i n reference reaches may not be appl i cabl a or are often adj usted i n the desi gn
cri teri a to create more conservati ve desi gns that are I ess I i kel y to erode after constructi on,
before the permanent vegetati on i s establ i shed. Often the best reference data i s from adj acent
stab) a stream reaches, or reaches wi thi n the same watershed.
Baker selected two nearby reference reaches, the Little Beaver Creek reference reach and
Thomas Creek upper Reach R4, as shown on Fi gure 17.4. The Li ttl e Beaver Creek reference
reach i s I ocated three mi I es northeast of the Thomas Creek property and i s al so I ocated wi thi n
the Tri assi c Bad n. The surveyed reach i s I ocated to the north of Fad rf i el d Lane, Lots 19 and
20, and begins approximately 900 feet upstream from the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's
L i ttl a Beaver Creek mi ti gati on proj ect. The drai nage area i s approxi matel y 198 acres or 0.30
square mi I es. The watershed has a two percent sl ope and the I anduse i s si mi I ar to what
Thomas Creek wi I I become after it has been restored; namely, mostly forested with few
pasture areas and limited development (i.e., low imperviousness).
Earth Tech, I nc. surveyed the L i ttl a Beaver Creek reference reach i n Jul y 2002, recordi ng
di mend on, pattern, and prof i I e for 3601 i near feet of stream channel ( Earth Tech, 2003). The
bankf ul I di mend ons were 14.4 feet for wi dth and 0.85 feet for mean depth. I t i s d assi f i ed as a
Rosgen 'CS stream type that i s sui tabl a as a reference for the I ower reaches of the Thomas
Creek proj ect, i nd udi ng R1 and I ower R2, and to a I esser extent, R5.
The second reference reach is on the Thomas Creek project property. The restoration segment
of Reach R4 is on the downstream end. An existing ford crossing has stopped the migration
of a headcut that started i n Reach R2; consequently, upstream from the crossi ng Reach R4 i s
of reference quad i ty.
Reach R4 begi ns at the northern property I i ne j ust downstream f rom the conf I uence of two
smal I drai nages i n the northeast end of the proj ect property. The drai nage area f or Reach R4
i s 37 acres. The bankful l di mend ons were 3.5 feet for width and 0.8 feet for mean depth,
whi ch equates to a wi dth- to-depth rati o of 4.4. U pper Reach R4 i s a Rosgen " E" stream type
wi th bank hei ght rati o of 1.0, whi ch makes somewhat sui tabl e f or use as a reference reach for
the upper reaches of the Thomas Creek proj ect, i nd udi ng Reaches R3, I ower R4, I ower R5,
and T 1. The val I ey sl ope for upper Reach R4 i s 0.015, whi ch i s qui to steep for an E stream
type. The si nuosi ty i s 1.3, whi ch reduces the channel sl ope. Tree roots and stems are provi de
grade control and bank stabi I i ty. The deli gn channel s wi I I target hi gher wi dth to depth rati os
than upper Reach R4 to reduce stress on streambanks that lack mature vegetation.
One difference between upper Reach R4 (reference reach) and Reaches R3 and lower R4
(restoration reaches) i s that the val I ey width for the reference reach i s noticeably wi der. Thi s
di fference i s i mportant because i t prevents the restorati on reaches f rom achi evi ng the same
meander geometry as the reference reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -31 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

These data hel ped to provi de a basi s for eval uati ng the val I ey sl ope and topography of the
proj ect si to and determi ni ng the stream systems that may have been present hi stori cal I y
and/or how they may have been i of I uenced by changes wi thi n the watershed.
The ref erence reaches f al I wi thi n the same cl i mati c, topographi cal, physi ographi c, and
ec;ol ogi cal regi on as the Thomas Creek restorati on si te. These systems exi st as smal I er
i ntermi ttent/perenni al streams i n whi ch f I ows tend to be rel ati vel y steady, wi th f I oods of short
durati on, and seasonal peri ods of I ow or even no f I ow. U pper Reach R4 i s more on the
i ntermi ttent end whi I e the L i ttl e Beaver Creek reference reach i s more on the perenni a1 end of
the conti nuum.
The wooded porti ons of the si to consi st of a combi nati on of Dry -M esi c Oak -H i ckory Forest
i n the upl ands wi th R edmont/M ountai n A I I uvi al Forest and Bottoml and Forest i n the I ower
areas and f I oodpl ai ns on the si to (Schaf al a and Weakl ey, 1990). See Secti on 17.4 for f urther
descri pti on of the exi sti ng Thomas Creek si to vegetati on. The vegetati on communi ty at
nearby Little Beaver Creek is representative of native species found throughout the Thomas
Creek site.
The pri many soi I seri es mapped at the L i ttl a Beaver reference si to i s Wehadkee si I t I oam
(WnA) and can be general I descri bed as poorly drai ned ad uvi al I oam found on fl oodpl ai ns
(N RCS, 1970). As descri bed i n secti on 2. 1, the soi I s on upper Reach R4 and the rest of the
Thomas Creek proj ect area are Wehadkee and Bi bb seri es. Thus, the reference si to soi I s are
essenti al I y the same as the proj ect si to soi I s. Both the Wehadkee and Bi bb have sl ow to
ponded surface runoff. I nfiItration is fai r for the Wehadkee and good for the Bi bb (sandy
I oam i n top 4 to 12 i nches), owi ng to sl i ghtl y more sand i n surface I ayer.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -32 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.4 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design Ratios
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Little Beaver Creek
Thomas Creek R4
MIN
I MAX
MIN
I MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.3
0.05
Stream Type (Rosgen)
C5
E5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
40
10
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
14.4
3.5
Bankfull Riffle Cross - Sectional Area,
Abkf (sq ft)
12.3
2.7
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.3
3.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
15.6
18.4
4.5
5.6
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf ( ft/ft)
8.9
13.6
12.3
12.3
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
2.2
2.5
1.6
1.7
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob /Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
3.2
4.7
6.7
10.8
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
0.76
1.3
2.6
4.7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
0.35
1.5
5.4
8.1
Sinuosity, K
1.2
1.3
Valley Slope, Sval ( ft/ft)
0.0061
0.015
Channel Slope, Schan ( ft/ft)
0.0051
0.012
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool /Dbkf
3.3
3.3
0.9
1.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool /Wbkf
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
1.0
3.3
2.7
5.4
d16 (mm)
0.175
0.13
d35 (mm)
0.375
0.34
d50 (mm)
1.0
0.52
d84 (mm)
13.6
1.19
d95 (mm)
19.3
1.79
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -33 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.4 Reference Streams Location Map
i.,._
Reference Stream Locations
.J
b �J
f u � -4- I
1 Little Beaver Cr
.Jom+ ass La e
A" d" 9
T ',
�.:
I 4
u
" v
u
Upper Reach R4
v
`H'A ,
'i�
u�
W J II
Pr0j a 0 n cect Loo �.0
....... _
V
u,
+,n u
1
r
n
_ u
o J1, q ? 'ad
Lake
v F
ally 5•pMn�,.
J°
� . N Figure 17.4
0.5 1 Reference Stream
n h Locations Flap
Miles
:..er Thomas Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -34 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

17.2 Bankfull Verification Analysis
17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankf ul I stage and i is correspondi ng di scharge are the pri many vari abl es used to devel op a
natural channel desi gn. The bankf ul I stage corresponds wi th the di scharge that f i I I s a channel
to the el evati on of the acti ve f I oodpl ai n and represents a breakpoi nt between processes of
channel f ormati on and f I oodpl ai n devel opment. N umerous def i ni ti ons exi st of bankf ul I stage
and methods f or i is i denti f i cati on i n the f i el d (Wol man and Leopol d, 1957; N i xon, 1959;
Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The bankful I discharge,
which also corresponds wi th the dominant discharge or effective discharge, is considered to
be a peak f I ow, a1 ong wi th the range of f I ows, that moves the most sedi ment over ti me i n
stabl a a1 I uvi a1 channel s and hel ps f orm the shape and si ze of the acti ve channel.
The correct i denti f i cati on of bankf ul I stage i n the humi d Southeast can be esped a1 I y di ff i cul t
and subjective because of dense understory vegetation and a long history of channel
modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology. Field indicators commonl y
i nd ude the back of poi nt bars, si gni f i cant breaks i n sl ope, changes i n vegetati on, the hi ghest
scour I i ne, or the top of the streambank (Leopol d, 1994). The most consi stent bankf ul I
i ndi cators for streams i n the R edmont of N orth Carol i na are the backs of poi nt bars, breaks i n
sl ope at the f ront of f I at bankf ul I benches, or the top of the streambanks (Harman et a1.,
1999).
U pon comp) eti on of the geomorphi c f i el d survey, accurate i denti f i cati on of bankf ul I stage and
correspondi ng di scharge coul d not be made i n a1 I reach secti ons throughout the si to due to
i nd sed/i mpai red channel condi ti ons. A I though, some f i el d i ndi cators were apparent i n
porti ons of Reaches R2, R4, and R5, wi th I ower streambank hei ghts and di scerni bl a scour
features, the rel i abi I i ty of the i ndi cators was i nconsi stent due to the a1 tered condi ti on of the
stream channel s. For thi s reason, regi onal curve rel ati onshi ps (based on drai nage areas) were
used to devel op the bankf ul I di scharge esti mates for the prof ect reaches. The curve
rel ati onshi ps were compared to stabl a representati ve cross secti ons on -si to to sel ect an
appropri ate desi gn di scharge esti mate.
17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions)
Hydraulic geometry relationships are often used to predict channel morphology features and
thei r correspondi ng di mensi ons. The stream channel hydraul i c geometry theory devel oped by
Leopol d and M addock (1953) descri bes the i nterrel ati ons between dependent vari abl es such
as wi dth, depth, and area as f uncti ons of i ndependent vari abl es such as watershed area or
di scharge. These rai nfal I /runoff rel ati onshi ps can be devel oped at a si ngl a cross secti on or
across many stati ons a1 ong a reach (M eri gl i ano, 1997). Hydraul i c geometry rel ati onshi ps are
empi ri cal I y deri ved and can be devel oped f or a sped f i c ri ver or extrapol aced to a watershed i n
the same physi ographi c regi on wi th si mi I ar red of a1 I /runoff rel ati onshi ps (FI SRWG, 1998).
Regi onal curves devel oped by Dunne and Leopol d (1978) rel ate bankf ul I channel di mend ons
to drai nage area A pri many purpose for devel opi ng regi onal curves i s to ai d i n i denti fyi ng
bankf ul I stage and di mend on i n ungaged watersheds, as wel I as to hel p esti mate the bankf ul I
di mensi on and di scharge f or natural channel desi gns (Rosgen, 1994). Gage stati on anal yses
throughout the U ni ted States have shown that the bankf ul I di scharge has an average return
i nterval of 1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedence probabi I i ty on the maxi mum annual seri es
(Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Leopold, 1994).
Regi onal curves are avai I abl a for a range of stream types and physi ographi c provi nces. The
published NC Rural Riedmont Regional Curve (Harman et a1., 1999) and the updated NC
R edmont Regi onal Curve devel oped by the N atural Resources Conservati on Servi ce
(Wei ker, 2012) were used for compari son wi th other si to -sped f i c methods of esti mati ng
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -35 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

