20141259 Ver 1_401 Application_20150215

AT:X;WA
WNW
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Ecosystem Enhancement Program Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
February 10, 2015
Cyndi Karoly, Branch Manager
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application- Town Creek Restoration Project Option B, Stanly County (EEP
Full Delivery Project)
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Mooresville Regional Office for review. A check (for the amount of
$570) for the review fee is enclosed. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding
this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
CD containing all electronic files
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

�3
)A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Ecosystem Enhancement Program Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
February 10, 2015
Michael Parker, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
NC DENR Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Ave, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: Permit Application- Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B, Stanly County (EEP
Full Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Parker:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Please
feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Cc: Cyndi Karoly
Sincerely
Lin Xu
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

7 r
is
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
X❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes 0 No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes 0 No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes X❑ No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
2b. County:
Stanly
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
New London
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
David Lee & Kimberly Comer Harward
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
DB:202, PG:226; DB: 203, PG:368; DB:264, PG:221
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d. Street address:
43204 Blalock Rd.
3e. City, state, zip:
New London, NC 28127
3f. Telephone no.:
980- 621 -7539
3g. Fax no.:
N/A
3h. Email address:
N/A
1-C» d U 201
ENHANCEMEhT pRoGRAM
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent X❑ Other, specify: In -Lieu Fee (ILF)
4b. Name:
Tim Baumgartner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
4d. Street address:
217 West Jones St., Ste. 3000A
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f. Telephone no.:
919 - 707 -8543
4g. Fax no.:
919 - 218 -2557
4h. Email address:
tim.baumgartner @ncdenr.gov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Kristi Suggs
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5c. Street address:
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28217
5e. Telephone no.:
704 - 665 -2206
5f. Fax no.:
704- 665 -2201
5g. Email address:
ksuggs @mbakerintl.com
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
662102964027, 662104943597, 663101150408
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.434 Longitude: - 80.2421
1 c. Property size:
204 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Town Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Yadkin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The current land use of the site and surrounding area is primarily forested and agriculture, including both crops and pasture for cattle grazing. On -site
stream channels and wetland areas are highly degraded from unlimited cattle access, channelization, floodplain ditching, and the lack of a well
established riparian buffer in the upstream and downstream extent of the project limits.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.44
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 4,032
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to improve ecological function to an impaired riparian system that discharges to Town Creek. See the attached Town Cre
0
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve approximately 4,032 LF of Unnamed Tributary to Town Creek and to enhance and preserve ap
D
4. Jurisdictional Determinations'
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the ❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments: SAW - 2014 -00016
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type Preliminary Final
of determination was made? ❑ ry ❑
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Other: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
January 2, 2014; See the approved Jurisdictional Determination (SAW- 2014 - 00016) included in the Mitigation Plan.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑Yes ®No
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? E] Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes Q No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1
None
Floodplain Pool
No
-
0
W2 T
Land Clearing & Grading
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.0012
W3 P & T
Excavation & Grading
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.0055
V1/4 P & T
Excavation & Grading
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.002
W5 P & T
Excavation & Grading
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.0057
W6
None
Headwater Wetland
Yes
T
0
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.025
2h. Comments:
See attached page for additional impact information. Total Permanent Wetland Impacts = 0.0035 acres. Total Temporary Wetland Impacts = 0.0215
acres. W2 — W7 were categorized as headwater forest wetlands, while W1 and WPond were categorized as floodplain pools. These wetland types
are based on the NC WAM and the field investigators best professional judgment. All existing wetland areas are degraded either by frequent cattle
access and/or brush management practices. Impacts to wetland areas are necessary for project success and long term ecological benefit.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
i
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 P
Priority I & II Restoration
Reach 1
INT
Corps
7
363
S2 P
Priority III Restoration
Reach 2
INT & PER
Corps
10
737
S3 P
Choose one
Reach 3
PER
Corps
10
1,849
S4
Choose one
Reach 4
PER
Corps
10
234
S5
Choose one
Reach 5
PER
Corps
10
849
S6
Choose one
-
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
4,032
3i. Comments:
Existing channels are significantly degraded from channelization, frequent cattle access, lack of riparian buffer, and erosion. Impacts to channels are
necessary to stabilize stream banks, improve hydrology, and restore aquatic habitat; therefore promoting proper riparian function for project success
and long term ecological benefit. See Mitigation Plan for additional information.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
51. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
B4
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed impacts are required to restore stream and wetland functions, as described in the Mitigation Plan. As the intent of the project is to
enhance the overall stream and wetland complex, design efforts were taken to minimize impacts to the existing channel and wetlands wherever
possible. Construction access routes were carefully selected to try to minimize wetland crossings. All disturbed areas will be planted with native seed,
live stakes, and bare root seedlings to re- establish the riparian wetland community upon completion of disturbance.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. NC Erosion and Sediment
controls will be implemented. Wetland mats will be laid down to help minimize impacts to wetland areas where only enhancement activities will be
performed. Stream bank grading will be conducted from the channel where possible to avoid compaction of the floodplain wetlands. The construction
activities will also be phased so that the contractor only disturbs as much stream banks as s /he can stabilize by the end of the day.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
El Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes Q No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
1
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The project involves work in the stream corridor only. No work will be performed outside the stream corridor and the only impervious areas that will be
added will include two culverts within the farm road crossings; therefore, this section is not applicable.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
NIA
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
NIA
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached.
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
X❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) See the approved Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document in Mitigation Plan for
® Yes ❑ No
Comments: additional information.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H Isolated
.0500),
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after- the -fact permit application?
[]Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
E] Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance the
with
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream and wetland mitigation project that includes a conservation easement over the entire project area. The easement is being held by the
State of North Carolina and restricts any future development within the project area. Currently, the surrounding land use is predominantly comprised
of agriculture and rural residential and is located within an agricultural conservation area as outlined in the 2002 Stanly County Land Use Plan.
Therefore, it's anticipated the project area will remain rural into the foreseeable future.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatntent methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This project is a stream and wetland mitigation project and will not generate wastewater, but will instead serve as a natural treatment for non -point
pollution from the surrounding drainage areas.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A review of federally listed species in Stanly County was conducted. On 9/13/11 a field survey was conducted within the project area and no
populations were found. On 10/6/2011, USFWS was contacted and informed. On 04/25/2012, FHWA concurred. See CE in Mitigation Plan for info.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes Q No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
There are no marine or estuarine habitats located with the Piedmont Physiographic Region of North Carolina. In addition the NCNWRC was contacted
and they responded stating that they did not anticipate that the project would pose any significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Requested review and comment from the State and Tribal HPOs and the State Archeology Office (SAO). Received comment from the State HPO,
stating that no historic resources would be affected by the project. Did not receive any comments from the SAO or the Tribal HPO.
S. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes X❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
A review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Stanly County and its unincorporated areas
(Map Numbers 3710663100J and 3710662100J) indicates the project site is not located within a FEMA - identified flood zone. FIRMETTEs included.
Tim Baumgartner�l�k,
' `,,
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Town Creek Restoration Project — Option
PCN Additional Information
1 1 P a g e
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
2. Wetland Impacts (Continued)
2a.
Wetland impact
number (P) or
2b.
Type of
2c.
Type of
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction Corps —
2f.
Area of
r
Temporary (T)
impact
wetland
(404, 10) or DWQ (401, other)
impact
(acres)
Excavation,
W7 — P & T
Fill &
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0106
Grading
Mond— None
None
Floodplain
No
0
Pool
2h. Comments: W2 — W7 were categorized as headwater forest wetlands, while W1 and Mond were
categorized as floodplain pools. These wetland types are based on the NC WAM and the field
investigators best professional judgment. All existing wetland areas are degraded either by frequent
cattle access and /or brush management practices. Impacts to wetland areas are necessary for project
success and long term ecological benefit. See Mitigation Plan for additional information.

FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
NOTES TO USERS
SCALE
sEE Ra nEroRr ran IDRE %FSgIPRONa AA o Nttt7l TRAP
NORTH CAROLINA _ y,
THE INFORMATION DEPICRDORTIFSMAPAND SIIPPORTINO
DOCUMEMATNIN ARE ALSO
+
AMIABLE N DIGITAL FOR MATAT
HTTPV /FR&NC .GOY /FRLS
-a r�
twesw4 XwD +r lrEwl
SIlh Soo Am
F 1;0,000
%aMreetdMeReDD Oevtlm RTFET
'
IrR►1� aPmmmAE,,a Ax. ✓c.+x
..- ..,�..r....+s�.a w.r e..rr<„ -.r m.'
•• ar,v...r Feu -,.ve ,r:. em
D zs°v Pmt
SPECX ROW
RALWOAREAR • .. --
rte...... e.emv- •— +•�"�•,nr �. R w..m.rxa..,
o�AAek.s
0 75 ,W 300
®02 %A—IWaco RDDDH— ,d,Aroas
"w.+e?•mw��. -4
Dlt%M—ICh. mFWDDMNAX..ae
...ws.�w...
. rr. „ om^°a„„s„ -,+„�°
PANEL LOCATOR
OV&I_jWO. FFa WW"Orolmp
ANn.ILmTAmO SNUem Mk -lw
. � FuWreCaiWGNN 1 %Mnuel k
°—i•®
OIHERARFA40F CANeafImA X.uN ZrrwA
AmeWOR.Duow FWDDR%kd..WLerw
r wr.. nr..�� ..��qn„��••°
Z
ROWIW.WD :.
SmNDlu
IIIIIII-Am IMMmnMOtDOe OuMMetlb
MEAS 02 %M IPJNim RnoDPWn a
e.
A+aN.wsle sewer
uunue
Ac
A—KW H'
Hk-JmlIhAmetliTetl
Ill
GENEIDLL ; 1nee.. gke,MFi.Dtl A
®®
STRUCNRES N11-11 11W Leven Wte, a FkXXb.II
iNarM C.mOe. GmoNk Survey beech meilt,
- ..eu.,.�nr '°•- •w..sm.,...ne.analrrrruwu-
eess+D® NNbmIGeo0elk5urvryMnchmeM
INdWGbtlefafe Were Aetlw OlMW/0
a
..
m
r
e+ew+DO CweNANFaL NCFMP SUrnyhenN Meh
-- +es —Omc Setlb+rcwAN 1 %Mnutl Wnce
T,uanemeewunc.a mrzelcenlxov
u.a
w
.w .e.
as w+v ax
NMSNNm M-"-"FE)
— _. —.._ CDrtN Tr.maDl B.selWe
p1UyV CBRSAer Ot1Nw%e PmhNeeAm
lbd.gr.PMDFa.Wm
NMUI
U.Kds *
u'Dn
NeD.wunr
a
FGNRES
i _ A.k�Om Be.eD.h
e i\
�A �fAIMOFA
�A+MREYNAP
9/3/2008
ENORTH CIROUNA ROODPW N MAPPING FPOGRNM
NATIONALF100DINaUMNCEFROGRAM
FLOW D'.r,5tM-lCL HATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA _ y,
�—A
2 nxi 8621 I ;.
C
� mel'1UXTY CD MIEI
+�`
eUfM
f/1 snu.muxn aura+ sm �
C
O
O
LL
C6
O
R
Z
e i\
�A �fAIMOFA
�A+MREYNAP
9/3/2008

FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO USERS SCALE
% EERaklaGnrFDkulotDEWCkImaxBAxDixoolwir - — - - __. -- — - - - -- -
--
THEINFORMARONDEPICIEDONTNSMAPANDSIIPPORTING
DOCIIMENMTNINAREM80AVAILABLENDNIGLFORMATAT rd,wrmo • uaw.r "`� r.u,arb ie,, a mpw °irgIw 11
HTTP: FRIS.NC.GUVFRIS "°""P A•"'�'w'""�°"a" "ww.aw.P,... ,.e.avw °in �
�� .m..ur.O.. wan. -..... w• —�T•�. . 11r h- 500Feet 16,000
�AaElIWiIMBi ENq AR a�.npw°.w.v... e..mw o... a. e. e...m v,..w.wr.r i G 250 500 ,.G�
Tibklf IIpY2aaAE AO �«. vc Meru
SFE DARW _Br ReedAey mr..�:� ..re�eymi,�. 0 m ,w m
IMyAROMFAS r,.e,.�eY°n a�u.mereaem
W D. z1%XA.uwwIM n FFbW WhA, np PANEL LOCATOR
DaPW lealh
o OnemFOSq rmd del _
AroayLaaTM d s WF MEe „�P,
. m
DMERME SOF CIaa Flood Baum '- , I o .~•x.`°s r.. ... 'mm,•m.. m.Q.. a.o°
ROD IWMO —A-WRI ftd-d FIOOO Rhk due levee
See NOM — .iWe...
OTHER._ Ant's DSlmmb tDbe0uWW9dm
AREAS. '�sr yvaewanm,rair.r�a.er>.
OS %MealCMnmFNadPlMn
-___- c ,Cahed,Or5tam 5evxx
�nAmedleAml'aAabmRrAeemAken ,.,m .....w,.,..am -.k.�.
GENERAL Imae,dM, arROOtlwll - -
MUMRES: .......... NmwmeNlee lavm,dW,mFbetlwall __ _
Nedhc.wh.Oeotle0cS— ybenchmed 11 „�. a.rm..,OV. •••• -•,,•e YE Zai••••••"••w �m wam. m,r.
iC
ernes, � NADOnal6estle8c SUneyben<h med - ��Lhnnn,Naam.tewmmAeDm NNwN .w -_-
O�CanbadmFsl.NCFMPSUrvey bench mark
aoaseAd lzAnnualcWnm m 1
Wtl lbdew RavaOOn IBF1:) a
l� ?----- COaCtlTmaR a..r,swm. auw.an °Y
- .. —.._ faWalTrmv iBUMkm ® CBMAme � Oderwlm PMegetl Area
PmRe Baenm
HydmpPMeFVWre
OINER Lh kefsb*
FEATORES 1 Aundk .Baenery
C N081n CAPONNA FLDODPWxMMPHINU UM
C NBMWFIDDDIMMNDEM0tlL1M
r 37108887001
9/3/3008
913aQ08
FINM NM T! Nla 1WE Mt
NORTH CAROLINA ,
s;
O2 —6631
CL
w
r
m%Rw1rc aD 1xm wRa
O
O
�L
C
O
Z
r 37108887001
9/3/3008
913aQ08

Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
PCN Additional Information
1 1 P a g e
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
2. Wetland Impacts (Continued)
Wetland impact
Type of
Type of
2d.
Type of jurisdiction Corps —
Area of
number (P) or
impact
wetland
Forested
(404 10) or DWQ (401 other)
impact
Temporary (T)
(acres)
Excavation,
W7 — P & T
Fill &
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0106
Grading
WPond— None
None
Floodplain
No
-
0
Pool
2h. Comments: W2 — W7 were categorized as headwater forest wetlands, while W1 and WPond were
categorized as floodplain pools. These wetland types are based on the NC WAM and the field
investigators best professional judgment. All existing wetland areas are degraded either by frequent
cattle access and /or brush management practices. Impacts to wetland areas are necessary for project
success and long term ecological benefit. See Mitigation Plan for additional information.

Michael B r Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 1 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Office: 704.665.2200 1 Fax: [phone]
February 6, 2015
Lin Xu, Permit Coordinator and Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Subject: Task 3: Response Letter to NCIRT 30 -day review comments for the
Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B, Stanly County
Yadkin Cataloging Unit 03040105
NCEEP Project ID No. 95026; NCDENR Contract No.# 003990
USACE Action ID No.: SAW- 2014 -00016
Baker Project No.: 124526
Dear Mr. Xu and Mr. Tsomides:
Please find enclosed the Final Mitigation Plan and our responses to the NCIRT review comments
dated January 8, 2015 regarding the Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B, located in
Stanly County, NC. We have revised Final Draft Mitigation Plan documents in response to the
referenced review comments and USACE mitigation plan approval letter dated January 23, 2015.
Each comment /response has been grouped per the NCIRT reviewer and is outlined below.
Ginny Baker, NCDWR,17 December, 2014:
1. In Section 2.2.2 (p2 -2), first paragraph, the historical aerial photograph should be
referenced as Figure 2.5 (not 2.7) and the current conditions map should be referenced as
Figure 2.4 (not 2.6).
Response: References to the historical aerial photograph and the current conditions map
have been revised to reflect the correct figure numbers, Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.4
respectively. Please seepage 2 -2 for the corrections.
2. This plan proposed P 1 restoration of reach 1 which is defined as intermittent.
Constructing a new channel at a higher elevation for the purpose of reconnecting the
stream to its original floodplain has the potential to remove the intermittent connection
of the stream and groundwater, eliminating base flow and creating an ephemeral feature.
Monitoring of baseflow should be conducted to demonstrate that the restored feature
exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the winter /early
spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The proposed restoration of the
intermittent reaches should include installation of two groundwater monitoring wells
within the thalweg of the channel. One well should be located near the upper end of
reach 1, and the other should be installed near the lower end of reach 1. The wells
should be equipped with continuous -read gauges that will be able to monitor
groundwater levels. Well data should be provided annually in monitoring reports to
demonstrate that the intermittent aquatic function has been maintained in the restored
channel.
Pagel of 2
MICHAEL BAKER • -
Global Innovation... Done Right
re� jma L KASIM / ///SALLYPORT *#*+PMSI

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 1 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 1 Fax: [phone]
Response: Baker will install a monitoring well (pressure transducer) within the thalweg
towards the downstream portion of the restored intermittent reach. In addition, a rain
gage and a flow camera will be installed to document rainfall and to collect a continuous
series of remote photos over time. This data will be used to subjectively evaluate
channel flow conditions throughout the year. These devices will be inspected on a
quarterly /semi - annual basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for
evaluating general flow response to rainfall events and surface runoff during various
water tables levels throughout the monitoring period. See Figure 9.1 for the approximate
location of the additional devices. A reference to the implementation of these devices has
also been included in Section 9.1.2 on page 9 -2.
3. Wetland indicator status for the proposed plantings listed in Tables 17.10 and 17.11
should updated to correspond with the National Wetland Plant list for the 2014 Eastern
Mountain Piedmont region (the current list does not have " +" and " -" status).
Response: Baker has revised the wetland indicator status for the proposed plantings
listed in 17.10 and 17.11 to correspond with the National Wetland Plant list for the 2014
Eastern Mountain Piedmont region.
4. DWR recommends adding quarry "screenings" ( -2 to 3 mm diameter). Smaller than 57
stone, but much larger than sand particles. This may help with filling the voids in the
riffles and would probably aid in filling the voids in the cross vanes (the sediment is too
small and the 57 stone is too big, thus leading to piping through rock vane.) Please note
this comment is solely a recommendation based on the regional staff field site visit and
is not a requirement.
Response: Baker intends to use suitable on -site stream bed material consisting of fine to
medium gravels to back fill and /or top dress riffles and stream structures.
Todd Tuawell, USACE, 8 January, 2015: No additional comments.
This letter serves as the formal response to NCIRT comments and shall be submitted in conjunction
with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) for Nationwide Permit (NWT) 27 application approval.
If you have any questions concerning the Final Mitigation Plan, please contact me at 704 - 665 -2206
or via email at ksuggs(acrmbakerintl.com. With this submittal, we have included six (6) hard copies of
the Final Mitigation Plan with NCIRT comments, four (4) copies of the completed PCN, and three
(3) CDs with electronic copies of the documents. We look forward to the NWP 27 authorization.
Sincerely,
Mgr
Kristi Suggs, Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Enclosures: Final Mitigation Plan Documents, 401/404 PCN permit application for Town
Creek Restoration Project— Option B.
Page 2 of 2
MICHAEL BAKER • -
Global Innovation... Done Right
re� law pa , = &m KASIM / /I ALhYPORT *# *+PMSI

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: January anuary 22, 2015
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Town Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan;
SAW- 2014 - 00016; NCEEP Project # 95026
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Town Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan, which
closed on December 31, 2014. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it
is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office
at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does
not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if
issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial
approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested
amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or
monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced
credit.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF January anuary 22, 2015
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Town Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan;
SAW- 2014 - 00016; NCEEP Project # 95026
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Town Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan, which
closed on December 31, 2014. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it
is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office
at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does
not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if
issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial
approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested
amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or
monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced
credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919 - 846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
2015.01.22 15:01:00 - 05'00'

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW- RG /Tugwell January 8, 2015
SUBJECT: Town Creek - NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal
during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Town Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Stanly County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2014 -00016
NCEEP #: 95026
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 31 December, 2014
Ginny Baker, NCDWR, 17 December, 2014:
1. In Section 2.2.2 (p2 -2), first paragraph, the historical aerial photograph should be
referenced as Figure 2.5 (not 2.7) and the Current conditions map should be referenced
as Figure 2.4 (not 2.6).
2. This plan proposes P1 restoration of reach 1 which is defined as intermittent.
Constructing a new channel at a higher elevation for the purpose of reconnecting the
stream to its original floodplain has the potential to remove the intermittent connection
of the stream and groundwater, eliminating base flow and creating an ephemeral
feature. Monitoring of baseflow should be conducted to demonstrate that the restored
feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the
winter /early spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The proposed
restoration of the intermittent reaches should include installation of two groundwater
monitoring wells within the thalweg of the channel. One well should be located near
the upper end of reach 1, and the other should be installed near the lower end of the
reach 1. The wells should be equipped with continuous -read gauges that will be able to
monitor groundwater levels. Well data should be provided annually in monitoring
reports to demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been maintained in the
restored channel.

3. Wetland indicator status for proposed the plantings listed on Tables 17.10 and 17.11
should be updated to correspond with the current National Wetland Plant list for the
2014 Eastern Mountain Piedmont region (the current list does not have " +" and 11 - 11
status).
4. DWR recommends adding quarry "screenings" (— 2 to 3 mm diameter). Smaller than 57
stone, but much larger than sand particles. This may help with filling the voids in the
riffles and would probably aid in filling the voids in the cross vanes (the sediment is too
small and the 57 stone is too big, thus leading to piping through rock vane). Please note
this comment is solely a recommendation based on regional staff field site visit and not
a requirement.
Todd Tugwell, USACE, 8 January, 2015: No additional comments.
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
2015.01.08 12:59:43 - 05'00'
Todd 'Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919 - 846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
2015.01.22 15:01:00 - 05'00'

i
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW- RG /Tugwell
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Town Creek - NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
January 8, 2015
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal
during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Town Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Stanly County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2014 -00016
NCEEP #: 95026
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 31 December, 2014
Ginny Baker, NCDWR, 17 December, 2014:
1. In Section 2.2.2 (p2 -2), first paragraph, the historical aerial photograph should be
referenced as Figure 2.5 (not 2.7) and the Current conditions map should be referenced
as Figure 2.4 (not 2.6).
2. This plan proposes P1 restoration of reach 1 which is defined as intermittent.
Constructing a new channel at a higher elevation for the purpose of reconnecting the
stream to its original floodplain has the potential to remove the intermittent connection
of the stream and groundwater, eliminating base flow and creating an ephemeral
feature. Monitoring of baseflow should be conducted to demonstrate that the restored
feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the
winter /early spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The proposed
restoration of the intermittent reaches should include installation of two groundwater
monitoring wells within the thalweg of the channel. One well should be located near
the upper end of reach 1, and the other should be installed near the lower end of the
reach 1. The wells should be equipped with continuous -read gauges that will be able to
monitor groundwater levels. Well data should be provided annually in monitoring
reports to demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been maintained in the
restored channel.

3. Wetland indicator status for proposed the plantings listed on Tables 17.10 and 17.11
should be updated to correspond with the current National Wetland Plant list for the
2014 Eastern Mountain Piedmont region (the current list does not have " +" and it - II
status).
4. DWR recommends adding quarry "screenings" (— 2 to 3 mm diameter). Smaller than 57
stone, but much larger than sand particles. This may help with filling the voids in the
riffles and would probably aid in filling the voids in the cross vanes (the sediment is too
small and the 57 stone is too big, thus leading to piping through rock vane). Please note
this comment is solely a recommendation based on regional staff field site visit and not
a requirement.
Todd Tugwell, USACE, 8 January, 2015: No additional comments.
1 TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
2015.01.08 12:59:43 - 05'00'
"Todd rl'ugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division

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.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Town Creek Stream and Welland Mitigation Project
Count Name: Stanly
EEP Number: 95026
Pro'ect Sponsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Pro'ect Contact Name: Chris Yaw, PE, CFM
Pro ect Contact Address: 5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste 320
PCOmect Contact E-mail: cyow @mbakercorp.com
EEP Project Mana er: I Guy Pearce
Description Project
The Town Creek Stream Restoration Project will provide restore /enhance /preserve approximately 4,098
linear feet of stream and enhance approximately 0.44 acres of wetlands to mitigate for unavoidable
impacts to DENR subbasin 03 -07 -13 and the targeted local watershed 03040105- 060040 in the Yadkin
River Basin. The project is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.3 miles west of the Town of New
London. Proposed work will include the restoration of streams on prior converted farmland.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
1'-/- Z 5 - Z � 4.
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

FINAL
Stream Mitigation Plan
Town Creek Restoration Project— Option B
Stanly County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project ID No. 95026, Contract No. 003990
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060 -040
`�.-
E OSyyem nt
PROGRAM
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
February 2015
=This document was printed using 100% recycled paper.

FINAL
Stream Mitigation Plan
Town Creek Restoration Project— Option B
Stanly County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project ID No. 95026, Contract No. 003990
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060 -040
Prepared for:
ar►�em Men t
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Drive
Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
NC Engineering License: F -1084
February 2015
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., (Baker) proposes to restore 2,755 linear feet (LF) and enhance
approximately 940 LF of jurisdictional stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) that flows into Town Creek.
The Town Creek Restoration Project site (project) is located in Stanly County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure
2. 1), approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Town of New London. The project lies in the Yadkin Pee -Dee
River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03 -07 -13 and the EEP
Targeted Local Watershed unit 03040105060 -040. The purpose of the project is to restore and/or enhance the
disturbed stream, wetland and riparian buffer functions along the project corridor. A recorded conservation
easement consisting of 12.0 acres (Figure 3.1) will protect all stream reaches and riparian buffers in
perpetuity. In addition, Baker delineated approximately 0.44 acres of riparian wetlands that have been
previously disturbed. The proposed stream mitigation activities will likely improve these wetland functions
within the riparian corridor and maximize the ecological benefits of the site; however, wetland mitigation
credit is not proposed as apart of this project.
Based on both the River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document for the Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River
Basin (NCEEP, 2009) and the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDENR, 2008), many
streams in the Rocky River Watershed (HUC 03040105) are impaired or impacted by habitat degradation.
Stressors identified in the plan include impervious surfaces, sedimentation and erosion from construction,
general agriculture, and other land disturbing activities. As stated in the Basinwide Plan, the watershed
naturally consists of erodible soils; therefore, increasing the system's vulnerability to the aforementioned
stressors. Activities within the Project area have further promoted erosion and habitat degradation, through
the clearing of the upland areas and the riparian zone for pasture grazing, straightening of stream channels and
filling in the floodplain to maximize pasture acreage. Additionally, cattle have had access to all reaches
within the Project area for multiple years, and their activities have exacerbated the existing erosion and
instability issues.
The project's stream components are listed and described in detail in Table ES -1. The primary goals of the
project are as follows:
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through the increase of dissolved oxygen concentrations,
reduction of nutrient and sediment loads, improvement of substrate and in- stream cover, reduction of
stream bank erosion, and reduction of in- stream water temperature,
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the channels,
• Enhance hydrologic connections between streams and the degraded riparian buffer and overall
ecosystem functionality;
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
• Improve terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the project reaches and the
Little Long Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the project will pursue the following objectives:
Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable stream channel with
access to its floodplain,
Improve in- stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools and areas of water re- aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce
excessive bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments
during the monitoring period.
The proposed project aligns with overall NCEEP goals, which focus on restoring streams and riparian area
values such as maintaining and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of floodwaters, and improving
fish and wildlife habitat, as well as specific NCEEP RBRP goals including, but not limited to, nutrient and
other non -point source pollutant management. The proposed natural channel design (NCD) approach will
result in a stable riparian stream system that will reduce excess sediment and nutrient inputs to the Little Long
Creek sub - watershed, while improving water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic species,
including priority species identified in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin.
Table ES.1 Town Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
u
�
Reach
Comment
U
Restoration will follow Rosgen Priority
Level II transitioning to a Level I approach
RI
R -PI
363
316
1:1
316
10 +34 to 13 +50
in order to provide an adequate floodplain
and restore appropriate dimension, pattern,
and profile. Existing channel pattern will
be altered.
Stream Enhancement I is proposed for
Reach 2. Work will include bank sloping,
installation of in- stream structures,
R2
EI
737
708
1.5:1
472
13 +50 to 20 +58
vegetation planting in the riparian zone,
and permanent fencing. 20 LF of stream
have been reserved for a crossing between
Reach 2 and Reach 3.
Restoration will follow Rosgen Priority
Level I approach in order to provide an
R3
R -PI
1,849
1,630
1:1
1,630
20 +78 to 37 +08
adequate floodplain and restore appropriate
dimension, pattern, and profile. An existing
crossing will be removed.
Stream Enhancement I is proposed for
Reach 4. Work will include bank sloping,
R4
EI
234
232
1.5:1
155
37 +08 to 39 +40
installation of in- stream structures,
vegetation planting in the riparian zone,
and permanent fencing.
Restoration will follow Rosgen Priority
Level I approach in order to provide an
R5
R -PI
849
809
1:1
809
39 +40 to 47 +74
adequate floodplain and restore appropriate
dimension, and profile. Work will include
installation of in- stream structures,
vegetation planting in the riparian zone,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

and permanent fencing. An existing stream
crossing will be moved to a new location
where 25 LF of stream has been reserved
for the crossing.
Total 4,032 3,695 3,382
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8, paragraphs (c)(2) through
(c)(14).
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE V FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................... ............................... 1 -1
2.0 SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................. ...............................
2 -1
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE .............................................. ...............................
2 -1
2.2 SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................................ ...............................
2 -1
2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................ ...............................
2 -1
2.2.2 Existing Conditions and Successional Trends ............................................................. ...............................
2 -1
2.3 VICINITY MAP .................................................................................................................. ...............................
2 -2
2.4 WATERSHED MAP ............................................................................................................. ...............................
2 -3
2.5 SOILS MAP ........................................................................................................................ ...............................
2 -4
2.6 CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP ............................................................................................. ...............................
2 -5
2.7 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS MAP ......................................................................................... ...............................
2 -6
2.8 LiDAR MAP ..................................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -7
2.9 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS .......................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -8
2.9.1 Reach 1, Reach 2, Reach 3, Reach 4 and Reach 5 ....................................................... ...............................
2 -8
2.9.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Areas ..................................................................................... ...............................
2 -10
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 -1
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. L I 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 -2
7.3 DATA ANALYSES .............................................................................................................. ...............................
7 -3
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 -1
9.1.2 Flow Documentation .................................................................................................... ...............................
9 -2
9.1.3 Cross - sections ................................................................................................................. ............................9
-2
9.1.4 Pattern ......................................................................................................................... ...............................
9 -3
9.1.5 Longitudinal Profile ..................................................................................................... ...............................
9 -3
9.1.6 Bed Material Analyses ................................................................................................. ...............................
9 -3
9.1.7 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................ ...............................
9 -3
9.2 VEGETATION MONITORING ............................................................................................... ...............................
9 -3
9.3 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
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .......................................................................................... ...............................
13 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14 -1
14.1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1
14.2 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 -2
15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT .................................................... ..........................15 -15
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 NCDWR STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS .................................................................... ............................... 16 -4
16.4 FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORM ....................................................................... ............................... 16 -5
16.5 FEMA COMPLIANCE - NCEEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST ..................... ............................... 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 -21
17.1.3
Reference Reach Data Indicators ..............................................................................
..........................17 -27
17.2 BANKFULL
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS .................................................................................
..........................17 -31
17.2.1
Bankfull Stage and Discharge ...................................................................................
..........................17 -31
17.2.2
Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves) ...............................
..........................17 -31
17.2.3
Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge ...........................................................
..........................17 -32
17.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................
..........................17 -33
17.3.1
Background and Methodology ..................................................................................
..........................17 -33
17.3.2
Sampling Data Results ..............................................................................................
..........................17 -35
17.3.3
Predicted Channel Response .....................................................................................
..........................17 -37
17.4 EXISTING VEGETATION ASSESSMENT .................................................................................
..........................17 -38
17.4.1
Successional Deciduous Forest .................................................................................
..........................17 -38
17.4.2
Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas ......................................................................
..........................17 -38
17.4.3
Invasive Species Vegetation ......................................................................................
..........................17 -38
17.5 SITE WETLANDS .................................................................................................................
..........................17 -39
17.5.1
Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment ...........................................................................
..........................17 -39
17.5.2
Wetland Impacts and Considerations ........................................................................
..........................17 -40
17.5.3
Climatic Conditions ...................................................................................................
..........................17 -40
17.5.4
Hydrological Characterization .................................................................................
..........................17 -41
17.5.5
Soil Characterization ................................................................................................
..........................17 -41
17.5.6
Plant Community Characterization ...........................................................................
..........................17 -42
17.5.7
Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings ..................................................................
..........................17 -42
17.6 SITE
CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................................................
..........................17 -45
17.6.1
Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction .........
..........................17 -45
17.6.2
In- stream Structures and Other Construction Elements ............................................
..........................17 -46
18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS ................................................................. ............................... 18 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VII FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