bankf ul I di scharge. Baker has successf ul I y i mpl emented a d gni f i cant number of stream
restorati on proj ects i n N orth Carol i na ud ng the publ i shed curve data and has produced " mi ni -
curves�' sped f i c to many of these proj ects. The N C Rural R edmont Regi onal curve equati ons
devel oped f rom the studi es are shown bel ow i n Tabl e 17.5.
Table 17.5 NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
Equations
Equations (Revised NC Rural
(Harman et al., 1999)
Piedmont Regional Curve
(Walker, 2012
Qbkf = 66.57 A, 0.89 R2=0.97
Qbkf = 58.26 A,„ W=0.99
Abkf = 21.43 A,„ R2=0.95
Abkf = 15.65A,„ u 69 W=0.99
Wbkf = 11.89 AW U.43 R2=0.81
Wbkf = 11.64 AW 0.46 W=0.98
Dbkf = 1.50 AW u 32 R2=0.88
Dbkf = 1.15 AW 0.28 W=0.96
Based on observati ons made i n smal I rural pi edmont streams, a growi ng number of data
poi nts provi de supporti ng evi dence f or the sel ecti on of bankf ul I i ndi cators that produce
smal I er di mend ons and f I ow rates than the publ i shed regi onal curve data H owever, that does
not appear to be the case for al I the Thomas Creek proj ect reaches.
As a compari son of a representati ve stabl a cross secti on (2b) i denti f i ed wi thi n upper Reach
R2, the N C R edmont Regi onal Curve esti mates a bankf ul I cross -secti onal area (Abkf) of
approxi mately 6.0 sf and a bankf ul I di scharge (Qbkf) of approxi mately 11.1 cfs for a 0.153 mi2
watershed. The revi sed rural pi edmont regi onal curve esti mates the Abkf of 4.3 sf and the Qbkf
of 13.5 cfs. The exi sti ng surveyed channel di mend on has cross -secti onal area at the top -of-
streambank/bankf ul I i ndi cator of 5.6 sf. Si mi I arl y, f or the representati ve stabl a cross secti on
(4b) i n upper Reach R4, the N C R edmont Regi onal Curve esti mates a bankf ul I cross -
secti onal area (Abkf) of approxi matel y 3.1 sf and a bankf ul I di scharge (Qbkf) of approxi mately
11.1 cfs for a 0.056 mi 2 watershed. The revi sed pi edmont regi onal curve esti mates the Abkf of
2.1 sf and the Qbkf of 6.2 cfs. The exi sti ng surveyed channel di mend on has cross -secti onal
area at the top- of- streambank /bankful I i ndi cator of 2.7 sf.
Other measurements were taken around the Thomas Creek proj ect area with d mi I ar results;
the publ i shed (1999) R edmont regi onal curve was general I y cl ose to the bankf ul I area f rom
f i el d measurements (see Tabl e 17.6). 1 n one case, the measured bankf ul I area was I arger than
that esti mated by the regi onal curve. Thus, i t appears that publ i shed R edmont regi onal curve
i s general I useful for the smal l er Tri assi c bad n streams that are part of the Thomas Creek
proj ect.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -36 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.6 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach
DA (sq mi)
Estimate from 1999
Regional Curve (sq ft)
Measured At Bankfull'
Indicator (sq ft)
R1
0.384
11.2
12.0
R2 lower
0.219
7.7
7.5
R2 upper
0.153
6.0
5.6
R4
0.056
3.1
2.7, 3.1
R5
0.083
4.0
3.4, 3.75
17.2.3 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge
As descri bed above i n Secti on 17.2.1, Rosgen' s stream d assi f i cati on system (Rosgen, 1996)
depends on the proper f i el d i denti f i cati on of consi stent geomorphi c f eatures rel aced to the
acti ve f I oodpl ad n. A I though bankf ul I stage veri f i cati on was not possi bl e i n the f i el d for al I
reaches under current condi ti ons, the cross -secti on data used for the above regi onal curve
compari son are wi thi n an acceptabl a range of vat ues gi ven the exi sti ng channel condi ti ons,
geol ogi c f eatures, and f I ow regi me/dentri ti c drai nage patterns.
Tabl e 17.7 provi des a bankf ul I di scharge anal ysi s based on the bankf ul I regi onal curves, the
M anni ng' s equati on di scharges cal cul aced f rom the representati ve cross secti ons for each
reach, and the bankf ul I deli gn di scharge esti mati ons based on the proposed desi gn cross
sections for al I project reaches.
• anni ng' s roughness (n) was esti mated usi ng the U SGS paper " Gui de for Sel ecti ng
• anni ng' s Roughness Coeff i ci ents for N atural Channel s and Fl oodpl ai ns" (Arcement and
Schnei der, 1989). Al though sel ecti ng a M anni ng' s roughness coeff i d ent can be somewhat
subj ecti ve, the goal s was to sel ect a desi gn va1 ue representati ve of a sand bed channel
i mmedi atel y after constructi on wi th some i of I uence f rom debri s, meanderi ng, and mi ni mal
vegetati on (e.g, I i vestakes, I og j ams, I og vanes, herbaceous growth, etc.). The stream power i s
hi gher and the sedi ment supply shoul d be lower for this system, so a conservative n vat ue was
chosen. Consi deri ng addi ti onal bedform roughness wi I I be created (e.g., I og j ams, constructed
ri ff I es), over ti me the roughness shoul d i ncrease as vegetati on establ i shes so that n vat ues
may range from 0.07 to greater than 0.10.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -37 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.7 Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Estimating Method
Bankfull Velocity ;
(ft /sec)
Bankfull Discharge
(cfs)
Reach RI
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
4.0
44.6
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.4
27.6
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method
6.0
67.8
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness3
4.9
55.0
M anni ng' s " n" from stream type3
3.4
38.0
Design Estimate
4.1
47.0
Reach R2
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.9
29.7
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.2
17.8
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method
4.3
33.3
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness3
3.6
27.5
M anni ng' s " n" from stream type3
2.5
19.0
Design Estimate
3.7
30.0
Reach R3
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.8
16.5
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.0
9.4
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method
4.0
17.3
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness3
3.5
15.0
M anni ng' s " n" from stream type3
2.4
10.4
Design Estimate
3.7
16.0
Reach R4
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.6
11.1
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.0
6.2
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method
3.1
9.7
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness3
2.8
8.7
M anni ng' s " n" from stream type3
1.9
6.0
Design Estimate
3.3
10.0
Reach R5
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.7
14.7
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.4
9.4
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method
4.0
14.4
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness3
3.5
12.5
M anni ng' s " n" from stream type3
3.1
8.6
Design Estimate
3.9
14.0
Notes:
1 NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
2 Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvedeveloped by NRCS (Walker, 2012).
3 WARSSS, 2006 spreadsheet. Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on M anni ng' s Equation for
the riffle cross section. Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n- values) ranged from approximately
0.035 to 0.055 based on channel sl opes, depth, bed materi al si ze, and vegetati on i of I uence.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -38 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

17.3 Sediment Transport Analysis
17.3.1 Background and Methodology
The purpose of a sediment transport anal ysi s i s to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stabl a channel that does not aggrade or degrade over ti me. The overri di ng assumpti on i s that the si to
streams shoul d be transporti ng the total sedi ment I oad del i vered f rom upstream sources. The abi I i ty of
the stream to transport i is total sedi ment I oad can be quanti f i ed through two measures: sedi ment
transport competency (force) and sediment transport capacity (power). Lane (1955) describes a
general i zed rel ati onshi p of stream stabi I i ty and dynami c equi I i bri um wherei n the product of sedi ment
I oad and sedi ment si ze i s proporti onal to the product of stream sl ope and di scharge.
Sedi ment transport capaci ty i s a stream's abi I i ty to move a mass of sedi ment through a cross -secti on
dimension, and is a measurement of stream power, often expressed in units of watts/square meter
(Watts/meter2). Transport competency i s a stream's abi I i ty to move parti cl es of a gi ven si ze and i s a
measurement of force, often expressed as units of pounds per square foot (I bs1ft2). A stream's
competency i s esti mated i n terms of the rel ati onshi p between cri ti cal and actual depth, at a gi ven sl ope,
and occurs when the cri ti cal depth produces enough shear stress to move the I argest (d100) parti d e si ze.
I n sand bed streams, such as Thomas Creek and i is tri butari es, sedi ment transport capaci ty i s the cri ti cal
anal ysi s. The total vol ume of sedi ment transported through a cross secti on consi sts of bedl oad pl us
suspended I oad f racti ons. Suspended I oad i s normal I y composed of f i ne sand, si I t, and cl ay parti cl es
transported i n the water col umn. The bell oad general I y i nd udes rel ati A y I arger parti d es, such as
coarser sand and f i ner gravel, whi ch are mobi I i zed by rol I i ng, sl i di ng, or bound ng (sal tati ng) a1 ong the
bed.
Gi ven the steeper sl opes of the proj ect reaches, there i s ampl e stream power (i .e., capaci ty) to move the
sedi ment I oad and very I i ttl a ri sk of aggradati on. Baker devel oped a H EC- RAS model for Reach R3 and
found that stream power remai ns hi gh i n the proposed condi ti ons, parti cul arl y at the I ower end of the
ri ff I es. Thus, to guard aged nst degradati on, very f requent constructed threshol d ri ff I es that are i mmobi I e
have been i nd uded i n the desi gn. Thi s i s one of the recommendati ons f rom a study of R edmont sand
bed streams conducted by Buck Engineer (now Baker) for NCEEP(Buck Engineering, 2007). The
watershed does not appear to be sedi ment suppl y I i mi ted, so materi a1 that i s transported f rom ri ff I e beds
may be repl aced by sedi ment suppl y f rom upstream. H owever, gi ven the hi gh stream power and
channel stabilization measures (which will reduce sediment supply) undertaken as part of this project,
i ncorporati ng f requent grade control i n the ri ff I es provi des i nsurance agai nst channel dggradati on.
Addi ti onal I y, shoul d the watershed f urther devel op, ri ff I e grade control wi I I protect aged nst a f I ashi er
hydrol ogi c response.
17.3.2 Sampling Data Results
Sedi ment sampl es, consi sti ng of bul k sampl es across the acti ve channel bed, were col I ected al ong the
proj ect reaches and dry si eved i n a I ab to obtai n a sedi ment si ze di stri buti on. The sampl e I ocati ons are
shown on Fi gure 17.1. The si eve data shown i n Fi gure 17.5 show that a1 I sampl es have a d50 i n the
0.25 -0.5 mm range, i ndi cati ng that the domi nant bed materi a1 i n the stream channel i s medi um sand
under current condi ti ons. Addi ti onal I y, the I argest parti cl es are f i ne to medi um gravel i n a1 I cases, wi th
the I argest parti d es I ess than 16 mm.
I t shoul d be noted that the modi f i ed Wol man pebbl a count (Rosgen, 1994) i s not appropri ate for sand -
bed systems; therefore, a bul k sampl a procedure was onl y used to characteri ze the bed materi a1 for a1 I
of the Thomas Creek sedi ment sampl es. Al I of the reaches contai n sand, si I t, and muck stream bottom
due to the parent soi I and cattl e i mpacts. Gravel composes approxi matel y one (R1, R5, R7) to ei ght
(R3) percent of the substrate i n a1 I locations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -39 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.5 Sediment Particle Size Distribution
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -40 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R1
100
90�
�
80
70
— Cumulative Percent
90
■ Class Percent
60
80
— Cumulative Percent
70
■ Class Percent
60
c
50
2
`w
c
v 50
a
40
a
40
1
1
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -40 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R2
100
. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . ....... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........................ . . . . . . . .
90
TT
80
— Cumulative Percent
70
■ Class Percent
60
c
50
2
`w
a
40
1
30
20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
SilUClay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -40 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.5 Sediment Particle Size Distribution (Continued)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -41 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT– FINAL DRAFT
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R3
100
..
-7F7
a�
77
90
80
80
- Cumulative Percent
70
--s- -- Cumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
70
60
■ Class Percent
60
t
f
�
v 50
c
v 50
1
1
�
f
a
EL
f
t
40
t
30
30
t
20
20
10
10
0
AALIJ�
0
—
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -41 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT– FINAL DRAFT
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R5
100-
90
80
--s- -- Cumulative Percent
70
■ Class Percent
60
t
f
�
v 50
1
�
f
a
f
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0.4— 0-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -41 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT– FINAL DRAFT

Figure 17.5 Sediment Particle Size Distribution (Continued)
17.3.3 Predicted Channel Response
The exi sti ng streams have sand beds, wi th a few I oval i zed secti ons of bedrock that control grade. Based
on f i el d observati ons and posi ti on wi thi n the upper watershed, the streams recei ve mostl y f i ne materi al s
f rom bank erosi on and mi ni mal sedi ment I oadi ng f rom the upstream drai nage. Further i nvesti gati ons
conf i rmed that the sedi ment suppl y f rom upstream sources i s I i mi ted duri ng I arger storm events due to
i mpoundments (farm ponds), smal I er headwater drai nages, and control I i ng vegetati ve cover. Whi I e i t i s
predi cted that the restorati on and enhancement efforts wi I I reduce I oval i zed stream bed/bank erosi on,
the channel s sti I I must transport smal I er bedl oad materi al f rom upstream sources whi I e mai ntai ni ng
stream bed/bank stability.
Sedi ment transport competency /entrai nment and capaci ty were compared for the exi sti ng channel s and
the desi gn condi ti ons for restored stream systems. Tabl e 17.8 shows bankf ul I boundary shear stress and
stream power val ues f or exi sti ng and desi gn condi ti ons. Bankf ul I boundary shear stress and stream
power val ues are somewhat I ower for the proposed conditions than the exi sti ng conditions, because the
deli gn channel s are wi der and shat I ower than the exi sti ng, general I y i nd sed channel s. The proposed
condi ti ons are sti I I hi gh enough, however, to move the expected sedi ment I oad.
U si ng another sedi ment transport competency compari son, boundary shear stress was pl otted on
Shi el d' s Curve to estimate the I argent moveabl a parti cl e. Not surpri si ngl y, i n al I reaches, as shown in
Tabl e 17.8, the Shi el d' s Curve predi cts the mobi I i ty of parti d es much I anger than the d100 observed i n
the exi sti ng bul k sampl es. However, the Shi el d' s Curve al so i nforms the si ze of the d100 i n the deli gn
constructed riffle. This competency anal ysi s ensures that the d1 00 of the proposed riffle material will
not mobi I i ze at the deli gn di scharge.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -42 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R4
100
—Z ___ ___ ________ ___ ________ ------------
90
80
—a Cumulative Percent
70
■ Class Percent
60
c
50
a
40
tJ
Ij
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
a .4 1. a 0. a 1. a
17.3.3 Predicted Channel Response
The exi sti ng streams have sand beds, wi th a few I oval i zed secti ons of bedrock that control grade. Based
on f i el d observati ons and posi ti on wi thi n the upper watershed, the streams recei ve mostl y f i ne materi al s
f rom bank erosi on and mi ni mal sedi ment I oadi ng f rom the upstream drai nage. Further i nvesti gati ons
conf i rmed that the sedi ment suppl y f rom upstream sources i s I i mi ted duri ng I arger storm events due to
i mpoundments (farm ponds), smal I er headwater drai nages, and control I i ng vegetati ve cover. Whi I e i t i s
predi cted that the restorati on and enhancement efforts wi I I reduce I oval i zed stream bed/bank erosi on,
the channel s sti I I must transport smal I er bedl oad materi al f rom upstream sources whi I e mai ntai ni ng
stream bed/bank stability.
Sedi ment transport competency /entrai nment and capaci ty were compared for the exi sti ng channel s and
the desi gn condi ti ons for restored stream systems. Tabl e 17.8 shows bankf ul I boundary shear stress and
stream power val ues f or exi sti ng and desi gn condi ti ons. Bankf ul I boundary shear stress and stream
power val ues are somewhat I ower for the proposed conditions than the exi sti ng conditions, because the
deli gn channel s are wi der and shat I ower than the exi sti ng, general I y i nd sed channel s. The proposed
condi ti ons are sti I I hi gh enough, however, to move the expected sedi ment I oad.
U si ng another sedi ment transport competency compari son, boundary shear stress was pl otted on
Shi el d' s Curve to estimate the I argent moveabl a parti cl e. Not surpri si ngl y, i n al I reaches, as shown in
Tabl e 17.8, the Shi el d' s Curve predi cts the mobi I i ty of parti d es much I anger than the d100 observed i n
the exi sti ng bul k sampl es. However, the Shi el d' s Curve al so i nforms the si ze of the d100 i n the deli gn
constructed riffle. This competency anal ysi s ensures that the d1 00 of the proposed riffle material will
not mobi I i ze at the deli gn di scharge.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -42 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

As a deli gn consi derati on, the proposed substrate materi al mi x (ri ff I e armor) wi I I contai n parti cl a si zes
I anger than those predi cted to move based on the Shi el d' s Curve to achi eve verti cad stabi I i ty
i mmedi atel y after constructi on. The si to has both steep (> 0.02 ft/ft) and f I after channel sl opes
throughout the tri butari es and the mad n stem. I n general, the proposed desi gn channel s wi th ri ff I e sl opes
greater than 1 % wi I I be constructed usi ng I anger parti d es. Any concerns regardi ng further channel
degradati on and verti cal stabi I i ty wi I I be addressed by i nstal I i ng a combi nati on of grade control
structures such as constructed ri ff I es and I og/rodc step pool s.
The predi cti on cad cud ati ons shown on Tabl e 17.8 i nd ude shear stress, tracti ve force, and cri ti cal
di mend onl ess shear stress, whi ch hel p to determi ne a parti d e size d ass (e.g., sand, gravel, cobbl e) that
i s mobi I e, or entrai ned, under vari ous f I ow condi ti ons (WA RSS, 2006).
Table 17.8 Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Reach Rl
Existing
Conditions
Reach RI
Proposed
Conditions
Reach R2
Existing
Conditions
Reach R2
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
46
46
30
30
Bankfull X S Area (square feet)
11.2
11.2
7.7
7.7
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft/sec)
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
9.0
12.5
6.5
10.4
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
1.3
0.9
1.2
0.7
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/ foot)
7.2
14.0
5.4
14.0
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
11.5
14.3
8.9
11.9
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.98
0.78
0.87
0.65
Channel Slope (feet/foot)
0.016
0.016
0.009
0.0080
Boundary Shear Stress, T (I bs/ft2)
1.24
0.89
0.65
0.38
Subpavement dloo (mm)
6.8
6.8
13.5
13.5
Largest M oveabl e Parti cl e (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
300
210
170
100
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.11
PredictedCriti cal Slope ( feet/foot)
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Stream Power (W /m2)
73.4
52.8
36.9
13.1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -43 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.8 cont. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Reach R3 I
Existing
Conditions
Reach R3
Proposed
Conditions
Reach R4
Existing
Conditions
Reach R4
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
16
16
10
10
Bankful I XSC Area (square feet)
4.4
4.4
3.1
3.1
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft/sec)
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.2
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
5.3
7.8
4.5
6.3
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
6.5
14.0
6.4
13.0
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
6.9
8.9
5.9
7.3
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.62
0.48
0.53
0.43
Channel Slope (feet/foot)
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.013
Boundary Shear Stress, T (I bs/ft2)
0.76
0.56
0.52
0.40
Subpavement dloo (mm)
13.5
13.5
6.8
6.8
Largest M oveabl e Parti cl e (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
190
140
140
100
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.16
0.16
0.2
0.18
PredictedCriti cal Slope ( feet/foot)
0.003
0.004
0.003
.005
Stream Power (W /m2)
38.6
24.5
36.3
23.3
Parameter
Reach R5
Existing
Conditions
Reach R5
Proposed
Conditions
Bankful l Discharge Esti mate, Q (cfs)
14
14
Bankful l XSC Area (square feet)
3.6
3.6
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft/sec)
3.9
3.9
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
4.1
6.8
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
1.0
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
4.2
13.0
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
6.4
7.9
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.69
0.46
Channel Slope ( feet/foot)
0.015
0.012
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -44 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.8 cont. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Reach R5
Existing
Conditions
Reach R5
Proposed
Conditions
Boundary Shear Stress, T (I bs/ft2)
0.84
0.37
Subpavement dl 00 (mm)
13.5
13.5
Largest M oveabl e Parti cl e (mm) per
Modified Shhield'sCurve
200
100
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.16
0.15
Predicted Critical Slope (feet/ foot)
0.003
0.005
Stream Power (W /m2)
43.4
22.4
17.4 Existing Vegetation Assessment
The riparian areas within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of mature successional forest,
pasture, agri cul turd f i el ds, and mai ntai ned/di sturbed pi ne forest, as descri bed by Schafal e and Weakl ey
(1990). H i stori c I and management surroundi ng the proj ect area has been pri maxi I y f or agri cul tural and
si I vi cul turd purposes and the si gni f i cant removal of nati ve tree sped es vegetati on i n the ri pari an zone
(I ower R5, I ower R2, and R1). The wooded porti ons of the si to consi st of a combi nati on of Dry -M esi c
Oak -H i ckory Forest i n the upl ands wi th R edmont/M ountai n Al I uvi a1 Forest and Bottoml and Forest i n the
I ower areas and f oodpl ad ns on the si to (Schafal a and Weakl ey, 1990). The ri pari an buffer al Ong upper
Reach R2 I acks much understory vegetati on due to extend ve I i vestock use and grazi ng. The ri pari an
buffer areas overd I ranged f rom somewhat di sturbed to very di sturbed and a general descri pti on of each
community fol I ows.
17.4.1 Maintained/Disturbed
Thi s communi ty i s pri maxi I y I ocated i n the f i el ds adj acent to the upper porti ons of the proj ect area a1 Ong
Reaches R3 and R6. Past harvesti ng for si I vi cul ture i s d earl y evi dent i n these areas wi th abandoned
I oggi ng roads and of d woody debri s pi I es present. Earl y successi onal vegetati on such as sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and red maple (Acer rubrum) dominate, with a
thi ck shrub understory of si mi I ar sped es al Ong wi th mul ti f I ora rose (Rosa mult flora) and gol denrod
(Solidago spp. ), as wel I as vi nes i nd udi ng bl ackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbri ar (Smilax rotund folia),
poi son i vy (Toxicodendron radicans), and muscadi ne grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
17.4.2 Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas
Thi s communi ty covers approxi matel y 30 -40 percent of the proj ect area. Currentl y, the pasture areas are
used f or cattl a grazi ng. The vegetati on wi thi n open f i el ds and pasture areas i s pri maxi I y compri sad of
fescues, dovers, and scattered weeds consisting of dog fennel (Eupatorium capill folium), horse - nettle
(Solanum carolinense), buttercup (Ranunculus spp. ), and thi stl e (Cirsium vulgare). The wetl and areas
found wi thi n the pasture contai n these pl ants as wel 1, but al so i nd ude a vari ety of wetter sped es such as
shallow sedge (Carex lurida), awl -fruit sedge (Carex stipata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), blunt
spi kerush (Eleocharis obtuse), and smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvaticum). I n the narrow, wooded
ri pari an areas wi thi n the pastures and f i el ds, the canopy i s domi nated by whi to oak (Quercus alba), red
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -45 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

maple (Acer rubrum), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), with
a relatively sparse understory consisting of sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Woody shrub and vine
species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and greenbri er (Smilax
rotundifolia).
17.4.3 Dry -Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest /Alluvial and Bottomland Forest
These forested areas compri se approxi matel y 60 -70 percent of the proj ect area, mostl y i n the upper
reaches. The canopy and understory i s domi nated by tul i p popl ar (Liriodendron tulip fera), whi to oak
(Quercus a1 ba), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), red mapl a (Acer rubrum), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), I obl of I y pi ne (Pinus taeda), mockernut hi ckory (Carya tomentosa), and pi gnut hi ckory
(Carya gl abra), but also i Ind udes some black gum (Nyssa syl vati ca), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboretum), water oak (Quercus nigra), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), black cherry (Prunus
seroti na), wi nged el m (Ulmus alata), Ameri can hol I y (Ilex opaca), and mul berry (Morus rubra).
Woody shrubs are rel ati vel y sparse and general I y j ust i nd ude younger sped mens of the overstory
sped es. Vi nes and herbaceous sped es found here i nd ude bl ackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbri ar (Smilax
rotundifolia), poi son ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and muscadi ne grape (Vitis rotundifolia), al Ong
wi th mul ti f I ora rose (Rosa mult flora), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), I i ttl a brown j ugs
(Hexastylis arifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), New
York fern (Parathelypteris noveboracensis), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.).
I n the f I oodpl ai ns and I ower porti ons of these f orested areas, the vegetati on shi fts to sped es more
characteri sti c of pi edmont a1 I uvi al and bottoml and f orests. The canopy and understory here i nd udes
sped es such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), wi I I ow oak (Quercus phellos), and shagbark hi ckory (Carya ovata), i n
addition to the sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and I obl of I y pi ne (Pinus taeda) commonl y observed el sewhere on si te. A dense and
di verse shrub and herbaceous I ayer i s al so present here wi th sped es such as wax myrtl e (Myrica
cerifera), i ronwood (Carpinus caroliniana), water oak (Quercus nigra), Chi nese pri vet (Ligustrum
sinense), elderberry (Sambuca canadensis), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), spicebush (Lindera benzoin),
Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium purpureum), netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata), send tivefern
(Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), soft
rush (Juncus effusus), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), jeNelweed
(Impatiens capensis), fad se -nettl e (Boehmeria cylindrical), and Jack -i n- the -pul pi t (Arisaema
triphyllum). N umerous vi nes such as poi son i vy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbri ar (Smilax
rotundifolia), cat -bri ar (Smilax bona -nox), multi fl ora rose (Rosa mult flora), Vi rgi ni a creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are al so
common in these areas.
17.4.4 Invasive Species Vegetation
The pri many i nvasi ve sped es vegetati on present on the proj ect si to are pri mari I y Chi nese pri vet
(Ligustrum sinense) and mul tifIora rose (Rosa mult flora), which were found interspersed throughout
the ri pari an buff er areas. I nvasi ve sped es vegetati on wi I I be sprayed, cut and pai nted, or grubbed i n
areas i nfested wi thi n the easement. Treatments wi I I be conducted to control the i nvasi ve sped es
vegetation with the easement during the monitoring period as needed.
17.5 Site Wetlands
17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment
The proposed proj ect area was reviewed for the presence of wed ands and waters of the United States i n
accordance wi th the provi si ons on Executi ve Order 11990, the Cl can Water Act, and subsequent f ederal
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -46 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the U SACE as" those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at afrequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
ci rcumstances do support, a preval ence of vegetati on typi cal I y adapted for I i fe i n saturated soi I
condi ti ons. Wed ands general I y i nd ude swamps, marshes, bogs, and si mi I ar areas" (33 CFR 328.3(b)
and 40 CFR 230.3 (t) ). The areas i n the proj ect boundari es that di spl ayed one or more wetl and
characteri sti cs were revi edved to determi ne the presence of wetl ands. The wetl and characteri sti cs
i nd uded:
1. Preval ence of hydrophyti c vegetati on.
2. Permanent to periodic inundation or saturation.
3. Hydricsoils.
On June 5, 2007, the USACE and US Envi ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued joint guidance
for thei r f i el d off i ces for Cl can Water Act j uri sdi cti onal determi nati ons i n response to the Supreme
Court's deci si on i n the consol i dated cases of Rapanos v. U ni ted States and Carabel I v. U ni ted States
(U SEPA and U SACE, 2007). Based on thi s gui dance, the agend es wi I I assert j uri sdi cti on over the
fol I owi ng waters:
• Traditional nati gable waters (TN Ws)
• Wetl ands adj acent to T N Ws
• Non - navigable tributaries of T N Ws that are considered relatively permanent waters (RPWs).
Such tri butari es f I ow year -round or exhi bi t conti nuous f I ow for at I east 3 months.
• Wetl ands that di rectl y abut RPWs.
The agenci es wi I I deci de j uri sdi cti on over the f of I owi ng waters based on a standardi zed anal ysi s to
determi ne whether they have a si gni f i cant nexus wi th a tradi ti onal navi gabl a water:
N on-nati gaol a tri butari es that are not rel ati vel y permanent waters (non -RPWs)
Wetl ands adj acent to non -RPWs
Wetl ands that are adj acent to but do not di rectl y abut an RPW.
The si gni f i cant nexus anal ysi s i s f act -speci f i c and assesses the f I ow characteri sti cs of a tri butary and the
f uncti ons perf ormed by al I i is adj acent wetl ands to determi ne i f they si gni f i cantl y affect the physi cal,
chemi cad, and bi of ogi cal i ntegri ty of downstream TN Ws. A si gni f i cant nexus exi sts when a tri butary, i n
combi nati on wi th i is adj acent wetl ands, has more than a specul ati ve or i nsubstanti a1 eff ect on the
physical, chemical, or biological integrity of a TN W.
The U SACE and USEPA will apply the si gni f i cant nexus standard within the limits of jurisdiction
specified by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
(SWA N CC) v. U S A rmy Corps of Engineers. Under the SWA N CC decision, the U SACE and USEPA
cannot regul ate i sol aced wetl ands and waters that I ack I i nks to i nterstate commerce suff i d ent to serve as
a basi s for j uri sdi cti on under the Cl can Water Act. Though i sol aced wetl ands and waters are not
regul aced by the U SA CE, wi thi n the state of N orth Carol i na i sol ated wetl ands and waters are consi dered
"waters of the state' and are regulated by the NCDWR under the isolated wetlands rules (15A NCAC
2H .1300).
Fol I owi ng a desktop revi edv of the N ati onal Wetl and I nventory (N WI) , N RCS soi I survey, and U SGS
quadrangl a maps, the proj ect area was eval uated f or potenti al i mpacts to j uri sdi cti onal wetl ands. Baker
wetl and sci enti sts conducted a f i el d survey of the proj ect area i n M ay 2014 to i nvesti gate potenti al
wetl ands wi thi n hydri c soi I s areas and conf i rm the perenni a1 and i ntermi ttent streams i n the proj ect area
I n total, the f i el d survey i denti f i ed twel ve separate wetl and areas contai ni ng hydri c soi I i ndi cators and a
predomi nance of hydrophyti c vegetati on and wetl and hydrol ogy. These areas were i denti f i ed, f I agged,
and mapped, as descri bed i n Secti on 16.1. Wetl and data forms are al so provi ded i n Secti on 16.1. The
wetl and areas I ocated i n the pasture al ong stream reaches R1 and R2 exhi bi ted margi nal hydro) ogi c
i ndi cators and are domi nated wi th herbaceous sped es subj ect to acti ve cattl a grazi ng. The remai ni ng
wetl ands were I ocated a1 ong stream f I oodpl ad ns and/or wi thi n depressi onal areas. These areas were
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -47 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