LIST OF TABLES
Table
ES.1
Town Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
Table
1.0
Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent /Perennial Status
Table
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Summary
Table
4.1
Baseline Information
Table
5.1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
6.1
Credit Release Schedule
Table
7.1
Project Design Stream Types
Table
8.1
Routine Maintenance Components
Table
10.1
Monitoring Requirements
Table
17.1
Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for Project Reaches: Stream Channel
Classification Level II
Table
17.2
Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Table
17.3
Natural Channel Design Parameters for Project Reaches
Table
17.4
Reference Reach Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios
Table
17.5
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Table
17.6
Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Table
17.7
Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Table
17.8
Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Table
17.9
NRCS Soil Series (Stanly County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1989)
Table
17.10
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Table
17.11
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Table
17.12
Proposed In- Stream Structure Types and Locations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VIII FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1
Vicinity Map
Figure
2.2
Watershed Map
Figure
2.3
Soils Map
Figure
2.4
Current Conditions Map
Figure
2.5
Historical Conditions Map
Figure
2.6
LiDAR Map
Figure
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Map
Figure
9.1
Proposed Monitoring Device Locations
Figure
16.1
FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure
17.1
Existing Cross- Section Locations for Project Reaches
Figure
17.2
Existing Riffle Cross - Section Data for Project Reaches
Figure
17.3
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Counts for Project Reaches
Figure
17.4
Mitigation Work Plan
Figure
17.5
Reference Streams Location Map
Figure
17.6
Sediment Particle Size Distribution
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IX FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Protection Instrument
Appendix B Baseline Information Data
Appendix C Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D Project Plan Sheets
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE X FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) develops River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRPs) to guide its mitigation activities within each of the state's 17 major river basins. RBRPs designate
specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer
restoration. These watersheds, designated as Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs), receive priority for
NCEEP planning and restoration project funds. The 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP identified
cataloguing unit (HUC) 03040105060 -040 as a TLW.
http: / /www.nceep. net /services /resiplans/ Yadkin_ Pee_ Dee _RBRP _2009_Final.pdf
Based on both the RBRP document for the Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin ( NCEEP, 2009) and the
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDENR, 2008), many streams in the Rocky River
Watershed (HUC 03040105) are impaired or impacted by habitat degradation. Stressors identified in the
plan include impervious surfaces, sedimentation and erosion from construction, general agriculture, and
other land disturbing activities. As stated in the Basinwide Plan, the watershed naturally consists of erodible
soils; therefore, increasing the system's vulnerability to the aforementioned stressors.
The Little Long Creek sub - watershed is located in HUC 03040105060 -040. The sub - watershed covers 29
square miles. Approximately 43 percent of stream reaches within the sub - watershed lack adequate riparian
buffers. Land use within the project area has further promoted erosion and habitat degradation, through the
clearing of upland areas and the riparian zone for pasture grazing, straightening of stream channels and
filling in the floodplain to maximize pasture acreage. Additionally, cattle have had access to all reaches
within the project area for multiple years, and their activities have exacerbated the existing erosion and
instability issues.
The restoration strategy for the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin targets specific projects that will address water
quality impacts from sedimentation and erosion from land disturbing activities and general agriculture.
Neither the Project reaches nor Town Creek is specifically monitored for water quality impairments as a part
of the Yadkin Pee -Dee Basinwide Plan (NCDENR, 2008). However, Town Creek and its tributaries
discharge to Little Long Creek (NCDWR Index No. 13- 17- 31 -1), which is listed on the North Carolina 2010
303(d) List as an impaired water for ecological/biological integrity and on the draft 2012 303(d) list as
impaired for aquatic life due to copper concentrations (NCDENR, 2010, 2012). The proposed project aligns
with NCEEP and NCDWR's Basinwide planning goals by focusing on restoring riparian areas and
improving ecological functions by maintaining and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of
floodwaters, and improving aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat.
The Town Creek Restoration Project was identified as an opportunity to improve water quality and
ecological functions within the TLW. The proposed natural channel design approach will result in a stable
riparian headwater stream and wetland system that will reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the Little
Long Creek sub - watershed, while improving water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic
species. The primary restoration goals of the project are described below:
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through the increase of dissolved oxygen concentrations,
reduction of nutrient and sediment loads, improvement of substrate and in- stream cover, reduction of
stream bank erosion, and reduction of in- stream water temperature,
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the channel,
Enhance hydrologic connections between streams and the degraded riparian buffer and overall
ecosystem functionality;
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
• Improve terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the Project reaches and the
Little Long Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the Project will pursue the following objectives:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable stream channel with
access to its floodplain,
• Improve in- stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools and areas of water re- aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
• Establish native stream bank, riparian floodplain, and wetland vegetation protected by a permanent
conservation easement to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, shade
the stream to decrease water temperature, and provide improved wildlife habitat quality.
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce
excessive bank erosion,
• Plant native riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments
during the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Project Description and Directions to Project Site
The Project is located in Stanly County in the Piedmont Region of North Carolina, approximately 1.5
miles southwest of the Town of New London, as shown in Figure 2.1. To reach the site from
Charlotte, take Independence Blvd (US -74) east to Albemarle Road. (NC -27 E). Travel 36 miles on
Albemarle Road. (NC -27), and turn left on US -52 N. After 6.7 miles, turn left on Austin Road and
continue onto Henderson Road. After 1.5 miles, turn right at Old Salisbury Road. Continue on Old
Salisbury Road, for approximately 1.0 miles and turn right onto Steakhouse Road. Continue on
Steakhouse Road 1.7 miles and turn right onto Blalock Road. Continue on Blalock Road for
approximately 1.5 miles and the Project site is on the right accessed via a dirt farm road.
To reach the site from Raleigh, take I -40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-
440/US-64 W/US -1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US -64 W.
Take Exit 293A for US -1 S/US -64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US -1
S/US -64 W. Continue on US -1 S/US -64 W towards Apex /Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to
merge onto US -64 W towards Pittsboro /Asheboro. After 62 miles, turn left onto Connector Road.
Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 25.4 miles, take a slight left onto NC -8 S. After 3.9 miles, turn right
on W. Gold Street and continue Steakhouse Road. Approximately 0.5 miles after the US -52
overpass, turn left onto Blalock Road. After 1.3 miles turn left onto Old Salisbury Rd. Continue on
Blalock Road for approximately 1.5 miles and the Project site is on the right accessed via a dirt farm
road.
2.2 Site Selection
The site lies within cataloging unit 03040105 and NCDWR sub -basin 03 -07 -13 of the Yadkin River
Basin. The site includes an unnamed tributary (UT) to Town Creek and areas of previously disturbed
wetlands. The project reaches make up a tributary to Town Creek, which drains into Little Long
Creek located in northeastern Stanly County. Soils and topographic information (Figures 2.2 and 2.3)
indicate that the area likely supported a riparian stream system with wetland areas located in the
adjacent floodplain. Like many riparian stream systems in the Piedmont physiographic region, the
site was likely drained for agricultural production. Channel incision has occurred along the UT and
the stream is largely disconnected from its historic floodplain. The valley signature for the UT is
clearly visible from LiDAR imagery of the site (Figure 2.6) and verified during field investigations.
Project Reaches are shown as dashed blue -line streams on the USGS topographic quadrangle map
(Figure 2.2) along their entire length within the project limits. Based on field evaluations of
intermittent/ perennial status and use of NCDWR stream assessment protocols, Baker delineated
4,098 LF of the UT throughout the project area, with the use of a Trimble GeoXT GPS, as a
jurisdictional stream channel. Table 1 below presents the results of the field evaluations along with
the assessed status of each project reach. Copies of the NCDWR classification forms and USACE
correspondence can be found in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent /Perennial Status
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Project Reach
Existing Project
NCDWR Stream
Watershed Drainage
Stream Status Based
Designation
Reach Length (ft)
Classification Form Score
Area (acres)1
on Field Analyses
Reach 3, 4, 5
3,0162
32.0
130.2
Perennial
Reach 2
719
27.25-32.0
79.6
Intermittent /Perennial
Reach 1
363
27.25
56.4
Intermittent
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on USGS topographic (NC Streamstats) and
LiDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 2: Delineated stream length may vary from existing conditions stream length because the jurisidictional
delineation was conducted using a Trimble GeoXT GPS unit with sub -meter capabilities while the existing
conditions alignment was collected using survey grade equipment.
2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The land cover within the project area consists primarily of pasture and the sub - watershed is
characterized by forested land (40 %), agricultural land (25 %), and approximately 7% impervious
surface cover (NCEEP 2009).
The watershed contains portions of the Town of New London and the City of Albemarle; projected
population increase is estimated to be almost 1,000 residents by 2015 (NCEEP, 2009). Stanly
County is within commuting distance to the Charlotte metropolitan area and may be targeted for
development in the future.
However, the 2002 Stanly County Land Use Plan, Long -Range Plan Recommendations indicate
that the project area is within an agricultural conservation area. The chief purpose of the
conservation area is to protect farmland from rural sprawl today and from urban sprawl in the future
( Stanly County Department of Planning and Zoning, 2002). Therefore, it is anticipated that the
project area will remain rural in the foreseeable future.
2.2.2 Existing Conditions and Successional Trends
To convert the land for agricultural use, landowners historically cleared portions of the mature
forest and manipulated site streams to increase land for grazing and agriculture. A historical aerial
photograph from 1955 (Figure 2.5) shows both areas that have been cleared and the remaining
mature riparian buffer, particularly along Reach 3, similar to what is present now (Figure 2.4).
Over time, the stream channel became incised and floodplain connectivity was further reduced as
result of these activities.
Baker staff conducted field assessments that included an existing conditions survey and
photographic documentation to evaluate and document the impacts of past land use management
practices and current site conditions for each project stream reach. Section 17.1 briefly summarizes
these findings and shows the cross - sections used to describe the geomorphic (Rosgen) stream
classification for the project stream reaches. Sections 7 and 17 further describe the restoration
approaches proposed to achieve functional uplift and improve overall watershed health.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

:.3 Vicinity Map
03 0 40 10 3040 0 1 0 I 03040j103,0,40070
03040103 40 10
03030103050110
49
03040103040D30 3050
0304070100
luc`hh%eld "
03040103050120
I
C
mT
40
Project Location I �Rd New London
-y
r`J 9 52
03040105060030
r'
03040105060010 U6
01 04010 010010 41
- "03040105060040 V
73 _ 3
03Q40. \5060050
ti I
t
•
Figure 2,1
Project Vicinity Map
Town Creek Site
N
r�
Osptem
1,�111i cnlelr
xKn..reak.. �,opw.nne�uK.
f � suer 5x�' r
� • to
viw.n. 5 9ega�ieM �a
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

2.4 Watershed Map
4 !
Conservation Easement
+' Drainage Area (130.2 acres)
7 f
jJ
lotr`
l
•� o
YkheN 9ek.r Enanarirag,� Figure 2.2
..� Skm gp�paMY PoAwvy
.. � MO�� „o „an,,, 0 500 1,000 et Watershed Map
fa. srs nea�sasek6 t.'sstem
rai r1 ??e9?t Town Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -3 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

2.5 Soils Map
1A
BaD
OaA
BaD
BaD
BaF
ThB
BaD
Conservation Easement
g� Bab - Badin channery slit loam, 2-8% slopes
Bat) - Badin channery salt loam, 8 -15% slopes
Bal' - Badin channery silt loam, 15 -45% slopes
BbB - Badin -Urban land complex, 2 -8% slopes
CIA- Chenneby silt loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded
EcB - Enon oobbly loam, 2-8% sopes.
EcD - Enon cobbly loam, 8 -15% slopes
- GoF - Gcldston very channery silt loam, 1545% slopes
_ OaA- Oakbora silt loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded
TaF - Tarrus gravelly loam, 15 -35% slopes
TbB - Tarrus channery silt loam, 2 -8% slopes
ThB Sac
, BaD
BaF
GfA'a•
uu�nasi Bake, r:samaa.�e,
0 300 600
Gao�=g�2 -8
c sstem Feet
ra..alaiss.saao
v Jf CIllel7l
t*
Figure 2.3
Sails Map
Town Creek Site
SaB
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -4 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

2.6 Current Conditions Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

2.7 Historical Conditions Map
Conservation Easement
Streams
t T •� —
r•�
wY p
*;- Y -� -�, 1955 Aerial
WKti.N��,Ens ..•,�.,�e. Figure 2.5
nary 99q��6B,¢ F ', 0 Soo 600 t Historical Conditions Map
F.a ono <saaao ! "d�O4$t�lll
Town Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -6 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

2.8 LiDAR Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -7 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

2.9 Site Photographs
2.9.1 Reach 1. Reach 2, Reach 3. Reach 4 and Reach 5
-Fo
r
Reach 1 (1 -5 -11)
y v` , r,
Reach 2 (1 -3 -11)
Reach 2 (1 -3 -11)
Reach 1 (1 -5 -11)
Reach 2 (1 -5 -11)
Reach 2 (1 -5 -11)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Reach 3 (7/19/11)
Reach 3 (1105111)
Reach (1105111)
Reach 3 (1/3/11)
Reach 3 (1105111)
Reach (1105111)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -9 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Reach 5 (1- 5 -11), old crossing at 41 +75
Reach 5 (1 -5 -11)
2.9.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Areas
Reach 5 (1 -5 -11)
Reach 5 (1 -5 -11)
Wetland Pond (2/9/11)
Wetland 1 (2/9/11)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -10 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Wetland 2 (3/30/12)
Wetland 4 (3/30/12)
Wetland 6 (2/9/11)
Wetland3 (3/30/12)
Wetland 5 (2/9/11)
Wetland 7 (2/9/11)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -11 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Upland Area (3/30/12)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -12 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels. A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix A.
Table 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Parcel
Landowner
PIN
County
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Number
Instrument
Page Numbers
Protected
David Lee &
CE -1
Kimberly Comer
662102964027
Stanly
360888
1475 / 833 -846
2.952
Harward
David Lee &
CE -2
Kimberly Comer
662102964027
Stanly
360888
1475 / 833 -846
3.245
Harward
David Lee &
CE -3
Kimberly Comer
662104943597
Stanly
360888
1475 / 833 -846
0.878
Harward
David Lee &
CE -4
Kimberly Comer
663101150408
Stanly
360888
1475 / 833 -846
3.589
Harward
David Lee &
CE -5
Kimberly Comer
663101150408
Stanly
360888
1475 / 833 -846
1.307
Harward
Baker has obtained a conservation easement from the current landowner for the Town Creek Restoration
Project area. The deed of easement and survey plat (Map Book 23, Page Numbers 234 -235) are held by the
State of North Carolina and have been recorded at the Stanly County Courthouse. The secured easement
allows Baker to proceed with the restoration project and restricts the land use in perpetuity.
3.1.1 Potential Constraints
No fatal flaws have been identified at the time of this mitigation plan. All farm crossings have been
excluded from the easement area. The existing crossing at the beginning of Reach 2 (Station 20 +58 to
20 +78) will be improved as part of this project. An existing crossing that is located at Station 31 +50,
approximately halfway through Reach 3, will be removed. An existing crossing that is located at Station
41 +70 will be removed and replaced with a crossing at Station 45 +57 to 45 +82. An overhead power line
crosses the channel in the middle of this livestock crossing. No existing or proposed easements for power
and telephone utilities are located within the conservation easement. Riparian buffer widths will be at least
50 feet in width measured from the top of both banks (100 foot minimum) in total buffer width plus stream
width) for all of the proposed stream reaches. The project area is not located in a special flood hazard area
and hydraulic trespass would not result from the proposed project. Other regulatory factors discussed in
Section 16, Appendix B were also not determined to pose potential site constraints. Construction access
and staging areas have been identified and will be determined during final design.
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
The conservation easement for the project area is shown in Figure 3.1 and copies of the recorded survey plat
and deed of easement are included in Section 15, Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Project Information
Project Name
Town Creek Restoration Project
County
Stanl
Project Area acres
12.0
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.43399 N, - 80.24215 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physio ra hic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03040105 / 03040105060 -040
NCDWR Sub -basin
03 -07 -13
Project Drainage Area acres
134.8
Project Draina e Area Percent Impervious
<5%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01, 412 / Forest (40 %) Agriculture (25 %) Impervious Cover (7 %)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Length of Reach
(linear feet)
363
737
1,849
234
849
Valley Classification
(Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
56.59
79.6
111.0
120.5
134.8
NCDWR Stream
Identification Score
27.25
27.25-32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
C, Index #: 13- 17- 31 -1 -1
Morphological
Description
(Rosgen stream type)
E4b: Incised,
unstable & straight
E4: Incised,
unstable & straight
C4: variable;
unstable
E4: Incised &
unstable
C4 and E4:
Incised &
straight
Evolutionary Trend
Eb —>G413
E4G —>F —>Bc
C —>G —>F4C
E —>Gc —>F4C
C —>Gc —>F4C
Underlying Mapped Soils
BaD
BaD, BaF
BaF
BaF
OaA
Drainage Class
g
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Moderately
well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non - Hydric
Non - Hydric
Non - Hydric
Non - Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope
(eft)
0.0212
0.0159
0.0111
0.0094
0.0133
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation
Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of
Exotic /Invasive
Vegetation
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion A endix B
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical 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 Flood lain Compliance
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R, El
R
E
Totals
3,382 SMU
0.0
0.0
Project Co m onents
Project Component or
J P
Reach ID
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach RI
10 +34 —13 +50
363 LF
Restoration
316 SMU
316 LF
1:1
Reach R2
13 +50 — 20 +58
737 LF
Enhancement
Level I
472 SMU
708 LF
1.5:1
Reach R3
20 +78 —37+08
1,849 LF
Restoration
1,630 SMU
1,630 LF
1:1
Reach R4
1 37 +08 —39 +40
234 LF
Enhancement
Level I
1 155 SMU
1 232 LF
1.5:1
Reach R5
39 +40 —47+74
849 LF
Restoration
1 809 SMU
809 LF
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
AC
Non - riparian Wetland
AC
Buffer
SF
Upland
AC
Riverine
Non -
Riverine
Restoration
2,755
Enhancement I
940
Enhancement II
0
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI= Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the NC Interagency Review
Team (NCIRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the
requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met,
credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or
be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The
release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 6.1 as follows:
Table 6.1 Credit Release Schedule*
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements above
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
40%
are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
50%
are being met
(65 % * *)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
60%
are being met
75 % **
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
70%
4
are being met
10%
(85 % * *)
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
o
15 /0
0
100 /o
are being met and project has received closeout approval.
*Credit release schedule is based on a 5 —Year monitoring period for stream work as outlined in RFP # 16- 003579.
** For stream projects a reserve of 15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the
USACE covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

means that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an
as -built report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to
project closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the NCIRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of 15%
of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate years,
provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less than two
bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion
of the NCIRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCEEP will submit a
request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required
for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

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 a site - specific design approach that would
return rural piedmont stream functions to a stable state prior to past disturbances. Current assessment
methods and data analyses were utilized for identifying lost or impaired functions at the site and to
determine overall mitigation potential. Among these are reviewing existing hydrogeomorphic
conditions, historical aerials and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) mapping, evaluating stable
reference reaches, and a comparison of results from similar past projects in rural piedmont stream
systems.
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for restoration, an
approach was developed that would address restoration of stream functions within the project area.
Topography and soils on the site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the past as small
tributary stream system, eventually flowing downstream into the larger Town Creek system. Assigning
an appropriate stream type for the corresponding valley that accommodates the existing and future
hydrologic conditions and sediment supply was considered prior to selecting the proposed design
approach. This decision was based primarily on the range of the reference reach data available and the
desired performance of the site.
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
Baker delineated approximately 0.44 acres of riparian wetlands that have been previously disturbed.
The proposed stream mitigation activities will likely improve these wetland functions within the
riparian corridor and maximize the ecological benefits of the site; however, wetland mitigation credit is
not proposed as a part of this project.
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities
Native riparian vegetation will be established in the riparian buffer throughout the site. Schafale and
Weakley's (1990) guidance on vegetation communities for Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
(mixed riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest, as well as the USACE Wetland
Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN- RS -4.1 (1997), were referenced during the development
of riparian and adjacent wetland planting lists for the site. In general, bare root vegetation will be
planted at a target density of 684 stems per acre. Live stakes will be planted along the channels at a
target density of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet. Using triangular spacing along the stream banks, the
live stakes will be spaced two to three feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle
sections between the toe of the stream bank and bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly
different spacing. Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum), will be removed to allow native plants to become established
within the conservation easement. Larger native tree species will be preserved to the greatest extent
possible and where trees have to be harvested, the woody material will be utilized to provide bank
stabilization and aquatic habitat. Hardwood species will be planted to provide the appropriate woody
vegetation for the restored riparian buffer areas. The vegetation selection will include native species
found in local plant communities such as River birch (Betula nigra), Green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
and White oak (Quercus alba).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

7.2 Design Parameters
Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference
reach data, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from past projects, and best
professional judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from
multiple rural Piedmont stream restoration projects provided pertinent background information to
determine the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and overall site potential.
The design parameters for the site (shown in Section 17.1.2.1, Appendix C) also considered common
design ratios and guidelines from the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, Starr, 2011) and
USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines ( USACE, 2003).
The restoration activities and structural elements are justified for the following reasons:
1. Many of the stream sections are incised (Bank Height Ratios greater than 1.5) and the cattle access
has resulted in significant degradation throughout the site;
2. Past agricultural and silvicultural activities, such as timber production and channelization, have
resulted in bank erosion, sedimentation and the loss of woody vegetation within the riparian zone;
3. Enhancement or preservation measures alone would not achieve the highest possible level of
functional lift for many portions of the degraded headwater stream system.
For design purposes, the stream channel was divided into multiple reaches labeled Reach 1, Reach 2,
Reach 3, Reach 4 and Reach 5, as shown in Table 7.1. Selection of a general restoration approach was
the first step in selecting design criteria for the project reaches. The approach was based on the potential
for restoration as determined during the site assessment and the specific design parameters were
developed so that plan view layout, cross - section dimensions, and profile could be described for
developing construction documents. The design philosophy is to use these design parameters as
conservative values for the selected stream types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension,
facet slope, and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re-
colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences.
Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Reach
Proposed
Stream Type
Approach/Rationale
Baker proposes to implement Priority Level I Restoration by utilizing the
pasture area along the existing incised channel to restore a floodplain
connection. Cattle have access to all of this reach, actively impacting the
stream banks. The stream will be constructed as close to the existing
Reach 1
B
channel as possible. This approach will provide the highest ecological
functional uplift. (vertical transition as quickly as possible at an
appropriate rate). Channel pattern will be modified at two locations to
address unstable pattern issues. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will
be restored or protected along both sides of the entire reach.
Level I Enhancement is proposed to restore a more stable dimension and
profile. Cattle have access to all of this reach, actively impacting the
stream bed and bank. The stream is somewhat incised through this reach
and enhancement activities will include permanent exclusion of cattle,
grading of localized sections of the degraded stream banks, use of
Reach 2
B
structures to promote channel stability, bedform diversity and an
appropriate pool -to -pool spacing. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet
will be restored or enhanced along both sides of Reach 2. This reach will
be designed as a Rosgen B stream type. The design width/depth ratio for
the channel will be 13.3, and over time, the channel will likely narrow due
to deposition of sediment and stream bank vegetation growth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table M Project Design Stream Types
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Reach
Proposed
Stream Type
Approach /Rationale
The proposed strategy for Reach 3 is to establish a stable pattern,
dimension and profile, remove active headcuts, and preserve the wooded
buffer and small areas of wetlands within the easement. Cattle have
access to all of this reach, actively impacting the stream bed and banks. A
Priority Level I restoration approach is proposed for this reach to
reconnect the stream with its floodplain, as well as to re- establish a natural
Reach 3
C
meander pattern and provide bedform diversity. This approach involves
constructing the restored channel off -line and along the low part of the
valley. The benefits of this approach are that floodplain connection is
restored, limited impact to desirable native trees along the existing
channel, and the ability to provide full restoration of a natural channel
pattern and appropriate stream functions. Cattle will be excluded from the
project area by fencing and riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be
restored along all of Reach 3.
The proposed strategy for Reach 4 is to stabilize and enhance this
moderately stable section within the wooded area. Cattle have access to
all of this reach, actively impacting the stream bank. Enhancement is
Reach 4
C
proposed along this section to provide a stream that is connected to its
floodplain and protects a riparian buffer between the stream and adjacent
farmland. Grading of banks will be done to correct existing livestock
damage. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be preserved or restored
along both sides of the entire reach.
Part of this reach has a minimal riparian buffer, located at the bottom of
the project. The reach has most likely been historically straightened. In
addition, it has been further manipulated to incorporate a culverted farm
road crossing, a floodplain pond, and a sewer line. Currently cattle have
access to the entire reach and have impacted both channel bed and bank.
Degradation along the reach is also evident from the failed culverted
crossing. A Priority Level I restoration approach is proposed for this reach
Reach 5
C
to reconnect the stream with its floodplain, as well as to re- establish a
natural meander pattern and provide bedform diversity. This approach
involves constructing the restored channel off -line and along the low part
of the valley. The benefits of this approach are that floodplain connection
is restored, limited impact to desirable native trees along the existing
channel, and the ability to provide full restoration of a natural channel
pattern and appropriate stream functions. Cattle will be excluded from the
project area by fencing and riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be
restored along all of Reach 5.
7.3 Data Analyses
Baker compiled and assessed watershed information such as drainage areas, historical land use,
geologic setting, soil types, and terrestrial plant communities. The results of the existing condition
analyses along with reference reach data from previous projects were used to develop a proposed
stream restoration design for the project reaches. Numerous sections of the existing stream channel
throughout the project area have been straightened /channelized or moved in the past. This
manipulation has impacted channels that are now overly sized for the given drainage areas. Within the
existing forested area through the middle section of the project, the site streams are severely impacted
by hoof shear and localized deep incision and likely existed prior to impacts as Rosgen `B ", `B" or "C"
stream types. This is evidenced by stable morphological features, the presence of knickpoints (geologic
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -3 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

control), valley configuration and dendritic drainage pattern. The channel slopes within the mainstem
are generally consistent with the valley topography.
The design approach follows the Rosgen "step- wise" methodology in which dimensionless ratios from the
reference reach and successful past project experience are used to restore stable dimension, pattern, and
profile, as well as proper bankfull sediment- transport competency for the proposed reaches. The stream
channel design included analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and
appropriate channel dimensions. Baker also performed representative pebble counts in order to evaluate
bed material characteristics and sediment transport. The results of the substrate analyses were used to
classify the stream and to complete shear stress, sediment transport, and stability analyses.
The Rosgen stream classification system ( Rosgen, 1996) depends on the proper identification of
"bankf ill" for stream classification. Stream classifications for the project were based on multiple riffle
cross - sections and indicate multiple stream classifications ranging from a G4 to a B4c to an incised E4
stream type, as determined by the calculated entrenchment ratios (based on an estimation of bankfull
area from the NC Piedmont regional curve), channel slopes, and channel substrate (gravel). This
diversity indicates significant departure from a stable condition. Throughout the reaches, bedform
feature formation is poor with minimal habitat diversity or woody debris. Adequate riparian buffer
vegetation and width are lacking throughout much the project area especially in Reaches 1, 2 and most
of 5. Downstream sections of the stream channel display irregular meander geometry. The conditions
are associated with either straight incised reaches or reaches where the channel has experienced
significant degradation from cattle hoof shear on the stream banks and flood plain. These conditions
generally lead to lateral instability over time; however, on some sections a low -flow regime and
vegetation on the banks have served to maintain stability or quasi - equilibrium conditions along some
wooded portions of the project reach.
The proposed design approach will restore the hydrologic conditions that were likely present prior to
channelization by raising the local water table and base flow levels, as well as introducing natural
flooding. The existing conditions data indicate that proposed mitigation activities will result in re-
establishment of functional stream and floodplain ecosystem. The restoration and enhancement efforts,
including site protection with a conservation deed of easement, will promote the greatest ecological
benefit, a rapid recovery period, and a justifiable and reduced environmental impact over a natural
recovery that would otherwise occur through erosional processes with associated impacts on water
resources and flooding.
Additionally, by raising the stream bed and reconnecting the active floodplain, the maximum degree of
potential uplift will be provided, restoring and/or enhancing stream, buffer, and wetland functions
whenever possible. Functional uplift will also be provided to the system by improving and extending
wildlife corridors that connect with wooded areas near the upstream and downstream extents of the
project reaches. The water quality of the Town Creek tributary will be improved by providing permanent
cattle exclusion fencing along the tributary, as well as reducing nutrient and sediment inputs.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-4 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis as well as a physical inspection of the site at least once a year
throughout the post - construction monitoring period. These site inspections may identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance will be most likely in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following components as described in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Routine Maintenance Components
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in- stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated
stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head - cutting until vegetation becomes established.
Wetland
N/A
Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will controlled by
mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries 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 crossings within 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 dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management will be
implemented using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the recorded
Conservation Easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving NCDOT and NCEEP
full - delivery projects. The success criteria for the project site will follow the mitigation plans developed for
these projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG) issued in April and October 2005 (USACE
and NCDWR) and NCEEP's recent supplemental guidance document Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation dated November 7, 2011. As outlined in the
RFP #16- 003579, all monitoring activities will follow the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template, Version 1.3
— 1115110, will be conducted for a period of 5 years, and will evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration
practices based on the performance success criteria outlined in the 2003 SMG. If Year 5 does not meet
performance success criteria, NCEEP may require additional monitoring until the site does meet all
performance success criteria.
Based on the design approaches and overall project goals, different monitoring methods are proposed for the
project reaches. For reaches that involve a combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Levels I
and/or II) and Enhancement Level I (stream bed/bank stabilization) approaches, geomorphic monitoring
methods will follow those recommended by the 2003 SMG. For reaches involving Enhancement Level II
approaches, monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections, photo documentation, and
vegetation assessments. The monitoring parameters shall be consistent with the requirements described in the
Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation sites in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable
Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Specific success criteria components and
evaluation methods are described below and report documentation will follow the NCEEP Baseline
Monitoring Document template and guidance (v 2. 0, dated 10/14/10).
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted once a year for a minimum
of five years following the completion of construction. These activities will evaluate the success criteria
associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity.
The stream parameters to be monitored include stream dimension (cross- sections), pattern (planimetric
survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), visual observation with photographic documentation, and
documentation of bank full events. The success criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level I
reaches /sections will follow the methods described under Photo Reference Stations and Vegetation
Monitoring. The methods used and related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
Figure 9.1 shows approximate locations of the proposed monitoring devices throughout the project site.
9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will be installed on the floodplain within ten feet
(horizontal) of the restored channel. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site
visits, and the gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within a five -year monitoring period. The two bankfull
events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull events
have been documented in separate years to demonstrate a floodplain connection has been restored.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

9.1.2 Flow Documentation
Monitoring of flow will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream system classified as
intermittent exhibits base flow for some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall
conditions. In order to determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will
be installed on the site to compare precipitation amounts using tallied data obtained from the nearest
Stanly County WETS Station. Data from the weather station can be obtained from the CRONOS
Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website. If a normal year of
precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, flow conditions will continue to
be monitored on the site until it documents that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the
appropriate times of the year.
The proposed monitoring of the restored intermittent reach will include the documentation of a
combination of photographic and groundwater monitoring data. A flow camera will be installed to
collect a regular and continuous series of remote photos over time will be used to subjectively evaluate
channel flow conditions throughout the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate
the presence of flow within the channel in order to discern water levels within the pools and riffles. The
photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown
on a plan view map. The visual monitoring effort, including the photo locations with descriptions, will
be included with NCEEP's annual monitoring reports. A monitoring well (pressure transducer) will be
installed towards the downstream portion of restored intermittent reach. The device will be inspected
on a quarterly /semi - annual basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating
general flow response to rainfall events and surface runoff during various water tables levels throughout
the monitoring period.
9.1.3 Cross - sections
Permanent cross - sections will be installed at an approximate rate of one cross - section per 500 LF of
restored stream, or approximately four (4) cross - sections located at riffles, and three (3) located at
pools. Each cross - section will be marked on both stream banks with permanent monuments using
rebar cemented in place to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for
cross - sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data. The cross -
section surveys will occur annually and must include measurements of Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and
Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are
present. Riffle cross - sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place, they will be
documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., down - cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the stream banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross - sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2 for `C' stream types)
defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller channel sizes and meander geometry
of the proposed steams, bank pins will not be installed unless monitoring results indicate active lateral
erosion.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross - section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the stream banks. Photographs will be taken of
both stream banks at each cross - section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
stream banks. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the stream
bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

9.1.4 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders during baseline (year -0) only. Subsequent visual monitoring will be
conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
9.1.5 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey
will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle,
pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features
installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken
during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial
actions /repairs are deemed necessary.
9.1.6 Bed Material Analyses
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. Significant changes in particle sizes or size
distribution in otherwise stable riffles and pools could warrant additional sediment transport analyses
and calculations. A substrate sample will be collected where constructed riffles are installed as part of
the project. One constructed riffle substrate sample will be compared to existing riffle substrate data
collected during the design phase and any significant changes (i.e.; aggradation, degradation) will be
noted after stream bank vegetation becomes established and a minimum of two bankfull flows or
greater have been documented.
9.1.7 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability,
condition of in- stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from
invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. The photo locations and
descriptions will be shown on a plan view map per NCEEP's monitoring report guidance (vl.5, June
2012).
The Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period. A series of photos
over time will be also be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar formations) or
degradation, stream bank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of
sedimentation and erosion control measures.
9.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to
determine if the planting success criteria are achieved and riparian buffer establishment goals are met,
vegetation monitoring will be conducted on a year for a minimum of five years following the completion
of construction and one full growing season. These activities will evaluate the success criteria associated
with the restoration and protection of the riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat, and reduction of
sediment loading from floodplain erosion and nutrient loading through the uptake of riparian vegetation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -3 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