confirmed by the U SACE i n July 2014, and the proposed mitigation plan for the site wi I I seek to
enhance and avoi d di sturbance of these wetl and areas wherever possi bl e.
17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations
I t i s I i kel y that smal I wetl and seeps were hi stori cal I y present i n some of these I ocati ons after oval uati ng
exi sti ng topography, soi I s, hydrol ogy and hydrophyti c vegetati on wi thi n the proj ect reaches. The
on gi nal pl ant communi ty I ocated i n these wetl ands was most I i kel y i ndi cati ve of other wetl ands i n the
regi on, but past and current agri cul tural I and use practi ces have a1 tered the compod ti on of the pl ant
communi ty currentl y present. Weil and stressors, such as cattl a grazi ng and peri odi c I oggi ng operati ons,
have al tered the vegetati ve compod ti on and hydrol ogi cal connecti ons wi thi n the proj ect area The mai n
stem was I i kel y moved and/or deepened to capture vari ous sources of seepage i n thi s porti on of the
proj ect area to i ncrease I and avai I abl a for agri cul tural use, whi ch exacerbated channel i nci si on and
exerts a drai nage eff ect on the adj acent f i el ds.
After compl eti ng the proposed stream restorati on practi ces, the i denti f i ed wetl and areas wi I I I i kel y
experi ence a more natural hydrol ogy and f I oodi ng regi me, and the ri pari an buffer areas i n these
I ocati ons wi I I be pl anted wi th nati ve woody vegetati on sped es that are more tol erant of wetter
condi ti ons. The desi gn approach wi I I al so enhance any potenti al areas of adj acent f ri nge or margi nal
wetl ands through hi gher water tabl a condi ti ons (el evated stream prof i I e) and a more f requent over -bank
f I oodi ng regi me. Stream prof i I es wi I I be rai sed a1 ong vari ous reach secti ons, whi ch wi I I I ead to hi gher
water tabl a condi ti ons adj acent to the channel s and more f requent out -of -bank f I oodi ng of adj acent
wetl and areas. Addi ti onal I y, the excl usi on of cattl e f rom I arge porti ons of the ri pari an buffer wi I I a1 I ow
for the rehabi I i tati on of soi I structure that has been degraded and compacted by years of cattl a grazi ng.
17.5.3 Climatic Conditions
The average growi ng season (def i ned as the peri od i n whi ch ai r temperatures are mad ntai ned above 28°
Fahrenhei t at a f requency of 5 years i n 10) for the proj ect I oval e i s 220 days
(http: / /www.ces.ncsu.edu /hi I /hi 1- 709.html ). The area experi ences an average annual red nfal I of 46.60
i nches (N RCS, 1970) as shown on Tabl e 17.9. Duri ng 2013, a wet year, the NOAA Apex SW weather
stati on (GHCN D: US1 NCWK0084) recorded 49.51 i nches of red n.
I n much of the southeastern U S, average red of al I exceeds average evapotranspi rati on I osses and these
areas experience a moisture excess during most years. Excess water I eaves a site by groundwater flow,
surface runoff, channel ized surface flow, or deep seepage. Annual losses due to deep seepage, or
percolation of water to confined aquifer systems, are usually small and are not considered a significant
loss pathway for excess water. Although groundwater f I ow can be significant in some systems, most
excess water i s I ost vi a surface and shat I ow subsurface f I ow.
Table 17.9 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Month -Year
Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
_
Average Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed
from Average (in)
Jan- 2013
3.15
3.3
- 0.15
Feb -2013
4.01
3.5
+0.51
M ar -2013
1.43
3.7
-2.27
Apr -2013
4.96
3.8
+1.16
M ay -2013
2.54
3.8
-1.26
Jun -2013
10.82
3.9
+6.92
Jul -2013
6.06
5.9
+0.16
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -48 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.9 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Month -Year
Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
_
Average Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed
from Average (in)
Aug -2013
2.80
5.4
- 2.60
Sept -2013
3.76
4.6
-0.84
Oct -2013
0.90
2.8
-1.90
Nov -2013
3.19
3.0
+0.19
Dec -2013
5.89
3.2
+2.69
Sum
49.51
46.9
+2.61
17.5.4 Soil Characterization
Soi I s at the proj ect d to were i ni ti al I y determi ned ud ng N RCS soi I survey data for Wake County (1970).
The areas proposed for stream restorati on and enhancement are mapped as Wehadkee and Bi bb soi I s.
Wehadkee and Bi bb are predomi nantl y hydri c soi I s. A I I proj ect reaches are under) ai n by Wehadkee
and Bi bb soi I s; however, the soi I data I ayer proj ecti on does not I i ne up correctl y wi th the f I oodpl ai n and
the overl ap between the reaches and the soi I type i s not correct. N everthel ess, the soi I descri pti on and
exi sti ng topography i ndi cafe that the f I oodpl ai ns for each of the reaches shoul d be Wehadkee and Bi bb.
Fi gure 2.3 shows soi I condi ti ons throughout the proj ect area and the soi I descri pti ons are shown on
Table 17.10.
Table 17.10 NRCS Soil Series (Wake County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1970)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Soil Name
Landform
Hydric Soil
Description
Bibb
Depressions
Yes
Poorly drained soi Isformed in f loodplai ns or upland
depressions. Slope rangesfrom 0 to 2 %. Permeability is
moderate to moderately rapid.
Wehadkee
Depressions
Yes
Poorly drained soils formed on floodplains. Slope ranges
from 0 to 2 %. Permeability moderate to moderately rapid.
17.5.5 Plant Community Characterization
Based on hi stori cal aeri al s and the I andowner' s veri f i cati on, a ml on ty of the proposed stream
restorati on area i s compri sed of pasture I and, narrow tree canopy and successi onal vegetati on.
H i stori cal I y, the surroundi ng pasture areas have been used for cattl a producti on. Current canopy and
understory vegetati on wi thi n the exi sti ng del i neated wetl ands are domi nated by tul i p popl ar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and loblolly
pi ne (Pinus taeda), with some greed ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
and Ameri can el m (Ulmus americana). Common shrub sped es i nd ude el derberry (Sambuca
canadensis), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and multifIora rose
(Rosa mult flora). Herbaceous and vine species primarily consist of jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
Jack -in- the - pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical), netted chain fern
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -49 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

(Woodwardia aerolata), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans).
17.5.6 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetati ve components of thi s restorati on proj ect i nd ude streambank, f I oodpl ad n, and transi ti onal
upl and pl anti ng and descri bed as the ri pari an buffer zone. These pl anti ng boundar es wi I I be compri sad
of sped es found wi thi n nati ve pl ant communi ti es as descri bed i n Secti on 17.4 and are shown on the
revegetati on pl an sheets i n Secti on 18, Appendi x D. I n addi ti on to the ri pari an buffer zone, any areas of
the si to that I ack di versi ty, are di sturbed or adversel y i mpacted by the constructi on process, wi I I be
pl anted.
Bare -root trees, I i ve stakes, and permanent seedl i ngs wi I I be pl anted wi thi n desi gnated areas of the
conservati on easement. A mi ni mum 50 -f oat buffer wi I I be establ i shed a1 ong both streambanks (100 foot
total mi ni mum wi dth) for a1 I of the proposed stream reaches wi thi n the proj ect boundary. I n many
areas, the buffer wi dth wi I I be i n excess of 50 feet a1 ong one or both streambanks (more than 100 foot
total wi dth) and wi I I encompass adj acent j uri sdi cti onal wetl and areas. I n general, bare -root vegetati on
wi I I be pl anted at a total target densi ty of 680 stems per acre. R anti ng wi I I be conducted duri ng the
dormant season, wi th a1 I trees i nstal I ed between the I ast week of N ovember and the thi rd week of Apri 1.
Set ected sped es for hardwood revegetati on pl anti ng are presented i n Tabl e 17.10. Tree sped es sel ected
for restorati on and enhancement areas wi I I be weak) y tot erant to tot erant of f I oodi ng. Weakl y tot erant
sped es are abl a to survi ve and grow i n areas where the soi I i s saturated or f I ooded f or rel ati A y short
peri ods. M oderatel y tot erant sped es are abl a to survi ve i n soi I s that are saturated or f I ooded for several
months duri ng the growi ng season. Fl ood tot erant sped es are abl a to survi ve on si tes i n whi ch the soi I
is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observati ons wi I I be made duri ng constructi on of the si to regardi ng the rel ati ve wetness of areas to be
pl anted as compared to the revegetati on pl an. The pl anti ng zone wi I I be determi ned based on these
compari sons, and pl anted sped es wi I I be matched accordi ng to thei r wetness tot erance and the
anticipated wetness of the planting area
Once trees are transported to the si te, they wi I I be pl anted wi thi n two days. Di sturbed soi I s across the
si to wi I I be prepared by suff i ci entl y I ooseni ng to a depth of four i nches pri or to pl anti ng as descri bed i n
the techni cad sped f i cati ons. H eavi I y compacted soi I s (e.g., hardpan or areas that have experi enced
heavy cattl a or equi pment use) wi I I be I oosened to a depth of ei ght to ten i nches by di ski ng or ri ppi ng to
prepare for tree pl anti ng. I n any areas where excavati on depths exceed ten i nches, topsoi I shad I be
separated f rom rocks, brush, or ford gn materi a1 s, stockpi I ed, and pl aced back over these areas to a
depth of ei ght i nches to achi eve desi gn grades and create a soi I base f or vegetati on. Trees wi I I be
pl anted by manual I abor usi ng a di bbl a bar, mattock, pl anti ng bar, or other approved method. R anti ng
hot es f or the trees wi I I be suff i ci entl y deep to a1 I ow the roots to spread out and down wi thout " .-
rooti ng." Soi I wi I I be I oosel y compacted around trees once they have been pl anted to prevent roots f rom
drying out.
L i ve stakes wi I I be i nstal I ed at a mi ni mum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square f eet and stakes wi I I be spaced
two to three feet apart i n meander bends and si x to ei ght feet apart i n the ri ff I e secti ons usi ng tri angul ar
spaci ng a1 ong the streambanks between the toe of the streambank and bankf ul I el evati on. Si to
vari ati ons may requi re sl i ghtl y di fferent spaci ng.
Permanent seed mi xtures wi I I be appl i ed to a1 I di sturbed areas of the proj ect si te. Tabl e 17.11 1 i sts the
specs es, mi xtures, and appl i cati on rates that wi I I be used. A mi xture i s provi ded that i s sui tabl a for
streambank, f I oodpl ai n, and adj acent wetl and areas. M i xtures wi I I a1 so i nd ude temporary seedi ng ( rye
grai n or browntop mi I I et) to a1 I ow for appl i cati on wi th mechani cad broadcast spreaders. To provi de
rapi d growth of herbaceous ground cover and bi of ogi cad habi tat val ue, the permanent seed mi xture
specs f i ed wi I I be appl i ed to a1 I di sturbed areas outsi de the streambanks of the restored stream channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -50 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

The species provided are deep - rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream
channels, providing long-term stability.
Temporary seedi ng wi I I be appl i ed to al I di sturbed areas of the si to that are suscepti bl a to erosi on.
These areas i ncl ude constructed streambanks, access roads, si de sl opes, and spoi I pi I es. I f temporary
seedi ng i s appl i ed f rom N ovember through Apri 1, rye grei n wi I I be used and appl i ed at a rate of 130
pounds per acre. I f appl i ed f rom M ay through October, temporary seedi ng wi I I consi st of browntop
mi I I et, appl i ed at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Fi nal sped es sel ecti on may change due to ref i nement or avei I abi I i ty at the ti me of pl anti ng. I f sped es
substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting 1 i st to Baker for approval
prior to the procurement of plant stock.
Table 17.11 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Botanical Name Common Name %° Planted by Species ! Wetland Tolerance
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
12%
FAC
Betula nigra
River Birch
9%
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
9%
FAC
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
6%
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
9%
FACW -
Diospyros virginiana
Persi mmon
6%
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
9%
FACW-
_, -t
Carpinus caroliniana American Hombeam 15% FAC
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood Viburnum 15% FAC
Asimina triloba Paw Paw 10% FAC
Sal& nigra
Black Wi I low
10%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
FACW -
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
30%
OBL
Corms amomum
Si I ky Dogwood
40%
FACW+
Table 17.11 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Density
(lbs /ac)
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardii
Big blue stem
10%
1.50
FAC
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer tongue
15%
1.50
FACW
Carex crinata
Fringed sedge
10%
2.25
FACW+
Elvmus virginicus
Vi rgi nia wi Id rye
15%
1.50
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
10%
2.25
FACW+
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL
PAGE 17 -51
DRAFT
12/15/2014

Panicum virgatum
Slwitchgrass
15%
1.50
FAC+
Schizachyrium scoparium
L i ttl e bl ue stem
15%
0.75
FACU
Sorghastrum lzutans
Indiangrass
10%
0.75
FACU
Total
100%
15.00
17.6 Site Construction
17.6.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction
A general constructi on sequence i s provi ded bel ow and i nd uded on the pl an set for the Thomas Creek
Restorati on Proj ect. The si to constructi on, i nd udi ng gradi ng and pl anti ng acti vi ti es, wi I I be conducted
usi ng common machi nery, tool s, equi pment and techni ques for successf ul I y i mpl ementi ng the proj ect.
1. Contractor shad I contact North Carol i na " One Cal I " Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavati on.
2. Contractor shad I prepare stabi I i zed constructi on entrances and haul roads as i ndi cated on the pl ans.
3. The Contractor shat I mobi I i ze equi pment, materi al s, prepare stagi ng area(s) and stockpi I e area(s) as
shown on the plans.
4. Constructi on traff i c shat I be restri cted to the area denoted as " L i mi is of D i sturbancd' or " H aul Roads"
on the plans.
5. The Contractor shat I i nstal I temporary rock dams at I ocati ons i ndi cated on the pl ans.
6. The Contractor shat I i nstal I temporary si I t fence around the stagi ng area(s). Temporary si I t fend ng
wi I I al so be pl aced around the temporary stockpi I e areas as materi a1 i s stockpi I ed throughout the
construction period.
7. The Contractor shat I i nstal I al I temporary and permanent stream crossi ngs as shown on the pl ans i n
accordance wi th the N C Erosi on and Sedi ment Control R anni ng and Desi gn M anual . The exi sti ng
channel and di tches on si to wi I I remai n open duri ng the i ni ti al stages of constructi on to al I ow for
drai nage and to mai ntai n si to accessi bi I i ty.
8. The Contractor shat I construct onl y the porti on of channel that can be compel eted and stabi I i zed wi thi n
the same day.
9. The Contractor shat I apply temporary seed and mud ch to al I di sturbed areas at the end of each work
day.
10. The Contractor shat I clear and grub an area adequate to construct the stream channel and gradi ng
operati ons after al I Sedi mentati on and Erosi on Control practi ces have been i nstal I ed and approved. I n
general, the Contractor shat I work from upstream to downstream and i n- stream structures and channel
f i I I materi a1 shat I be i nstal I ed usi ng a pump - around or f I ow di versi on measure as shown on the pl ans.
11. The Contractor wi I I begi n constructi on by excavati ng channel f i I I materi a1 i n areas f or Reach R3. The
Contractor may f i I I di tches whi ch do not contai n any water duri ng the gradi ng operati ons. A I ong
di tches wi th water or stream reaches, excavated materi a1 shoul d be stockpi I ed i n areas shown on the
pl ans. I n any areas where excavati on depths wi I I exceed 10 i nches, topsoi I shat I be separated,
stockpi I ed and pl aced back over these areas to a depth of ei ght i nches to achi eve desi gn grades and
create a soi I base f or vegetati on accordi ng to the pl ans and sped f i cati ons.
12. Contractor shad I begi n constructi on on stream Reaches R3 at Stati on 11 +30 and proceed i n a
downstream di recti on unti I the upstream porti on of Reach R2. The Contractor shat I excavate the
channel to desi gn grades i n al I areas except wi thi n 10 feet of the top of exi sti ng streambanks.
13. After excavati ng the channel to desi gn grades, i nstal I i n- stream structures, grassi ng, matti ng, and
transpl ants i n thi s secti on, and ready the channel to accept f I ow per approval by the Engi veer.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -52 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

14. Water wi I I be turned i nto the constructed channel once the area i n and around the ne�v channel has
been stabi I i zed. I mmedi atel y begi n pl uggi ng, f i I I i ng, and gradi ng the abandoned channel, as i ndi cated
on pl ans, movi ng i n a downstream di recti on to a1 I ow for drai nage of the of d channel s. N o water shat I
be turned i nto any secti on of channel pri or to the channel bei ng compl etel y stabi I i zed wi th al I
structures i nstal I ed.
15. The ne�v channel sections shat I remai n open on the downstream end to al low for drai nage during rai n
events.
16. Any gradi ng acti vi ti es adj acent to the stream channel shad I be comp) eted pri or to turni ng water i nto
the new stream channel segments. Gradi ng acti vi ti es shat I not be performed wi thi n 10 f eet of the ne�v
stream channel banks. The Contractor shat I NOT grade or roughen any areas where excavati on
acti vi ti es have not been comp) eted.
17. Once a stream work phase is complete, apply temporary seeding, permanent seeding, and mulching to
any areas disturbed during construction. Apply permanent seeding mixtures, as shown on the
vegetati on pl an. Temporary seedi ng shal I be appl i ed i n al I areas suscepti bl a to erosi on (i.e. di sturbed
di tch banks, steep sl opes, and spoi I areas) such that ground cover i s establ i shed wi thi n 15 worki ng
days fol I owi ng completion of any phase of gradi ng. Permanent ground cover shat I be establ i shed for
al I di sturbed areas wi thi n 15 worki ng days or 90 cad endar days (whi chever i s shorter) fol I owi ng
completion of construction.
18. Contractor shat I i mprove and construct the exi sti ng farm road crossi ngs by i nstal l i ng ford crossi ngs,
stabi I i zi ng si de sl opes, and modi fyi ng the farm road bed el evati ons accordi ng to the pl ans and
sped f i cati ons.
19. AI I di sturbed areas shout d be seeded and mud ched bef ore I eavi ng the proj ect. Remove temporary
stream crossi ngs and any i n- stream temporary rock dams. AI I waste material must be removed from
the project site.
20. The Contractor shat I treat areas of i nvasi ve sped es vegetati on throughout the proj ect area accordi ng
to the pl ans and sped f i cati ons pri or to demobi I i zati on.
21. The Contractor shad I pl ant woody vegetati on and I i ve stakes, accordi ng to pl anti ng detai I s and
sped f i cati ons. The Contractor shat I comp) ete the reforestati on (bare -root pl anti ng) phase of the
proj ect and apply permanent seedi ng at the appropriate ti me of the year.
22. The Contractor shat I ensure that the si to i s f ree of trash and I eftover materi al s pri or to demobi I i zati on
of equi pment f rom the si te.
17.6.2 In- stream Structures and Other Construction Elements
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Thomas Creek Restoration Project site. Structures
such as grade control j -hook vanes, I og vanes, rock cross vanes, grade control I og j ams, constructed
ri ff I es, root wads, I og wei rs, boul der steps, and cover I ogs wi I I be used to stabi I i ze the nedvl y- restored
streams and i mprove habi tat f uncti ons. Woody debri s wi I I be harvested through the constructi on of thi s
proj ect and i ncorporated whenever possi bl e. Tabl e 17.12 summari zes the use of i n- stream structures at
the si te.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -53 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

Table 17.12 Proposed In- Stream Structure Types and Locations
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Structure Type
Location
I n locations along outside of meander bends or agai nst one streambank i n
Root Wads
straight reaches to increase pool diversity and provide refugium for fish.
In Iocationswheregrade control is necessary to prevent to prevent possible
Grade Control J-Hook Vanes
downcutting or headcut migration, and stream bed /bank erosion.
Located throughout various meander bends to prevent to prevent possible
Log Vanes
streambank erosion.
Log Weirs / Step Pools
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent to prevent possible
downcutting or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
Located along outside bendsor against onestreambank in straight reaches to
Cover Logs/ Toe Wood
increase pool diversity and provide refugium for fish.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible downcutting
Constructed Riffles
or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible downcutting
Grade Control Log Jams
or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
Installed along some or all of remnant channel segments to prevent subsurface
Ditch Plug /Channel Block
flow.
I n locations outside of meander bends to increase streambank stability and
Vegetation Transplants
cover.
I n locations outside of meander bends to create and /or increase streambank
Vegetated Geolift
stability and reduce near bank stress.
Root Wads
Root wads are placed at the toe of the streambank a1 ong the outsi de of meander bends for the creation of
habi tat and for streambank protecti on. Root wads i nd ude the root mass or root bad I of a tree pl us a
porti on of the trunk. They are used to armor a streambank and reduce near bank stress by def I ecti ng
stream flows away from the streambank. In addition to streambank protection, they provide structural
support to the streambank and habi tat for f i sh and other aquati c ani mad s. They a1 so serve as a food
source for aquati c i nsects. Root wads wi I I be pl aced throughout the proj ect reaches pri maxi I y to i mprove
aquati c habi tat and provi de cover.
Grade Control J -Hook Vanes
Grade control j -hook vanes are uti I i zed to provi de grade control and protect the streambanks. These
vanes may be constructed out of I ogs and/or rock bout ders. The structure arms turn water away f rom the
streambanks and re-di rest f d ow energies toward the center of the channel. In addition to providing
stabi I i ty to streambanks, grade control j -hook vanes a1 so promote pool scour and provi de structure wi thi n
the pool habitat. Grade control j -hooks have two to three bout ders pl aced i n a hook shape at the
upstream end of the vane. The pri many difference between regul ar j -hooks and grade control j -hooks i s
the way that the " hook" part of the structure i s constructed. Regul ar j -hooks are constructed to have gaps
between the header boulders in the hook to promote f d ow convergence. Grade control j -hooks do not
have gaps between the header bout ders i n the hook and a1 so have a bout der d I I bui I It f rom the outd de of
the hook over to the opposite streambank such that the structure can serve as a grade control feature.
Grade control j -hooks sti I I promote scour i n the downstream pool, thus provi di ng habi tat benef i t.
Lot Vanes
A I og vane i s used to provi de cover for aquati c organi sms i n the downstream scour pool and wi th a
potenti a1 secondary benef i It of protecti ng streambanks by reduc ng near -bank stress and redi recti ng f I ow
vectors away f rom the streambank. The I ength of a si ngl a vane structure can span one -had f to two-thi rds
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -54 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