In order to effectively monitor the success criteria of the riparian buffer, vegetation- monitoring quadrants
will be installed and monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS -NCEEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (2006). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be a minimum of
2% of the planted portion of the site with a minimum of eight (8) plots established randomly within the
planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants will be established
within areas where there are significant stands of undisturbed trees. The size of individual quadrants will
be 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will
be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline /year 0) or after 180 days between March 1 st and
November 30`h, species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent
year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated March and November.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old,
planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criteria will be measured at year five and must consist of a density of no less than 260, 5 -year old, planted
trees per acre.
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating
vegetation success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for
assessing plant community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the
evaluation of additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of
invasive species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success.
Baker will provide required remedial action on a case -by -case basis, such as: replanting more wet /drought
tolerant species vegetation, conducting beaver management /dam removal, and removing
undesirable /invasive species vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the
corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any
mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, that negatively impact existing
forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native species grasses, will be seeded/planted throughout
the site. During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project site
must be in compliance with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
9.3 Stormwater Management Monitoring
No stormwater BMPs are proposed at the site therefore no such monitoring will be included.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-4 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 9.1 Proposed Monitoring Device Locations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -5 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined within Table 10.1 below will be submitted to
NCEEP by December 31St of the each year during which the monitoring was conducted. The monitoring
report shall provide a project data chronology for NCEEP to document the project status and trends,
population of NCEEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close -out. Project success criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout,
or monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met.
Table 10.1 Monitoring Requirements
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Freauencv
Notes
As per April 2003 USACE
Pattern data, including bank erosion pins /arrays in
X
Wilmington District
As -built Year
Pool cross - sections, will be collected only if there
Pattern
Stream Mitigation
and as needed
are indications through profile and dimensional
Guidelines
data that significant geomorphological
adjustments occurred.
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District
Cross- sections to be monitored over five (5) years
•
Dimension
Stream Mitigation
Guidelines and November
Annually
and shall include assessment of bank height ratio
2011 NCEEP Monitoring
(BHR) and entrenchment ratio (ER).
Requirements
For restoration or enhancement I components,
As per November 2011
built Year
3,000 linear feet or less, the entire length will be
•
Profile
NCEEP Monitoring
and
and as needed
surveyed. For mitigation segments in excess of
Requirements
this footage, 30% of the length or 3,000 feet will
be surveyed, whichever is greater.
As per April 2003 USACE
A substrate sample will be collected if constructed
Wilmington District
riffles are installed as part of the project. One
•
Substrate
Stream Mitigation
wally
constructed riffle substrate sample will be
Guidelines
Guidelines and November
compared to existing riffle substrate data collected
Monitoring
during the design phase.
Requirements
As per April 2003 USACE
A Crest Gauge and/or Pressure Transducer will be
•
Surface Water
Wilmington District
Annually all
installed on site; the device will be inspected on a
Hydrology
Stream Mitigation
quarterly /semi - annual basis to document the
Guidelines
occurrence of bankfull events on the project.
•
Vegetation
NCEEP -CVS Guidance
Annually
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
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.
Representative photographs will be taken to
As per November 2011
capture the state of the restored channel and
•
Visual
NCEEP Monitoring
Semi - Annually
vegetated buffer conditions. Stream photos will
Assessment
Requirements
and as needed
be preferably taken in the same location when the
vegetation is minimal to document any areas of
concern or to identify trends.
•
Project
Semi - Annually
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
Boundary
boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the NCIRT, the site will be transferred to the NCDENR. This party shall be
responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses NCEEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statue GS 113A- 232(d) (3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for
the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends manage the account as a non - wasting endowment. Only interest
generated from the endowment funds will used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds
not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, NCEEP will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, NCEEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
NCEEP will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary
and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and
nature of the work performed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
provided the USACE - Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation
requirements assumed by NCEEP. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects
implemented by the program.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 13 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
This document is consistent with the requirements of the federal rule for compensatory mitigation sites as
described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section
§ 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14). Specifically the document addresses the following
requirements of the federal rule:
(2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of
compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in
which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the
watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest.
(3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. This should
include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of
accomplishing ecologically self - sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement,
and/or preservation at the compensatory mitigation site. (See § 332.3(d).)
(4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site
ownership, that will be used to ensure the long -term protection of the compensatory mitigation site (see §
332.7(a)).
(5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory
mitigation site and, in the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include
descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a
map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those
site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation. The
baseline information should also include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed
compensatory mitigation site. A prospective permittee planning to secure credits from an approved
mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline information about the impact site,
not the mitigation bank or in -lieu fee site.
(6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief
explanation of the rationale for this determination. (See § 332.3(f).)
(7) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory
mitigation project, including, but not limited to, the geographic boundaries of the project; construction
methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands;
methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the
proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and erosion
control measures. For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also
include other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical channel cross -
sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings.
(8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued
viability of the resource once initial construction is completed.
(9) Performance standards. Ecologically -based standards that will be used to determine whether the
compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. (See § 332.5.)
(10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the
compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be
included. (See § 332.6.)
(11) Long -term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be
managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long -term sustainability of the
resource, including long -term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long -term
management. (See § 332.7(d).)
(12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site
conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties
responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide
decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both
foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See §
332.7(c).)
(13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are
sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be
successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (see § 332.3(n)). 2) Objectives. A
description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i.e.,
restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource
functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion,
physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest.
14.2 References
Andrews, E. D., 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river bed material, Geological Society
of America Bulletin, 94, 1225 -1231.
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal and
Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679 -693.
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants and
Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Copeland, RR, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.
Washington, DC.
Faber - Langendoen, D., Rocchio, J., Schafale, M., Nordman, C., Pyne, M., Teague, J., Foti, T., Comer, P.
(2006), Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Hardin, J.W. 1977. Vascular plants. In: Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.).
Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum
of Natural History, Raleigh.
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. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington, D.C. EPS 843 -B -12 -005.
Henson, T.H. 1990. Bald eagle. In: Lee, D.S. and J.F. Parnell (eds.). Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Fauna of North Carolina, Part 111. A Re- evaluation of the Birds. Occasional Papers of the North
Carolina Biological Survey. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh.
Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes —A New Perspective. Arnold Publishers. London.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234 -1279.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1, 2007.
Leopold, Luna B., M. Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology.
San Francisco, CA. (151).
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List:
2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014 -41: 1 -42.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2006. Water Resources Stream
Classifications for Streams in North Carolina. Water Resources Section, November 2006. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
htip: / /www.nceo. net / services/ restplans XTper_Yadkin_RBRP_2009.pdf .
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.ncfloodmgps.co .
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 2010, 2011. [Online WWW].
Available URL: http: //149.168.1.196 /00//.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 352 -B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 14(1):11 -26.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113 -116.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -3 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y -87 -1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN- rs -4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
1989. Stanly County Soil Survey, [Online WWW]. Available URL:
( http: / /www.nres.usda.gov /lntemet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS /north carolina/NCO07 /0 /Stanly.pdf).
2002. Climate Information- Wetlands Retrieval for North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Stanly County, WETS Station. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
( http : / /www.wcc.nres.usda.gov /ftpref /support/ climate /wetlands /nc /3 7007.txt).
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Stanly County. 2010. [Online WWW]. Available
URL: http:// www. fws.gov /nc- es /es /countyfr.html.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover Data. 2002. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://seamless.usgs.gov/.
Walker, A., unpublished. 2012. Personal Communication in reference to NC Rural Mountain and
Piedmont Regional Curve.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -4 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

This page intentionally left blank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. FEBRAURY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 15 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Fled: 12/2712013 12:15:06 PM
Suzanne'N. Lowder, Register of Deeds
Stanly County, NC
��Px
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX: $324.00
Prepared by and return to:
Robert R. Alerritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. o. Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
STANLY COUNTY
Revenue S 3Z4. oa
SPO File Number: 84 -U
EEP Project Number: 95026
BOOK 1475 PAGE
P�illill1lll
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT (,A�
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
G�
PURSUANT TO FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT nt
NO.: 003990
THI DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this 97 � day of December, 2013, by DAVID LEE HARWARD and wife, KIMBERLY
COMER HARWARD, ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is 43204 Blalock Road, New
London., North Carolina 28127, to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose trailing
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.
W-ITNESSETH:
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
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
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 July 2012
Page 1 of 11

Engineering, Inc., 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, North Carolina 27518 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 003990.
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
VtrMREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, 'Wilmil gton 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
W]UREAS, 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, (M0A) 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
V«IEREAS, 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 8'` 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 three (3) parcels of real property situated, lying,
and being in Harris Township, Stanly County, North Carolina (collectively the "Property "), and
being -more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 101.01
acres, (Tax 1D# 10117; PIN: 6631- 01 -15- 0408) Stanly County, North Carolina, that certain
parcel of land containing approximately 56.01 acres, (Tax ID# 10107; PIN: 6621- 04 -94- 3597),
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 July 2012
Page 2 of 11

and that certain parcel of land containing approximately 47 acres, (Tax ID# 10113; PIN. 6621-
02-96- 402'7), all of the foregoing three (3) parcels or tracts being devised to Grantor pursuant to
Item III of the Last Will and Testament of Johnny B. Harward, filed with the Clerk of Superior
Court of Stanly County, North Carolina as estate file number 03 -E -487; and
VVMREAS, 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 Town Creek,
Stanly County, North Carolina.
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;
Conservation Easements identified as CE -1, CE -2, CE -3, CE -4 and CE -5
as shown on Plat entitled "Town Creek Conservation Easement Survey for
State of North Carolina — Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
Property of David Lee Harward" dated November 21, 2013, certified by
Marshall Wight, PLS, and recorded in Plat Book ;2 -5 ,
Page 2-3s , Stanly 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 1
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:
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 July 2012
Page 3 of 11

L DURATION OF EASEMENT
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.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
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(sj described on the survey recorded in Plat Book
Page �� of the County Registry as "reserved stream crossing ". Said crossing
shall not exceed fect 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:
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 July 2012
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.
R. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation., dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fiacturing; 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,
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted S July 2412
Page 5 of 11

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.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no frartlier 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 Properly 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.
p. 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.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
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.
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 July 2012
Page 6 of 11

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
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.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
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
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 July 2012
Page 7 of 11

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 resultnng 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,
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 terra set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
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
NCEEP Pull Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 July 2012
Page 8 of 11

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 addressed to:
Ecosystem. Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
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.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
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.
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted S July 2012
Page 9 of 11

IN TESTIMONY WAEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
C' .I' A (SEAL)
David Lee Harward
(SEAL)
Kimberly Comer Parward
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 1Aet _
I
1 u� a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby ertify that David Lee Harward and wife, Kimberly Corner Harward,
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 �2 7
day of , 2011
Notary Public
My commission expires:
00361049
s r - ,-1�0-'7
-�%. ME""Ryr
Cj
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted S July 2012
Page 10 of 11

Exhibit 1
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Town Creep
Stanly County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 662102964027) (CE -1)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Harris Township, Stanly
County, North Carolina, as shown on a neap entitled "Town Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of David Lee Harvard, " dated November 21, 2013, and recorded in Plat
Boole 195 Page A 3 Z3 of the Stanly County Registry, and
being a portion of the parcel owned by David Lee Harvard (PIN: 662102964027), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 1629783.66,
Y= 616217.36, and identified as Control Point 4 5 on the above referenced plat and
running S 13 °42'38" E, 333.72' to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
SEGINIVTNG; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
S 78 °00'07 "W, 126.71, thence
N 28 003'19 "W, 378.01', thence
N 11 "10'44 "W, 127.76, thence
N 34 °21'41 "W, 52639', thence
S 85 021'05 "E, 179.44', thence
S 32 021'50 "E, 447.69, thence
S 07 028'28" E, 102.64', thence
S 27 °13'41 "E, 419.11", to the POINT
AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said
permmaneat conservation easement containing 2.952 acres, more or less.
2. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 662102964027) (CE -2)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Harris Township, Stanly
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Town Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of David Lee Harward, " dated November 21, 2013, and recorded in Plat
Book rA 3 _,Page a3L ;` Z3 S— , of the Stanly County Registry, and
being a portion of the parcel owned by David Lee Harvard (PIN: 662102964027), more
particularly described as follows:

Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X1629840.45,
Y= 615921.34, and identified as Conservation Easement Pin 91 on the above referenced
plat and running S 35'29'09"E, 21.75' to apoint, which is the POINT AND PLACE
OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
S 17037'38" E, 325.33', thence
S 099709" E, 181.11', thence
S 26 015'05" E, 483.04', thence
S 71 021'42" E, 214.39', thence
N 27 04746" W, 296.52', thence
N 13 01526" W, 578.57', thence
N 78 002'55" E, 134.59', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said
permanent conservation easement containing 3.245 acres, more or less.
3. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 662104943597) (CE -3)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Harris Township, Stanly
County, North Carolina, as shown on a reap entitled "Town Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of David Lee Harward, " dated November 21, 2013, and recorded in Plat
Boob 3 , Page 3V I 5 of the Stanly County Registry, and
being a portion of the parcel owned by David Lee Hal-ward (PIN: 662104943597), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 1630276.26,
Y= 614976.29, and identified as Control Point # 3 on the above referenced plat and
ran-Lung S 68 °46'51 "W , 62.69', to apoint identified as conservation easement corner
#12, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the
following courses and distances:
L16 S 00 026'00" W, 375.52, thence
Ll7 N 24 °16'51" W, 487.11, thence
Ll S S 71021'42" E, 214.39', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said
permanent conservation easement containing 0.878 acres, more or less_
4. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 663101150408) (CE-4)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Barris Township, Stanly
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Town Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of David Lee Harward, " dated November 21, 2013, and recorded in Plat
Book 3 , Page 3! , of the Stanly County Registry, and
being a portion of the parcel owned by David Lee Harward (PIN: 663101150408), more
particularly described as follows:

Commencing at an iron liar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X =1630276.26,
Y= 614976.29, and identified as Control Point ff 3 on the above referenced plat and
running S 68 04651 "W, 62.69', to a point identified as conservation easement corner
912, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the
following courses and distances:
S 44 013'05" E, 165.38', thence
S 13 °37'27" E, 168.58, thence
S 57 °56'43" E, 137.70, thence
S 34 030'52" E, 193.14', thence
S 19 °03'52" E, 140.21', thence
S 39 °24'14" E, 174.91, thence
S 27 °56'14" E, 207.42', thence
N 82 °37'53" W, 181.93', thence
N 33 023'34" W, 271.38', thence
N 26 °00'20" W, 304.53', thence
N 82 003'18" W, 134.18', thence
N 41 009'09" W, 63.55', thence
N 00 026'00" E, 375.52', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said
permanent conservation easement containing 3.589 acres, more or less.
5. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 663101150408) (CE-5.)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Harris Township, Stanly
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Town Creek Conservation
EasementSurveyfor State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of David Lee Harward, " d d November 21, 2013, and recorded in Plat
Book � ,Page , Z3 , of the Stanly County Registry, and
being a portion of the parcel owned by David Lee Harward {PIN: 66310115 0408), snore
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates ofX= 1630860.98,
Y= 613754.25, and identified as Control Point 4 1 on the above referenced plat and
running N 04 °26'24" E, 206.11, to a point identified as conservation easement corner
428, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the
following courses and distances:
S 27 °38'31" E, 71.09, thence
S 03 °48'55" W, 190.72', thence
N 87 °46'25" E, 214.90', thence
N 00 °0140" W, 270.12', thence
S 82°3710" W, 196.20', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said
permanent conservation easement containing 1.307 acres, more or less.

6. Access to the Permanent Conservation Easements
Access to and through the permanent conservation easement described above and
conveyed herein, shall be (1) as provided in this deed, (2) as provided on the Plat
referenced below (see Note 8., Sheet 1 of 2); to provide ingress, egress, and regress for
purposes of accessing the permanent conservation easernent(s) set forth above, and as
showy on the leap recorded in Plat Book rt 3 , Pages a3�',� r7 65 of
the Stanly County Registry.
00361031

10
Q
U �m�
LL m�a
o�aa
y I I
w
� zzz
W v as
O
°
U
F
n
�m6 W o
�d Fn
W
�.
U
3n
~�
LL
IL
m
Q �
�151511�rrr�r
Wm
m
W
�g s
a
c Q
U tail IONNq,.m.�o
1i
n
�F¢i � �c
t C�
Ill
W F O IAf1a aACVdG
b
.o� 9� 2F�E
fl.l � ,- vZ
_
Yd�. t*'7' `Yr
z.
m
W e.0ocovi
Sep ap F
<�. pvy OIJ'.
G
¢�_
�� }
'a r�s imp e
mm�n nrww..,n
ikxKZ°
Q
' S
W cpaoo nCCOaQ
r
ry��°+
3G'm
w
O
m
it
II
axx
H
.j�
O
F n
30A
_ =o —W
Q
€ate
ti} Q a 6 4 4 4
w h
z
nF
LL
&' <KNc
QQ m cq m o
W�
w °v T
diYsaz,�
m
w m
n
4
a:
w
W
N� N
Oe
o w
U °n
a o o
Q m$-6�
3
a
z z z
W -
��
€_4
Ma
O
a
`aP55i
IA t�
V)
a
W
z
O
cl,
F
z
W
W
ul
Q
W
M
C
r�
{I
O I
z �
k
0 }
z
7
w v
bi
m
t
Z
U
F
n
�m6 W o
�d Fn
W
�� ~
U
3n
~�
LL
IL
w�
Wm
W
�g s
� � z
� � o
1i
W LLw, 4 ml, tz -5 8 u
�F¢i � �c
OF
� w. 7E i U-
Wio�3FS t
b
.o� 9� 2F�E
vi
12 = -a z I. 5
Sep ap F
<�. pvy OIJ'.
G
�� }
'a r�s imp e
rte•' --' °_ _
ikxKZ°
N
N
O Q
M] �,
Mv(V ps-
s _- F- ~
NON a2 Ld
Ec m
Z �m0u7N
0 -
�.`Zr [h
a Low 5 � p
v mwatoo
v
i
2
Q
C7
O
~ z
Z
LLJ W
W v
U
z
ZQ z°
w
2 Z
ul W
Q
O
Z H�4
F-
< U}w4v
�oO�sr
��a ZZ
w
LLJ�
z 2V)
a laIn
w z
a o
O �
U
f�
O
z
Q
NL.I -.�
r
m
m m
Q Z M
Y Abe' a3c u'�i °m
m q� tOQIY
o °
L B m L o m

� #4r
Ka
2
4
� c
ri
w
a
f�
N q~a®
OZ J
FL
6$s t
z-x as l
z�II-
Y �
I
2 W
i A
�o
�zn �i w333w. nm Fa:?
0 ° x® w a f r
5'�
I p H
95 3 ci
a =�; C13
t
/ ^�'� • r $ oU 'Itull ll�!
uj
M 3sN� m llrrlil111p1 \\ 11
w ° R
ga z
a =`a'
y,W
On
ew
X K
9� -
a
W o
i
eSa'_
n a
s y
pn
e
n
N q~a®
OZ J
FL
6$s t
z-x as l
z�II-
Y �
I
2 W
i A
�o
�zn �i w333w. nm Fa:?
0 ° x® w a f r
5'�
I p H
95 3 ci
a =�; C13
t
/ ^�'� • r $ oU 'Itull ll�!
uj
M 3sN� m llrrlil111p1 \\ 11
w ° R
z
N wwwwa -" orl�
tj
q � tom 1 L7 nmMWr-nnn nm
f
rjI
r� t
�A
ro r
rI
I
`= o
N o �
Nu
(L �3
° m
'I rvnoex
.. t n N
I k'V r r
v v '111 o -°r 4.n °� pM
r
Ur vIa ;
Ozln-JS.
- r aS4UW W WL= UI�#IWd
aERE_
0 I � O
in a NON N
"t 4w
s
r -0 "a
a-2
C, ua
4 Z �Cc 4Ln
°l „ °wt+N
W 00>��
N • a (�} � r C
u LLf U V O�
L4 LLI Q V7 p
U
0
r
r�
o
a �
Ch
Q
F-
} ZI. z
j Ll J
V Ll
Z �s
F- d - ix
W z
W W
cn
< LL) LLJ
n
Z I-- o l
C)
<ooQ =�
LLI LLJ
En
Q
C7 ❑
Q
w Z
Q
Z < c�
T� 2
1 �
W
O a
Z
ILL
0
Q
C.'
C�
m� �o
sa A-
m
ao Fez c� �
1
■ r
■
ga z
uj w i
c__
X K
9� -
a
W o
i
eSa'_
n a
s y
pn
e
n
z
N wwwwa -" orl�
tj
q � tom 1 L7 nmMWr-nnn nm
f
rjI
r� t
�A
ro r
rI
I
`= o
N o �
Nu
(L �3
° m
'I rvnoex
.. t n N
I k'V r r
v v '111 o -°r 4.n °� pM
r
Ur vIa ;
Ozln-JS.
- r aS4UW W WL= UI�#IWd
aERE_
0 I � O
in a NON N
"t 4w
s
r -0 "a
a-2
C, ua
4 Z �Cc 4Ln
°l „ °wt+N
W 00>��
N • a (�} � r C
u LLf U V O�
L4 LLI Q V7 p
U
0
r
r�
o
a �
Ch
Q
F-
} ZI. z
j Ll J
V Ll
Z �s
F- d - ix
W z
W W
cn
< LL) LLJ
n
Z I-- o l
C)
<ooQ =�
LLI LLJ
En
Q
C7 ❑
Q
w Z
Q
Z < c�
T� 2
1 �
W
O a
Z
ILL
0
Q
C.'
C�
m� �o
sa A-
m
ao Fez c� �
1
■ r
■

16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

16.1 USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms — per regional
supplement to 1987 Manual
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: rowA rreG'k City/County: Sampling Date: 7—/ —//
Applicant/Owner: (3 _kEf State: Sampling Point: % D10
Investigator(s): J c Lu d 1.1-1 Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): (ood
o I Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: �)o rx c
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 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 m� No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
k r
HYDROLOGY
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) ? Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (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 (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9) ✓ 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:
r € °,
v^:r "E4�.
S V r °N`v -L r V/ A r' 6 Y3 c r si c 4 1 'f C?. tf 1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum{{ (Plot size:
1. (�'�F�t- "€t4%6LJ ('ql t, VS4
xn/
= Total Cover
y e
2. I�ve�& fJarzt E.� 4 �CIAt 4 C' A
Total Number of Dominant
3. arcs'" •. e �f P{ t s r3 IhA4 GCfam,ifit
I
i
4. ap't.e.,yu� €,cretrt'trall,7" s.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: !e L
(A/B)
5. C,f °f,,12Eb a °ac 4 tf�itafefa €iklc .r8sn�t¢
gas -
u-
6fi, % :E¢1tt:f�< -.
=':i
gel
7 «nn, 5 l'e r'Itc," P tt
FAC species x3=
Sampling Point: Y I
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: >
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: !e L
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
apid 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)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
8. � a'k L,e A t- t c pl at = t r 1 17n�c o
J r-Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. 1,6-4A-, i- > r` f � � 'ca c'°4 L ° ( ('� w� than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
11 Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tali.
12.
= Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size; )
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes t1 No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: VJ
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Color (moist)
A0
%
moist % Tvoe Loc
Texture Remarks
JColor
IT %ry
//y
- ID —� — `.' y i
t v 0 V
d r
w
f
r
/ r
C•—
'Type: C= Concentration D= Depletion RM=
Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
''yy� `� `l gg d f
Project/Site: 1011 -) t 0 A`" ' a Ctty /County: ,� � _7 Sampling Date: f I -
Applicant/Owner: State i'\1 Sampling Point: hS
Investigator(s): E7 Section, Township, Range: ) s r
Landform (hiilslope, terrace, etc.): f c cjl CA r, ° t Local relief (concave, convex, none): (1,01, 0 A.t ) Q Slope ( %): f �
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Let: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: s NWI ciassiriicallon:
Are climatic! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil / or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No tzl
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 V No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes = No within a Wetland? Yes V/ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V No
HYDROLOGY
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one
is required: check all that aooly)
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
`✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_
Saturation (A3)
~_
_ ✓Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ 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)
�/ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (69)
�Z Microtopographic Relief (D4)
✓Aquatic Fauna (1313) a(�-t
a / v c t 11 7€ C t ,C
IZ'FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
f
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: v(Ed s 31 t Iry
�) k I r C` °,,t t .c} t1 ! `..t, °i.[.7 ` 4 }E .r jF t_�'4..r5 1,... E SSG;
µ � 'v,, � t .. 4, I t o
��
, 4..
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

x/Z
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Uoeocientifbnameoofpbnts Sampling Point:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
F*cW species
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
F*canomo
1
-T-W_-
x*~________
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2.
xo~_______
VN
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. FO J P V (f L4, �k e 0 v
». �0 1
_4,'11
Total Number of Dominant
Definitions m Four Vegetation Strata:
-
Tmu- Woody plants, excluding vines, o In. (r.e cm) o,
more m diameter ot breast height (oax). regardless m
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
*.
xoiom.
Percent of Dominant Species
aapxnumxmu - Wvouyomots.oxmvumnvmox.wax
--------------'
«'
than o in. oan and greater than o.unn(1m)tall.
o.
______---__------
Herb -All herbaceous (nvn~wovu») plants, moom|oax
cx size, and woody plants less than o.2mntall.
-----_---_-_____-
111.
---------------'
s.
Woody vine - All woody vines ome m
o,onozuftin
Total Cover |
r.
Prevalence _---_''—_--
-.
----'----------|oeLsoov�s
Total Cover |
-------- x�~
--------
Saplinci/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
) 1.
2.
3.
4.
- -----_
e.
7.
Prevalence Index =m^=
F*cW species
xu~______
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
F*canomo
xo=______
F*cuxFmmox
x*~________
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
upLanoviea
xo~_______
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Prevalence Index =m^=
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
2.
n.
*.
n. _____-_---_-_----
6.
= Total Cover
or onoseparate
Hydrophytic
/
Vegetation --- \/ No
Present? Yes
US Army Corps mEngineers somemmountamxanopieumon- |mommvommn
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
a
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
-----_-----_-----_
Total Cover
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. FO J P V (f L4, �k e 0 v
». �0 1
_4,'11
.
Definitions m Four Vegetation Strata:
-----------------
Tmu- Woody plants, excluding vines, o In. (r.e cm) o,
more m diameter ot breast height (oax). regardless m
e.
------------------
r.
xoiom.
».
aapxnumxmu - Wvouyomots.oxmvumnvmox.wax
--------------'
«'
than o in. oan and greater than o.unn(1m)tall.
-----_-----_---__-
10.
Herb -All herbaceous (nvn~wovu») plants, moom|oax
cx size, and woody plants less than o.2mntall.
-----_---_-_____-
111.
---------------'
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines ome m
o,onozuftin
Total Cover |
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
2.
n.
*.
n. _____-_---_-_----
6.
= Total Cover
or onoseparate
Hydrophytic
/
Vegetation --- \/ No
Present? Yes
US Army Corps mEngineers somemmountamxanopieumon- |mommvommn

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soiis3:
Redox Features
Texture Remarks
Color (moist) % Type' Loc
Color (moist)
%
!a
<�
'. -.r v ',.� �d�
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
E_ a
i E/
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
^_
✓ Depleted Matrix (1#3)
y r
B
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soiis3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Hislic 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 (1#3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR fV)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
V Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,14B)
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)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: (' �',I��
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

WETLAND DI= TERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Pr0jacU$110 -, � t hyl �s�r' P1 City/County:- 1 Sampling pate:
ApplicanUC)wner:
state: V t Sampling Point; t ..
Investigator(s): ti 2- , r -- — Section, Township, Range` -j I -Ik t 1 kj
Landrorm (hlllslope, terrace. etc,): I f � 'ill A I K Local relief (concave, convex. none). � +��_°�+`�� Scope
Subregion (t-RR or MLRA): Let: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit dame; NWI class €pcation: No 4;L-
Are cilmatic I hydrologic candillo on the site typical for this time oryear? Yes No (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation V 9011 • or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal ClroumstancoV prasent? Yes _ No
Are Vagatatlon , Sall �, or Hydrology .. naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUNIMAKT Ut- t'II4IJIIVUZ2 — AIIi10II SILL' 11HI.l 5IIL7W II I till l I IP1II IU JAMIR lut.alluI l0} LIM10104IL01 1I f IIJ-1u11L .cowl ca, —.
Hydrophyflc Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydr €c Soil Present7 Yes No within a Wetland? Yes. No
Welland Hydrology Present? yesr No
Remarks: its' r= t ekli'tit UT L -0 � I'rrtlf (J SJAlrii ly[ �����
r F.p f_ �tfl r t1
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
aeconoary lnoicamrs tmrrumurn or nve rsaulrar�
Primary lodloalori(mintmum of one is required! check
all that apply)
Surface Sall Cracks (Im)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Aquatic Plants
Surface Water (All) _
True (614)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
I/Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (03)
_ Maas Trlm Lines (B1t3)
Water Marks (di) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_-_, ply- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (82) _
Reoent Iron Reduction In Tilled Solls (Cie)
_, Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83) _
Thin Muck Surface (G7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial imagary (CP)
__,_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
,/- Stunted or Stressed Rants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
Z Gea morphlc Pos€llon (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
/ Water-Stained Leaves (P,g)
Microtopographio Roller (04)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1319)
_ FAC•Neutral Teal (05)
mesa vo5ervatlon8:
Surface Water Present? Yes No �� Depth (inches); _-
Water Table Present? Yes No ' Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): _ _ _ Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca ltia frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), iravailable:
Remarks:
US Army Corps or Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
7.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
Tree Stratum (Plot size
) % Cover
Vpe c ,A,,
Species? Status
\ l 4C
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
!'�
(A)
4.
5.
CAC 0
6
3 _
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
Total Number of Dominant
8
_
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
10.
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8.
5.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
Percent of Dominant Species
i
than 3 In. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:u
(A/B)
6.
Herb -Ail herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
11
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
8
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x2=
1.
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
-•
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
_
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6
9
_
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
= Total Cover
— data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1._Y`Cli�i ( YbL -p n-61 s'r 4 „ 'y n aria -Lkrr)
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
r-) `
3 LLL, JI l n�} t s
.�
4. j
s�
-•
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
�•
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9•
than 3 In. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb -Ail herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
11
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
eig
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
tarrcs: tmcwae pnoto numoers nere or on a separate sneet.)
g
t t
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
(' r' 4
'Type: C= Concentration. D= Depletion. RM= Reduced Matrix. MS= Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL =Pore Linino. M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 146)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 146)
(MLRA 147, 146)
_ 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)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_✓ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 146)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 146)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
marks:
c.. P
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: ')(k "1 ' !� City /County: J k Sampling Date: `- lP
Applicant/Owner: >� _ State: FlIC Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): (El Section, Township, Range: r
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): 1)c' y l .' f, :" Local relief (concave, convex, none): �bf%Q Adl E_ Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: PIA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V`l 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.)
c�wwwwwrw n
.+.....1n 1% I — r�uat, l a c rll P a lvwllll,. ,Gllll.11llll,. PU1111. 1VGdtions, trdflsects, Imporiant Teatures, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes No
Yes No
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Is the Sampled Area
,Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (814)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
within a Wetland?
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Remarks:
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _
i ° °,4
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
At�
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_✓Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
,Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (814)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131) _
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 (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
7 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:
r
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
r.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ° °'- (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
x 1 =
FACW species
t „
, $ :�. a �.,, k .,., t��,-,; rte
2.� . u �
i
f
: >,s7, 7 'ta_� ('7�i4�,�
3.
FACU species
4.
UPL species
5.
Column Totals:
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
-t
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Sampling Point:
r.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ° °'- (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species t ?
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) i
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
v
e") ("'7' o
V Q'/
v fi�
'69,/2-
Wki lki
4
'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 Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (At 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 (At 0) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted
Dark Surface (F7)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
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)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: i ���a "t� City /County: Sampling Date:"€
Applicant/Owner: V, _ State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): cz —\, Section, Township, Range. k 'e t . '- � \
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): 14,,v-, c1r' E — ',Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
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 VegetationSoil �` or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
V'/ Drainage Patterns (610)
V "Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ 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 (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ 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):
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:
``
6
{q ir
{
F
f r
rp q
a
o ft
r �
l y
T'i
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
m
1, y`- tp -)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
s# A
2.` ���
K
'' ' ��
"�_.�� °�= i
Total Number of Dominant
3. a r' ,x
�.-
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4 .: ,`���r�z= ft�
to �� x ���
_.r:?��
_
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
= Total Cover
)
FACW species x 2 = f t`
1
FAC species [ .` "`? x 3 = l °j
2.
FACU species '':J x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
/
�✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
._. �
Ir C,
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. 00 9„
2.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4•
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
= Total Cover
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5•
Vegetation
g.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
r
LV
b
l @ r
t
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to
or
Sampling Point:
of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
y-
7
_')/X'
Hydric Soil Indicators:
RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
_ Histosol (Al)
_ 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 (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
8 Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
V/
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
.Site: �,4 `t ` t` ` City/County: )
= i.'�! � (� Sampling Date: �
dplicant/Owner: :
State: t Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):_ Section, Township, Range: �t ( '_ ° rY) ✓4 ` k'_.`i
_� t
Landform (hilfslope, terrace, etc.): ! '1-y P a > F Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %).
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
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 showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes i� 4 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required;
check all that aooly)
V 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 (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ 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 (133)
_ 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)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
7 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):
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: I
r
i �
P
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names ofplants.
��
Sampling Point: i
us Army Corps mEngineers eaotemmountamoanopiedmon\ - mtemnvorsion
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
_% Cover
Species? Status.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are 013L, FACK or FAC: (A)
rot C
ilx 10
Total Number of Dominant
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
FACW species x 2 =
2.
FACU species x4=
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
I -Rapid Test for Hyd rophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
2. L-1a
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (I m) tall.
10.
11.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Total Cover
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
height.
2.
3.
5.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes V/ No
Total Cover
Remarks-, (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
us Army Corps mEngineers eaotemmountamoanopiedmon\ - mtemnvorsion

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 _Co_c
Texture Remarks
-H 42�
i
q_
T5�/e to
"
G'V _T
'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 SoiIS3:
— Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
— Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) — Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
— Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
I.Admv 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)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
— Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
— Redox Depressions (F8)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
— 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)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
— Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Sol[ Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: . xi > ` =S 't t _,, City /County: i c`.W! � Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: 1 Sampling Point: 16—i 4-
Investigator(s): �� � � Section, Townshi p, Ran g e: �-IJFU
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0,00t Slope ( %):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
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 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
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
nci � jai na.
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
°Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (61)
4
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
°Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (61)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
t/ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ 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 (65)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_
V/— Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
,_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No V 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:
at 4
C� r )4 :
€4 te
L ,� :E a
JJ,
AN
ra.
aY itek`
e
E
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: �� *
un Army Corps wEngineers sostemwountamsanmpiemmon- mmnmvomwn
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
_% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
Total Number of Dominant
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
FACW species x 2 =
Prevalence Index B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
— -,A
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb —All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Total Cover
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
height.
2.
3.
5.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation 611
6.
Present? Yes No
Total Cover
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
un Army Corps wEngineers sostemwountamsanmpiemmon- mmnmvomwn

SOIL
to
or confirm the a
Sampling Point:
Depth
Matrix
Dark Surface (S7)
Redox Features
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
% Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
s�
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
3duced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version
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 (F19)
tDepleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: W-P"\ l XQ1Q1,V City/County: S Sampling Date: - 7 - -- (
Applicant/Owner: Stater Sampling Point Po g
Investigator(s): Ny�� -� -r f
� � �`l � ��€.le�B � Section, Township, Range:
Pd j
Landfonn (hiilslope, terrace, etc.): aso Local relief (concave, convex, none):, C. cox 1e Slope ( %): D
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ f _ 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, transects, important reatures, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes --�Z No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes / No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: ry-) e; '1 p(,- ,(l
HYDROLOGY
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) •J, Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) ✓ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (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 (131)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
7 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9) / Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13) / FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: /
G
Surface Water Present? Yes / No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 1 No Depth (inches): t?
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
A f}
pp d
�r
t
rj
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: V&f_� 5
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1[
1. �vv¢P-�u+r� (L4€rr�ra,_.�� - ,(5.�a 190 �,�.. i "��
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species r ",)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
2. (�t# c c, ICP �tr_�� °l, ?. 1 �����
3•
4.
5
6,
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species X5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
8
= Total Cover
Sapiino /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1,
2.
3,
4,
5.
6.
7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1/ 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)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
8
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1 ca r x �F „E
2. a t q v . ?r ' 1 � ) A ,,,F
3. h uc ) „
4,
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 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
height.
5 1
6. Co , r,. ,\ VC01 a,
�>
7. (J/yk,vo, ­ V QAa a.5
8.
9•
10.
11
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
et
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
inches Color (moist) %
Color (moist) r % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
J' ,at °:/ 1e_ —'—o
r fi C, � F U) _.h4
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis':
_ Histosoi (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
lack 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)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
W
7 vF it E` -i �. , _ 1 k'-/1 C..:, r - ,.. U����.�- /�e.:�. \� C•'_� 6' c
- P ( (`.9m ...,...
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action I.D.: SAW- 2014 -00016 County: Stan] U.S.G.S. Quad: New London
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent: David Harward
Address: 43204 Blalock Road New London, NC 28127
Telephone No.:
Property description:
Size (acres): Nearest Town: New London
Nearest Waterway: Town Creek River Basin: Rocky Watershed; Upper Pee Dee Basin
Coordinates: 35.430279 / - 80.238945 Hydrologic Unit Code: 03040105
Location Description: The site is located between Old Salisbury Road and Blalock Road, south of Steakhouse Road in
New London, Stanly County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Followini4 Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be waters and wetlands on the above described property. We strongly
suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be
considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). ). If you
wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters and wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the waters and wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property
and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a
more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by
the Corps.
X The waters and wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps.
We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by
the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your
property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to
exceed five years.
_ The waters and wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

Action Id.: SAW- 2014 -00016
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Kichefski at 828 -271 -7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Interim
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Yetlands Delineation Manual_ Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region. These
wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located within the project area that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks.
The stream channel within the project area is an unnamed tributary to Town Creek which flows into the Rocky Watershed;
Upper Pee Dee Basin River. UT to Town Creek flows to the Atlantic Ocean via Town Creek, Little Long Creek, Long Creek,
Rocky River and the Pee Dee River. The Pee Dee River is a Section 10 navigable water at the Blewett Falls Dam.
D. Remarks: JD for portion of property associated with NCEEP restoration project.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a request for
appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following
address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by March 3, 2014.
"It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. **
kCorps Regulatory Official: Steve Kichefski
Issue Date: JanuarV 2, 2014 Expiration Date: January 2, 2019
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 our website at http:// per2 .nwp.usace.amiy.mil /survey.html
to complete the survey online.
CF: Kristi Suggs, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., 5550 Seventy -Seven Center Drive, Ste. 320, Charlotte, NC
28217
2

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an
approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may
provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL' PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an
initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons
or objections are addressed in the administrative record
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However,
you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
process you may contact:
also contact:
Steve Kichefski, Project Manager
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
USACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
CESAD -PDO
151 Patton Ave
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
RM 208
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Asheville, NC 28806
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
828 - 271 -7980
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Steve Kichefski, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD -PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

XOTIFICATION.OF ,ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL i?PTIO%TS AND;PROCESS AND. ,
REOI7EST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: David Harward
File Number: SAW -2014-
Date: January 2, 2014
00016
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I -'The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above <'
decisiom Additional information maybe found at
http: / /www.usac&. army. nii l /CECW/Pages /reg_materials.aspx or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.'
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. - - --
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and, conditions therein, you may request that
the pen-nit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer.
Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you -will forfeit your right
to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a)
modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify
the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this
form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the
date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process
by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

16.2 NCWAM Forms — Existing Wetlands
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -3 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
L.aicuiaior version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Wetland 1
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool +
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee +
:Yes EaCNO Precipitation within 48 hrs? L
Date 7/19/2011
Assessor Name /Organization K.Suggs / Baker
Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
35.436836 / - 80.243576
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes [3 No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
1-1 Anadromous fish
71 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
71 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
71 Designated NCNHP reference community
F-1 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
® Brownwater
F_ I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar [3 Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? []Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [3 Yes a] No
1. Ground Surface Condition /Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
E]A E3A Not severely altered
B a] B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
[3A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ®A •®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B E3 B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C 0 C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
31b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
® B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
41b. EA Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. J' A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
® B ® B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C ® C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F71 B 1510— B Ir B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C r1_0 C F C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F✓ D F7 D f✓ D > 20% coverage of pasture
(✓ E F✓ E (✓ E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G F G F G >_ 20% coverage of clear -cut land
F H F H F H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area /wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ©No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
® A >_ 50 feet
® B From 30 to < 50 feet
® C From 15 to < 30 feet
® D From 5 to < 15 feet
® E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
® <_ 15 -feet wide © > 15 -feet wide ® Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
® Yes ® No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
® Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
® Exposed - adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type /wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
[3A ®A >_ 100 feet
® B 0 B From 80 to < 100 feet
® C ® C From 50 to < 80 feet
® D ® D From 40 to < 50 feet
E © E From 30 to < 40 feet
® F 0 F From 15 to < 30 feet
G 0 G From 5 to < 15 feet
© H ® H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
[3A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
® B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
E3 B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
®C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type /wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
CA CA C A >_ 500 acres
C B F, B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
CC F, C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
C D F, D F, D From 25 to < 50 acres
C E F, E CE From 10 to < 25 acres
U, F CF C F From 5 to < 10 acres
CG CG C G From 1 to < 5 acres
C H C H C H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
C I C I C I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
EJ EJ [EJ From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
C K C K C K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
F, A Pocosin is the full extent (> 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
U, A Z ; A ? 500 acres
F, B F, B From 100 to < 500 acres
CC P, C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E ; E < 10 acres
E F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
CYes CNo Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non - forested areas ? 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
CA No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
C B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
ZE C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
CA Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
CC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
EA Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
r, B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
CC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

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

Wetland Site Name
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland 1
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool
Date 7/19/2011
Assessor Name /Organization K.Suggs / Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition NA
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
i,aicuiawr version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Wetland 2
Date 7/21/11
Wetland Type Headwater Forest + Assessor Name /Organization Ksuggs /Baker
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
E Yes . No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci- dearees) 35.431599 / - 80.240303
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? a] Yes [3 No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
1-1 Anadromous fish
71 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
71 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
71 Designated NCNHP reference community
F-1 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
® Brownwater
F_ I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar [3 Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? []Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [3 Yes a] No
1. Ground Surface Condition /Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
E]A E3A Not severely altered
B a] B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. []A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B E3 B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C ® C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
31b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
® B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
41b. EA Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. J' A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
DA E]A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
® B ® B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
El C ©C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F B r B Ir B < 10% impervious surfaces
r C r1_1 C r C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
* D F D F-1 D > 20% coverage of pasture
* E R E F10 E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G F G >_ 20% coverage of clear -cut land
F H r H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area /wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ©No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
® A >_ 50 feet
® B From 30 to < 50 feet
® C From 15 to < 30 feet
® D From 5 to < 15 feet
® E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
® <_ 15 -feet wide © > 15 -feet wide ® Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
® Yes 0 No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
® Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
® Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type /wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
[3A [3A >_ 100 feet
® B ® B From 80 to < 100 feet
® C ® C From 50 to < 80 feet
® D ® D From 40 to < 50 feet
E ® E From 30 to < 40 feet
® F ® F From 15 to < 30 feet
® G ® G From 5 to < 15 feet
®H ®H <5feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
[3A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
® B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
®C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type /wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
CA CA C A >_ 500 acres
C B F, B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
CC F, C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
C D F, D F, D From 25 to < 50 acres
C E F, E CE From 10 to < 25 acres
U, F CF C F From 5 to < 10 acres
CG CG C G From 1 to < 5 acres
C H C H C H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
C I C I C I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
CJ CJ CJ From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
E K C K C K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
F, A Pocosin is the full extent (> 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
U, A E: A ? 500 acres
F, B CB From 100 to < 500 acres
CC P, C From 50 to < 100 acres
ED CID From 10 to < 50 acres
F, E C E < 10 acres
C F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
CYes CNo Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non - forested areas ? 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
CA No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
C B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
EC An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
CA Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
CC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
EA Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
r, B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
CC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

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

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland 2
Headwater Forest
Date 7/21/11
Assessor Name /Organization Ksuggs /Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
maung taicuiaior version 4.-1
Wetland Site Name Wetland 3 Date 7/21/11
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name /Organization KSu s /Baker
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
E Yes M No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci - degrees) 35.431999 / - 80.240601
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? a] Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
F-1 Anadromous fish
F-I Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F-1 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F I Designated NCNHP reference community
71 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
E] Blackwater
Brownwater
I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar ® Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? [3 Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ® Yes •® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes E3 No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
M]A ®A Not severely altered
B [] B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
[3A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. [3A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B ® B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C ® C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
E3 B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. L:A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. EA Soil ribbon < 1 inch
E B Soil ribbon z 1 inch
4c. EA No peat or muck presence
L: B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
DA EJA Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
® B 0 B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
® C ©C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS
5M
2M
®A
F A
F A
F A
> 10% impervious surfaces
F' B
F' B
F% B
< 10% impervious surfaces
F C
(✓ C
I- C
Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
P D
F01 D
Fv D
> 20% coverage of pasture
F E
F7 E
R E
? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F
F- F
F- F
? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G
F G
F G
? 20% coverage of clear -cut land
F H
F H
F H
Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area /wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
E] Yes []No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
© A z 50 feet
® B From 30 to < 50 feet
® C From 15 to < 30 feet
® D From 5 to < 15 feet
® E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
EJ <- 15 -feet wide 0 > 15 -feet wide 0 Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
® Yes ® No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
® Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
® Exposed - adjacent open water with width > 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type /wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
®A
DA
? 100 feet
® B
❑ B
From 80 to < 100 feet
El C
❑ C
From 50 to < 80 feet
MI D
0 D
From 40 to < 50 feet
E3 E
® E
From 30 to < 40 feet
® F
® F
From 15 to < 30 feet
® G
® G
From 5 to < 15 feet
®H
®H
<5feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
[3A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
M] B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
M]A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
® B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
®C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type /wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A;A [',A >_ 500 acres
B ; B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
• C F, C CC From 50 to < 100 acres
• D P, D CD From 25 to < 50 acres
F, E CE C, E From 10 to < 25 acres
C F C F C F From 5 to < 10 acres
CG F, G C, G From 1 to < 5 acres
C H F, H C H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
C I F, I C, I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
EJ EJ CJ From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
C K C K C K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only;
CA Pocosin is the full extent (? 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
F, A EA z 500 acres
C B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
F, C CC From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
r, Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non - forested areas ? 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
CA No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directionsor assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat
CA Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
CC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only
ZEA Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
E B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
CC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Lo Yes L] No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetationfor all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
�A ? 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
oEA EA Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U F; C, C Canopy sparse or absent
o L]A L]A Dense mid - story/sapling layer
u) L; B [] B Moderate density mid - story/sapling layer
C E' C Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
s F,A EA Dense shrub layer
L L] B U; B Moderate density shrub layer
u) EC EC Shrub layer sparse or absent
9 L]A U, A Dense herb layer
B E B Moderate density herb layer
_ L] C L] C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
L:A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
tEA Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man - placed natural debris.
F,A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
Z;B Not
21. Vegetation /Open Water Dispersion — wetland type /open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
•� Imo-?! �.-- �-r -. -/. ..4 -��I F -+ -� � `� �:
22. Hydrologic Connectivity —assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
E:A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
L] C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area
Notes

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland 3
Headwater Forest
Date 7/21/11
Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
L.aicuiaior version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Wetland 4
Date 7/21/11
Wetland Type Headwater Forest + Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
E Yes EaC No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci- dearees) 35.434399 / - 80.242401
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? a] Yes [3 No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
1-1 Anadromous fish
71 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
71 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
71 Designated NCNHP reference community
F-1 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
® Brownwater
F_ I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar [3 Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? []Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [3 Yes a] No
1. Ground Surface Condition /Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
E]A E3A Not severely altered
B a] B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. []A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B E3 B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C [3 C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
31b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
® B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
41b. A Soil ribbon < I inch
B Soil ribbon � I inch
4c. ZEA No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetiand — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
[3A E]A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
[3 B [3 B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
El C [3C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A �t 10% impervious surfaces
F1 B FO B r1'_' B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C r1_0 C F C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F' D F D F D � 20% coverage of pasture
R E R E F10 E �t 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F �: 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G F G F G �t 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F H F H F H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetiand complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
ElYes r]No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
[3 A � 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
[3 D From 5 to < 15 feet
[3 E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
EI!5 15-feet wide [3 > 15-feet wide [3 Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
E] Yes El No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
E] Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
[3 Exposed — adjacent open water with width �: 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
[3A [3A � 100 feet
[3 B [3 B From 80 to < 100 feet
[3 C [3 C From 50 to < 80 feet
[3 D [3 D From 40 to < 50 feet
[3 E [3 E From 30 to < 40 feet
[3 F [3 F From 15 to < 30 feet
El G E]G From 5 to < 15 feet
[3 H [3 H < 5 feet

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

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

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland 4
Headwater Forest
Date 7/21/11
Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Ratina Summa
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
L.aicuiaior version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Wetland 5
Date 7/21/11
Wetland Type Headwater Forest + Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
E Yes EaC No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci- dearees) 35.434502 / - 80.242302
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? a] Yes [3 No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
1-1 Anadromous fish
71 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
71 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
71 Designated NCNHP reference community
F-1 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
® Brownwater
F_ I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar [3 Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? []Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [3 Yes a] No
1. Ground Surface Condition /Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
E]A E3A Not severely altered
B a] B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. []A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B E3 B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C [3 C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
31b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
® B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
41b. A Soil ribbon < I inch
B Soil ribbon � I inch
4c. ZEA No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetiand — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
[3A E]A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
[3 B [3 B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
El C [3C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A �t 10% impervious surfaces
F1 B FO B r1'_' B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C r1_0 C F C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F' D F D F D � 20% coverage of pasture
R E R E F10 E �t 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F �: 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G F G F G �t 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F H F H F H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetiand complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
ElYes r]No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
[3 A � 50 feet
E] B From 30 to < 50 feet
[3 C From 15 to < 30 feet
F] D From 5 to < 15 feet
[3 E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
EI!5 15-feet wide [3 > 15-feet wide [3 Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
El Yes [3 No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
E] Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
[3 Exposed — adjacent open water with width �: 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
[3A [3A � 100 feet
[3 B [3 B From 80 to < 100 feet
[3 C [3 C From 50 to < 80 feet
[3 D [3 D From 40 to < 50 feet
[3 E [3 E From 30 to < 40 feet
[3 F [3 F From 15 to < 30 feet
El G E]G From 5 to < 15 feet
[3 H [3 H < 5 feet

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

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

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland 5
Headwater Forest
Date 7/21/11
Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
Sub - function Ratina Summa
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
L.aicuiaior version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Wetland 6
Date 7/21/11
Wetland Type Headwater Forest + Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
E Yes EaC No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci- dearees) 35.434299 / - 80.242104
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? a] Yes [3 No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
1-1 Anadromous fish
71 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
71 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
71 Designated NCNHP reference community
F-1 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
® Brownwater
F_ I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar [3 Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? []Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [3 Yes [3 No
1. Ground Surface Condition /Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
H]A ®A Not severely altered
B [3 B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. []A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B E3 B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C [3 C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
31b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
® B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
41b. EA Soil ribbon < 1 inch
0 B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. J' A No peat or muck presence
0 B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A E]A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
® B 0 B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
0 C ® C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B Ir B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C r1_0 C r C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F D F D F D > 20% coverage of pasture
F** E R E F10 E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G F G >_ 20% coverage of clear -cut land
F H F H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area /wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
0 A >_ 50 feet
0 B From 30 to < 50 feet
0 C From 15 to < 30 feet
® D From 5 to < 15 feet
® E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
[3!5 15 -feet wide 0 > 15 -feet wide 0 Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
0 Yes 0 No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
® Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
0 Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type /wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
OA DA >_ 100 feet
® B 0 B From 80 to < 100 feet
® C 0 C From 50 to < 80 feet
® D 0 D From 40 to < 50 feet
® E ® E From 30 to < 40 feet
® F 0 F From 15 to < 30 feet
O G O G From 5 to < 15 feet
O H O H < 5 feet

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

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

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland 6
Headwater Forest
Date 7/21/11
Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
Sub - function Ratina Summa
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
i,aicuiawr version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Wetland 7
Date 7/21/11
Wetland Type Headwater Forest + Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
E Yes E: No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci- dearees) 35.434502 / - 80.242401
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? a] Yes [3 No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
1-1 Anadromous fish
71 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
71 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
71 Designated NCNHP reference community
F-1 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
® Brownwater
F_ I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar [3 Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? []Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [3 Yes a] No
1. Ground Surface Condition /Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
H]A ®A Not severely altered
B [3 B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. []A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B E3 B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C [3 C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
31b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
® B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
41b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. Z' A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
DA E]A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
® B ® B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
© C ©C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F07 B 1510- B F1'-' B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C r1_0 C r C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F10- D F D F D > 20% coverage of pasture
F10 E R E R E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G F G >_ 20% coverage of clear -cut land
F H r H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area /wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ©No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
® A >_ 50 feet
® B From 30 to < 50 feet
® C From 15 to < 30 feet
® D From 5 to < 15 feet
® E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
® <_ 15 -feet wide © > 15 -feet wide ® Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
® Yes ® No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
® Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
® Exposed - adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type /wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
[3A ®A >_ 100 feet
® B 0 B From 80 to < 100 feet
® C ® C From 50 to < 80 feet
® D © D From 40 to < 50 feet
E © E From 30 to < 40 feet
® F 0 F From 15 to < 30 feet
® G 0 G From 5 to < 15 feet
® H ® H < 5 feet

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

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

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland 7
Headwater Forest
Date 7/21/11
Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Ratina Summa
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
i,aicuiawr version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Pond
Date 7/21/11
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool + Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Tributary to Town Creek
River Basin Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040105
E Yes E: No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci- dearees) 35.430500 / - 80.239502
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? a] Yes [3 No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
1-1 Anadromous fish
71 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F-1 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F-1 Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F-1 Publicly owned property
F-1 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
71 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
71 Designated NCNHP reference community
F-1 Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
® Brownwater
F_ I Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ® Lunar [3 Wind ® Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? []Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [3 Yes a] No
1. Ground Surface Condition /Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
E]A E3A Not severely altered
B a] B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
[]A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
® B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
® C ® C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief - assessment area /wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ®A •®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
® B E3 B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
® C 0 C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
® D ® D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
31b. ®A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
® B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
® C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
41b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. Z' A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
DA E]A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
® B ® B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
© C ©C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B Ir B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C r1_0 C r C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F D F D F D > 20% coverage of pasture
R E R E F10 E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G F G >_ 20% coverage of clear -cut land
F H r H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area /wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ©No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
® A >_ 50 feet
® B From 30 to < 50 feet
® C From 15 to < 30 feet
® D From 5 to < 15 feet
® E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
® <_ 15 -feet wide © > 15 -feet wide ® Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
[]Yes ® No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
® Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
® Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type /wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
F]A ®A >_ 100 feet
® B 0 B From 80 to < 100 feet
C ® C From 50 to < 80 feet
® D © D From 40 to < 50 feet
E © E From 30 to < 40 feet
® F 0 F From 15 to < 30 feet
G 0 G From 5 to < 15 feet
© H ® H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
[3A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
® B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
E3 B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
®C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type /wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
CA CA C A >_ 500 acres
C B F, B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
CC F, C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
C D F, D F, D From 25 to < 50 acres
C E F, E CE From 10 to < 25 acres
U, F CF C F From 5 to < 10 acres
CG CG C G From 1 to < 5 acres
C H C H C H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
ZE I C I C I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
CJ CJ CJ From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
C K C K C K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
F, A Pocosin is the full extent (> 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
U, A E: A ? 500 acres
F, B CB From 100 to < 500 acres
CC P, C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E ; E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
CYes CNo Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non - forested areas ? 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
CA No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
C B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
ZE C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
CA Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
CC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
CA Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
C B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

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

Wetland Site Name
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Pond
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool
Date 7/21/11
Assessor Name /Organization KSuggs / Baker
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Ratina Summa
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Habitat Physical Structure
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition /Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) YES
Physical Change Condition NA
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

16.3 NCDWR Stream Classification Forms
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -4 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 G " I, 1 '-0, 4- 3 A
Date: [
Project/Site: / 6 -=ry
Latitude:
Evaluator: �� / �
County: Nan L/
Longitude:
�
1
2
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent erenniaF
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or erennial if? 30*
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
CD
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
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
(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 =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal =
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
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
Ves = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal= ``l . ) -
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
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch
n� `?
41
Y vt .,

FK4
0
L
NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 -°
Date: '7 - Z01 I
Project/Site: -T-j : mot I , .
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:d�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30`
2
3
A. Geomorphology holo (Subtotal = I Z )
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 se uence
0
0.5
2
3
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
o
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control 5e'e _.[ q
0
0.5
1
5
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
B. H drolo Subtotal = (P
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
0.5
1 )
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
(_TF7,
0.5
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
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
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 `other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
:. ,,
Notes: \_.t t` ` „ .- C
(_
Sketch:
k D_x `Lw" y �f C �� u3bo A ,
41

NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1 - 3 - 1 1
Project/Site: llT.), 4-® Tow,. CreAk
Latitude:
Evaluator: K5
County: S+11A 11-
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one )
Other
3
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if? 30'
0.5
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_1&_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. 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
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
Cl)
2
3
8. Headcuts
00
1
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
o =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 'Ra 5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
M
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 lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
(Y- es = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 10,5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
U
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
(V
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed \Al; tta, S i f\ u s+rae'
/se3
FACW = 0.75
OBL = 1. Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 95 of manual.
Notes: Chwn�� l �.� s r,h �r. d � ',� on , ; �t ; �,
� f. o
� � � �� �' ter', � re.�C ,
oOvv',s4-rep_ 5e_r-4'0A w:$tni �
ea o,5 11a IQJS �Q inl �io�i
4-, 'Mpg r r.�e„n�,�.
Sketch: dui i
(�
41

0
NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Oriains v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: m ]�
Project/Site' O 1 2- +a Tow^ Crtek
ce,&
Latitude:
Evaluator: -r e C /� 5
County: S + ,-, I
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent, 5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30*
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
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
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
CO)
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1.5
1
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
CNo=O
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter 1QES k;*ar
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants br debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles �(,s c ., ,
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
(y_ es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _+ +,S
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
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
CIO
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 = 0.79 OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: No G nu l_���<,s arA a,Atc, :r4
Sketch:
41

16.4 FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -5 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

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.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Town Creek Stream and Weltand Mitigation Project
Count Name:
Stanly
EEP Number:
95026
Project Sponsor:
Michael Balser Engineering, Inc.
Pro`ect Contact Name:
Chris Yow, PE, CFM
Project Contact Address:
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste 320
Project Contact E -mail:
eyow @mbakercorp.com
EEP Project Mana er:
Guy Pearce
Project Description
The Town Creek Stream Restoration Project will provide restore /enhance /preserve approximately 4,098
linear feet of stream and enhance approximately 0,44 acres of wetlands to mitigate for unavoidable
impacts to DENR subbasin 03 -07 -13 and the targeted local watershed 03040105- 060040 in the Yadkin
River Basin. The project is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.3 miles west of the Town of New
London. Proposed work will include the restoration of streams on prior converted farmland.
For Official - Only
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
k�J� Z'
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8118105

Version 1.4, 8118105
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
Q No
2. Does the project involve ground - disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑
Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑
No
❑✓
NIA
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑
NIA
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑
Yes
Program?
❑
No
[Z]
NIA
Comprehensive Environmental Res once Compensation and Liability Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
❑
Yes
❑
No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑
Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑✓
No
❑
NIA
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
❑
NIA
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
®
NIA
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑
No
❑✓
NIA
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑
Yes
❑
No
0
NIA
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?
✓❑ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPOITHPO concur?
Yes
❑ No
0 NIA
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
NIA
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
Yes
❑
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑✓
Yes
[j
No
❑
NIA
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑
Yes
[Z]
No
❑
NIA
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
®
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?
❑
NIA
Version 1.4, 8118105

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
aa
R
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of Yes
Cherokee Indians? ✓ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NIA
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
[Z] NIA
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓ NIA
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
✓ No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
✓❑ NIA
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓ NIA
Archaeolo ical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑
Yes
❑✓
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑
Yes
❑
No
✓
NIA
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
NIA
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑
Yes
[]
No
❑✓
NIA
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
Q Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
0 Yes
❑ No
NIA
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
No
❑ NIA
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
✓ NIA
5. Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q NIA
6. Has the USFWS /NOAH- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Version 1.4, 8118105

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
✓❑ No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
❑✓ NIA
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
Yes
sites?
❑ No
0 NIA
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
Z Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
✓❑ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ NIA
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to MRCS?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NIA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
❑✓ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ NIA
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?
Q No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑
Yes
❑
No
NIA
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management-Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑
Yes
[Z]
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
NIA
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑
Yes
project on EFH?
❑
No
0
NIA
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑
Yes
❑
No
0
NIA
5. Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
El
Yes
❑
No
0
NIA
Migratory 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
❑✓ NIA
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
Z NIA
Version 1.4, 8118105

16.5 FEMA Compliance - NCEEP Floodplain Requirements
Checklist
The topography of the site supports the design without creating the potential for hydrologic trespass.
The site is not located in a FEMA mapped area and therefore an extensive hydraulic analysis is not
required to obtain a "No- Rise/No- Impact" certification. The project will also not require a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) following construction in order to document changes (reductions) to Base
Flood Elevations (BFEs). The NCEEP Floodplain Checklist is included.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -6 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

fei
h
�tit)H�'M1RI LI A
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 floodplain 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. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
Name if stream or feature:
UT to Town Creek
County:
Stanly
Name of river basin:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
mumcipalitylcounty:
Stanly County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
6621 & 6631
Consultant name:
Kristi Suggs, Project Manager
Michael Baker Engine eri , Inc.
Phone number:
704- 665 -2206
Address:
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Drive, Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
FEMA Compliance EEP Checklist Town Creek.doc Page 1 of4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -7 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Design Information
Provide; a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference
orthophotograph at a scale of -1" = 500 ". The project site includes one unnamed tributary to
Town Deck, approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the 'town of New London (see Figure 2.1).
The site lies within NC Division of Water (duality subhasin 03 -07 -13 and local watershed unit
03040105060 -010. Currently, the project reaches (see Figure 2.2) are impacted by the historic
draining of area streams for agricultural use, cattle access, and the lack of adequate riparian
buffers. Project goals include approximately 2,78O linear fret (LF) of stream restoration and 960
I,F of stream enhancement (Level I) to improve area water quality and the surrounding
ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the Yadkin Pee -Dcc River Basin.
Summadze stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority
Reach 1 Welland
Linear Feet l Acreage
Priority
RI
316 1,17-
(Restoration)
R2
728 LF
(Enhancement 1)
R3
1 630 LF
( Restoration
R4
232IY
(Enhancement I)
R5
834 IT
Restoration
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Mood Hazard Area (SEHA)?
r Yes r No
If project is located in a SRIA, check hmv it was detemmned:
F Redelmeation
r Detailed Study
r Limited Detail Study
F Approximate Study
r Doti t know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
r Al; Zone
r Floodway
r"' Non - Encroachment
r None
A Zonc
r— Local Setbacks Required
F No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: No specific setbacks required for areas not requiting a
CAMA ptam L
FEMA Compliance EE Checklist Town Creek-doe Page 2 of 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -8 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non- encroachmentlWhacks?
I— Yes l✓ No
Land Acquisition (Check)
T_ state owned (fee simple)
F Conservation eastnent (Design Bid Build)
ro Conservation Easement (Fall Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to the Department
of Administration, State Construction Office (ann. Herbert Neil 919 - 8074101
1s commwtitylcounty participating in the NFIP program?
P Yes r— No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to NF1P lattn: Edward
Curtis 719- 715 -8000 069 , CID 370512#
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Michael Sandy
Phone Number: 744- 9116 -3665
Floodplain Requirements
This section to he filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
l` No Rise
r Letter ofMap Revision
I- Conditional Letter ofMap Revision
r 00hen Requirements
List other requirements:
Namc: _ _E�T7 Y, - Signature: oo' 1_ )
Title: i�t' ± 'Ctr7G Date: 13.IG+ I
FEMA Comhti3rme_EEP ChL-cklisit_'I'au n Creek.dix Page 3 of 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -9 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 16.1 FEMA Floodplain Map
N
r
Y
(v '
J
(S
Michael0eke. E,gir,wi�.lnc.
& Rege PaAwa4
g9cY Nm G� Ire 2518
ION
f is Iii+ . ni�tlf
Conservation Easement
Streams
Parcel Boundaries
Mapped Flood Hazard
Zone AE
WRq-WP
.
Figure 16.1
500 1,000 FEMA Floodplain Map
Feet
Town Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -10 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

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 Summary
The UT to Town Creek is a small, perennial stream with a total drainage area of
approximately 0.20 square miles at the downstream terminus of Reach 5 (Figure 2.2).
Historically, the project streams have been impacted by agricultural conversion and cattle
grazing. Though the middle of the project site the reach is mostly wooded, some sections
have become extremely unstable and are experiencing active widening and downcutting.
For analysis and design purposes, Baker labeled the length of stream within the project
site Reach 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Reach 1 begins at the northernmost project boundary
(upstream end of project site) and the stream flows south through an open pasture section.
Reach 2 begins in this field area and continues into the beginning of the wooded area
where Reach 3 begins. Reach 3 continues through much of wooded section and
transitions to Reach 4, which continues through the lower part of the wooded section.
Reach 4 transitions to Reach 5 upstream of the existing failing farm stream crossing.
Reach 5 is the final project reach and continues to the confluence with the main stem of
Town Creek.
Baker performed an existing conditions survey of the stream channels and floodplain,
which included a longitudinal profile of all project reaches and eleven (11) representative
cross - sections. Pebble counts, both reachwide and at riffle cross - sections, were
conducted using the modified Wolman procedure ( Wolman, 1954; Rosgen, 1996) to
classify the streams bed material. Because reach breaks were determined after the cross -
sectional data was collected, there is no cross - sectional data for Reach 4. In addition,
though cross - sections X1 and X2 are physically located just downstream of the reach
break for Reach 1, the cross - sectional data is indicative of Reach 1 and was therefore
used for the Reach 1 existing conditions assessment. Table 17.1 represents geomorphic
data compiled from the existing conditions survey. Cross - section locations and existing
conditions data from the project reaches are depicted in Figure 17.1 and Figure 17.2,
respectively. Pebble count distribution analyses are depicted in Figure 17.3. The total
current length of the existing streams on the site is approximately 4,032 LF based on the
field survey.
During field verification with the USACE of intermittent or perennial status, 654 LF of
the upper section of the project reach was classified as an intermittent stream and the
remaining 3,444 LF was determined to be a perennial stream. This determination was
based on a minimum score of 30 for perennial streams and/or the presence of biological
indicators using the NCDENR and NCDWR Determination of the Origin of Perennial
Streams stream assessment protocol s and guidelines (see NCDWR stream forms and
USACE JD approval in Appendix B).
Reach 1
Reach 1 begins at the north end of the project site and generally flows south 363 LF
(existing channel length). Cattle currently have access to this reach and have severely
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

impacted the banks and channel, as evidenced by the hoof shear along the stream banks
in this location. Rutted paths from livestock cross the channel in multiple locations. This
reach appears to have been channelized into a straight pattern in the past; with a 90 degree
bend at the property line to move the channel to a point from which is was then
straightened down slope. This portion of Reach 1 is currently incised because of these
modifications, and bank height ratios often exceed 1.5. At one location, a bedrock
outcropping or large boulder has formed a knickpoint in the channel. However, lateral
instability will likely cause further stream bank erosion, channel siltation and subsequent
channel widening if left unaddressed.
The representative riffles in Reach 1 consist of fine gravel. Fine accumulations from
streambank and floodplain erosion were observed in a few areas along the streambed
where the channel slope flattens and allows fines to settle out of the water column. These
bed material accumulations are likely due to the active stream bank erosion occurring
along a majority of the reach and livestock ruts causing excess sediment into the stream.
Evidence of active stream bank erosion along Reach 1 was observed along more than 50
percent of the existing footage, predominantly in the form of surficial scour. The reach
lacks woody buffer vegetation along most of the stream banks, with the buffer along the
stream banks consisting of a grassed, pasture with an occasional tree. Based on existing
conditions, Reach 1 is classified as an incised "Eb" Rosgen stream type, but does not
have the higher sinuosity (k >1.5) typically associated with an E stream type given the
narrow valley bottom and higher channel gradient.
Reach 2
Reach 2 begins at the south end of Reach 1 and flows south 737 LF (existing channel
length) to a derelict ford stream crossing. Cattle currently have access to this reach and
have severely impacted the channel morphology, as evidenced by the hoof shear along
the stream banks in this location. Rutted paths from livestock cross the channel in
multiple locations. This reach appears to have been channelized into a straight pattern in
the past. On the right bank in the middle of this reach is a small wetland area that appears
to have been a small livestock watering pond sometime in the past; however, now it has
little depth and primarily supports wetland vegetation.
Reach 2 is incised and bank height ratios often exceed 1.5. Degradation of the reach will
likely cause further channel incision, stream bank erosion, and subsequent channel
widening if left unaddressed. A majority of the riffles in Reach 2 consist of medium
gravel with some imbedded fine accumulations that likely originate from active stream
bank erosion occurring throughout most of the reach, as well as from channel degradation
caused by continuous and unimpeded livestock access to the stream.
Evidence of active stream bank erosion along Reach 2 was observed along more than 50
percent of the existing footage, predominantly in the form of surficial scour and small
gullies in the banks. The reach lacks woody buffer vegetation along most of the stream
banks, with the buffer along the stream banks consisting of a grassed pasture, with an
occasional tree or clumps of trees, mainly black willows. Based on existing conditions,
Reach 2 is classified as an incised "E" Rosgen stream type, but does not have the high
sinuosity typically associated with an E stream type.
Reach 3
Reach 3 begins at the lower end of the cattle crossing, just below the end of Reach 2, and
continues south into the forested middle section and has an approximate length of 1,849
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -2 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