the bankf ul I channel wi dth. Vanes are I ocated j ust downstream of the poi nt where the stream f I ow
i ntersects the streambank at an acute angl e i n a meander bend.
Lot Weirs / Step Pools
Log weirs and step pools are used to provide grade control as wel I as provide a secondary pool habitat
benef i t for aquati c organi sms. A I og wei r consi sts of two I ogs stacked (a header I og and a footer I og)
and i nstal I ed perpendi cul ar to the di recti on of f I ow. Thi s center structure sets the i Inert el evati on of the
streambed. A step pool sequence or I og/rock " rol I ers" are ad so common) y used i n conf i ned setti ngs
where si nuosi ty i s I ess than 1.2 and i n drai nage areas I ess than 3 square mi I es, and I ocated based on pool -
to-pool spaci ng rati os. They can be used as f I oodpl ad n i nterceptors to i ntercept concentrated f I oodpl ad n
f I ows f rom swat es, di tches, I ow poi nts, oxbow pond or vernal pool drai ns, etc. and to drai n such f I ow to
the restored channel i n a stabl a and natural manner.
Toe Wood with Cover Lots
Toe wood structures are typical I y constructed in meanderi ng streams usi ng a combi nation of native
materi ad s such as I ogs, branches, brush, I i ve cutti ngs, sods mats, transpl ants, and soi 1. The structure
hel ps ensure I ong -term stabi I i ty aged nst erodi ng banks and can enhance aquati c and terrestri a1 habi tat
wi thi n the pool area by establ i shi ng a source of detri tus and I arge woody debri s. The structures are
I ocated a1 ong the outer meander bends and shout d cover at I east the I ower had f of the bank such that the
toe wood is submerged and saturated to avoid premature deterioration. The upper bank contains live
cuttings in combination with sod mats, live stakes, transplants, or geol i fts to cover the toe wood up to the
bankfulI stage.
A cover I og i s pl aced a1 ong the outsi de of a meander bend to provi de habi tat i n the pool area I t i s most
often instal 1 ed in conjunction with root wads. The log is buried into the outside stream bank of the
meander bend; the opposi to end extends through the deepest part of the pool and may be buri ed i n the
i nd de of the meander bend, i n the bottom of the poi nt bar. The pl acement of the cover I og near the
bottom of the stream bank sl ope on the outsi de of the bend encourages scour i n the pool. Thi s i ncreased
scour provi des a deeper pool for bedform vari abi I i ty.
Constructed Riffles
A constructed ri ff I e i s i nstal I ed by pl ad ng coarse bed materi ad (gravel, cobbl e, and smai I bout ders) i n the
stream at specific riffle locations al ong the profile. The purpose of this structure is to provide initial
grade control and establ i sh ri ff I e habi tat wi thi n the restored channel. Wood materi a1 can ad so be
i ncorporated wi th rock for these structures, and f uncti on i n a si mi I ar way as natural ri ff I es; the surfaces
and i ntersti ti ad spaces are crud a1 to the I i f e cyd es of many aquati c macroi nvertebrate sped es.
Ditch Plug / Channel Block
A compacted earth pl ug wi I I be i nstal I ed by f i I I i ng the exi sti ng di tch to prevent subsurface f I ows and
i mprove si to hydro) ogy. The f i I I materi a1 used for di tch pl ugs shad I come f rom a nearby borrow area and
be f ree of debri s, rocks, trash, etc. and shad I consi st of compactabl a soi I materi a1.
Grade Control Lot Jams
A grade control I og j am i s created by pl ad ng woody materi ad i n the stream at sped f i c ri ff I e I ocati ons
a1 ong the prof i I e. The purpose of thi s structure i s to provi de i ni ti ad grade control and establ i sh ri ff I e
habi tat wi thi n the restored channel, pri or to the formati on of a stabi I i zed streambed. These structures can
be substi tuted for tradi ti onal constructed ri ff I es usi ng rock materi a1, i n a si mi I ar way as natural ri ff I es;
the surf aces and i ntersti ti ad spaces are cruci a1 to the I i f e cyd es of many aquati c sped es.
Vegetation Transplants
V egetati on transpl ants wi I I be i denti f i ed bef ore starti ng constructi on as vi abl a candi dates (sped es and
si ze) for uprooti ng and rel ocati on. Areas that must be d eared wi I I maxi mi ze the harvesti ng of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -55 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

transpl ants, transpl ants wi I I be taken f rom other areas as sui tabl a to enhance the rapi d devel opment of
vegetative growth a1 ong the constructed channel.
Vegetated Geolift
Geol i fts area bioengineering measure used to stabi I i ze streambanks. Geol i fts are most commonly used
al ong the outsi de of stream meander bends. They are essenti al I y a seri es of I arge overl appi ng soi I
" burri tos," or " I i fts" , constructed usi ng coi r f i ber erosi on control matti ng and nati ve soi I s. L i ve cutti ng
materi al s, or whi ps, f rom sped f i c woody nati ve sped es pl ants are pl anted i n the I ayers between the I i fts.
A stone or woody brush toe base i s typi cal I y i nstal I ed to provi de protecti on at the toe of the streambank
and to provi de a foundati on f or the geol i fts. The geol i fts are i nstal I ed on top of the base materi al to
compri se the enti re restored streambank up to the bankful I channel el evati on. Geol ifts can be used to
effecti A y stabi I i ze restored streambanks f or al I si zes of streams si mpl y by varyi ng the number of I i fts
required to form the streambank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -56 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 18 -1 12/15/2014
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL DRAFT

x a Ua. z
W zz`�
xax y � U
a
Z S W —
f K + t F
z ( N s m W4 Ga a
Fn { o td. W' "WK t iii Q
KS ``ate wwQ
� pQ S �t s pCInIN —
C
� w
n
n �rn m
x
O }off
W Z Qy. K
D O
_¢ � ~ w H w� F i
wW a x x
w
UZ V `h'~ o
Iy j��vo 8
CooW aP °
Z � ) 22 n
Ll
U o
� ao
00 ��
�LL
ti=
ti i?
z
a�x
u�
y wwww -
��, -
Z
W. 11
� a
?I99ya SVWOHZ t6L5fl *133 O?Id

t
LD
Z
r � �
Z W
W U ❑
W O p W
Z w r r z
w
O w Z W � � � ❑ �
> ¢ z z w
tta Os
tt
k� KN Ord
m
L BUJ W QW
r ~
W
o Q
®C
�U Q J2
O Z
nLL Z r
� O
Z Z
J ZOU
z O
¢
tim❑ >KmW
73 <
>
S
W d O
Cc, ti0 2Qy3
p ¢W_z
O r e
W,
ttwz Q�wo
o 02
OU tc �W_r
5H HE
W- Uw
W.o O ..�z
Vi C)
U ❑"
VJ ❑ �
ttFN a5¢w
w OK
O�x N
zz v2iti
O
tt0` Wy�z
r OZ
U rC
JIZ2W
QQ
cow W
¢❑ yO�p
y tta
dz o
r O
ti¢m �tiwa
z z
UO OUw
2
S, U
Z Q
� � W
P� r
® O
b Q F
U (7
Q � Z
/b/\ �� � W w ❑ �
Fr_�4
k4 ��� O C7 ¢ W r K h
U W
Ir O O O O U
d ' 'w
F F H F
W
Q
Z
W
r�
Ks
b
r � �
Z Z
y z
✓� N O
y
W O p W
Z w r r z
w
O w Z W � � � ❑ �
> ¢ z z w
tt Q
U U w
o ¢ z ¢ �
O ¢ s
O
r
m
O � ¢ �
z 2 LL
2
z
y
C)
o y W
F Z O J W J
Y f > ❑U y
>
S
W d O
¢ W ❑ '> ¢ Q O
> W U J WO 2
Y Y Y ro m H >
U U r U U t7 U W O U
O O 2 O O Z O O O
QaK K U K ❑ '!� ❑ r y�ryK"r�
Z K On
¢ W ¢ fL O
> U S
U' T (D 0
O O O O O
❑ K W a
N H
N y VD
Z 2 U (7
O m O O
U K

lo
z�
®®
00o
9
m �
r`v
° m d m d a
3 3 3 3 3 0
V)
J
O
W
N
J
Q
Z
O
Z
LU
Z
O
U
� I
I I
I =
I I
I I
I i
L
vi
vi
V V
U
° O
x � O �
d �
c 3
v N F a a
mm=� o�
i
I
i
I
v `
'o
k I
I
® +O s b x a
s I
I
I
I
v � �
° 6
c m 3 v p
v o
uwi � 3 0
v o
`o
Z � ° � v
i
I
I
I
2
v o
E[^
a t 3 - a
ow w = o
�
d
2
m - y
.. L Q N ai a
3 o a E
`c
-
2
> j> j> j Q w
E
� I I
I I I
I I :
I
I I
a U v o v U
m
° a° v o
�
m a L o 3 U m F y H LL ii
o
Z
O m o 0 0 o F v m v
o �+ a
v
z
r r a w w E � v� q
U
a n °' 0
rn° v = c m E
E E
O `o o
- -
o H « m y rn v.1 ol 1. l y A rn rn o o o rn o m o
o 0 0 o V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q E o 0 0 o .c ° o
o 0 0 - o- 0 0 0 0 o o ( �y _ _ 0 o o- o - o
O
� � Irl IIII
IIIII� � I
0 G� 0. 10
I'
i l l l l l I a LIi
w ti
� � U
W
a C m m o " o
m r- m p g a
N c LL a a E` F a
a
mao m a 3 Z E a
II W Z J 3 j 3 a v v Q v a v
ti E� � a rn rn
m
^1 O
-_ U a- �`m 3 U m 3 3 a a n c o o` o o c c o= o E
O R
° - ° m
O ° ° v i i i i i i LL °' E y -a >> y- y_
in U r U z w a w w w w 'fro U' N 3 to Q V m �n Uj N 2 m m LL ✓ai 3 w
Y
I m
a
3
w a
a m
m
a �
�
V �
a
r
3 a
a V
V f
f
m i
in in
0 -
-a -6 Z N
N & '6
i
I
i
I
v `
'o
k I
I
® +O s b x a
s I
I
I
I
v � �
° 6
c m 3 v p
v o
uwi � 3 0
v o
`o
Z � ° � v
i
I
I
I
2
v o
E[^
a t 3 - a
ow w = o
�
d
2
m - y
.. L Q N ai a
3 o a E
`c
-
2
> j> j> j Q w
E
� I I
I I I
I I :
I
I I
a U v o v U
m
° a° v o
�
m a L o 3 U m F y H LL ii
o
Z
O m o 0 0 o F v m v
o �+ a
v
z
r r a w w E � v� q
U
a n °' 0
rn° v = c m E
E E
O `o o
- -
o H « m y rn v.1 ol 1. l y A rn rn o o o rn o m o
o 0 0 o V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q E o 0 0 o .c ° o
o 0 0 - o- 0 0 0 0 o o ( �y _ _ 0 o o- o - o
O
� � Irl IIII
IIIII� � I
0 G� 0. 10
I'
i l l l l l I a LIi
w ti
� � U
W
a C m m o " o
m r- m p g a
N c LL a a E` F a
a
mao m a 3 Z E a
II W Z J 3 j 3 a v v Q v a v
ti E� � a rn rn
m
^1 O
-_ U a- �`m 3 U m 3 3 a a n c o o` o o c c o= o E
O R
° - ° m
O ° ° v i i i i i i LL °' E y -a >> y- y_
in U r U z w a w w w w 'fro U' N 3 to Q V m �n Uj N 2 m m LL ✓ai 3 w

Iz
a a N-33a 0111,du j _ -
6000
r I',
U
J
\ \ n L
co
0
p
Of
e� \ w
J
lL U U
zl
Z
Z a a
Lz
Lu
c
o
o g z U)
p o �y
CL
za u�o _ 3
of > o –
p
w_
z
r — r
y
n
z U
d � y
� m
a o \ off~
Z
O N _ C) s
"6..... hb L5£I\ "° Id \"6'sa0 \O....... °w °41- 6b1(JG% JGI

I
co
z
Lu
O
H
Q
U
U
co
z
z
H
Z
J
d
CD
Q
W
J
zzF
oa
ova
moz
ID
� F -
Ic
p p
� � K
0
U '
W
-
U
W
W
Y
Q
y
>
G�
_zgw
I
w
z
c�
z
z
Y
U
O
O
F-
w
W
>
0
zz
g
Z
Q
F
w
0
d
LL -
K i
X30 � d
-
n5
_WFW j3G w�a
4 -
U
W
n
3 -
go
3n
-
_ -egF
og
_
1
1
I
W
w
>
a
\
a w
Z
d
w 1
� L
`
I
I
W
1
k
a
/
>
z
Q
a
I
I
a
I
�1 I
I
/
I
1
/
0
�
/
/
1
I
I
W
W
W
Y
Q
y
>
G�
_zgw
I
w
z
c�
z
z
Y
U
O
O
F-
w
W
>
0
zz
g
Z
Q
F
w
0
d
LL -
K i
X30 � d
-
n5
_WFW j3G w�a
4 -
U
W
n
3 -
go
3n
-
_ -egF
_
1
1
I
w
>
_
1
\
a w
z
H
w 1
� L
`
I
I
W
1
U
W
co
c
Cl)
O
a
/
>
z
Q
a
I
I
U
I
�1 I
I
/
I
1
/
�
/
/
1
I
I
I
1
I