LF (existing channel length). Reach 3 exhibits different geomorphic conditions than
upstream Reaches 1 and 2. The initial 300 LF transitions from a straight channelized
stream channel with high BHR's and a few trees in the buffer, to generally low BHRs,
forested, meandering channel section. The first 300 LF is highly incised with bedrock
outcroppings present through the section and large mature trees along the left bank.
Below this initial section, the banks are much lower, the channel meanders across the
floodplain and trees are scattered across a fairly wide flat buffer. The channel through
this reach exhibits a profile that is relatively flat and then suddenly drops, over active
headcuts, to the next flat "terrace" and is then relatively flat again until the next drop.
Cattle currently have access to this reach and have severely impacted the banks and
channel, as evidenced by the hoof shear along the stream banks throughout this wooded
section. In general, the upper section of this reach, below the first 300 LF, the BHRs are
considerably lower (around 1.2). However, the channel pattern is considered slightly
irregular when compared to similar reference reach streams within this geologic setting.
This has likely developed as livestock have degraded banks, causing excessive
sedimentation and more unnatural or lateral channel migration. These meanders are
described as unstable because they run up- valley and have a radius of curvature that is
much less than expected based on similar reference reach streams. Further downstream,
the channel becomes more unstable and exhibits higher BHRs. This section of the Reach
has significant incision, with typical BHRs of 2.0 or greater and multiple headcuts.
Active stream bank erosion was observed throughout most of this section of Reach 3,
predominantly in the form of surficial scour and mass wasting. Stream bank erosion here
is widespread due primarily to on -going cattle access. Bed material within this reach are
predominantly characteristic of fine gravel. Reach 3 is classified as an incised "C"
Rosgen stream type.
Trees throughout the buffer along this reach are scattered throughout the floodplain and
consist of a few mature species, but mostly younger successional trees. Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum) are prevalent in many
locations as well. Scattered over the flood plain of this reach are small wetland areas and
abandoned channels. These conditions present an exceptional opportunity for successful
buffer restoration and enhancement activities.
Reach 4
Reach 4 begins at the lower end of Reach 3 and continues south to a point just north of an
existing stream crossing at the lower end of the project and near where the forested
section ends. This reach has an approximate channel length of 234 LF. Based on the
geomorphic assessment, this reach exhibits stable conditions throughout the wooded
section in the middle of the project reach. Reach 4 begins at the lower end of the deeply
incised section of the previous reach. Throughout this reach, the BHRs are relatively low
and average 1.0 to 1.3 based on observations within the reach. Cattle currently have
access to this reach and have severely impacted the banks and channel, as evidenced by
the hoof shear along the stream banks throughout this wooded section. Unlike Reach 3,
the pattern has a relatively low slope and is more similar to the expected reference
condition. The bed material consists of fine gravel, but excessive fine sediment
accumulations were observed in some locations. Most of these fine sediments are being
transported from excessive erosion upstream and from unstable stream banks within the
reach.
Some sections of the riparian buffer along this reach exhibit relatively open canopy.
However, there are still mature trees interspersed throughout the buffer and there are
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -3 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

young trees growing as well. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and creeping grass
(Microstegium vimineum) are growing in many locations as well. Located on the
floodplain of this reach are a couple of small wetlands with connecting high flow
channels. This reach presents an exceptional opportunity for successful functional uplift
through implementation of enhancement activities that will address repair of poor bank
conditions and vegetation improvements.
Reach 5
Reach 5 begins at the lower end of Reach 4 at a point just north of the existing stream
crossing at the lower end of the project and near where the forested section ends. This
reach continues downstream through a dilapidated, culverted farm road crossing, across
an existing sewer line, and to its confluence with Town Creek. The conservation
easement at the lower end of this reach ends at the sewer line easement just upstream of
the confluence. Much of the upper portion of Reach 5 contains a mature tree line at the
top of the stream bank and is used by cattle as a loafing area. Consequently, it too is
experiencing significant degradation. Within this section of the reach, the channel is
cutting into the valley slope. Reach 5 is classified as an incised `B" Rosgen stream type.
Cross - sectional riffle data depicts a substrate material of fine to medium gravel.
Livestock have negatively impacted the channel morphology and sediment has aggraded
at the crossing due to backwater conditions from the pipe culvert being plugged in the
past. The existing crossing has been degraded and sections of the concrete culvert have
failed. This crossing has formed a significant drop in bed elevation between the upstream
side and the downstream side. Immediately below this crossing is a stand of large,
mature trees that livestock have used over the years for shade. Consequently, they have
destroyed much of the natural channel morphology and understory buffer vegetation.
The transition point between this stand of trees and the pasture below has a 2 -3 foot
headcut that has been stabilized by large roots from the mature trees. After the channel
exits this stand of trees, it enters a short section of relatively open pasture that primarily
has grassed banks. There are a few woody trees along the channel, but they are mostly
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) which is prevalent along much of the existing buffer.
On the right bank near the lower end of this reach is a small farm pond which has a
degraded outflow control that results in minimal pond depth. The periphery of this pond
has been identified as jurisdictional wetlands. This pond is included within the project
conservation easement as a water quality feature, but is not being utilized to provide
wetland credit. At the lower end of the reach is a sewer line easement, which has been
excluded from the conservation easement.
Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for Project Reaches:
Stream Channel Classification Level II
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Parameter
Reach 1 & 2
XSl XS2
XS3 I XS4
Existing Reach Length (ft)
Reach 1 = 363
Reach 2 = 737
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
Reach 1 = 0.09
Reach 2 = 0.12
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
Reach 1 = 16.3
Reach 2 = 20.9
Feature Type
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
Rosgen Stream Type
-
E4b (incised)
E4 (incised)
-
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
5.53
7.16
6.55
8.83
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
1.06
0.76
1.06
1.59
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbk/dbkf)
5.22
9.43
6.17
5.56
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
5.9
5.4
6.9
14
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -4 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
2.31
1.78
1.85
2.39
loodprone Width (W a) (ft)
76.6
72.1
25.5
42.7
Entrenchment Ratio (W a /Wbkf) (ft)
13.8
10.1
3.9
4.8
Bank Height Ratio **
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
14 +06
14 +73
20 +28
20 +57
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf
(Qbkf/Abkf) (ft /S)
- --
3.02
3.03
- --
Channel Materials from Riffle (Particle Size Index - d5O) * **
d16 (mm)
-
0.2
<0.063
-
d35 (mm)
-
4.3
7.2
-
d50 (mm)
-
6.9
16.7
-
d84 (mm)
-
30.8
54.5
-
d95 (mm)
-
54.5
85.7
-
Average Valley Slope (ft /ft)
Reach 1
= 0.0252
Reach 2 = 0.0171
Average Water Surface Sloe (S)
Reach 1 = 0.0212
Reach 2 = 0.0159
Average Channel Sinuosity (K)
Reach 1 = 1.17
Reach 2 = 1.06
Parameter
Reach 3
XS5 XS6 I XS7 XS8
Existing Reach Length (ft)
1,849
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.17
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfS)*
26.4
28.0
Feature Type
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Rosgen Stream Type
C4
-
E4 (incised)
-
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
16.1
6.3
6.0
11.2
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.45
0.90
1.31
1.22
Width to Depth Ratio (`` bkt' dbkf)
35.6
7.0
4.6
9.2
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
7.3
5.7
7.8
13.6
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.6
1.3
1.9
1.9
Floodprone Width (Wfpa) (ft)
>81
52
32
>89
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa /Wbkf) (ft)
5.0
8.2
5.4
8.0
Bank Height Ratio **
1.1
1.5
1.9
1.1
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
25 +71
28 +92
33 +36
37 +93
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf=
(Qbkfl Abkf) (ft /S)
3.62
- --
3.59
---
Channel Materials from Riffle (Particle Size Index - d5O) * **
d16 (mm)
<0.063
-
<0.063
-
d35 (mm)
4.6
-
3.9
-
d50 (mm)
7.3
-
6.5
-
d84 (mm)
20.4
-
19.3
-
d95 (mm)
30.8
-
32.0
-
Average Valley Slope (ft /ft )
Reach 3 = 0.0147
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
Reach 3 = 0.0111
Average Channel Sinuosity (K)
Reach 3 = 1.31
Parameter
Reach 4
Reach 5
XS9 XS1O XS11
Existing Reach Length (ft)
234
849
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.19
0.21
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfS)*
28.0
29.6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -5 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Feature Type
-
Riffle
Pool
Rifflc
Rosgen Stream Type
-
C4
1.3 -1.5
E4
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
-
17.0
5.24
10.1
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
-
0.72
1.52
0.93
Width to Depth Ratio (WbkWdbkf)
-
23.5
3.5
10.9
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
-
12.3
8.0
9.4
Bankfull Max Depth (d.. bkf) (ft)
-
1.6
2.1
2.0
Floodprone Width (W a) (ft)
-
51
69
84
Entrenchment Ratio (W a /Wbkf) (ft)
-
3.0
13.2
8.3
Bank Height Ratio **
-
1.3
1.3
1.3
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
-
45 +36
45 +69
47 +82
Dce2w' Bankfull Mean Velocity,
Vbkt= (Qbkf/Abkf) WS)
-
2.41
-
3.15
Channel Materials from Riffle (Particle Size Index - d50) * **
d16 (mm)
-
<0.063
-
<0.063
d35 (mm)
-
4.8
-
2.0
d50 (mm)
-
8.6
-
5.6
d84 (mm)
-
28.7
-
20.4
d95 (mm)
-
87.7
-
77.0
Average Valley Slope (ft /ft)
0.0119
0.0154
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.0094
0.0133
Average Channel Sinuosity (K)
1.21
1.17
*Bankf ill discharge estimated using NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999)
* *Bank height ratios (values greater than 2.0 indicate system wide self- recovery is unlikely)
** *Sediment samples were taken at representative riffles along mainstem
17.1.1.2 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
Baker performed general topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and produced a
1 -foot contour map based on survey data in order to create plan set base mapping (see Section 18.0,
Appendix D). Eleven (six riffles /five pools) representative cross - sections and a longitudinal profile
survey were also surveyed to assess the current condition and overall stability of the stream
channels. The existing riffle cross - section data and locations are shown in Table 17.1 and Figure
17.1 for comparison with the Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment shown in Table 17.2.
Table 17.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026;
Contract No.003990
Rating
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
-Stability
Stable (low risk of degradation)
1.0 -1.05
unstable
1.06 -1.3
-Moderately
Unstable (high risk of degradation)
1.3 -1.5
Highly unstable
>1.5
Notes: Rosgen, D. L. (2001) A stream channel stability assessment methodology.
Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
Bankfull cross - sectional areas were estimated by measuring field indicators with the NC Rural
Piedmont Regional Curve to compare stability ratings. The representative riffle cross - sections have
Bank Height Ratios (BHR) that range from 1.1 to 1.9. Some of the cross - section data illustrate
channel incision and the lack of natural floodplain deposits.
The longitudinal profiles for each reach show the existing channel slopes vary from 0.0094 to
0.0212 ft/ft and have average valley slopes of 0.0119 to 0.0252 ft/ft with several long riffle sections
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -6 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

and infrequently spaced pools. Channel sinuosity is approximately 1. 17, a result of the valley
formation, geologic control and the meander channel morphology. Large sections of the project
reaches are moderately to severely entrenched and highly unstable as shown on the cross - section
data. This likely indicates a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, stream
bank erosion), especially in portions of the reach where numerous active headcuts are present
(vertical instability) or stream banks are actively eroding (lateral instability).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -7 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 17.1 Existing Cross - Section Locations for Project Reaches
N AdIr
Cross - Section 1
Crass - Sectian 2
Cross- section 3
Cross- Sectian 4
K
Cross- Section 5
y-
t'. Cross- Section 6
x
c
rrcn„ai a ®ke, e�.e�r..^ba, me
bbooap�yrA�,rey
PKan:B e615d54bb �'��.'US�(StC111
Cross - Section 7
Cross - Section (Pool)
Cross- Section (Rifle)
Conservation Easement
Streams
Gross - Section 8
Cross - Section 9
Cross - Section 14
Cross- Section 11
Ri
f7--
fib. I
0 250 500
Feet
Figure 17.1
Existing Cross - Section
Locations Map
Town Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -8 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 17.2 Existing Riffle Cross - Section Data for Project Reaches
rlubb- SleGLwn L, CAlbUllLJ. %'UllUlLwrl r-f UllIC - JLd LiUll Il+T /J
r1 rim r-„'jf n 1 =—wpN' -
IS qRPW To '1.3
1
{
Agym. Txti�.
$� t�rrlly.
�5 4
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max
BKF
WAD
BH
ER
BKF
TOB
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
E
5.4
7.16
0.76
1.78
9.43
1.5
10.1
585.78
586.7
590
—
589
588
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 587
a 586
___
w 585
584
583
100 110 120
130
140 150 160
170
180 190
200
Station
- - -& -- Bankfull - --o- -- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
PAGE 17 -9
FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Cross - section 3, Existing Condition Profile - Station 20 +28
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -10 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
t
y,
-
e
Al
J`J I
jJuu
i
3
A
•
��41WA�i
r PI1
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF Max
BKF WAD
B
ER
BKF Elev
TOB
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Riffle
E
6.9
6.55
1.06 1.85 6.17
1.6 3.9
575.35
576.37
581
580
579
578
.2577
------------------ - - - - -- -
576 -
w 575
574 -
573 -
100 110 120
130 140 150
160 170
180
190
Station
o Bankfull - - -o- -- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -10 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Cross - section 5, Existing Condition Profile - Station 25 +71
572
571.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -o
571
570.5
570
569.5
> 569
w 568.5
568
567.5
100 120 140 160 18C
Station
- - -- Bankfull - --0 -- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -11 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
TOB
Feature
BKF
WAD
ER
BKF Elev
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Depth
Riffle
C
7.3
16.14
0.45
1.62
35.57
1.1
5
569.72
569.82
572
571.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -o
571
570.5
570
569.5
> 569
w 568.5
568
567.5
100 120 140 160 18C
Station
- - -- Bankfull - --0 -- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -11 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Cross - section 7, Existing Condition Profile - Station 33 +36
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -12 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Cross - section 9, Existing Condition Profile - Station 45 +36
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BH TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth BKF WAD Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Depth
Riffle C 12.3 1 16.98 1 0.72 1 1.56 1 23.47 1 1.3 3 547.94 1548.45
553
552
551
c 550
------------------------------------------
549
ai 548 ------- - - - - --
w 547
546
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station
- -O - Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -13 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Cross - section 11, Existing Condition Profile - Station 47 +82
'I
4
EA
550
549 -
548
547 ---------------------------------------------------------------
0 546 -
0 545 - - - - - --
a�i 544 -
w 543
542 -
100 120 140 160 180
Station
-- o- -- Bankfull - - -& -- Floodprone
200
LLU
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -14 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
x .
,
y
Ir
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
TOB
Feature
BKF WAD
ER
BKF Elev
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Depth
Riffle
E
9.4
10.1
0.93
2.02 10.9 1.3
8.3 544.96
545.55
550
549 -
548
547 ---------------------------------------------------------------
0 546 -
0 545 - - - - - --
a�i 544 -
w 543
542 -
100 120 140 160 180
Station
-- o- -- Bankfull - - -& -- Floodprone
200
LLU
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -14 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 17.3 Reachwide and Cross - section Pebble Counts for Project Reaches
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -15 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
Reach 2 -X2
Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size Distribution
100%
190%
90%
Me Dem
90%
BO%
70%
60%
ffi
70%
50%
u
n 40%
� ea%
c
50%
30%
�
S
20%
-
0%
30%
0.01 0.1
1 10 ;' "' ImX0
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -15 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
Reach 2 - X3
Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size Distribution
100%
+Rdae f>em
90%
90%
70%
� ea%
c
50%
�
S
30%
10%
0%
001 0.1
1 1a 100 1aa0 10000
Panicle else (em)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -15 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -16 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
Reach 2
100%
90%
80%
60%
Reachwide Pebble Count
Particle Size Distributions
100%
��Reatl� Camposrte
90% tRRre MW
tPoOI Dam
80% __ _._. _
_._. _ ..
50%
LL
ffi
c
ILI
m
50%
6
u
a
40%
30%
40%
20%
10%
..
30%
-
0%
001 0.1
1 10 100 1009 10000
Particle Size (mm)
20%
0%
001 01
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -16 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
Reach 3 - X5
Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
80%
60%
�RilBe Nm
ffi
c
ILI
50%
6
40%
30%
20%
10%
..
-
0%
001 0.1
1 10 100 1009 10000
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -16 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Reach 3 • X7
Riffle Pebble Count
Panicle Size Distribution
100%
90% Rime Data
80% -
70%
60%
ffi
� 50%
°u
i6
40%
30%
20%
10% -
0%
001 01 1 10 100 1001) 10000
Part, le Sizetmml
Reach 3
Reachwide Pebble Count
Particle Size Distributions
100%
�Rearn Gorrnwsle
go% tRilfla Dau
tPool Cats
80%
70% 9 -
6 60%
e
ILI
50%
6
6
° A0%
30%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -17 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Reach 5 -X9
Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size Distribution
100% -
+Rime Oer.
70% ..
ffi 00% -
50%
>g
40%
30%
20 %... _ —_ - -•
0%
001 0.1 1 10 100 1000 101000
Particle Size tmml
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -18 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
Reach 5 - X11
Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
00%
tRime net.
t6
c
50%
ffi
40%
30%
20%
-
0%
0 01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (rrm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -18 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Reach 5
Reachwide Pebble Count
Particle Size Distributions
100% 1 1 11 HIM
tk`each Composae i
90%
Mile Oat i
♦Foal Oab
80% - -
Ord 00
70%
` Bp%
E sa%
*8
i 40%
30%
20% -
10%
0%
IrT-
001 01 1 10 100 1000 70000
Partiele Size (mm)
17.1.1.3 Valley Classification and Geology
The project site is located in northern Stanly County in the Piedmont physiographic region of North
Carolina. Undisturbed Piedmont valleys in this region are generally classified as Valley Type `VII'
or `IV' if the valley is steeper, confined, and controlled by bedrock features (Rosgen, 2006),
although it is understood this classification does not describe specific landforms within the
provinces throughout the Mid - Atlantic /Southeast region. The underlying geology of the project
area is within the Yadkin formation of the Carolina Slate Belt geologic region and Level III
Ecoregion. This geology consists of mafic metavolvanic rock (CZmv,) metasedimentary ( CZy),
volcanic sandstone, and siltstone (Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geological Survey, 1998).
The hydrophysiographic region is characterized by broad, rolling, interstream divides across
variable slopes along well - defined drainage ways and receives moderately high rainfall with
precipitation averaging 46.6 inches per year (NRCS, 1989).
17.1.1.4 Channel Evolution
Channel stability is defined as the stream's ability to transport incoming flows and sediment loads
supplied by the watershed without undergoing significant changes over a geologically short time -
scale. A generalized relationship of stream stability was proposed by Lane (1955); it states that the
product of sediment load and sediment size is in balance with the product of stream slope and
discharge, or stream power. A change in any one of these variables induces physical adjustment of
one or more of the other variables to compensate and maintain the proportionality.
Longitudinally, the water and sediment flows delivered to each subsequent section are the result of
the watershed and upstream or backwater (downstream) conditions. Water and sediment pass
through the channel, which is defined by its shape, material, and vegetative condition. Flow and
sediment are either stored or passed through at each section along the reach. The resulting physical
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -19 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

changes are a balancing act between gravity, friction, and the sediment and water being delivered
into the system (Leopold et al., 1964).
Observed stream response to induced instability, as described by Simon's (1989) Channel
Evolution Model, involve extensive modifications to channel form resulting in profile, cross -
sectional, and plan form changes, which often take decades or longer to achieve resolution. The
Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes typical evolution in six steps:
1. Pre - modified
2. Channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
5. Aggradation and widening
6. Quasi - equilibrium.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well- vegetated stream that interacts
frequently with its floodplain is disturbed. Channelization, dredging, changing land use, removal of
streamside vegetation, upstream or downstream channel modifications, and/or change in other
hydrologic variables result in adjustments in channel morphology to compensate for the new
condition(s). Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream power that can cause
degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955). Incision eventually leads to over -
steepening of the banks and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and
mass wasting of soil and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving
upstream in the form of a head -cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream begins to
aggrade. A new, low -flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the
evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of
undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than
its original form, with a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
The majority of the assessed reaches within the Project are perennial with a small section of
intermittent channel in the upstream extent. The channel originates from a watershed that has
mixed land use, but is predominantly forested with low - density housing and agricultural land,
where historical and current rural land management practices include timber harvesting, pasture
conversion, channelization, and livestock grazing. The channel within the Project area has
experienced prior channelization and/or additional watershed disturbances. Currently, livestock
have access to the channel and impacts from this access are further exacerbating channel stability.
Channel stability and evolution was assessed with the following methods: qualitative and
quantitative site observations, detailed topographic data collection of site - specific geomorphic
facets, and sediment analyses. Due to active degradation, the UT is moderately to severely incised
in many sections as evidenced by bank height ratios (BHRs) greater than 1.5.
The majority of the Project area consists of reaches that vary between Stage III and IV of channel
evolution. Thus, the system overall is in a degradational phase of channel evolutionary sequence
and, if left unrestored, would continue to degrade and widen further in order to reach Stage 6
(quasi - equilibrium). Additional reachwide evolutionary analyses are outlined below. As a result,
these streams are contributing excess sediment from bank erosion and are prime candidates for
restoration and enhancement.
Reach 1 & 2
Reach 1 begins at the upstream extent of the Project as an intermittent channel and continues
downstream for approximately 363 LF. Reach 2 begins at the terminus of Reach 1 and continues
downstream as an intermittent channel for approximately another 291 LF where a headcut marks
the jurisdictional call of a perennial channel on Reach 2. Currently, both Reach 1 and Reach 2 are
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -20 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

downcutting, with vertical incision becoming more evident in the downstream extents of Reach 2
where several headcuts are present. Areas of lateral erosion are also present. The riparian buffer is
mostly void of any adequate vegetation and is open to cattle access throughout entire reach. The
majority of Reach 1 is in stage III of the Simon Evolutionary Model (Simon, 1989). Portions of
Reach 2 are in the late phase of stage III, while the majority of the reach is in stage IV. Without
restoration efforts, the channel will continue to laterally and vertically erode.
Reach 3 & 4
Reach 3 begins at the terminus of Reach 2 and progresses downstream for approximately 1,849 LF
from an open pasture area through an open wooded section. Reach 4 begins at the terminus of
Reach 3 and terminates at an existing stream crossing. Cattle access has impacted the channel
through hoof shear and limiting vegetation growth along the top of banks preventing natural stream
progression and causing erosion and channel instability. A majority of Reach 3 is situated at the toe
of the right valley wall, while Reach 4 is situated at the toe of the left valley wall. Vertical erosion
or "head- cutting" is present in the upstream portion of Reach 3. Vertical erosion is less common
along Reach 4 because a large root mass is currently providing grade control. The majority of
Reach 3 is in stage IV of the Simon Evolutionary Model (Simon, 1989) and in a Rosgen Channel
Evolution Scenario 5 (Rosgen 2001b), while Reach 4 is currently in the late phases of stage II.
Without restoration efforts, Reach 3 will continue to erode laterally and Reach 4 may begin to
experience vertical degradation.
Reach 5
Reach 5 is the downstream extent of the Project. This reach appears to have been historically
straightened and a majority of the riparian buffer has been cleared for agricultural purposes.
Currently, this reach has pockets of erosion, excess siltation from upstream erosion, and a degraded
streambed due to frequent access by cattle. Available habitat is mostly in the form of backwater
pools caused by multiple debris jams and scour pools associated with an upstream culvert. Reach 5
is currently late in the phase of stage III of the Simon Evolutionary Model (Simon, 1989) and in a
Rosgen Channel Evolution Scenario 5 (Rosgen 2001b). The channel is currently incising vertically.
Without restoration efforts, the channel will continue to incise and then begin lateral erosion.
17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for restoration, an
approach was developed that would address restoration of stream functions within the project area
while minimizing disturbance to existing wooded areas. Prior to impacts from past channelization,
topography and soils on the site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the past as a
small tributary stream system, eventually flowing into the larger Town Creek system.
Therefore, Baker formulated a design approach to restore and/or enhance the project reach to this type
of system. First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired stream functions was
selected and designed to restore and/or enhance historic flow patterns throughout the project area. Then
a design plan was developed in order to improve the channel hydrology and base flow interaction
impaired by current cattle impacts, active degradation, and other agricultural land manipulations.
17.1.2.1 Proposed Design Approach and Criteria Selection
For design purposes, the mainstem was divided into five reaches identified as Reach 1, Reach 2,
Reach 3, Reach 4 and Reach 5 beginning at the top, respectively (Figure 17.4). Selection of a
general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for the proposed reaches.
The approach was based on the potential for restoration as determined during the site assessment.
Next, the specific design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross - section
dimensions, and a longitudinal profile could be described for developing construction documents.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -21 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

The design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the selected
stream types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension, facet slope, and bed features to
form over long periods -of -time under the processes of flooding, re- colonization of vegetation, and
watershed influences.
After selecting an appropriate design approach for the site based on field assessments and
functional lift potential, proposed stream design values and design criteria were selected using
common reference reach ratios and guidelines (Harman, Starr, 2011). Table 17.3 presents the
design parameters used for the proposed reaches. Following initial application of the design
criteria, detailed refinements were made to accommodate the existing valley type and channel
morphology. This was done to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area, and to allow
for some natural channel adjustment following construction. The design plans have been tailored to
produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible, using a level of detail that
corresponds to the tools of construction.
Reach 1 Restoration
A Priority Level II transitioning to a Priority Level I restoration approach is proposed for the reach
to fully restore stream functions and a floodplain connection. For most of its length, the existing
degraded stream channel follows the lowest part of the valley. However, the stream initially takes a
90 degree turn across the valley, following the property line and was likely moved to this location at
some time in the past. This unnatural turn in the channel will be removed and the channel will be
aligned to flow down valley converging with the existing channel at Station 11 +38, removing
approximately 28 feet from the existing channel length. Starting at the northern project boundary,
the bed elevation will be raised to provide a reconnection to the geomorphic floodplain. The
restored channel will be constructed mostly in -line along the existing valley bottom, and will be
designed as a Rosgen B stream type.
The design width/depth ratio for the channel will be 13.3 and over time, the channel will narrow
slightly from deposition of sediment and stream bank vegetation growth. In- stream structures will
include constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat improvement, grade control j -hook
vanes, rock step structures for stream bed/bank stability, and habitat diversity.
The existing, unstable channel will be partially to completely filled along its length using material
excavated during construction for the restored channel. A second modification to the existing
channel pattern will be made near the end of the reach where a large bedrock outcrop is present in
the middle of the present channel alignment. Because its current position within the channel is
promoting lateral instability by diverting flows around the feature, the channel will be realigned so
that the outcrop is no longer in the center of the channel and promoting instability, but instead will
be situated to function as a habitat feature.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach 1 and permanent fencing
will be installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. This buffer
will be planted with a diverse assemblage of woody and herbaceous vegetation to reestablish a
native plant community.
Reach 2 Enhancement
Work on Reach 2 will be similar to that proposed for Reach 1; however, unlike Reach 1, this reach
does not require a change to the channel alignment, therefore enhancement activities are proposed.
These activities will primarily involve a Level I Enhancement approach for the entire reach.
Channel bank stabilization and in- stream structures are proposed to enhance bedform morphology,
provide improved connection to the floodplain and stabilize the reach profile. In- stream structures
will include constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat improvement, grade control j -
hook vanes, rock step structures for stream bed/bank stability, and habitat diversity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -22 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach 2 and permanent fencing
will be installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. This buffer
will be planted with a diverse assemblage of woody and herbaceous vegetation to reestablish a
native plant community. Within this reach is an abandoned livestock- watering pond that has filled
and become over grown with wetland vegetation. This wetland was considered jurisdictional and is
being preserved within the buffer. To enhance the hydrology of this wetland, the existing berm
between the wetland and the channel will be lowered so that during high flows water can flow into
the wetland. This reach will end at station 20 +58 where a 20 LF width has been left outside of the
easement area. An improved stream crossing will be constructed in this area for moving livestock
and farm vehicles across the channel.
Reach 3 Restoration
Reach 3 begins immediately downstream of the easement crossing. As noted within the existing
conditions description above, the channel BHRs throughout this reach alternate between 1 to
greater than 2. Because of this varying stability, the proposed restoration will follow a Rosgen
Priority I approach within those areas where the bank heights are low, but restoration will follow a
Rosgen Priority 11 approach where the banks are high and the channel is incised. This approach is
necessary to fully restore stream functions and a floodplain connection. The degraded channel
banks will be graded to a more stable slope, a width/depth ratio of 14.3 will be established through
this reach, and bankfull benches will be incorporated where needed to further promote stability and
re- establish a connection to the floodplain. The pattern through this reach will be meandering while
incorporating geolifts, toewood and rootwads to provide bank stabilization and high quality habitat.
In- stream structures such as rock and log step pools, vanes, and constructed riffle structures will be
installed to control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision or headcutting.
The restored channel will be designed and constructed as a Rosgen C stream type. The existing,
unstable channel will be partially to completely filled along its length using material excavated for
construction of the restored channel. The existing stream crossing within this reach will be
removed. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach 3 and permanent
fencing will be installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. The
existing vegetation through this reach will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. This buffer
will be planted with a diverse assemblage of woody and herbaceous vegetation to supplement the
existing vegetation to establish a native plant community. In addition to these plantings, existing
nonnative, invasive vegetation will be treated to eliminate nonnatives from the easement.
Reach 4 Enhancement
Work on Reach 4 will primarily involve Level I Enhancement approaches on a majority of the
reach. Due to the presence of mature trees along much of this reach, the stream shows minimal
channel incision or downcutting. Level I Enhancement is proposed to restore a more stable
dimension and profile. Minor channel bank stabilization and in- stream structures are proposed to
enhance bedform morphology for the portions of the reach where the riparian buffer and/or channel
have been impacted.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach 3 and permanent fencing
will be installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. The existing
vegetation through this reach will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. This buffer will be
planted with a diverse assemblage of woody and herbaceous vegetation to supplement the existing
vegetation to establish a native plant community. In addition to these plantings, existing exotic
invasive species vegetation will be treated to eliminate them to the extent possible.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -23 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Reach 5 Restoration
Downstream of the Reach 4, the proposed restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority Level I
approach to fully restore stream functions and a floodplain connection. The degraded channel
banks will be graded to a stable slope to promote channel stability and re- establishment of riparian
vegetation. The existing channel crossing located at the upper end of this reach will be moved to a
25 LF section that has been removed from the easement and lies under an existing powerline. The
restoration through this crossing will follow a Rosgen Priority II approach. This approach is
warranted because sediment has aggraded upstream of the crossing and the channel will likely
remain incised unless the floodplain is lowered to meet existing ground below the crossing. This
approach will also be necessary at the bottom of the project as the restored channel connects at the
existing confluence with Town Creek. These approaches are necessary to fully restore stream
functions and a floodplain connection. In- stream structures such as log vanes, rock vanes, cross
vanes and constructed riffle structures will be installed to control grade, dissipate energies, and
eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision.
The restored channel will be designed and constructed as a Rosgen C stream type. The existing,
unstable channel will be partially to completely filled along its length using material excavated for
construction of the restored channel.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach 5 and permanent fencing
will be installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. The existing
vegetation through this reach will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. This buffer will be
planted with a diverse assemblage of woody and herbaceous vegetation to supplement the existing
vegetation and to establish a native plant community. In addition to these plantings, existing
nonnative, invasive vegetation will be treated to eliminate nonnatives from the easement.
Table 17.3 Natural Channel Design Parameters for Project Reaches
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Design Values
Parameter
Rationale
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Stream Type (Rosgen)
B4
B4
C4
C4
C4
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
16.3
20.9
26.4
28.0
29.6
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf
2.72
3.48
3.77
3.22
3.40
V =Q /A
(ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area,
Abkf (sq ft)
6.1
6.1
7.0
8.7
8.7
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.5
10.5
Abkf * w/D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth,
0.68
0.68
0.70
0.84
0.84
d =A/W
Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft /ft)
13.3
13.3
14.3
12.5
12.5
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa
20-50
20-50
2-80
25 - 110
25-110
(ft)
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf
(ft/ft)
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
(ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio,
1.48
1.48
1.43
1.43
1.43
Note 5
Dmax/Dbkf
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax
(ft/ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Note 6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -24 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Meander Length, Lm (ft)
NA
NA
10'0
Existing
126
Note 7
0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
NA
NA
7.0-12.0
Existing
7'0
Note 7
12.0
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
NA
NA
20-30
Existing
21-31.5
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
NA
NA
2.0-3.0
Existing
2.0-3.0
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
NA
NA
35-80
Existing
37-84
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio,
NA
NA
3.5-8.0
Existing
3.5-8.0
Note 7
Wblt/Wbkf
Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley
1.02
1.02
1.17
1.20
1.17
Note 7
length)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0222
0.0180
0.0144
0.0135
0.0124
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0217
0.0177
0.0122
0.0113
0.0106
Sval / K
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft /ft)
0.0220
0.0175
0.0160
Existing
0.0200
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
0'88
1.15
0.56-1.41
0.82-1.80
Existing
1.5 - 2.0
Note 8
0.0000-
0.0000-
0.0000-
Existing
0.000-
Slope Pool, Spool (ft /ft)
0.0043
0.0035
0.0049
0.0021
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.40
Existing
0.0-0.2
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmax ool (ft)
1.4-2.4
1.4-2.4
1.4-2.4
Existing
1.7-2.9
Pool Max Depth Ratio,
2.00-
2.00-3.50
2.00-3.50
Existing
2.0-3.5
Note 7
Dmax ool/Dbkf
3.50
Pool Width, W ool (ft)
9.9 -13.5
9.9-13.5
9.9-13.5
Existing
13.7-
17.9
Pool Width Ratio, W ool/Wbkf
1.1 - 1.5
1.1-1.5
1.1 - 1.5
Existing
1.3-1.7
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
14-45
14-45
36-63
Existing
42-74
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio,
1.5-5.0
1.5-5.0
4.0-7.0
Existing
4.0-7.0
Note 7
Lps /Wbkf
Notes:
1 A `C' stream type is appropriate for a lower slopes (generally less than 0.015 ft /ft), wider alluvial valleys (generally
greater than 100 ft). A `B' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (generally greater than 0.015 ft /ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimensions were 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 analysis was estimated by comparing regional curves and using Manning's equation (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 as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
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 bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This minimizes
shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality, resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
7 Design Values were chosen based on small piedmont stream reference reach data and past project evaluation.
8 Due to the small 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. Over time, 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 -25 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 17.4 Mitigation Work Plan
IV - 10
G
i
n
Reach 2
Reach 3
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Conservation Easement
=Reach
Reach 5
4w
Figure 17.4
250 Feet Mitigation Work Plan
Town Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -26 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
YkhaN Baker ElpinawMp.lns.
Y
: m
G�vy.WVrtn Grdv 3l51B
�
, �
�
ia. 9Y9495Je11�
�'A 11�,11',t11111 ,
Reach 3
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Conservation Easement
=Reach
Reach 5
4w
Figure 17.4
250 Feet Mitigation Work Plan
Town Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -26 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators
Reference reach surveys are valuable tools for comparison. The morphologic data obtained such as
dimension, pattern, and profile can be used as a template for design of a stable stream in a similar valley
type with similar bed material. In order to extract the morphological relationships observed in a stable
system, dimensionless ratios are developed from the surveyed reference reach. These ratios can be
applied to a stream design to allow the designer to `mimic' the natural, stable form of the target channel
type.
While reference reach data can be a useful aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile,
there are limitations in smaller stream systems. The flow patterns and channel formation for most
reference reach quality streams is often controlled by slope, drainage areas and larger trees and/or other
deep rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are
particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be
applicable or are often adjusted in the design criteria to create more conservative designs that are less
likely to erode after construction, before the permanent vegetation is established. Often the best
reference data is from adjacent stable stream reaches, or reaches within the same watershed.
For comparison purposes, Baker selected local reference reaches from both the NCDOT database and
internal reference data, in the locations shown on Figure 17.5. The data shown on Table 17.4 helped to
provide a basis for evaluating the valley slope and topography of the project site and determining the
stream systems that may have been present historically and/or how they may have been influenced by
changes within the watershed.
The reference sites are examples of a small "Rural Piedmont Stream," and fall within the same climatic,
topographical, physiographic and ecological region as the Town Creek site. The site is located in
Carolina Slate Belt geologic region, west of the Carolina Sand hills /Outer Coastal Plain region. These
systems exist as the floodplains of smaller intermittent /perennial streams in which flows tend to be
relatively steady, with floods of short duration, and seasonal periods of low flow.
The undisturbed native plant communities within these areas primarily consist of Piedmont Bottomland
Hardwood Forest (mixed riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest (mixed hardwoods
and pine) as described by Schafale and Weakely (1990). The dominant canopy species of a
Piedmont/Mountain bottomland forest area included Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and Black willow (Salix
nigra). Understory species included box elder (Acer negundo), Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida),
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Black cherry (Prunus serotina), alder (Alnus serrulata), Elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), Red bud (Cercis canadensis), and Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Woody
vine and herbaceous species consisted of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), flat sedge (Cyperus
strigosus), fescue (fescue spp.), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium).
The Dry-Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest ecological community is typically located on hillsides in an upland
transition from the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. The dominant overstory species of these
upslope areas include Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Red
maple (Acer rubrum), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), White oak
(Quercus alba), Shag -bark hickory (Carya ovata), Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), Green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). Mid - canopy species include Red bud
(Cercis canadensis), Red mulberry (Morus rubra), green ash, Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Service
berry (Amelanchier arborea), and buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica). Herbaceous and vine species consisted
of Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), grape (Vitis spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -27 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

quinquefolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
yellow root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
The primary soils series at the stream reference sites include Shellbluff (ShA), Chenneby (CnA),
Congaree (Co) and can be generally be described as silty loam alluvium/medium sand found on flatter
slopes typically ranging from 0 -2 -4 percent (MRCS Soil Survey). These series are frequently flooded
and consist of deep, somewhat poorly to well drained, moderately permeable soils. These soils are
commonly found throughout the floodplain and lower valley areas (base of slopes) of the reference
sites. The series descriptions are similar to the soils evaluated on the project site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -28 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Figure 17.5 Reference Streams Location Map
Clernmons Jamestow en bore,
N Hi h Point
VIE easant Gard,
N T Y G ILFOR,
i, masville Arc le C U N T Y
ity
311 220
Cooleern e d man
tngto
AVIDSON
! COUNTY Fra
RAND H
Spe spencer - COUNT A b
S is
ranit uarry l µ
Faith
Ro II ROWAN
O U N T Y S rove
Gold I
napoiis
Ri eld Spencer Creek
Ne ndon
Concord project Location Badin
S
Mount Pleasant
ALAMANCE
COUNTY
Siler Cit
CHAT Lm
COUNX
_ W
Robbins
Richland Creek
A R R U S Al marle Troy Bi e M O O R E —
S TA NL 1_
C�UNTY COUNTY Cartha�
COUNTY � UT to
Locust Rocky Creek
Stanfield oakboro� No od Mount Gilead M O N T G O M R Y
�
r-y i . COUNTY)
Anso
Uni nville
UNION
COUNTY
Taylorto
Pineh
Foxfire Village
Pine
Pines
P n RICHMOND _ .._..
Mon a nd (1 O U N T Y
Lilesville
Wad 1 15
ANSON 74
COUNTY Roc ham
Deb s Heights
Ha et Wagra
Mo en SCOTL ND
COU Z McF Ian
a
Figure 17.5
0 4 g 12 Reference Streams
Miles Location Map
uit ,t,ment Town Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -29 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table 17.4 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Parameter
UT to Rocky
Creek
Spencer Creek
U stream
Richland Creek
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Stream Type (Ros en)
E4b
E4 /C4
C4
Drainage Area - square miles
1.05
0.50
1.00
Bankfull Width (wbkf) - feet
12.2
8.7
16.2
16.7
Bankf ill Mean Depth (dbkf) - feet
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio (w /d ratio)
9.1
7.3
18.0
18.6
Cross sectional Area (Abkf) - SF
16.3
10.6
15.0
15.5
Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) - fps
5.5
N/P
N/P
Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) - cfs
85
N/P
N/P
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) - feet
1.8
1.9
1.4
1.5
dmbkf / dbkf ratio
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.7
Low Bank Height to dmbkf Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Floodprone Area Width (w a) - feet
72.4
228.5
50
53
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
6.0
26.3
3.0
3.3
Meander length (L,,,) - feet
N/A
54.0
196.0
90
94
Ratio of meander length to bankfull
width (L,,, /wbkf)
N/A
6.2
22.5
5.5
5.7
Radius of curvature (Re) - feet
N/A
5.4
22.1
14.3
26.1
Ratio of radius of curvature to
bankfull width (Re / wbkf)
N/A
0.6
2.5
0.9
1.6
Belt width (wblt) - feet
N/A
24.0
52
25
40
Meander Width Ratio (wblt/Wbkf)
N/A
2.8
6.0
1.5
2.4
Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley
Distance
1.1
1.1
1.2
Valley Slope - feet per foot
0.0261
0.0139
0.0136
Channel Sloe Schannel - feet per foot
0.0235
0.0132
0.0133
Pool Slope s oal - feet per foot
0.0
0.0037
0.0001
0.00
0.0014
/Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
(Spool / Schannel)
0.0
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.11
Maximum Pool Depth (d ool) - feet
2.2
2.5
2.5
Ratio of Pool Depth to Average
Bankfull Depth (d ool /dbkf)
1.6
2.1
2.8
Pool Width (w p,,,,,) - feet
10.9
8.4
11.1
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull
Width (w ool / wbkf)
0.9
1.0
0.7
Pool Area (A ool) - square feet
19.3
12.8
20.1
/Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area
(A ool /Abkf)
1.2
1.2
1.3
Pool -to -Pool Spacing - feet
26.3
81.3
13.0
46.5
37.3
95.8
Ratio of Pool -to -Pool Spacing to
Bankfull Width (p- p /wbkf)
2.2
6.7
1.5
5.3
2.3
5.8
Riffle Slope (s,i}ile) - feet per foot
0.0606
0.089
0.010
0.067
0.013
0.0413
Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average
Slope (Sniffle/ Sbkf)
2.6
3.8
0.8
5.1
1.0
3.1
Material (d50)
Coarse Gravel
Medium Gravel
Very Coarse Gravel
d16 - mm
<0.063
0.06
6.0
d35 - mm
2.4
3
N/P
d50 - mm
22.6
8.6
45.0
d84 - mm
120
77
125.0
d95 - mm
256
180
N/P
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -30 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

17.2 Bankfull Verification Analysis
17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural
channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field can be difficult
and subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1984; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions
exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957;
Nixon, 1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of
bankfull stage in the humid Southeast can be especially difficult because of dense understory vegetation
and a long history of channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.
It is generally accepted that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the
elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation
and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant
discharge or effective discharge, is thought to be the flow that moves the most sediment over time in
stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the
highest scour line, or the top of the stream bank (Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull
indicators for streams in the Piedmont of North Carolina are the backs of point bars, breaks in slope at
the front of flat bankfull benches, or the top of the stream banks (Harman et al., 1999).
Upon completion of the field survey, accurate identification of bankfull stage could not be made in all
reach sections throughout the site due to incised/impaired channel conditions. Although some
indicators were apparent in portions with lower stream bank heights and discernible scour features, the
reliability of the indicators was inconsistent due to the altered condition of the stream channels. For this
reason, bankfull stage was estimated using regional curve information.
17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves)
Hydraulic geometry relationships are often used to predict channel morphology features and their
corresponding dimensions. The stream channel hydraulic geometry theory developed by Leopold and
Maddock (1953) describes the interrelations between dependent variables such as width, depth, and
area as functions of independent variables such as watershed area or discharge. These relationships can
be developed at a single cross - section or across many stations along a reach (Merigliano, 1997).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall /runoff relationships
(FISRWG, 1998).
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to
drainage area. A primary purpose for developing regional curves is to aid in identifying bankfull stage
and dimension in un -gaged watersheds, as well as to help estimate the bankfull dimension and
discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gage station analyses throughout the United
States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of 1.5 years or 66.7%
annual exceedence probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Leopold,
1994).
Publicly available and in -house bankfull regional curves are available for a range of stream types and
physiographic provinces. The published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999) and
an unpublished NC Piedmont Regional Curve being developed by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (A. Walker private communication, 2012) were used for comparison to other more site - specific
means of estimating bankfull discharge. The tributaries on the site are small streams; small streams are
poorly represented on the regional curves.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -31 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

It has been found that the NC Piedmont Regional Curve Equations may overestimate discharge and
channel dimension for smaller streams, such as those present at this site. The unpublished NC
Piedmont Regional Curve corresponds closer to the discharge and channel dimension that were
compared with the WARSSS (2006) worksheets. Based on these data, Baker estimated bankfull flows
using these comparisons shown in Table 17.5.
Additionally, Baker has conducted numerous projects in small drainages in North Carolina, and has
produced "mini- curves" specific to these projects. The growing number of data points on these small
streams curves provides supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull indicators that produce
smaller dimensions and flow rates than the published regional data.
Table 17.5 NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
Equations
(Harman et al., 1999)
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
Equations (Unpublished Revised NC Rural
Piedmont Regional Curve (NRCS, 2008)
Qbkf = 66.57 AW R2=0.97
Qbkf = 58.26 AW 7 W=0.99
Abkf = 21.43 AW R2=0.95
Abkf = 15.65AW W=0.99
Wbkf = 11.89 AW 0.41 R =0.81
Wbkf = 11.64 AW 0.46 R2=0.98
Dbkf = 1.50 AW R =0.88
Dbkf = 1.15 AW R2=0.96
17.2.3 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge
As described above in Section 17.1 and 17.2, Rosgen's stream classification system (Rosgen, 1996)
depends on the proper field identification of consistent geomorphic features related to the active
floodplain. Although bankfull stage verification was not possible in the field for all reaches under
current conditions, the cross - section data used for the above regional curve comparison are within an
acceptable range of values.
Baker estimated the bankfull discharge by comparing unpublished NRCS NC Piedmont Rural Regional
Curve and the published NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve with cross - sectional data. As a
comparison, the Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio (method relates hydraulic radius, d84, and
shear velocity to flow velocity), Manning Equation with the Manning's n from the friction factor and
relative roughness were also considered since some channel sections contain a coarser gravel substrate.
Table 17.6 provides a bankfull discharge analyses and comparisons based on the bankfull regional
curves, the Manning's equation discharges calculated from the representative cross - sections for each
reach, and the bankfull design discharge calculated based on the proposed design cross - sections for all
project reaches.
Table 17.6 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Estimating Method
Bankfull Velocity (ft /sec)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
(Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve
Q = 89.039 *DA0'72
2.7, 3.5, 3.8, 3.2, 3.4
16.3, 20.9, 26.4, 28.0, 29.6
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve
1.7, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 1.8
9.0, 11.2, 14.7, 16.0, 17.3
Q = 56.136 *DAo.1041
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio
method3v =[2.83 +5.66 *lo {R/D84 }] *v*
4.7 4.2 2.8, 3.6, 4.3
25.6, 29.1 20.4 28.2 53.5
'
Manning's "n" from friction factor and
relative roughness
3.5, 4.3, 2.5, 3.3, 3.7
21.3, 29.7, 17.9, 25.9, 46.4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -32 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table 17.6 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Estimating Method
Bankfull Velocity (ft /sec)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
v= (1.4895 *R 3 *S `2) /n
Manning's "n" from stream type
*R2/3 *S V,) /n
3.4, 3.5, 1.8, 2.5, 3.4
15.6, 24.1, 13.4, 19.4, 41.9
v= (1.4895
Baker Design Estimate
2.7, 3.5, 3.8, 3.2, 3.4
16.3, 20.9, 26.4, 28.0, 29.6
Notes:
1 NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999). 2 Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional
Curve developed by NRCS (A. Walker personal communication, 2008).
3 WARSSS, 2006 spreadsheet. Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning's Equation for the riffle
cross - section. Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n- values) ranged from approximately 0.033 to 0.055 based
on channel slopes, depth, bed material size, and vegetation influence.
17.3 Sediment Transport Analysis
17.3.1 Background and Methodology
The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding assumption is that the site
should be transporting the total sediment load delivered from upstream sources. The total volume of
sediment transported through a cross - section consists of bedload plus suspended load fractions.
Suspended load is normally composed of fine sand, silt, and clay particles transported in the water
column. Bedload is generally composed of larger particles, such as course sand, gravels, and cobbles,
which are transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating) along the bed. The ability of the stream
to transport its total sediment load can be quantified through two measures: sediment transport
competency (force) and sediment transport capacity (power).
Sediment transport competency is a stream's ability to move particles of a given size and is a
measurement of force, often expressed as units of pounds per square foot (lbs /ft2). A streams
competency is estimated in terms of the relationship between critical and actual depth, at a given slope,
and occurs when the critical depth produces enough shear stress to move the largest (d100) sub
pavement particle. Median substrate size has an important influence on the mobility of particles in
stream beds. Critical dimensionless shear stress (iii) is the measure of force required to initiate general
movement of particles in a bed of a given composition. At shear stresses exceeding this critical value,
essentially all grain sizes are transported at rates in proportion to their presence in the bed (Wohl,
2000). Critical dimensionless shear stress can be calculated for gravel -bed stream reaches using surface
and subsurface particle samples from a stable, representative riffle in the reach (Andrews, 1983). The
following equations was used to determine the critical dimensionless shear stress required to mobilize
and transport the largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement sample).
Calculate the ratio d5o /ds50
where: d5o /ds56nedian diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in riffle or pavement sample)
d50 /ds50 = median diameter of the bar sample (or subpavement)
tici = 0.0834(d50/ds50) -0.872
The prediction calculations shown on Table 17.7 include shear stress, tractive force, and critical
dimensionless shear stress, which help to determine a particle size class (e.g., sand, gravel, cobble) that
is mobile, or entrained, under various flow conditions (WARSS, 2006). The aggradation analysis is
based on calculations of the required depth and slope needed to transport large sediment particles, in
this case defined as the largest particle of the riffle subpavement sample. Required depth can be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -33 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

compared with the existing/design mean riffle depth, and required slope can be compared to the existing
and design slopes to verify that the stream has sufficient competency to move large particles (and thus
prevent thalweg aggradation). The required depth and slope are calculated by:
1.65T ,Di 1.65ti,;D;
d, = s, _
SP de
where: dr = required bankfull mean depth (ft)
de design bankfull mean depth (ft)
1.65 = sediment density (submerged specific weight)
= density of sediment (2.65) — density of water (1.0)
tic, = critical dimensionless shear stress
D; = largest particle from bar sample (or subpavement) (ft)
sr = required bankfull water surface slope (ft /ft)
Se = design bankfull water surface slope ( ft/ft)
As a complement to the required depth and slope calculations, boundary shear stresses for a design
riffle cross - section can be compared with a modified Shields Curve to predict sediment transport
competency. The shear stress placed on the sediment particles is the force that entrains and moves the
particles and is given by:
i = yRs
where: T = shear stress (lb /ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Additionally, a degradation analysis was conducted in order to assess whether the design cross - sections
will result in scour and bed downcutting. The potential for degradation may be evaluated by examining
the upper competency limits for design cross - sections and by reviewing existing and design grade
control at the site. The calculated shear stress is compared to the Modified Shields Curve determine the
largest particle size that stress value will move. This value is comparable to the D84 to D95 values from
the reach -wide pebble count and considered for sizing the design substrate material.
Sediment transport capacity is a stream's ability to move a mass of sediment through a cross - section
dimension, and is a measurement of stream power, often expressed in units of watts /square meter
(Watts /meter2). Sediment transport capacity can also be calculated as a sediment transport rating curve,
which provides an estimate of the quantity of total sediment load transported through a cross - section
per unit of time. For sand bed streams, sediment transport capacity is more critical than competency,
but is most directly assessed using actual monitored data from storm events to develop a sediment
transport rating curve the project site. Since this curve development is often difficult and was not
performed for this project, stream power was calculated and values were compared to reference stream
values to confirm that sediment should be adequately transported through the system without containing
excess energy in the channel.
W = YQs /Wbkf
where: w = mean stream power (W /m2)
y = specific weight of water 9,810 N /m3); y = pg, where p is the density of the water -
sediment mixture (1,000 kg/m) and g is the acceleration due to gravity 9.81 m/s2)
Q = bankfull discharge (m3 /s)
S = design channel slope (m/m)
Wbkf = bankfull channel width (m)
Note: 1 ft -lb /sec /ft2 = 14.56 W /m2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -34 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

17.3.2 Sampling Data Results
Pavement and subpavement sediment samples were collected along the unnamed tributary and then dry
sieved in a lab to obtain a sediment size distribution, determine dimensionless critical shear stress, and
calculate /predict corresponding slope and depth required to move the d100 largest particle class size.
The sieve data shown in Figure 17.6 indicate that the dominant bed material in the stream channel is
coarse sand to medium gravel under current conditions. A majority of the site reaches contain a
combination of sand, silt, and gravel bed material due to the parent soil material and cattle impacts.
The sediment samples collected helped to confirm these initial observations.
Figure 17.6 Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Reach 2 - X3
Pavement and Subpavement Counts
Particle Size Distributions
94% —6— Pavement Sieve Art alysis
�- Subpavement Sieve Anakys�s
IM
70%
50%
LL
yL 50%
U
m
40% -
30 -A
20%
10%
0%
Pft
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Panicle Size (mm)
,,.. ■�������� ■���1111■ 11111111 ■I:iGI1111 ■11111111 ■11111111
:,. L_�.:.:.___JII1 ■111111111111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
,.. ■ 11111111 ■1 ■11111 ■1111111!��IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■11111111
,.. ■ 11111111■ 1111111 ■11111�II ■11111111 ■11111111 ■1111111
. ■ 11111111■ 11111111 ■11��II!I ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
:.. ■ 11111111 ■1111111!1 ■1111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
,., ■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■ /IIIIIII ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
,.. ■ 11111111 ■IIII��I1�i11Jllll ■11111111 ■11111111 ■1111111
,.. ■11111111■II��.,��a1,IIIIII ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
. ■1111!111���111u •!11111■ ■IIIII■1111111■1 ■1111
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -35 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Reach 5 - X9
Pavement and Subpavement Counts
Particle Size Distributions
100%
90%i'avement Sieva Analysis
--e— Subpavement Sieve Analysis
80%
70%
60%
t
LL
s 50%
iJ
a- 40%
30%
20% —
10% -
0%
O.G1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10005
Particle Size (mm)
Reach 5 - X11
Pavement and Subpavement
Particle Size Distributions
100%
90%
(Pavement
Sieve
Analysis
�Subpavem
Sieve Are Sie Analysis
80%
70%
60%
c
LL
U
a 40
30%
2C%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -36 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

17.3.3 Predicted Channel Response
The existing channel substrate is predominantly gravel, with a few localized sections of coarser material
that control grade, as well as a sandier substrate in some flatter channel sections. Based on field
observations from the project area and upper watershed, the streams receive mostly fine materials from
stream bank erosion with minimal sediment contributions from the upstream drainage. Further site
investigations and visual assessments confirmed that the sediment supply from upstream sources is
somewhat limited during larger storm events due to smaller undeveloped headwater drainages, stable
streams with floodplain access, and mature stream and riparian buffer vegetation. While it is predicted
that the restoration and enhancement efforts will reduce localized stream bed/bank erosion, the channels
should still be able to transport smaller bedload and suspended sediment material from upstream
sources while maintaining stream bed/bank stability.
Enhancement Reach 4 is relatively stable and will not involve system -wide channel modifications to
dimension, pattern and profile; therefore, it was not included in this comparison. Generally, the stream
system is in the process of degrading, which means that the channel has abandoned its active floodplain
and started deepening/widening to form a new channel at a lower elevation.
As a design consideration, the proposed substrate material mix (riffle armor) will contain particle sizes
larger than the d100 to prevent bed scour and achieve vertical stability immediately after construction.
In general, the proposed riffles will be constructed using a mix of larger colluvial -size particles ranging
from approximately 140mm to 200mm. This approach will mimic the natural armoring present in
stable channel sections; however, the material is not intended to mobilize during a bankfull storm event.
Any concerns regarding further channel degradation, substrate embeddness, and vertical stability will
be addressed by allowing flows greater than bankfull to spread across the geomorphic floodplain
(decreasing in- channel shear stress) and by installing a combination of grade control structures such as
log /rock step pools and constructed riffles in straighter channel segments.
Table 17.7 Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Parameter
Reach 2
Existing
Conditions
Reach 2
Proposed
Conditions
Reach 3
Existing
Conditions
Reach 3
Proposed
Conditions
Reach 5
Existing
Conditions
Reach 5
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
20.9
20.9
26.4
26.4
29.6
29.6
Bankfull XSC Area (square feet)
6.9
6.1
7.3
7.0
12.3
8.7
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs)
3.0
3.4
3.6
3.7
2.4
3.4
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
6.6
9.0
16.1
10.0
16.9
10.5
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet /foot)
6.2
13.3
35.6
14.3
23.5
12.5
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
8.7
10.4
17.0
11.4
18.4
12.2
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.80
0.59
0.43
0.61
0.67
0.71
Channel Slope (feet/ foot)
0.0159
0.0177
0.0111
0.0122
0.0133
0.0106
Boundary Shear Stress, T (lbs /ft)
0.79
0.65
0.30
0.47
0.55
0.47
Subpavement d100 (mm)
80
80
60
60
60
60
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -37 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table 17.7 Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 3
Reach 5
Reach 5
Parameter
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Conditions
Conditions
Conditions
Conditions
Conditions
Conditions
Largest Moveable Particle (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
128
111
62
87
98
88
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.42
0.38
0.41
0.37
0.34
0.43
Predicted Critical Slope (feet/ foot)
0.0064
0.0099
0.0100
0.0065
0.0063
0.0054
Unit Stream Power (W /m2)
34.9
32.9
15.7
25.6
19.4
23.4
17.4 Existing Vegetation Assessment
The riparian areas within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of successional forest,
pasture, agricultural fields, and disturbed hardwood forest, as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Historic land management surrounding the project area has been primarily for agricultural and
silvicultural purposes through the alteration of drainage patterns and the significant removal of native
species vegetation in the riparian zone. The wooded portions located within the middle of the site consist
of basic Mesic Forest in the uplands with Piedmont /Mountain Alluvial Forests and Bottomland Forest in
the lower areas and floodplains ( Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Some of these areas lack understory
vegetation due to extensive livestock use and grazing. The riparian buffer areas overall ranged from
somewhat disturbed to very disturbed and a general description of each community follows.
17.4.1 Successional Deciduous Forest
This community is primarily located along the wooded sections located near the middle of the project
area. Species include Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and
American elm (Ulnus Americana), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and Red maple (Acer
rubrum), making up the majority of the canopy throughout the middle reaches.
17.4.2 Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas
This community covers approximately 45 -50 percent of the project area. Currently, pasture areas are
used for cattle grazing and fields have been used for cultivated crop production in the recent past.
Vegetation within open fields and pasture areas is primarily comprised of fescues, clovers, and Dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). In narrow wooded riparian areas within the pastures and fields, the
canopy is dominated by Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulnus Americana), Tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and Red maple (Acer rubrum). Understory species consist of Black
willow (Salix negra), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Woody
shrub and vine species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans) and Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Herbaceous species consist of creeping grass
(Microstegium vimineum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical), Dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
Sedges (Carex spp) and rushes (Juncos spp.).
17.4.3 Invasive Species Vegetation
The invasive species vegetation present on the project site are primarily Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) and creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum) which were found interspersed throughout the
riparian buffer and wetland areas.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -38 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

17.5 Site Wetlands
17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal
regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR 328.3(b)
and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)). The areas in the project boundaries that displayed one or more wetland
characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics
included:
1. Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
2. Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation.
3. Hydric soils.
On June 5, 2007, the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued joint guidance
for their field offices for Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations in response to the Supreme
Court's decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States
(USEPA and USACE, 2007). Based on this guidance, the agencies assert jurisdiction over the
following waters:
• Traditional navigable waters (TNWs)
• Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
• Non - navigable tributaries of TNWs that are considered relatively permanent waters (RPWs).
Such tributaries flow year -round or exhibit continuous flow for at least 3 months.
• Wetlands that directly abut RPWs.
The agencies decided to assert jurisdiction over the following waters based on a standardized analysis
to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
Non - navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent waters (non -RPWs)
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs
Wetlands that are adjacent to but do not directly abut an RPW.
The significant nexus analysis is fact - specific and assesses the flow characteristics of a tributary and the
functions performed by all its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of downstream TNWs. A significant nexus exists when a tributary, in
combination with its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the
physical, chemical, or biological integrity of a TNW.
The USACE and USEPA apply the significant nexus standard within the limits of jurisdiction specified
by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
( SWANCC) v. US Army Corps of Engineers. Under the SWANCC decision, the USACE and USEPA
cannot regulate isolated wetlands and waters that lack links to interstate commerce sufficient to serve as
a basis for jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Though isolated wetlands and waters are not
regulated by the USACE, within the state of North Carolina isolated wetlands and waters are considered
"waters of the state" and are regulated by the NCDWR under the isolated wetlands rules (15A NCAC
2H.1300).
Following a desktop review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), NRCS soil survey and USGS
quadrangle maps, the project area was evaluated for potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Baker
wetland scientists conducted a field survey of the project area in July 2011 to investigate potential
wetlands within hydric soils areas and confirm perennial and intermittent streams in the project area. In
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -39 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

total, the field survey identified eight (8) separate wetland areas containing hydric soil indicators and a
predominance of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. These areas were identified, flagged,
and mapped, as shown in the current conditions map, Figure 2.4. Wetland data forms are provided in
Section 16.1, Appendix B. Most of the identified areas along the UT exhibited marginal hydrologic
indicators, dominated by herbaceous species currently subject to cattle grazing or pasture management
practices. All identified areas are located along the floodplain within depressional areas and/or in
headwater forested areas adjacent to the stream channels. These wetland areas have been verified by
the USACE and the proposed mitigation plan for the site will seek to enhance wetland functions or
avoid impacts to these areas, if possible, in order to restore a stable stream system.
17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations
It is likely that wetland pockets and floodplain pools were historically present in some of these
locations after evaluating existing topography, soils, hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation within the
project reaches. The original plant community located in these wetlands was most likely indicative of
other wetlands in the region, but past agricultural land use practices have altered the composition of the
plant community currently present. Wetland stressors, such as man -made dams, ponds and ditching,
have altered the hydrological connections within the project area. The main tributaries were likely
deepened to capture various sources of seepage to increase land available for agricultural use, which
exacerbated channel incision and exerts a drainage effect on the adjacent fields.
After completing the proposed stream restoration practices, these areas will likely experience a more
natural hydrology and flooding regime, and the riparian buffer area will be planted with native woody
vegetation that is tolerant of wetter conditions. The design approach will also enhance any potential
areas of adjacent fringe or marginal wetlands through higher water table conditions (elevated stream
profile) and a more frequent over -bank flooding regime. Stream profiles will be raised along various
reaches, which will lead to higher water table conditions adjacent to the channels and more frequent
out -of -bank flooding of adjacent wetland areas.
17.5.3 Climatic Conditions
The average growing season (defined as the period in which air temperatures are maintained above 28'
Fahrenheit at a frequency of 5 years in 10) for the project locale is 224 days, beginning on March 27"'
and ending in November 7t' (NRCS Stanly County WETS Station: Albemarle, NC, 1998). The area
experiences an average annual rainfall of 46.61 inches (Albemarle, NC NRCS Stanly County Soil
Survey 1998) as shown on Table 17.8. During 2013, the New London — North Stanly Middle School
weather station (MEWL, ECONET) recorded 36.30 inches of rain. In much of the southeastern US,
average rainfall exceeds average evapotranspiration losses and these areas experience a moisture excess
during most years. Excess water leaves a site by groundwater flow, surface runoff, channelized 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 flow can be significant in some systems, most excess water is lost via surface and shallow
subsurface flow.
Table 17.8 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Month-
Year
Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
WETS Table Average
Monthly Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed from Average
(in)
Jan -2013
3.81
3.52
-0.29
Feb -2013
3.86
4.13
0.27
Mar -2013
3.94
4.24
0.3
Apr -2013
4.66
3.46
-1.2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -40 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table 17.8 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Month-
Year
Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
WETS Table Average
Monthly Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed from Average
(in)
May -2013
3.04
3.81
0.77
Jun -2013
4.51
4.05
-0.46
Jul -2013
0.88
5.00
4.12
Aug -2013
0.28
5.42
5.14
Sept -2013
2.13
3.92
1.79
Oct -2013
0.05
3.02
2.97
Nov -2013
2.70
2.07
-0.63
Dec -2013
6.44
3.97
-2.47
Sum
36.30
46.61
-10.31
17.5.4 Hydrological Characterization
The presence of buried and surface hydric soils over the portions of the project site is evidence that the
site historically supported a stream and wetland system. Like many other rural areas in this region,
drainage patterns on -site were historically altered to maximize the availability of arable lands or lands
to support livestock. Man -made drainage patterns were added to further drain stream and wetland
complexes on -site. Evidence of these swales and ponds still exist today and exert varying degrees of
influence on water table hydrology. Wetland hydrology indicators included saturated soils, algal mats,
water - stained leaves, drainage patterns, sparsely vegetated concave surfaces, and hydrogen sulfide
odors.
17.5.5 Soil Characterization
Soils at the project site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey data for Stanly County. The
areas proposed for stream restoration and enhancement are mapped as both non - hydric and hydric soils.
The non - hydric soils are mainly the Badin series and the Goldston series. The hydric soils found on the
downstream portion of the site is underlain by the Oakboro series, which are classified as nearly level,
moderately drained soils that are found on floodplains. Soil texture varied among the wetlands and
ranged from clay loam to clay silt to silt loam to loam. Soil color ranged from light grey brown to
medium grey (2.5YR 7/1 2.5YR 511) with mottles ranging from orange to dark reddish brown, and to
orange yellow to yellow brown (7.5YR 6/6 to 10YR 5/6). Hydric soil indicators included depleted
matrix and redox depressions. Figure 2.3 shows soil conditions throughout the project area and the Soil
Series are shown on Table 17.9.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -41 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Table 17.9 NRCS Soil Series (Stanly County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1989)
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Soil Name
Landform
Hydric Soil
Description
Well drained soils on narrow, undulating upland ridges that
Badin
Upland
NO
are highly dissected by intermittent drainageways. This soil
Ridges
is found mainly on slate formations. Slope ranges from 2 to
8 percent and permeability is moderate.
Well drained soils on the upland side slopes adjacent to
major drainageways. This soil is found mainly on slate
Badin
Hilly to Steep
No
formations and sandstone formations from Locust to New
London. Slope ranges from 15 to 45 percent and
permeability is moderate.
Well drained soils on the upland side slopes adjacent to
Goldston
Side Slopes
No
major drainageways throughout the slate belt area of the
county. Slope ranges from 15 to 45 percent and permeability
is moderate.
Nearly level and moderately well drained. On long, narrow
flood plains typically at the headwater of creeks and the
Oakboro
Floodplains
Yes
lower reaches of larger streams where floodplains are narrow.
Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent and permeability is
moderate.
17.5.6 Plant Community Characterization
Based on historical aerials, site reconnaissance and the landowner's verification, the proposed stream
restoration area is comprised of pasture land, narrow tree canopy, headwater forest, and successional
vegetation. Historically, the surrounding pasture areas have been used for cattle production. The
vegetation diversity present has been impacted due to agriculture management and cattle activities.
Current canopy vegetation within the existing delineated wetlands includes hardwood species such as
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulnus
Americana) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese). Herbaceous vegetation is the dominant stratum in
the wetland areas. Common species found include creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum),
smartweed (Polygonum spp.), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), duck potato (Saggittaria spp.), Sedges
(Carex spp), and rushes (Juncus coriaceus, uncus effusus).
17.5.7 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetative restoration component for this project will include stream bank, floodplain, and
transitional upland plantings and in combination, these areas are described as the riparian buffer zone.
The planting boundaries are shown on the revegetation plan sheets in Section 18, Appendix D. In
addition to the riparian buffer zone, any areas of the site that are disturbed or adversely impacted by the
construction process, will be planted.
Bare -root trees, live stakes, and permanent seedlings will be planted within designated areas of the
conservation easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along both stream banks (100 -
foot minimum width) for all of the proposed stream reaches within the project boundary. In some
areas, the buffer width will be in excess of 50 feet along one or both stream banks and will encompass
an adjacent pond and/or wooded areas. In general, bare -root vegetation (trees and shrubs) will be
planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. Planting will be conducted during the dormant
season, with all trees being installed between November and March.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -42 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Selected species for hardwood revegetation planting are presented in Table 17.10. Tree species selected
for restoration and enhancement areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are
able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of
time. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil
is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted as compared to the revegetation plan. The planting zone will be determined based on these
comparisons, and planted species will be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the
anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Soils across the site will be
prepared by sufficiently loosening prior to planting. Trees will be planted by manual labor using a
dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be
sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out and down without "J- rooting." Soil will be loosely
compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent roots from drying out.
Live stakes will be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and stakes will be spaced
two to three feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections using triangular
spacing along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and bankfull elevation. Site
variations may require slightly different spacing.
A permanent seed mixture will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 17.11 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided that is suitable for
stream bank, floodplain, and adjacent wetland areas. The seed mix will also include temporary seeding
(rye grain or browntop millet) to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. To provide
rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value, the permanent seed mixture
specified will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the stream banks of the restored stream channel.
The species provided are deep- rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream
channels, providing beneficial shade during the hot summer months for newly planted and young
woody species and floodplain stability until the woody vegetation matures.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed stream banks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary
seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130
pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop
millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 17.10 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Riparian Buffer Bare -Root Plantings ( Overstory and Understory Species) - 8' x 8' spacing - 680 stems /Acre
Bare -Root Overstory Species
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
8%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
8%
FACW
Driodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
6%
FACU
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
5%
FAC
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
5%
FACW
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
6%
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
8%
FACW
Quercus alba
White Oak
3%
FACU
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-43 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Quercus pagoda Raf.
Cherrybark Oak
5%
FACW
Quercus falcata Michx.
Southern Red Oak
6%
FACU
Bare -Root Understory Species
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
6%
FAC
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
8%
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch hazel
6%
FACU
Viburnum dentatum
Arrowwood Viburnum
6%
FAC
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
8%
FACW
Asimina triloba
Paw paw
6%
FAC
Riparian Live Stake
Plantings
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
10%
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow
10%
OBL
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
40%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
40%
FAC
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species
substitution is required, the planting contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the
procurement of plant stock.
Table 17.11 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
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
FAC
Carex crinita
Fringed sedge
10%
2.25
OBL
Chasmanthium latifolium
River oats
5%
1.50
FACU
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
1.50
FACW
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
5%
2.25
FACW
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
10%
1.50
FAC
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Pennsylvania Smartweed
5%
0.75
FACW
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
10%
0.75
FACU
Tripsacum dactyloides
Eastern gamagrass
5%
0.75
FACW
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
0.75
FACU
Total
100%
15
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species
substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the
procurement of plant stock.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -44 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