�t P'9Z ... hb L5£I,l., \b-s I,,haa^]..... - 6b1(JG% JGI
z" - V,
sy�ay36
o-s
old E 00
a wr lQx
I. ---------
LU
LU
w
_ N n
- �
z_w
m
-
W
Z _ w
o _ o
a o w
m 0 n, w
- -
o .. LL
m
W
/
ms w ti
J
W
_
- \
LL
Z
LU
j \\
\/X\/
\
w
lo
\\
b
v
r C
r �F
—
o
/
w w
so
—
LL F�
X X
a
1
n F
v
—
W
LL
0 o
d
xx
x x
L)
W
x / \\ xx
/
LL
W
_
x x
/\
x x
lix
LL
W
/ /
w
x X X x \
/ \\
h
-�J
a(3 —
r
I
~ x x x x
a�
�t P'9Z ... hb L5£I,l., \b-s I,,haa^]..... - 6b1(JG% JGI

0
a
a
W
J
a
z
0
U
h
°oo
F
k3..
z
2z�
&�`
-
m s
pyjm m
�
as
(Y
U
Q
w
oa
H
o0
-
cnrr
�
W
Z
Q
W
a
ho
o
0
a
a
W
J
a
z
0
U
h
°oo
F
k3..
3
w
0
a
z
a
I �
I
I
I
i Illp � U
a i 180 0
I �
I U
� � W
I �
I
I /
I I
1 I
1 I
1 ,
I 1 r
1 / -
I I
I I
I
J wl
OO Ilp
°e
_
d I Iz I
H ^/ i w
� I / it �
a �w
o =
_ 0 `=Y
-�K
m s
3
w
0
a
z
a
I �
I
I
I
i Illp � U
a i 180 0
I �
I U
� � W
I �
I
I /
I I
1 I
1 I
1 ,
I 1 r
1 / -
I I
I I
I
J wl
OO Ilp
°e
_
d I Iz I
H ^/ i w
� I / it �
a �w
o =
_ 0 `=Y
-�K

"b. ..... hb L5£I,l., \b'sa0\O ..l ...... 1- 6b1(JG% \GI
z
zoo _
o
LL
pww
_
Ep n LL
F
Q
_
w
LU
=
z
-
�
o
p p
= LL
o
=I
w
a
r
LL
n
LL
>
—
o
�
4 \�
o
pip _
a
w
J
w
z
-
w
_
LU
o
a
o
np
LL
LL
y
3
LL
U
O
m�
co
=
3
LU
I\
5 `
1.
ob a9'SN3�o$ �
ALL-'
"b. ..... hb L5£I,l., \b'sa0\O ..l ...... 1- 6b1(JG% \GI

l
s
` /JJJr Z
LL
I� J-4
a
_r�
w IID w
n Z= V w
Me
aO OO �
z
Y
U
O
m
W
z
x
U
w
z
3
o
2z�
^I s
C7� �
vU
a
l
s
` /JJJr Z
LL
I� J-4
a
_r�
w IID w
n Z= V w
Me
aO OO �
z
Y
U
O
m
W
z
x
U
w
z
3
o
^I s
vU
a
w
S m
w
w
rc
� pvo
or
n
x3 z u °v
-
J
W
m
_
-
Z
O
H
�s
U
a
_ - < `¢
_
'w
w
u

z
O
r
U
D
F-
F-
0
U
J
Q
W
Z
W
CD

2
o°
^max
g/
U/ x
m/
•,c
.o�
.o�

N
N I-
co LU
LU
C',
W
Z 11 oo
Lu
Vis 9NII HOfffl

zz ^
mew � ❑
a 8 133HS 33S
NIA H�1dW
a o u pp +b£ d1S 3
Z M
CL
LU
w
U)
M�
>
d Z
w
(0
w
M
t F
d
Q
Z
LU
i
I,+
co
!!
C7
+
N
V
LLI
of
O 1
06
�o
J
Ir
M\
Lu
�� ja
,,0
2�
O
\
�y Cr
W
�\�m
QN
S
r
LL,
,,0 0n
O
Q
Q
kl
LU z c
W
a'
w
e0.
w
�
1
O
'd
U)
z0
/
w
LU
U
d
0
11 +00
LU
�O
I
_ � 1
W
Z
Q
> O
LU
O
W
Z co
�W
00 U d
F-
Q
„aa�cm -usd vecs�
9 13
'V1S 3Nll Il Hni HW
ti
vex
0.

J w
z
00,
V,
\1 O� s bW
a
w 00,
J �C
0
CD
133HS 33S
00 +bS -d1S 3NI-I H�1dW

a
zaa
n
o
�M
ro
U h
m
Of
u
p
Za
O
��F
�•�,
wcn
aao
ado
u
z
p�
d
�
9
-
U
�n
X d
O
J
\
�
u
I
ti
5
w ®
+D
CD I �+,�
I I V
d
Z ®
LL
,RD
CD
w ¢
z
m
z
>
mII
I
�v
CD
. c
Zu,Z
UoU
I„
W +W
\
pQp
Z 1- Z
w(nw
�\O
\
I
J
�
O a
/
z >
w F--
a�
\�
m
'O
O
}
Ir
......�
y
QO
,.
O \ >
Y
..�
IL
F—...
J Q
LLI
O ..,.
Of
0
O j
J
r
}
d Q
0o
w
co
+
M LfJ
�
Q r
�W
CO W
WT
r , (
Z !n
p J W
w
U9)
C0 r
a
o a
Q?
J�
00x6£
U) o5
/Yo
b�
„aa�em -usd vecss��s„a tdw6uaa�a��aa ,��awovrvei�b�Ci�i�Z�

a
S`
ogxs << !�
U
0
z
-
x00
M�
O
1
Z
1
O°
x ,
sn
�o
o
w�
0
Cl)
00
x
o
O
"6P'BI -HSd 66L5£ I\ �"° Id\" 6 'sa0 \O�haa ^]� °w °41- 6b1(JG %�JGI

ago
__
w3a
xW
O
U�
w
aaz
ado
u
ti
z
O
a
z
z
>
_
W
LL,.
1
CD
O
m
C7 0
LL
LU
U
Q
W
�
\ �
U
O
O
a
= O
e
- O
Q
wo
o
Z�
�Xo
w U)
m
Oo
o°
�o
x00
�>
a�
q
osxs o, ,4,
b�S�N>y
3
J� bW
"6P'.......... ....... °w °41- 6b1(JG% JGI

Z V ° 00X91. W
ado u
z
- t
j }
O S'
n
Z
O Q
O m
M U
a O
� o -
C)
Z
c = N
V C) w
m Q Q n
U ZW� m az
H
Waf (q
i'
�
z SC U�
^� 1
z w n _
LU
m I I �W
lw f LUO
I �Q
w Z
\. O O
A
O
l
�I m
l
CD
1 ` wo
� Z
CD
�
m�
3�
LL55 \\ yy
"6P'ZI -HSd 66L5£ I\ �"° Id\" 6 'sa0 \O�haa ^]� °w °41- 6b1(JG %�J�GI

k(§ \ 6 §)# ;
CIO, \
\ \
-

§1
I s

sa avN
w3�
°o =b b
ti
o
=W
Er
w
N� Q
m
d
7w
b
O
J
t
is
Y
Z
Q
m
Q
06
a
O
O U)
w
w
U)
w
m
�
Y
W
Q
c
LU
W �.
Ua
U)J
Z�
O_
U
O
O
t
d
W
C�
O
J
Zij 4e�s
0
O
I-
O
UO
wo
0
zQ
wC/)
m
sa avN

0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
N,.
N,,
N,..
N
z 2 U
�
S6'L9Z 13
I
\
Sh 13
SB +9Z
Z
ce
59297 �3
�9Z
Y�90 +9Z
I
9L -Id
O
a _i3
VL'Sb +OZ -Id
1/
-Id
'
O
00'.£92-,3
LO 092=13
N
-y zo
RR'.Z € +OZ =1d
00 Zh +9Z-Id
V•
; sz,z9Z-,3
OZ 557 13
I
bb bZ +OZ Id
LP P9Z -13
I
_'k'Ea +9Z -Id
'o
fL o z
p, �-
LO E9Z-73
00 3L +pZ Id
9d bL +SZ4d
u
F
-- bZ'E9Z-l3
....44092-13
O
O
BL a0 +OZ -Id
O
O
bL..L +SZ -Id
'
I
•
•I LS Z9Z -13
O
I
„3E 5SZ -13
LS 69Z -13 /
I 8: b5 +5L-Id
N
j
L5 bS +SZ =1d
OLL 99 89 +bL -d
'
Oz 52'ilL�l3 I
S£ £9Z l3
rim L9 BG +bL =1d i
6E'08 +6L Id
4109 -�3
II S9 592 -13
99'£92 -13 �
I
19'LF
a 092 -13
.L6 Z9 +b L=1d
9£:E9 +5L -Id
9L E.. +SZ-Id
,
9679Z -13
II
Lb dSZ ,3
RE 01Z -l3 i......
oL�ES +,Lyd
@p E4 +sz Id
EE /b +bl-d
1
bL'£9Z-73
60 bb +SL -Id
., 1
Oz bE 032 =13
j
O
}
C
�
� 0'LO +SZ -Id
�
N
O60LZ l3 �
�
I
9b o97 -�3
ZZ'_Z +bl -Id I
; �
�
Lb 98 +67 -Id
r' ZO
LB 41 +b1 -Id VL=[d
OZ ro9Z l3
;
1
bE 092_,3
3.. L� +bZ=Id
I
50 1L' -13
O
49'90 +6L -Id
O
O}
+ oZ
00 00 +bL -Id I �
�
Z4'E9Z =l3
� / tr3'G5 +9 L-Id
�
Sb O9Z =l3
SL iS +bZ -Id
I
d9 OLZ-73
c
LZ�4BZ-,3
•l
L559Z =13
• LZ'aa +EL =1d �p
EO'S9 +aL =1d
I
: Zb fib +bZ -Id
8£'LLZ -l31F�
1
4092 -13
'
499L +i1 -d �O
;
R95E +bZ -Id
I
BZ LLZ-l3
C9'b9Z -13
00'0 ^ = +91-Id
�
LL'ZL +bZ Id
II
SL'Sb + €L -Id
5'OdZ =,3
I
O
O
/
96 vP +b7- d
ZL 097 =13
9� bE +£L-Id
Ob b9Z-73
55 SS +E2 -Id
N
J I
I 96' E +81 -Id
11
18 59Z -13
8a'49Z -13
ZL 08Z -13
-1
�E dL +EL Id
� +EZ =13
l
SE 592 ,3 I
yp d6
I
O
EL'0 L +8L Id 02'592
w
L5'LLZ_,3
O
Sn EQ +d4 Id
O
L5092 =13
I
85 1S +EZ -Id
1
j
M
o9z�� 13 I..
I
es'os +i� -Id
- 9oo9z -13
Q
Q
z Z L +!L4
Q aLE +EZ Id
1`
/L1
�
u Q I
Lj�
-
W
L..
VS 93 +ZL =1d
-yK
WU'
Bb
59 ZLZ =l3
Os 9+1L -Id
LS BL +EZ -Id
r
bR bS +�-
• �I
S S9Z =13
I
L 1Z =l3
bS 332 =13 I
00'05 +LL =1d
I
OE'09Z -13
O
b_..b ZWd -�
OS Zb !L-Id
LO LE +ZL =1d
Z� �Z +.L =1d
ZL L9Z �3
•
7L EL7 =,3
� I
5Z 98 +ZZ-Id
'..
,
92 aL +ZL Id
I
I
5E L9Z-l3
�
E8 ELZ -13 I
1
8£'992=1E
,
09 =il +ZL =1d
O
95 30 +LL -Id
j
S9'097-13
• _
N
;
6E s9 +ZZ=id
II
07 29Z =73
ba +9Z_l3
I
ZS .W=13
LO ba +9L -Id
39'39Z -13 ,
Z'
45'6L +9L -Id
I
£L'S£ +2Z -Id
c~i
I 1 =�. � w
I
9R 93Zc13..
bS l9Z-l3
55 "LE +ZZ-Id
09 bLZ -l3 / wi �
se azs +9L Id
�
w
j 90 "Z =13
I
• ES Eb +LL =1d
o
'LJ
I
o
L93-73
N
E� b�Z -13
OZ
n4 9E +9 L-Id
ZL bo +LZ Id
N
FaLSZ =,3
I
j 1
j
3L'a9Z 13
LS'L9 -l3
//
oS b9 +LZ -Id
E7'SL +9L -Id
GO'S_ LZ =1d /•.:.
I
1
f:
O
jO
I
O
�'Z'
OL d9Z -l3
?0 +9WId
O
a0 '..9Z-13
Gz o9 L -Id
oz u9z73
II
` I
d0' 9Z -13
Z9'99 +LZ Id
Z9 84 +SL -Id
x
Ob Z LZ -Id
h Z? 97-,3
Lb'L9Z 13 Q
L2, +L Id
eE �sz -,3 �
roL o� +L7 -Id
ZG -GL Id
I
I
z
I
r. I
z9 a9z =,3
bz sb +9L -Id
•
9F 697_,3 •
9b
1
90 LE +sL =1d I
59 L5 +OZ-Id ,
z v
L9Z-13
N
a4 0�l• Q
9p Z93=13
EO'15 +02-Id wm.
91 69z=1 a
00 SB +OZ -Id
I
^ =L'SL +SL -Id
09 Z9Z-,3
90 se +oz =ld j
•
O
bl 592 =13
O
00
N
N
,, N
10
,, ,, N