17.6 Site Construction
17.6.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction
A general construction sequence is provided below and included on the plan set for the Town Creek
Restoration Project.
1. Contractor shall contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation.
2. Contractor shall prepare stabilized construction entrances and haul roads as indicated on the plans.
3. The Contractor shall mobilize equipment, materials, prepare staging area(s) and stockpile area(s) as
shown on the plans.
4. Construction traffic shall be restricted to the area denoted as "Limits of Disturbance" or "Haul Roads"
on the plans.
5. The Contractor shall install temporary rock dams at locations indicated on the plans.
6. The Contractor shall install temporary silt fencing around the staging area(s). Temporary silt fencing
will also be placed around the temporary stockpile areas as material is stockpiled throughout the
construction period.
7. The Contractor shall install all temporary and permanent stream crossings as shown on the plans in
accordance with the NC Sedimentation and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual. The
existing channel and ditches on site will remain open during the initial stages of construction to allow
for drainage and to maintain site accessibility.
8. The Contractor shall construct only the portion of channel that can be completed and stabilized within
the same day.
9. The Contractor shall apply temporary seed and mulch to all disturbed areas at the end of each work
day.
10. The Contractor shall clear and grub an area adequate to construct the stream channel and grading
operations after all Sedimentation and Erosion Control practices have been installed and approved. In
general, the Contractor shall work from upstream to downstream and in- stream structures and channel
fill material shall be installed using a pump- around or flow diversion measure as shown on the plans.
11. The Contractor will begin construction by excavating channel fill material in areas for the new
channels. The Contractor may fill ditches, which do not contain any water during the grading
operations. Along ditches with water or stream reaches, excavated material should be stockpiled in
areas shown on the plans. In any areas where excavation depths will exceed 10 inches, topsoil shall
be stockpiled and placed back over these areas to a depth of eight inches to achieve design grades and
create a soil base for vegetation.
12. Contractor shall begin construction on Reach 1 at Station 10 +34 and proceed in a downstream
direction. Some sections of design channel will be constructed offline and in the dry, since it will be
excavated through the field areas. The Contractor shall excavate the channel to design grades in all
areas except within 10 feet of the top of existing stream banks.
13. After excavating the channel to design grades, install in- stream structures, grassing, matting, and
transplants in this section, and ready the channel to accept flow per approval by the Engineer.
14. Water will be turned into the constructed channel once the area in and around the new channel has
been stabilized. Immediately begin plugging, filling, and grading the abandoned channel, as indicated
on plans, moving in a downstream direction to allow for drainage of the old channels. No water shall
be turned into any section of channel prior to the channel being completely stabilized with all
structures installed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -45 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

15. The new channel sections shall remain open on the downstream end to allow for drainage during rain
events.
16. Any grading activities adjacent to the stream channel shall be completed prior to turning water into
the new stream channel segments. Grading activities shall not be performed within 10 feet of the new
stream channel banks. The Contractor shall NOT grade or roughen any areas where excavation
activities have not been completed.
17. Once a stream work phase is complete, apply temporary seeding, permanent seeding, and mulch to
any areas disturbed during construction. Apply permanent seeding mixtures, as shown on the
vegetation plan. Temporary seeding shall be applied in all areas susceptible to erosion (i.e. disturbed
ditch banks, steep slopes, and spoil areas) such that ground cover is established within 15 working
days following completion of any phase of grading. Permanent ground cover shall be established for
all disturbed areas within 15 working days or 90 calendar days (whichever is shorter) following
completion of construction.
18. Contractor shall improve and construct the existing farm road crossings (Reach 2 between Station
20 +58 and 20 +78 and Reach 5 between Station 45 +47 and 45 +72) by installing permanent ford
crossings, culverts, stabilizing side slopes, and raising road bed elevations according to the plans and
specifications.
19. All disturbed areas should be seeded and mulched before leaving the project. Remove temporary
stream crossings and any in- stream temporary rock dams. All waste material must be removed from
the project site.
20. The Contractor shall treat areas of invasive species vegetation throughout the project area according
to the plans and specifications prior to demobilization.
21. The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation and live stakes, according to planting details and
specifications. The Contractor shall complete the reforestation (bare -root planting) phase of the
project and apply permanent seeding at the appropriate time of the year.
22. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization
of equipment from the site.
17.6.2 In- stream Structures and Other Construction Elements
A variety of in- stream structures are proposed for the project site. Structures such as log vanes, log and
rock step - pools, constructed riffles, root wads, log weirs, and cover logs will be used to stabilize the
newly- restored stream and improve habitat functions. Woody debris will be harvested through the
construction of this project and incorporated whenever possible. Table 17.12 summarizes the use of in-
stream structures at the site.
Table 17.12 Proposed In- Stream Structure Types and Locations
Town Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 95026; Contract No. 003990
Structure Type
Location
In locations along outside of meander bends or against one stream bank in
Root Wads
straight reaches to increase pool diversity and provide refugium for fish.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible
Grade Control J -Hook Vanes
downcutting or headcut migration, and stream bed/bank erosion.
Located throughout various meander bends to prevent possible stream
Log Vanes
bank erosion.
Log Weirs / Step Pools
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible
downcutting or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -46 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Root Wads
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank along the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus a
portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank and reduce near bank stress by deflecting
stream flows away from the stream bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural
support to the stream bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a food
source for aquatic insects. Root wads will be placed throughout the project reaches primarily to improve
aquatic habitat and provide cover.
Grade Control J -Hook Vanes
Grade control j -hook vanes are utilized to provide grade control and protect the stream banks. These
vanes may be constructed out of logs and/or rock boulders. The structure arms turn water away from the
stream banks and re- direct flow energies toward the center of the channel. In addition to providing
stability to stream banks, grade control j -hook vanes also promote pool scour and provide structure
within the pool habitat. Grade control j -hooks have two to three boulders placed in a hook shape at the
upstream end of the vane. The primary difference between regular j -hooks and grade control j -hooks is
the way that the "hook" part of the structure is constructed. Regular j -hooks are constructed to have gaps
between the header boulders in the hook to promote flow convergence. Grade control j -hooks do not
have gaps between the header boulders in the hook and also have a boulder sill built from the outside of
the hook over to the opposite stream bank such that the structure can serve as a grade control feature.
Grade control j -hooks still promote scour in the downstream pool, thus providing habitat benefit.
Log Vanes
A log vane is used to provide cover for aquatic organisms in the downstream scour pool and with a
potential secondary benefit of protecting stream banks by reducing near -bank stress and redirecting flow
away from the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one -half to two- thirds the
bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream flow intersects
the stream bank at an acute angle in a meander bend.
Log Weirs / Step Pools
Log weirs and step pools are used to provide grade control as well as provide a secondary pool habitat
benefit for aquatic organisms. A log weir consists of two logs stacked (a header log and a footer log)
and installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert elevation of the
streambed. A step pool sequence or log/rock "rollers" are also commonly used in confined settings
where sinuosity is less than 1.2 and in drainage areas less than 3 square miles, and located based on pool -
to -pool spacing ratios. They can be used as floodplain interceptors to intercept concentrated floodplain
flows from swales, ditches, low points, oxbow pond or vernal pool drains, etc. and to drain such flow to
the restored channel in a stable and natural manner.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -47 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990
Located along outside bends to prevent stream bank erosion, increase pool
Toe Wood w/ Cover Logs
diversity and provide refugium for fish.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible
Constructed Riffles
downcutting or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
Installed along some or all of remnant channel segments to prevent
Ditch Plug / Channel Block
subsurface flow.
In locations outside of meander bends to increase stream bank stability and
Vegetation Transplants
cover.
In locations outside of meander bends to create and/or increase stream
Vegetated Geolift
bank stability and reduce near bank stress.
Root Wads
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank along the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus a
portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank and reduce near bank stress by deflecting
stream flows away from the stream bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural
support to the stream bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a food
source for aquatic insects. Root wads will be placed throughout the project reaches primarily to improve
aquatic habitat and provide cover.
Grade Control J -Hook Vanes
Grade control j -hook vanes are utilized to provide grade control and protect the stream banks. These
vanes may be constructed out of logs and/or rock boulders. The structure arms turn water away from the
stream banks and re- direct flow energies toward the center of the channel. In addition to providing
stability to stream banks, grade control j -hook vanes also promote pool scour and provide structure
within the pool habitat. Grade control j -hooks have two to three boulders placed in a hook shape at the
upstream end of the vane. The primary difference between regular j -hooks and grade control j -hooks is
the way that the "hook" part of the structure is constructed. Regular j -hooks are constructed to have gaps
between the header boulders in the hook to promote flow convergence. Grade control j -hooks do not
have gaps between the header boulders in the hook and also have a boulder sill built from the outside of
the hook over to the opposite stream bank such that the structure can serve as a grade control feature.
Grade control j -hooks still promote scour in the downstream pool, thus providing habitat benefit.
Log Vanes
A log vane is used to provide cover for aquatic organisms in the downstream scour pool and with a
potential secondary benefit of protecting stream banks by reducing near -bank stress and redirecting flow
away from the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one -half to two- thirds the
bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream flow intersects
the stream bank at an acute angle in a meander bend.
Log Weirs / Step Pools
Log weirs and step pools are used to provide grade control as well as provide a secondary pool habitat
benefit for aquatic organisms. A log weir consists of two logs stacked (a header log and a footer log)
and installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert elevation of the
streambed. A step pool sequence or log/rock "rollers" are also commonly used in confined settings
where sinuosity is less than 1.2 and in drainage areas less than 3 square miles, and located based on pool -
to -pool spacing ratios. They can be used as floodplain interceptors to intercept concentrated floodplain
flows from swales, ditches, low points, oxbow pond or vernal pool drains, etc. and to drain such flow to
the restored channel in a stable and natural manner.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -47 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

Toe Wood with Cover Logs
Toe wood structures are typically constructed in meandering streams using a combination of native
materials such as logs, branches, brush, live cuttings, sods mats, transplants, and soil. The structure
helps ensure long -term stability against eroding banks and can enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat
within the pool area by establishing a source of detritus and large woody debris. The structures are
located along the outer meander bends and should cover at least the lower half 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 geolifts to cover the toe wood up to the
bankfull stage.
A cover log is placed along the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. It is most
often installed in conjunction with root wads. The log is buried into the outside stream bank of the
meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of the pool and may be buried in the
inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The placement of the cover log near the
bottom of the stream bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages scour in the pool. This increased
scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability.
Constructed Riffles
A constructed riffle is installed by placing coarse bed material (gravel, cobble, and small boulders) in the
stream at specific riffle locations along the profile. The purpose of this structure is to provide initial
grade control and establish riffle habitat within the restored channel, prior to the natural establishment of
an armored streambed. Wood material can also be incorporated with rock for these structures, and
function in a similar way as natural riffles; the surfaces and interstitial spaces are crucial to the life
cycles of many aquatic macroinvertebrate species.
Ditch Plug / Channel Block
A compacted earth plug will be installed by filling the existing ditch to prevent subsurface flows and
improve site hydrology. The fill material used for ditch plugs shall come from a nearby borrow area and
be free of debris, rocks, trash, etc. and shall consist of compactable soil material.
Vegetation Transplants
Vegetation transplants will be identified before starting construction as viable candidates (species and
size) for uprooting and relocation. Areas that must be cleared will maximize the harvesting of
transplants; transplants will be taken from other areas as suitable to enhance the rapid development of
vegetative growth along the constructed channel.
Vegetated Geolift
Geolifts are a bioengineering measure used to stabilize stream banks. Geolifts are most commonly used
along the outside of stream meander bends. They are essentially a series of large overlapping soil
"burritos," or "lifts ", constructed using coir fiber erosion control matting and native soils. Live cutting
materials, or whips, from specific woody native species plants are planted in the layers between the lifts.
A stone or woody brush toe base is typically installed to provide protection at the toe of the stream bank
and to provide a foundation for the geolifts. The geolifts are installed on top of the base material to
comprise the entire restored stream bank up to the bankfull channel elevation. Geolifts can be used to
effectively stabilize restored stream banks for all sizes of streams simply by varying the number of lifts
required to form the stream bank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -48 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 18 -1 FEBRUARY 2015
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN - FINAL
NCEEP PROJECT ID NO. 95026, CONTRACT NO. 003990

0
O
U
L1J
ry
n
Z
0
O
V)
IY
W
III
ry
U
0
In
N
`.J
BEGIN REACH 1
STA: 10 +34
lim
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
PRELIMINARY PLANS
STANLY COUNTY DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
LOCATION:
APPRO /IMATELY 9 MILES NORTHWEST OF ALBEMARLE, NC NEAR
THE INTERSECTION OF STEAKHOUSE ROAD AND OLD SALISBURY ROAD
TYPE OF WORK:
STREAM RESTORATION & STREAM ENHANCEMENT
%\
/3 GP56
` GPS5 LATITUDE: 35.436k-59
LONGITUDE: —80- 24`2172
r END REACH 1
BEGIN REACH 2
STA: 13 +50
\
-PROPERTY LINE
`cj l �.
GPS4
Ce
END REACH 2 ��*�T
\ f
STA: 20 +58 �`' �_ ,7 GPS3
BEGIN REACH 3 `' %``CC' -�
STA: 20 +78 - ��-
cF
cc
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 202, PAGE 226 / cF
PIN 662102964027
y END REACH 3
j BEGIN REACH 4
- ` f STA: 37 +08
EEP PROJECT
EEP CONTRAC I II-
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 20 40
PLANS
20 , Q 20 AO
LLj
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 4 S
Elf
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
CONTROL POINTS
POINT
NORTHING
FASTING
ELEVATION
GPS1
613754,25
49
541.40
STEAKHOUSE RD
N
BLALOCK RD
553.43
TOWN CREEK
MEISENHEIMER RD
�y
573.19
GPS4
PROJECT
�Al2
LOCATION
tiy�
UNNAMED TRIBUTARYC
1 629783.66
TO TOWN CREEK
GPS6
OLD SALISBURY RD
1 1629648.52
1 601.23
VICINITY
MAP
NOT TO SCALE
BEGIN REACH 1
STA: 10 +34
lim
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
PRELIMINARY PLANS
STANLY COUNTY DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
LOCATION:
APPRO /IMATELY 9 MILES NORTHWEST OF ALBEMARLE, NC NEAR
THE INTERSECTION OF STEAKHOUSE ROAD AND OLD SALISBURY ROAD
TYPE OF WORK:
STREAM RESTORATION & STREAM ENHANCEMENT
%\
/3 GP56
` GPS5 LATITUDE: 35.436k-59
LONGITUDE: —80- 24`2172
r END REACH 1
BEGIN REACH 2
STA: 13 +50
\
-PROPERTY LINE
`cj l �.
GPS4
Ce
END REACH 2 ��*�T
\ f
STA: 20 +58 �`' �_ ,7 GPS3
BEGIN REACH 3 `' %``CC' -�
STA: 20 +78 - ��-
cF
cc
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 202, PAGE 226 / cF
PIN 662102964027
y END REACH 3
j BEGIN REACH 4
- ` f STA: 37 +08
EEP PROJECT
EEP CONTRAC I II-
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 20 40
PLANS
20 , Q 20 AO
LLj
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 4 S
Elf
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
CONTROL POINTS
POINT
NORTHING
FASTING
ELEVATION
GPS1
613754,25
1630860.98
541.40
GPS2
614063.02
1630823.49
553.43
GP53
614976.29
163Q276.26
573.19
GPS4
615228.37
1630262.04
585.99
GPS5
1 616217.36
1 629783.66
1 600.72
GPS6
1 616519,86
1 1629648.52
1 601.23
DESIGN SUMMARY
REACH NAME
METHOD
PROPOSED LENGTH
1
RESTORATION
316
2
€NHANCEMENTI
706
3
RESTORATION
1630
9
ENHAAICEMENT 1
732
5
RESTORATION
009
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 203, PAGE 368
PIN 662104943597
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
i��rl�;�tt�11
NCDENR — ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAh1
2726 CAPITAL BLVD -, SUITE 1H 103
RALEIGH, NC 27604
NCEEP CONTACT: HARRY TSOMIDES
REVIEW COORBBNAMR
NCEEP CONTACT: HARRY TSOMIDES
PRO,ECT MANAGER
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 264, PAGE 221
PIN 663101150408
STATE I BAKER PR"CT REFERENCE NO. I i I -
NCI 124526 1 C1135
SHEET
INDEX
C1 ... ._ .. ...................__.....COVER
SKEET
1 ..........
...................CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
2 .. .................._..
TYPICAL SECTIONS
3 -10 ... _. _.._.
_ .....................PLA WPROFILE
RV1 - RVS .......
...................REVEGETATION PLAN
EC1 - EC9 ..
................ ._.....SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
61 - D7 ........................
_.DETAILS
CC CE GP52 10
�r
7�' GP S1,
END RE AC 4
BEGIN REM 5 END REACH 5 /
STA: 39 +46 STA: 47 +74
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 HAYWOOD ROAD
Suke 200
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
Phone. [phone]
oa.. cea�rw�. rna. �v ,�c,v � ...vst .. r,era a ,�VFax. 826.3501400
WILLIAM S. HUNT 111, P.E.
PRB,ECT ENGINEER
MICKY CLEMMONS
PRMCT DESIGNER
PR04ECT- Egm
229 22: z
a-
r
SICNATU
PR04ECT- Egm
229 22: z
a-
`r c V N E.
SICNATU

Construction shall be performed in general accordance with the fallowing sequence;
Construction Sequence
1. Preparation for site access.
a. Utility locations shown on these plans are approximate. The Contractor shall have all underground utilities within the project limits
located and marked prior to beginning construction. Contractor must call 1 -800- 6324949 to locate all underground utilities before
mobilizing to the site.
b. Contractor must schedule and attend a pre - construction conference with the NCDFNR Dept. of Land Quality Sediment and Erosion
Control Inspector, engineer, and appropriate utility companies.
c. Contractor is to not disturb more than can be stabilized within the same day.
d_ Contractor is not to disturb any areas outside the limits of disturbance and shall pay close attention to areas in and around the existing
wetlands.
e. Clearing and Grubbing is minimal and can be accomplished with an excavator and track truck; therefore, additional equipment, such as a
pan or off -road dump trucks, are not required. Waste material is to be disposed within the project limits as depicted on the plan set.
f Where feasible, the channel construction should always begin at the upstream extents and work downstream.
g. When access to a construction area requires crossing a delineated jurisdictional feature, impacts shall be minimized by placing a
temporary stream /wetland crossing (as outlined on D6 of the plan set) across the feature prior to accessing the area with heavy
equipment.
h. Erosion control measures shall be installed by the contractor to protect jurisdictional waters from significant runoff prior to permanent
stabilization. Measures to be used shall include measures shown on the plan (e.g, silt fence, check darns, temporary construction
entrances, temporary stream crossings, haul road, etc.).
2. Access to the project site shall be from State Road 1400, Old Salisbury Road, .35 miles south of its intersection with SR 1440, Misenheimer
Road. Access paths are shown on the plan sheets. Upon mobilization of equipment and materials to the site, access to work areas shall be
along paths designated by the landowner and shown on the plan sheets. Trucks and equipment shall use the farm roads to access the project
reach_ Where roads are not adjacent to the stream, centralized stream accesses shall be used as shown in the plans.
3. Equipment and materials shall be mobilized to the site,
4. A gravel. Class A Stone "construction entrance" at least 50 feet in length, shall be incorporated into access points that connect to any public
road. See plan set for construction entrance locations and installation details.
5. Construction access and staging areas will be established near stations 13 +00 (left), 19-+-00 (left:), 23 +50 (right), 27 +50 (left), 28 +50 (left),
33 +00 (right), 37 +00 (left), 38 +00 (right), and 44-+-00 (right). Equipment and materials will be mobilized to these locations and as shown in
these plans.
6. Install sediment and erosion control measures, temporary stream crossings, and silt fence. Clear and install silt fence around stockpile areas.
7. Temporary check dams shall be installed as shown in the plans, Temporary check dams shall be removed when grading, work upstream has
been completed.
a. The contractor shall be responsible for inspecting the temporary rock check dams on a daily basis and cleaning or repairing them as
needed. The contractor shall be required to remove sediment from the check dams once the depth of sediment reaches 12 inches.
8. Contractor is required to remove existing topsoil layer and stockpile in designated areas separate from other stockpiled soil for later
reapplication to the excavated floodplain and constructed wetlands.
9. Construction will proceed upstream to downstream.
10. Temporary stream crossings may be installed at locations shown on the plans.
11, Contractor to construct stream off -line where feasible. In -line construction will be necessary in areas where the proposed channel crosses the
existing channel. Temporary sand bag coffer dams will be installed upstream of each work area and flow in the work reach will be diverted
with a pump and piping_ The length of each diversion will be approximately 200 to 400 linear feet.
12. The clearing and grubbing required within the grading limits shall be performed so as to hinit sediment migration off-site. Logs and root
wads from trees larger than 10 inches in diameter shall be stockpiled for use as in -stream structures, In areas where new channel will be
constructed salvageable native vegetation, mats or individual plants will be harvested for transplanting. These mats will be excavated and
moved to the banks of the new channel sections.
13. The new channel sections shall be stabilized with in -stream structures, erosion control matting, seed, mulch, and transplants before turning
water into these sections. Compacted soil channel plugs (clay if available) shall be installed in areas where the new channel diverges from the
original channel, and the original, abandoned channel sections will be backfilled,
14, Earthwork shall be staged such that no more channel will be disturbed than can be stabilized by the end of the work day or before flow is
diverted into a new channel segment.
15, Dewatering of off-line channel sections is expected to be minor. Any water pumped during dewatering operations in the off -line sections will
be diverted through a sediment filter before being discharged into the downstream reach.
16. Excess soil materials will be stockpiled outside the floodplain in the staging areas, with silt fence installed on the stream side(s) of the base of
the stockpiles and maintained when sediment has accumulated above one third of the height of the silt fence and/or the silt fence has failed
This excess material will be hauled outside the conservation easement to identified waste areas or used to backfill abandoned channel before
demobilization.
17. The flow diversions and stream crossings will be removed when no longer needed and the banks in these areas stabilized with seeding and
matting.
18, Bank and floodplain vegetation, including brush materials and live stakes, will be installed during dormant season, November to April.
19. Construction entrances, staling areas and silt fences will be removed once planting is complete or once they are no longer needed.
20. After construction on the reach is complete, stabilize with erosion control matting and permanent vegetation before proceeding to the next
reach. No more area is to be disturbed than can be stabilized within the work day. All disturbed areas are to be stabilized at the end of each
work day.
21. Demobilize from site after site has been approved by designer.
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
— — — EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
— — — — — — — EXISTING STREAM ALIGNMENT
— S5 SS — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
— of of — EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
EXISTING FENCE
— — —F - --- _— PROPOSED STREAM ALIGNMENT
0 +00 PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
— SF — SF PROPOSED TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
LOD — LOD PROPOSED LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
CE — cE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED TEMPORARY HI -VIZ SAFETY FENCE
4 0 o PROPOSED FENCE
FL` O, W FLOW DIRECTION
EXISTING TREE
# - EXISTING WETLAND
fi
PROPOSED ROCK CROSS VANE
PROPOSED LOG J -HOOK
PROPOSED BOULDER STEP
PROPOSED LOG VANE
PROPOSED ROOTWADS
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
PROPOSED VEGETATED GEOLIFT
PROPOSED TOE WOOD
PROPOSED ROCK VANE
PROPOSED BOULDER TOE
I I
PROPOSED TEMPORARY STREAMIWETLAND
I I CROSSING
PROPOSED TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROCK
CHECK DAM
EXISTING FARM ROAD
PROPOSED TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD
EXISTING D
TO REMOVEIR OCATE
WDI PROA= NQ. 2T Na
124526 1
NCUP PRMM Nn •maa - 8/$6/2
PROM O*MNM
j J PROPOSED TRANSPLANT
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
PROPOSED CHANNEL FILL
\ / \ PROPOSED ANGLED LOG STEP
PROPOSED PERMANENT STREAM
CROSSING
3 PROPOSED PUMP AROUND
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
_,.11111111..
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT — OPTION B
CONSTRUCTION
SEQUENCE AND

PROPOSED REVEGETATION
CTYPI LI.
i
/ i 6 0' BENCH AVERAGE
1 J INSTALL LIVE STAKES
SLOPE TO EXISTING GROUND ITYP)
NO STEEPER THAN 21
PROPOSED REVEGETA7ION
ITYPI
INSTALL EROSIOII
CONTROL MATTING (TYPj
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION REACH i AND 2
STATION 10•34 - 20+58 wK
ow
f r
SO' BENCH AVERAGE
INSTALL LIVE STAKES -
TYPI
SLOPE TO EXISTING GROUND
NO STEEPER THAN 2.1
INSTALL EROSION -
GON7ROL MATTING (fYP}
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
ITYP) \\
BENC� /���
INSTALL LIVE STAKES
SLOPE TO EXISTING GROUND {TYPI
NO STEEPER THAN 2.1
INSTALL EROSION
CONTROL MATTINGSTYPY
�a.
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION REACH 3
STATION 20 +78 - 37 +08 31
10.0'
3A' 2,G'
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION REACH 4 AND 5
STATION 37 +08 -47+74
-
10-6
rk
3.0' 2..
ft4
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(NP)
TYPICAL POOL SECTION REACH 1 AND 2
STATION 10.34 -20 +68
fA ! l III ili41 Ili
6.0' BENCH AVERAGE —
INSTALL LIVE STAKES
SLOPE TO EXISTING GROUND (TYPI
NO STEEPER THAN 2 1
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(NPs
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(TYP(
INSTALL EROSION
CONTROL MATTING (TYPI
`~ 6.0' DENCH AVERAGE - ---
\-- SLOPE TD EXISTING GROUND
NO STEEPER THAN 2:1
BENCAj AVERAGE A
SLOPE TO EXISTING GROUND
NO STEEPER THAN 21
9.0'
X1.0"
7.a — -i
TYPICAL POOL SECTION REACH 3
STATION 20+78 -37 +08
13.0'
TYPICAL POOL SECTION REACH 4 AND 5
STATION 37 +DB -47-74
18.0'
mn
IN..
iki \l A\\Ii\\
,LL EROSION
CONTROL MATTING (TYP)
i
�a r
`Z'Q FE s Sr,?
I z29s
"" SC Q 1 1
�1111rn111t;1
12 0' - 2.0'
rk
23'
INSTALL EROSION I O Y
CONTROL MATTING (TYP(

596
592
588
584
560
576
�PS6
+ N: 516519.85
E: 1629648,52
410 ELEV: 60123'
TVE PROPOSED FENCE INTO
EXISTING FENCE /
�f 599
PROPOSED FENCE
598 CONSERVATION EASEMENT -
4
+�CE CE -- CE
�- CE -- CE�� CE
596 — CE - -- CE CE CE CE 92
CE �— CE -- CE CE �S�E � CE
CHANNEL PLUG ` / —CE - y` CE CE CE
/J ! 594 1 590` CE
593 589
BEGIN REACH 1 // I
STA: 10 +34 / G 592 INSTALL GEOLIFT
Fib (Typ) 4b
INSTALL J -HOOK f ` INStA4.a, ANGLED /,END REACH 1
LOG VANE (TYP) ECEN REACH 2 INSTALL LOG
OG STEP (TYP) STA: 13 +50 VANE (TYP)
1O 594 J :r
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED /
RIFFLE (TYP) 1
INCORPORATE BEDROCK
may, -$yJr� PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
+ / INSTALL BOULDER STEP-(T)!P)
J/ 596
cw \
597
/ 596
\
` 599 \
�660_
CE — CE — CE �' C9`— CE
RELIMINAR'Y PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
t,
5199 - O
s9a, Lo -
\ t-
697 -�
C£ CE — CE — CE CE90W Of — OE
595
597 Z
C)
1-"
BEGIN REAO
STA: 10+4
1
r
SOSTING
t~�
o
a0
ui
m
W
PROPOSED
+6
vll
, ._I
I+
-
TDB
rz
7 OOF +r
oQ�
9
W�
Q
O
_ -
+
2S—
LL7
N
�!
4l7 Y O(J
,y,,,,
" m
ipp
Di 4
11I
d
Y 417
co
ut7 N
r
L+V
N
uig
��
Nm
M�
Q
1f'I
{
�W+
1f1
cc
C04
©pp
�_
O
Lo
Lei
O
to
sr04
-
� 9
c[?
r
Lo
Ln
Y47
rco
co
P
G POSED TG
90
ENO REACH
BEGIN REACH
i
2
~
- ��
Pr-l-
�
m S1Ek:-T
3
LV
M
EEO
+
4]
C6
IQ
At �
�Sp
cr
co
04
600
695
592
588
564
680
57
6
10 +00 low 11+00 11+50 12x00 12,50 13.00 13+50 14.00 14 +50 15-DD
1 1 .24
'o
AL =
2587 -
�1117 1 SCOTI o
'4r / /I{1l1loWlR
4 0 4 S
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