0
0
0
x
z
a �
J
Y
N i e„ ua
..
I bb 04 +3i -I.i
3n 842 -'13
.,
N
o
C7 o-gi m z
11
1
k� 96 +1t=1d
I
1
V
C'' �
aE BbZ l3
I
K �
EZ fig ?_l3
II
LE 98 +kb Id
o
� z
d �
00'9 k +9E -Id
�
� o� dbZ =l3
I
u
,I
1
m
F
9S ESZ -l3
O
ooa
'
z
M
i
O
+ BL ZSZ 13
004
I'
Oz
vt
w
a�sz l3
m
m
I
wcs
�
i5'ESZ =13
I
. .. ".
5LL I
DO W +SE' Id
....
Ob'OSZ -13
El bL +OE -W=W
Id I...
�6 'E5 ? -l3
ZL'Zl +kb -Id
93 952 -13
Z4 Lb +SE -Id
r
O
03 �bZ-l3
�
i
li
62'55 +Ob Id
�
aL LSZ �3
1186 +pE -Id
OZ
—
� 9k'£SZ -l3
li
I
x�
49;.cZ +SE -Id
-bb OSZ =l3
II
p
lfi ESZ l3
O}
kk'85Z-13 I
LOSk +OE =1d
Sk'00 +5E-Id
DI
4l'09�04 -Id
Ii
3a 642 13
•
' LZ'L5Z l3
p
E4'sb +Ob -Id
6G ZO +O£ -Id
O}
W� H£'b97-l3
p
Dji ES 9� +bE-d
9L'aE +Ob Id
oiasz =�3 I
M
oz
II
�, I
8505 +5Z Id
tta
9Z'85Z l3 �
5 Z3 +eZ-Id
.,
I I l9'E9Z -l3
II
OLL I
Oz
l 54'152 =�3
3£'452 l3
I I
'' /
00'652-13
4:2'30 +Ob =1d
p
E3 49~•32 =1d
SL'14 +bE -I!
V
1L(
roz asz l3
O9'HSZ l3
6ro'99 +sE -Id
l9'Oti +5Z Id
08 kSZ l3
�, +.
I
12
95952-13
Ok'kSZ l3
I�
O
bB 9Z+ Z-Id
I 00'roSZ-l3
00
;
of b� +bE Id
04
S� LSZ -l3
I
V
5E k5Z-l3
w�
�
N
�
�BEl +dz ld
N
la'ro9z l3
M
N ze ss +oE Id
II
9S dSZ l3
O
II'
Q
490tl +ti? Id
Q
l'S5Z -d3
Q
69'092 -d3
w
\ I
N
W
I.LI
• '
56 LSZ 73
94'bSZ-l3
Il
Zb 9c +8Z -Id
�I
L8'LS +EE Id
9E'l$? l3
oa as ? -l3
ss Ek. +sE -Id
Lz Ga +az -Id
II
�
�
ek 597 -13
�
EL k92 l3
p
�~
�
1j'i
05 ? -l3
ZO nS� 13
II
663N +8E_Id
Lo Zb +.EZ -Id
�
bG kS.1 ;
Ze SSZ =l3 II
99 bL +BE 4-I
o.a9 ? =�3
k �a +eE =1d
op
ds is ? -l3 '
SS b. +BZ -Id
I
.I
}
9�£9 +BE -Id
-
'•
�
II
IZ SSZ =l3
M
M
OO pSZ l3
�'
d80o +ZE =1d
El 90 +8Z -Id
O
p
lZ'kSZ -l3
I
}
`
bE Eb +9E -Id
SZ SSZ l3
40
£0952 =13
S
3E £ +L' -Id I
N
40 b! +Z£ =1d d
SZ 6SZ l3 I
ror 6L +�? Id
l5 95? ,3 �
1
l6 ZZ. +B£ -Id
•
EL SSZ - ;3
p
`
�
Ol sb +ZE =1d
II
O
I
/
�
J
ss 3sz =13 I
9E bE +ZE =1d
I
d 092 -73 I
05952 13
LO LH LE =1d
4z'lz +zE -rd /
oz
ZL lSZ l3
9k dk +L' -Id
WCO
�
OL 66 +1E-Id
I
'
M
I
o
I
03 ZSZ =l3
OB 99 3
O
bzgz=I d
90 55 +'3Z =1d
5 9SZ -l3'
SL l3
ZSZ =
/
N
si 4L +kE -Id
9E 9E +Lf =1d
l3 5Dz =13
l0 59 kE -Id
11
S 3Z-Id ; '
1'
l0 ZSZ -13
5G 5� 13
ZH k� +9Z =1d
I�
Sb 3S ? -l3
I
OL SI +LE -Id
i
0984 +1E -Id
I'
Op
EI
ld Z5Z =13
r
I
,
bb BS +BZ =1d
SZ LSD l3
01 b6 +9E =1d
M
I
a kE 1E =1d �
I
08552 =13
lS .=., l3
JO k6 +9ZSld
'.
ES lZ +lE =1d I
'.
�6 6S� =13 I
I
kL 9SZ =13
?Z ESZ-13
E5 3Z +gZ =1d i
I
bs' 90 +kE-Id
p0
98 Z9 +9E =1d
I

0 0 0
N N O
M
W
N N
zoo
w r
u �
w w
a
a
I
1
r
c
z
U�
I
I
Lb Bb +EL -Id
! Zt SE +EI -Id
lZ E9Z l3
+d2'ZZ+El =1d
� I
DY89 £92-13
O
O
p2 S.l b0 +El -d
M
1
M
am I �
r
�
v EEE9z 33
�
co
�
w
Oi
�
W kb SL +ZI -Id �
IfJ
Of
SO b9Z -l3
Ir
(If
z a
� 9L'LS +ZI -Id
N
op
�OW9Z =73
a J
� w
a b +zl -Id J
m o
Eb b3Z-l3
'
3b?E +Zl IdI
�r
wN
I
iw
41y, s0'a3Z -33
/
9E'1l +Zl -Id
I.
m¢
i,
�
N
00 OO +Zl =1d
i
N
'05 Sb ? -l3
1
'
O
6b3Z =33
as se +ll =la
'
ZO SbZ-33
�
: LS'69 ? -33
0� 9Z Z5Z -l3
�
5905 +Eb =1d
1'.,. bE lG +ll -Id
', mOLL 00 EL +ll -Id-
1
'
l0 592=13
a¢ 09 Z6Z =33
am 0009•l l -Id
O6 962 -13 1
5 S9 ? =33 1 1
I sZ Z6Z -33
SL'9L +Eb -d
lh hb +ll=ld /
, 00 OS +ll =1d
1
I
lb'63Z =33
aY�
pz
EL lE +ll =1d
3Z L6Z 33
00 LZ +4l =1d
ZZ
—
�1.
0553:-33 1
08 TIME!
w0
0, z
bS Ol +l 1 =1d
"00 �L +ll =1d
�
I —
i / OZ'59Z =13
p
O
p3 EhZ l3
0000 +L Id .. ..
1-
68'Sl +fb -Id
I M
by'S9Z =13
�
'
1
�
ZO'f5 +Ol =1d Zp
O
-.. ...
ozsbZ-33
+
(: -.. w�
umm,d C5�
a
oo£a +m Id J
1
Ol'LbZ -33 :
Zl'So +Zb
�
£9 392-33 1�
3£'05 + ?b =1d
1
EB OL +0l =1d 1
S£ ShZ -l3 1
Ol'99Z 33
0099 +01 -Id
1...
'
1 88 09 +J1 =1d
1 Sl Z l3
�' �
53892-13 �
»592 -33
00'eS Ol Id `�O
88 dS +OI-Id Ory
0T KOW
O
L9owd I
I
I I
Uw
a 03 wld
r
L'9Md �
z
5s"9 E -1d
59 9Z 13 OO+
00'4£ +Ol -Id /
da
°
oa'sz +m -Id
l 3
' i d , tZ -l3 .�1
1
d r5
wpm,
£3+b-d
m m
'
•
Ll'L9Z =13 '
m m
0 lid

o 0 0
'z
V a.
N,
N
N.
zoo
I
EE 99Z
� y �
-13
w
S a o
z
l5 55Z -13
£8 6L +eE -Id
I
I
m
z
o+
i
EE 3SZ 13
Zc
1
,
I
I
i
Eb E +5E =1d
ZZ LSZ l3
I
0, Ed.. +£f-Id I
SZ OSZ =l3'
by 6L +fiF =d /I
r
I EH fib.-l3
i
SG Lb CZ -Id
i1
�£ L9Z_l3
9E o5z_,31
M
I
OS O,. +E£ -Id
9 L SE =1d I
I
LL +eE-Id
I
o
..b
BE OSZ 13
S03SZ =13
b4`EE
O
I
Lb'99 +&E Id
ON
/
O
p
V9 -Id I
�
Z9 LSZ =�3
M
__ 9s of -Id
o
�
J
it
aM
91H9Z =,3
0 a +ZE =Id i�
9b LSZ -,3
lz
5H 9E +aE Id
I �
w
bE 69 +ZE =1d
54 �Z +H£ -Id
�
bL a9Z =l3
30 SL +RMd
.�
05 sb +zE -Id
I 1
p
5o as +£L -Id
I
ass . =�e I •
'� ° -....
°
�
I
N.
>,O
w
k
LO 6'Z -13 ,
A39Z-l3
8E 07 ZE =1d
'H L9 +�E-Id
09'L L +£L Id"
sz 00 +ZE Id
N
LO
Lo
4
r-
I
wc09
= La'99Z -13
C)
ZO hSZ -l3
C)
I
L) 9tri- 8 +ZL -Id
"'
Q
bL lB +Lf -Id
Q
I,
Q SL'89Z l3
11
LU
Sb ZSZ l3
IL 5E 9L +ZL Id I
II
83'IC +LE -Id
I
%
LL 03Z -13
LS SS +L'c-Id
5E H9Z -l3
I
:1
9E£l3
O
o
LS'4b +Zl Id
71
0 osz �3 -.
s zo e -Id i
:a•zsz -l3
�
OH S_ +LE -Id
9E E Z -l3
ZE Lfi +9E -Id
M
'
eE Z6 +ae -Id I
�
LbO�zL Id
I
O� SL iSZ -13..
c0
I I
�m b109 =l3
a
O
06 99Z=13 I
N=
I
p
off be +OE=1d
�
06 L9 +9E -Ids
I
of
I
N
M
r
0 59Z 13
~O
I
98'Zd +O£ -Id
Sb'ESZ 13
ES Ob +9E Id
wc5
E9 s9 +OE-Id I,
05 ESZ-l3 +
L.. 9Z'l.Z -13
L9 bl +BE =1d {
Q059 +LL -Id
L9'09' -l3 �
1
I
9L ZS +O£ -Id
Lu
I:
ZL "G9Z l3
Om " "L bSt Id
m
Z &LLZ l3 I
39 l3
Bo 5l +LL -Id
OE 91 ++ 0E -Id
;
I'
b5'ESZ -l3
9' +SE -Id
6CZ
=L
16 09Z -�3
00 OL + L L =ld 1d
E9 10 +0E-Id
Ii
O
SL £L? -13
On
I..
9b b9Z-l3
50 99 +01 -I1
ZS 09Z -13
9b'd8 +5Z_d
i �,
LOOS +SE -d
00 bL3-l3
o
(lab l3 "
004a +6L =1d...
b. L9Z-l3
b9'LE+ Ad
O °+
99 bL +5Z -Id
I
J
•I
74'bSZ l3
F
min
I
i ,.
05 EZ +SE Id
I Z9 b..Z l3
�
i
ld I
0009 +OL -Id
dLM +9z
OL +S£ =1d
M
009 Z l3 0
I
00'0 pl Id p°
sa 9¢'l3
I
Z9'99Z l3
Eb BL +bE-Id
S L +OL-Id z°
OH
I
m a�z -l3
f
O
{
ZZ'SSZ =l3
dB OL +OL Id
O
p ,,.
p ,, ,,. p
,,. p ,, ,,. p ,,. p
N ',, ',. N ',,
',. N
N
10 ',.
',. N ',.
LI) ',. V
N ',. N
',. of ',. r ',. M
',. N ',. N ',. N ',.

C7
N
N N
N
zoo
3 �F
w
z w
Vi g
'
�
w 'o
tr7m m
z
..
.. .
0
.
ry
M
Q
Q
W
of
W
�1
s4�LS'g -l3
I Ob fiE +Z I-d
i of LSZ =l3
O
O
99'LSZ -l3
39 b0 +ZL -Id
�
�
55 L9Z-�3
Gb Ld +LI -Id
-
11
• Lb'S1 +IL -Id
90 92-13
sbl +ll -Id
zz
�a
am
OZ LSZ =l3
EO dE +14 =1d
�i
00'Ei +LL -Id
I I
0 0 ll -Id
w
00 Sd +0l -Id
••
"'111
S£ 9sZ =13
I�
00 9� +OL =1d
19E
Z3Z l3' �
z ov 9sz =�3
I
000s +01 =1d
�
'
o
tiD
mw
z+
r
N',,.