7—
rF ®�
�GP55
N :616217.36
E: 1629783,66
ELE%t 660.72'
1�
CC
SCE A
CE -14- —590 /
--�� 589 -_ PROPOSED FENCE
CC C -_ 8 CCNSERVATION EASEMENT - -- — 590— CE
CC CE Cr CE '4 CE — CE CE ° CE �' CE
-� CE �— CE CE CE CE i / —
587 588 y
587
586 586 r `�
I \ FLOW -585 - % ~ ' ' r INSTALL J -HOOK
i{1:J f
—ses LOG VANE (TYP)
— � �
AN LOG 584
584 VANE (TYP) _ 1 (w - no -
t
INSTALL HC
Q STEP
©l
T
Lt i
c> �'� cE � c£
CE
� CE � CE co
Lu
Lu
uj
Z
r
SHEET NO.
NOMP PROJECT ND mm JDATE. a/15/20I4
PROJECT ENOOM
`� � wurri ea qr� m..n'rp ins.
CE - CE
--PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
T09 rEX STING
0
. A C3 t[1 N O O O C 688
_ +f+Y. 01 'a1 a C
�� Ln +z - Q f�p;�, M n C3 o o a
664. 00 au] in rp w o + 2 i 4 �! ,: ti ®O� T„ TA � 564
r+- O3 r~ r`h °+Doi rn� m �r
In �$
;= ur'i uH r 1(i ti ti ti r• + ti + 90 6] th +n O
in DDS co
n CD N
u a 560
C3
1f3 O _ T 0) 05 LO ^F
Ic
% o
W
�m
576
�in mco f*O *� Mai ® 'c+1 1nN 579
TO 10 ti +131 h - •- O
PROPOSE TWO
rTn + CD , - --
s72
r * {+1 572
If1 4 G N
V!
�
5018 _ In �.
15 +00 15+50 18+00 16 +5C 17+00 17 +50 18+00 101+50 18+00 19+50 20 +00
.0 0 ESSIp ~9
Q
�¢
22967
ScpT[
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
RESTORATION
ROJECT— OPTION
PLAN & PROFILE
GRADE DIKE TO 582.5'
r
'
AT DIRECTION OF DESIGNER
`5g5�
r . f "
��
VLB�
i
TRANSPLANT WILLOWS AS N €£OED
— AND USE IN STRUCTURES OR I)
586 `
i , i
y • W L B
VL
y i i /
- — -- BANK TREATMENTS CJ
1
\
02.
y /
e
NSTALL CONSTRUCTED y
587
see
�/
i v
Sgt RIFFLE (TYP) --- - -
Q
~�1
LB`s
•_1---
EXISnNG WETLAND S'9 r
CC
CC
WL17' ~�VLa— 10 LB
CE CE r
CE � CE _� CE
—
_
CE � _ -�
C£
CE
� CE -�
CE CE. CE ' CE CE CE L~73
`
CE
_
CE CL �
f — — w
-
566 _ _
2
--
587
588 {n
_
589 Lu
J
E..)
Q
T09 rEX STING
0
. A C3 t[1 N O O O C 688
_ +f+Y. 01 'a1 a C
�� Ln +z - Q f�p;�, M n C3 o o a
664. 00 au] in rp w o + 2 i 4 �! ,: ti ®O� T„ TA � 564
r+- O3 r~ r`h °+Doi rn� m �r
In �$
;= ur'i uH r 1(i ti ti ti r• + ti + 90 6] th +n O
in DDS co
n CD N
u a 560
C3
1f3 O _ T 0) 05 LO ^F
Ic
% o
W
�m
576
�in mco f*O *� Mai ® 'c+1 1nN 579
TO 10 ti +131 h - •- O
PROPOSE TWO
rTn + CD , - --
s72
r * {+1 572
If1 4 G N
V!
�
5018 _ In �.
15 +00 15+50 18+00 16 +5C 17+00 17 +50 18+00 101+50 18+00 19+50 20 +00
.0 0 ESSIp ~9
Q
�¢
22967
ScpT[
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
RESTORATION
ROJECT— OPTION
PLAN & PROFILE
502
PROPOSED
15 +00 15+50 18+00 16 +5C 17+00 17 +50 18+00 101+50 18+00 19+50 20 +00
.0 0 ESSIp ~9
Q
�¢
22967
ScpT[
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
RESTORATION
ROJECT— OPTION
PLAN & PROFILE

intro ��
�ryr �CE�
CE
GE _
END REACH 2 i
STA�20+58
BNOM Pom SHM7 HU
124526 5
KW PROJI0! 1a. MM — 0/13/2
WIN
PROPOSED FENCE
PROPOSED
PERMANENT STREAM CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CE
� CE � CE Y- CE �
CE —_. CE L.!
CROSSING (TYP)
CE — CE f CE ' CE
CE CE -� CE
CE
CE _� Cr CE
�- CE -
CEO = CE —" CE CE CE CE
L 990\ OER
STEP (TYP)
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
'
580—
AM. • ry
—
yS$DISALI._$QULER TOE TYP
— INSTALL TOE
WOOD (TYP)
F
BEG4N RR7CCFf3
STA: 20 +78 w -� 580 — —. _
'-
y
IN57ALL ROCK
VANE (TYP)
� — —. � —
—
—575- /
WIN
5s
58i
571
57.
66
55
Z DO NOT USE
J
FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED
INSTALL LUG
VANE (TYP),�.
�
D
L 990\ OER
STEP (TYP)
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
` j
RIFFLE (am')
5 &0
ci
u>
Q
STRUCTURES SHOULD INCORPORATE l
INSTALL TRANSPLANTS
(TYP)
'
EXISTING BEDROCK WHERE POSS4BLE 1
INSTALL ROOT
O.
A-
ci
IN THIS AREA PER DIRECTION
IN S -HOOK
WADS (TYP)
�
CHANNEL
OF ENGINEER
� LOG VANE (TYP)
��'
N
/
PLUG
_
NEE)
O1'
P +vi
CQOZ
M�
G4
_ F—
�]
O
L—
` _
cn
V j GL
CE -- CE -�- CE — CE
— CE - - - - -- CE —� CE --- CE $78 CE — CE
—�E
N
tS CEO
LD Q
—
CE CE -� CE — CE -- CE ---
-CE-�- CE — CE
N CD
— CE�CF1�
r
579
4
y�
O O
Q.
LE CE
w
—
r
INSTALL GATES
AT PERMANENT
4
/
1L'1 Cod
1[
P RELIMINARY PLANS
,tit
STREAM CROSSING
_ —
im
O 14
m
5s
58i
571
57.
66
55
Z DO NOT USE
J
FOR CONSTRUCTION
see?
zo�oa
20+50
21 +00
21 -50
22 +DD
22+50
23 +00
23+50
24 +DD
24 +50
25+00
` `�yy.11Ul1iif��2l
O, ,Vk G.w.R�l /,
2 ISM
QQ-
_� 2967 z;
i � iAA
�»illiflkkkkk
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT}
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT— OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE
PROPOSED
5 &0
ci
u>
Q
ci
r
NEE)
O1'
P +vi
CQOZ
M�
G4
O
O
O
N
1l1
LD Q
f-
,F
N CD
r
s
4
y�
O O
Q.
N
1L'1 Cod
1[
N
r +
1L'1
r
M ti
im
O 14
m
o �
Q
O
Q
G
p.
1D
17�
t
+r
�O
Nom?
�1M
M®
'N
1411
O..
rr1
4
_
N�
N1G
(fl
W tG1+
+cO�
+N
[�p�
co
C,
N1A
N4
co
p+jr
M
1a M
}
i-
OD
—
N
N5
n
(D ma.
+ 10
46
I-17
572
Nto
Ntl!
In
C3
N
_
\
_Ln
2r-
+
of
oi-
o
4
585
N�
MN
O
�
O!�
1(1
p
V'
O
1C1
O
D REACH 2
N�
EXISTING
Cy1j
rP
N�
+
(p
co
Of'
'o NQ
�'v
LQi,
n
ON
Q
QN
GROUND
+ai
+ao
rr
O
C
5�4
N 1[7
1+
R
OSED TWG
1(1
N
w
r
l�-
0
STA: 20
78
N (A N
see?
zo�oa
20+50
21 +00
21 -50
22 +DD
22+50
23 +00
23+50
24 +DD
24 +50
25+00
` `�yy.11Ul1iif��2l
O, ,Vk G.w.R�l /,
2 ISM
QQ-
_� 2967 z;
i � iAA
�»illiflkkkkk
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT}
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT— OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE

CE RAM PROW FgYU 6 M N0. I ow Na
CE > 124526 6
CE NMEP PRMMT Ift W= OAT€: 9/96/2
CE PRO,ECf flgEFA
k� Cf
kgLv CE
510 -_ !� CE
`_ CE PROPOSED FENCE
CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
�-. l - -- ~575 - 5755. - CE CE - CE C CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE E CE CE CE CE E.c.aete.l.,E,p..x,ew.iroc.
EXISTTNG WETLANDS ,%i" }
_ \�7/ y
INSTALL VEGETATED
/
GFOUFT (TYP) ''� • ' `--
s
—570-
�.��- INSTALL ROOT INSTALL TOE
\� Spa FLOW �- i i`, wt ! ✓ �i ���/f WADS (Tw) 5�8 WOOD (7,P) /
3INSTALL GRADE e
caNTRD (Tai,POrcY�
67f
57'
56(
5EY
55(
56E
552
25 +60
EXISTING
Ra POSE
cp
CJ, v J
GROUND
To o
-$
s
CE
Ce \ C40
, ` �–
-- NSTALL CONS U'b
O
Or
CC
O
0 NOT FILL
RIFFLE
-�
--
SWALE, LEAVE
OPEN FOR
1 :. "t `- --
NA.NEL
_ CE
VERNAL POOL
`COL
PLUG (TYP) r
" '>0
Opl
Eh
_O _
IR t+1
cE
-
— -575—
Z
cE
F�
-'' CE
INSTALL TOE �
O
W
O
e.
~ CE
` WOOD {TYP)
CE
W
X:
cE
'�
N
E(r
E
cm
_
W fQ
+ f0
I—
CE
CE CE CE CE - CE -
CE - CE CE CE --
CE c
CE
' 1,
'O
d
ti
CE i LE
� CE CE
Z
PRELIMINARY PLANS
s
`
DO NOT USE
NN
NEff
Nin
mw
+ui
d
O
O
FOR CONSTRUCTION
–
–
2
N
Eft
67f
57'
56(
5EY
55(
56E
552
25 +60
EXISTING
Ra POSE
GROUND
To o
O
Or
O
O
Opl
Eh
_O _
IR t+1
-
Lo
fD
}
O
O
e.
N
E(r
E
cm
i D
In
W fQ
+ f0
I—
MN!
0,'t
E.j
Da
' 1,
'O
d
ti
O
4N
O
s
`
NN
NEff
Nin
mw
+ui
d
O
O
–
–
N
Eft
Lo
t
+
NEfx-
06
�
8.
d
O
-_ -_
- - - - N W.
log
+
rn 068
+m
La-
mm
W3 C14 L0
1
–,–
ID
O.
O
O
L
QO
fd ID
CO
O..
O
O
O
ll
O d
�I
N Eft
N
Lo
E;).
W
fD
+ Ef7
+
E(i
Lfa
Ol
N...
NE
dO
WiO
T [hW
O.
O
VmPOSED
r'I
Ell N
+ C" t ri
N W) N �
er N
i' l'7
O N
# V)
O st O
EY? N
O
O
- -
-
-
- -
N t
odp
TWO
N N
W
�+
uwi
Ln
rn
io rn
cit
25 +50
20 +00
26 +50
27 +00
27 +50
26 +00
28-50
29 +00
20+50
570
572
506
564
560
550
552
30.00
yyyy.yl 1511! /F /!
Cq
r
SE _Z
lee 0� 7 ` "1(`
i
111; 5coTl "o
�f'P1U10141%
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT — OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE

k7h` ' as3
571
\GPS3
N: 6149376.29
E: 1630276.26
ELEV: 573.19'
2EET 716
7
WEEP PRD,ECF mm 135616 I OAM 6/75/214
PROMM ENGNiMR
LE '- -- CF
CE CF �- CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT S CE C
PROPOSED FENCE GE � C
F � f
r'- -�- CE �� Cr - -- 6 CE �- C€ CE -570
mwRaa
_ Ste. Tb
sc 6CE CE c€ —__ c€ �E
_
~565_ — — — _ « < 565— cf
_ 565 — 565- -- J � 4 ~
A` 66 3 0 56Q 1ct \ ss
O� r 1 � — — � �. _S
FLOW
$ - ti�X
° 5,5a INSTALL GRADE
-�-_�' s i -!� /•� CONTROL J -HOOK
� a
F INSTALL ANGLED
cv) '-� _ f'�"*� ' JQ YW1' LOG STEP {TYP)
BAR` � LDER i FLOW
-565 --
L
1"^ � INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
Ico RIFFLE (TYP) \ - '�.�,•' -"� - "a'k.,' 4w �, �„'.
570-- 565 — d
NSTALL 90DLDER \ _ INST
W TOE (TYP) _WGoO )
—565 CID
_ 565
- CE — CE co CE CE CE -565- 56p\ I PR F �If fM�.A PLANS
! AJ
CE � �
�— e€ —� CE — DO NOT USE
� cE ��
� eE � ce cIE �
FOR CONSTRUCTION
CIE —� c€ I
CE , CE -� CE -�� V
CE CE
- CE _� CE � Q
CE
30 +00
30.50
31 -00
31 +50
32 +00
32 +50
33 -00
33+50
34 +00
34 +50
35-00
j AL _
;�=
.' ( fi _ • —:
4 0 �.r 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT— OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE
pq
q
566
q
qo
p
PROPOSED Tn
co
W
T
*
0
594
cr)
in
V
q
O
564
1
L'7
1G
1"
in
u7
N
La
? O 7
A+
'm
q
G
o
u�fi m
CMG
N
°
cm
+n
$
m
6
A
C4
q
o
I
_
—
to
.nun
o�
w
o
co-
-
seo
+I
.
~
556
r +­
. O td
q
G
-°�~
`
7+? � M
Cl t
LD
m
O
556
n 1n
1113
+S
N
[]
O
552
EXIS
NG
{x+11
} n
rp.
M
552
en W)
m�
N
LmL
Ln
5"
544
u.
30 +00
30.50
31 -00
31 +50
32 +00
32 +50
33 -00
33+50
34 +00
34 +50
35-00
j AL _
;�=
.' ( fi _ • —:
4 0 �.r 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT— OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE

CE CE CE CE — CE — CE CE
f
C CONSERVATION EASEMENT C�
SLOPE BANKS 2.5:1
C
' �-- STA: 37 +08 -39 +40
Cc, PROPOSED PENCE
cE c
i�
—585
565— - e� �� � 564 ~ /
6
_560— — —56(1
INSTALL TOE
WOOD (TYP) —�
60. — — `680_
5 REAH3
CE — CE E
�~ CE ~�
CE
ENO REACH
BEGIN REAC:1 5 / "r �— ` 560
STA
FLOw
AV
SMO PRO,ECT RI MiM NM SEEP M0.
124525 8
NtXEP PRU= N0. 03m DME a�s/2
PROJECT ENCIM A
�4nw181�n En9fiwMnF 1�,
Suns ZO-0
FPM anaso,we
Y�maw,wo
5g END C C
BEGIN REACH 4 Gj P f �.
558 STA: 37 +08y�'
FLOW
♦ �A' 1 � YYB Y
WL Y
CE
eE `� CE ® 555 -
CE
EXISTPNG WET)\AN CE - ... .
// �- CE
�`- �—
INSTALL GEOLkFT E
!
5 �% LAND ROOT WADS CE
INSTALL LO 5 cn
VANE (TYP) m
1AIS_rALL CQNSTRLICTED _ I—
RIFFLE (TYP) ;i — _ W
ti 660 560 ` W
%
565 665 � PRELIMINARY PLANS
; � — — � G�
INSTALL TRANSPLANTS (TYP) W
(f� INSTALL VEGETATED Z DO NOT USE
GEOLIFT (TYP) �� J FOR CONSTRUCTION
cc CE r )
~- CE ti :1
–� C€ I—
r♦
CE: CE Q
CE �
CE - -_ rc CE 2
35 +00
35 +50
36 +00
38 +50
37 +00
37 +50
38 +D0
38 +5a
36+00
36 +50
40-00
�2o�FEssRa�
SEi4L 4V-
967 =
i
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT - OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE
-
SBd
B
0
0
°
�
580
0'r
Wit°
•�
(p
ROUND
58C
m ufi
L,
�
ai
C3
� -- --
t+�ikq
mu�7
Ln
o0
END REACH
3
t N
BEGIN REACH
4
558
555
7
V) In
T—
MN
ai-
,Q
`
4
553
--
`� ��`
—
;
—
13117
P?
Ln
552
G
C]
\ `
�t —
-4_
do
.P�j
0
O
C3
9im
C3
0
-
-
Ln
""fl
�
i
°•
v°
5AH
uiu"�i
+
M
+
548
�PROP
( in
wwj
c+) L
END REACH
4
OSED TWG
BEGIN R
CH 5 Cj
p
O
WI
544
+
+ of
+
544
c')
M
540
35 +00
35 +50
36 +00
38 +50
37 +00
37 +50
38 +D0
38 +5a
36+00
36 +50
40-00
�2o�FEssRa�
SEi4L 4V-
967 =
i
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT - OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE

�o
CE — CE
CE �L
CE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PRO
CE
~ CE
~-
PROPOSED FENCE.
CE
-~ CE
-�
- F y
C E
GE f G
FLOW
i
INSTALL ROOT
WADS (TYP)
C3
o
,r o
�s2
N' 6440 9
-- � 555 �t553 as
L£ �— CE : CEO_ CE CE _ -_ CE C CE
CE CE -
r CE CE GE 554
LE
553 -
55? J i
b51 _
549
Ap
j O INSTALL TO€ _ !
gotWoo, CHANNEL PLUG (TYP). //
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED \ 54i
RIFFLE (TYP) Y 5qg
NSTALL VEGETATED _
CC) J y555- cEauFT (TYP) S.50
— 550 5sS0� N
r _ - y' -
1 CE CE CE w ` C€ CE
56C
556
ssz
548
544
540
536
40 +00
E CE -,- CE ,— CE - -- CE CE CE CE CE , CEO CE CE -- GE 5� CE CE CE ~- LE ~- GE Lf -� CE
RMCE11 Mllfirf REMIDIM MM 9EEf Rd.
124526 1 9
NOW PRU= Ra ace s 1 — R/IS/Y
F PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
4
40+50
41 +00
41 +50
42 +00
42 +50
43 +00
43 +50
44 +00
44.50
580 ,�tt��E•���Fl�fi�r
156
i52
M
iM
i40
536
45 +00
`1,,% %% 0�k CAR S
SEAL =
�lee- 22967;
C Ot
oin1101110
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT— OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE
PRO
OSEP
C3
o
vi
c,
ExlsTl
+
0
1e
cu
m
o
r
o
©
o
0
a
GROUN
��
�
°
+
m
o
a
o
W
MV
0 a
to—
In
+Ln
m
°m
o
—
L6 C:l ACC)
00
fl©
N
Q
L6
G
G
-
Q
Q sf
st��
1A
t
m t
C[i
U1 �
CND.1n
C
O C3
C
O
—
- -
-+
Q
CN
N
U5
- C?...s
.CD
- PROP
SED TwC
LO Q
of
O
a7
C]
�
Q
Q 4]
Q
40+50
41 +00
41 +50
42 +00
42 +50
43 +00
43 +50
44 +00
44.50
580 ,�tt��E•���Fl�fi�r
156
i52
M
iM
i40
536
45 +00
`1,,% %% 0�k CAR S
SEAL =
�lee- 22967;
C Ot
oin1101110
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT— OPTION B
PLAN & PROFILE

0
0
Liz
rI-
y1 GP52
Q) IN 814063 -02
E: 1830823.49
ELEV. 553.43'
CE w CONSERVATION EASEMENT
�- CE
-�� CE 552
cE
Z — — — ~�5tE —�
NSTALL ROOT t — °550— — T
WADS (TYP) 54.9
♦ 548
LJ 547
Q 546
�Lo
4'
9 $ / /
sg7 D //
ss
EXISTING
SANITARY /
SEWER
Jf � {y,
J l
I ss
OVERHEAD \
1 ELECTRIC \\
EXISTING RCP
ss\ TO REMAIN
//PROPOSED FENCE \
{
CE ENO REACH S ,Ps
STA: 47 +74
CE
- 545 —
l
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED \
RIFFLE (TYP) `*
4\1 J
INSTALL ROCK
4,LB GROSS VANE (TYP)
r
f �IST/�LL TQE y '
WOOD
NSTALL,CRADE (''� _ , . , , . , . , +
CONTROL \-HOOK , ° • y
s I
_S509 CROSSING
CE
CE
PERMANENT � y = , • , , , , 1
STREAM 1I +#
557 \ �(TYP) • ! . . . . _ , . . _ ' .
E%IST7NG WETLANO
INSTALL GATES . .
6, AT PERMANENT c � , „ ,
STREAM CROSSING
55
54
54
54
5.1
"m mmm. musmi "m 110.
KEEP MM12T NO, 19039 I DAZE. 9/15/2014
PNOA= 010@1
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
+17.07 FOR CONSTRUCTION
1
J 1
1
J \
J�
v'j ss
b \
�GPSi �
IN 813754.25
E:15308
ELEV: 541.40' 1AU
528
45 +00
45 +50
48+00
48 +50
47.00
47 +50
48+00
48 +50
`111.11 III 1r1j,
�ESSRp;
SEAL
�¢ 2.,24�9/6.�7
y Dtv- fA,
IN
S�p1�I 1 \\
rile oftlo,k��
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
RESTORATION
ROJECT— OPTION
PLAN & PROFILE
PROPI
33L
®
TOB
EXISTING
GROWN
-
-
�
do
EN.
REACH 5
+
O
pd
C3
ST
: 47 +74
548
R
1+4
d
©
OW p d
O
d
fJ
-
4ady
�
d
p
1`d
C3
O
-
-
-_ -
-
- -_
-
"fF
#
N
mod_N
03 V
�
+
r
-a-
dO
- - -
O
-
IT In
'ton
)
4
11'9C3
O
r4
d
O
��
R
�
C3
1 C3
544
\�/
♦ r4
— —
—
Lo
ue)
qw
LD
_
Vo
19
540
v +
v >aROP
S£0 TWG
ui �_
T o
� p
It uat v
�
m c=i
+ 1+i
in
o of
`
0
Lo
Q
538
It
tiCPO
R
LI)
532
528
45 +00
45 +50
48+00
48 +50
47.00
47 +50
48+00
48 +50
`111.11 III 1r1j,
�ESSRp;
SEAL
�¢ 2.,24�9/6.�7
y Dtv- fA,
IN
S�p1�I 1 \\
rile oftlo,k��
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
RESTORATION
ROJECT— OPTION
PLAN & PROFILE

REFERENCE M I 9EaT NOL
Ncimp PRO,ECT MO- •eat I DAME a%16/20t4
I+RI&M INNCINEfR
N�essn� IMM�p.lnt-
� Sort. x's�
� yep 6HHJ +M'IA
.� 9m 3Hi +WM
•.....- ; • . - • - �.�.�.A�,1M17.��r��T��1���1�1� �f1�t'I1r1D1'I1��T �1I, �71�1� ►1�1��711!�f���,�LI�r�►r�I i1��`j�►��I��� ��1�1�'1►��►�i�17�f �Il�rir 1�1
1�'��1��: - - , • • r • • 1�1V 1'I�i►1T�� 1 irI17�1 l I► 1�j���►11I7!' I► r'Ij�j��� 1111�1�
jt� . • . • ; r . • ♦ ; r • , ; . r r , :• •.. w..t..�.�.�.�►ir��ra�s��,l�1�,� 1111!1�1�1�1f,� 1� ►�1�1T1�jy71��11T11��,����jwjl �r I,11�►rI►�,1Ti�WAMA ►I►�� �I►���j�1
. • . , » . , . "' ! • + . • • • . r • . r . 11�1� 1i11►r 111I1r 11�1t1�1T1� ♦1�7j�1
t;•'.• ♦• 1;Nt ?.' �''.•;•`.• :• r••• �r•.`;•`.`,•`: �1tA����I►' r�� ►�L�I�I�I�1������1�1f�7�•►�� 1fj�,�lry�► ��j��r'I♦
♦,� r• �r r #� ►rrrr�r•,L• ka11� ••• •.•r, ••• • ••r• • r',. •--� >r ��� fir. �. �����
. ' -r ♦+�• , r ��-Re �ipW�� � i • • k + r ♦ • r ♦ • A • . , ♦ • ♦ a • r r r �-.�� • ! • • • • • . • • r �..
•` ��•
1 y + • • • • • • t • ♦ • a • • s t'la�+ .: a,. �_ ,1 ar • • • _• , • >, • a • • + r • • • • E • • • ! r. • • r r r t • r • r , • r ' • • a • • r • ♦ ♦ r • r •
• / r • ' • i •. ♦ • • • , • - + r ss.._. y^�..� Er I - • �} �� �i • •J.. ., . +-` ♦ • s , • r ♦ • E E�Ef. • r
,� �' ` , • ♦ • , r • • ♦ • r r • • r • • • r • a r r • • , • ♦ .r, ..'k'i�'•' -Yi' _ r ♦ • • + r t • + • a) � , • •
.h • •
r • • • r •`.1`� *.-,�,��`-�1.`* �r,•1•`•••'`���,. � r, • • • • t r • t r , • • • • - • �i +'�S"�. +!�'R�W"'. � � •
+ •, •• 1�1� -,,, AIw'TL ►1�1`• 1•- -�,��:'.�+.:= ��r��r,��i.1`•1.�� �rrr•'� r�•a�•`r:�a;•�r::•:•:•• ♦,r: •r•� *era,: ^5i. +a: ,:�- •• ♦► ♦• +• • • • AVA
/ i 1'I `` 1'I,►�1'�1�' 1�1�I71� 1F r . . . . . t . , r , , , • .
11 111.1`1 11•1�1.1� 11�1`1.1`a s ��.' • ' • • +•• •_ ♦ +• ♦ •• • ••'• • ♦• r ••''., r •• as ♦ •• •
• • r • ♦ . �rI�17r�j� "�Y i1�1r11�1�j�1�II►r I►�1�`7,.-711,��1T 1 *1�i►�1�r►► 171'Ij�Iy += rr:�►����� • ' „ • _ . r • r , . • , , r • • - - �.,�;� ♦ • r •
. %-�:�r � �►�1�1f�����r �� �7i7�'l�� ;r�f� ~ �11'11f1.r����r � ~7 r►1li'►��i=���'•.1►' �I1T��' I�7���f��' IIIa�► .�7�►17�r�f����`I,�'11�11�'Iil� ��s��7j�jr�`�I►`►i��r:'..: �•r:..���r.►r:�:r�i��� � � ' •
UPLAND ZONE PLANTINGS
©oao©
RIPAAA3 ZONE PLANTINGS
d d 0
LNE STAKES
Dodo RIPARl4N ZONE PLANTINGS - 3.6 ACRES
B' %8' SPACING - APPLICATION RATE Ell TREES
TREE SPECIES
SCIE"FIC NAME
COMMON NAME
PERCENTAGE
Silky dogwood
Batu10 hl
River Bircn
5%
FACW
CeWls rvevigato
Sugorberty
%
FACW
DiGspyros rdrginrvno
Pemimmpn
3%
FAC
F—i— nn ii"
real, Ash
10%
FAC
Unodendron tuiptero
ul'p Poplar
77,
FAC
P1.1 —as accident/is
mare
15%
F W-
Ous— tyraly
up DoR
5X
OBL
Ouercus mrch.11
A Chestnul Ook.
FACW
Coreopsi. Mnospfnto
quemua phellpa
ill.. Qak
;
FACW
SHRUB SPECIES
Pant
.
ropogon gemnlii
Aid— sa.rru/et.
v Aldar
107.
FACIl
Im(n fnMba
G. w
X
FAC
Lahti aPmlinlpna
apd
%
F
Cv a
it do wovC
I.
F +
ambuaus conadansis
Iderbar
.0%
►�.�a���I��1ii�::.f �' ����1T1�i '7ir'�."�:������17I`I,�r� *i1r.� ���1!j1►11,I���i�i':�;� *�` III, ��I� ,l�,��Ii►;ilir����fj��r =*1�i �fw�r►�`��`►1���„ji
—�I
LIME STAKES - .4 ACRES
(3'43' SPACING ON OUTSIDE MEANDER BENDS AND 4'X4' SPACING ALONG
SCIENTIFIC NAME
NAME
PERCENTAGE
_COMMON
CGrn s dmamum
Silky dogwood
35%
Salsa nigro
81-1, YIN—
10%
'a ssi'ked
Silky
35%
bucus rnrrodemie
Elderberry
20%
UPIAN0 ZONE PLANTINGS - 7.0 ACRES
B'Xa' SPACING - APPLICATION ELITE 680 TREES A SHRUBS ACRE
EE SPECIES
SCIENRFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
PERCENT
Winter Seeding (Avguel 15 - May 1)
L inndan7mn tuAplem
Tulip Poplar
15%
FAC
ah Pyras rr+g nrano
Persimmon
10%
FAC
uereua mich—h
S-1, Chestwt Oak
Rye Doll- Sl —.1.
- _
" e syArotka
81.0 Gum
10%
FAC
.gl nigro
OG.k Walnut
5
Sahmvchym— scoponum
us tolcota
S—ti,.M red Oak
12X
FACl
u.rfua wba
Whit. O.k
FACW,
FAT.
HRUB SPECIES
_jug
FACW
Coreopsi. Mnospfnto
arpnaa aaraun;ana
I.anwap.
s%
FAC
a Lnfvba
Pant
.
ropogon gemnlii
orris rvnadensis
R.obud
FAC
Swposemm natans
vmua Ilandv
Flowering dagwaod
FACU
vs a
+aranut.
NOTE VANS SaJECIlIll MAY K SUBSTInREO BY ERMIJ R DUE TO REFINDMENT OR AYMAOLM AT TFE TI IE OF PIMW
MPQRARY SEEDING - PLANTED WITH PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
L'To BE PLANTED IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
k1plicatlan Rate
Browntop Millet- Poll ramaeum
13 lb. /...
Winter Seeding (Avguel 15 - May 1)
piimrt Role
Rye Gram- Secole censvk
44 Ibafe Cre
TEMPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WITHOUT PERMANENT RIPARIAN 5M MIX
O HE PLANTED IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May I - August 15)
kppllmllan Rote
Brool Millet- Panicum ramoeum
44 Ibv/aare
Winter Seeding (August 15 - May 1)
Application Rote
Rye Doll- Sl —.1.
139 lbw /ac
W
U
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEEDING RO BE PLANTED AT 15 LEI /AC IN ALL
PLANTING AREAS DENOTED IN PLANTING PLAN
SCLENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NANE
PERCENTAGE
WEILAND INDICATOR
rnvtia albv
Red Top
lox
FACW
Elymus viryrnicus
r Info Ala FIsG
15%
FAC
panicam vi.rgvtum
Switch rase
15%
FAC+
rnpsicum daotdatdm
Gommo mes
5%
FAC+
Pa/ygarwm per"Y Gniourn
Penn Nona emartwe..a
5%
FACW
Sahmvchym— scoponum
tittle bluestem
5%
FACU
ncus allow.
Soft rush
5%
FACW,
Biidens a,let-
Tirkesed
10%
FACW
Coreopsi. Mnospfnto
Lvnee kavmd co w fs
lax
FAC
EDfohanth.lium clandestl
Il tan ue
14%
.
ropogon gemnlii
BiG bWentem
5%
FAC
Swposemm natans
Indian ma
Sx
FACU
CE --- CE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
�ZH CAR(31'�`'�,
• +
recss
SEAL •
LQI •
r�►EEriI�E�E
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
RESTORATION
)JECT- OPTION B
REVEGETATION PLAN

RELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
OR CONSTRUCTION
UPLAND ZONE PLANTINGS
,` It11,11 a rrrr�r,"
�• �N CARP
©� 0 O WARM 20NE PihN51NGS r4� � ii • �I �O
0 0 0 •��FESS�po '`.�,
$TAKE
Y.NE SEAL i zo o 2!0 410
icy; 2967 ?_�
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
,, '9 pft�J•` TOWN CREEK
'�• sCOT'� �•� RESTORATION
�tr1 /f 1►t111111 «� r�r�n ,r r.r nnrr.�.r� r.

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
U1. 0 ZDNE PLANENG6
RIPMNN ZONE PLRfRfNGS
tttr.�111FfflJ /��/ _
�,,�,Q(5�� "�t�l�'`' ✓ `
f
0 © O Q 0
0
4 4
- SEAL
'.6; 22967
20 0 2a a0
sue+
,*G+ He
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
scor
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION

•
•
!
a
•
•
LU'
2
W
Z
z
w
�I
• " +�li'�ilil�� lilAlilili i
• • • • • , — _. r�tiii® 11► wA1i1j1i1i l��11i1'�`Iilill!_i1iA �A'i�lili�'i�i'�A7ylA'Ii1A�i�I lil�I�I� ��7 �i►1� i
_ �r�M li�►i1,�ilililAli�rilili`�ilili A
r� �' i'�`�►1Tililili7i11A�Ir -. , • , ` ;�'►i►1A,�J►AQ�►!Ir 1
a • • , • eI�P4ni�} 1: y4�, �i1I►1 0' i►= �11►�`• ±!`�A•i11,�,'�1fi1i1A'e� �►:1 _ • • • f • • • • • •
. �-- ---- -_ . • . - , � ! Y – �,rh�I,►ril �6rp ; ! • • � • • * : `'"'��II►wA�i'�'ilArililiwi' Al
A a • • .
• • � � a•a• � �• - , ♦rilii. .al,af•!•• •,••' �i1Al, ��i7ilAi li ♦,e'�1A!'►1i1`►1i�i��• si•:,� + *s�:�:�`.
•• +r }I�y.`�� s -'*�rp ••••••••i• m•••••• +...• • °�,1i��,••••• ..a•a• f•••i••�•f•, 1��A li�i�, ••i•,•,• il,•,• ••
��a �l� . .a. • f • , • ! a • • ��1Ai11lA1A °i•• ••• ••••�•� a
l`r /w"j.Ul�S�• • • ! • ! q y-. • •� /. • • • • ` • • • • • +� * • • • •`�f • f • ` • • • f i ! • • • • • • • a • • �..!! 1 �.� +•• • • • • , • , • a . , , • • • t , , , • !
, ia•••• • Y I •+.��a�: •.••••• ,.. ��'Kr w••••• • •f•a••••� -••a•• • i,i,••• iAA��A *�, •a!,••I • •i•••••• • •,••••••
��.,; • a• • `, �, • • - `�Tl�C . f f �`• +,. i� +, `,. •-: �:•; F+¢••! 6 • D, •,., ���-��-,-.: t �, `, ,x:14"^• a •, �, •'f,•: �; y'! ..
i�••, • •• ••, , • • • +�'��� s' r -�_� is • �•, , a, a,! • a+ •• ✓.�''"'�'• "� • i. , ! •f a , ♦ �.. •, , •
�•• •••,•• fia• +,•, • •,•,•,K• •,•,•• . -e� •••, • • •,•• • (� iii s • ••, • �. • • , ►`�sc.,,vIU,� �y_ , a
�,••• , •s••• • •••,•• • ,••�•• , ,• +••��'• • •••, • • rye- c��r` ", ••L�/��Lk`'R.�e. • •• • •••• , a•!•• • • • * �%i • >9c'
`•• • • ,a, a•, • ,a•• , a f,•• •', • !,•4•, ��' f,• •• I�•••,y�J..a,.f,:,aa 'is F'+•.�`.•, ., �a al,• i'al.•!a ••••l,i,a•``� . �
i,.•. i• a,••,,•, a• a•••, a• a! a• i••_.:..•.,•!••••, •••�.'���t�•••••••••�••i••••,•• •�'.��. `iS +r• 1,� �. �j+'i!•i `•• ±, i•ai•af`•ifo�,.x 'F'
II► 7,►l ��is .�,�tril►��i�ilAlilwi�Iti����wl ►�'`7�.� • ; , : , : ,' • ` • • • a � • � � � : :`�i�/iwiwi•'�'r�►liTililA /i1�• ` • .
����� � rr�► rrw�1�7► A1iT���''►•' it �' �r� 7��r�����7�7���� ®'�r'I1��:�.�' . • . _ • _ • ., �fiYrT�li�1 '���A.�����7��ir7�►T��1�
UPLAND ZONE PLANTINGS
RIPARIAN ZONE PLANTINGS
LME STAKES
••••••••••••
I • •
w ,
pf.
�f� {�' +yam -'� a , • � • f
•• , a• a i a s s
•,f• ,a,a•,
RELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
Q FOR CONSTRUCTION
2i
'11l,i1i11 /l1 /1,
tcaol
$•fib; -'
sCQll
///1111114111
'�q�b +�
a6
20 0 20 4o
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

+ • • r
Z
z
U
d
• , - • ..,�, :.�.�..,w�.�,.� ����� ,►��,�!1T�T��ii►��rjv,�.i.� ► LEMMA
• • • ° • • . • r • , • • • /►, �TiT, �TjT�T�TLTjT, �T�T,► T�7�T�TjT�T�Ti7�T ,�T,�TIT�T�T�T,�TiWON
`• • . • • • • • , • a . • • , • • iT, �T` T�T�T�T�TjT,► T�T�TlT, �T�TrTJTATjVA V#- V#VjTjTi1►�jT�T,►T�T�T�TjTj�II�
•`+•,••'•••'•••••• �T, �T�TiT1T1TjTjTj ��T,► T, T�T�TjT�T�T,► �iTj�
• • • • �T�T, T�T�Tj717�TI�ATATATIN T,► j AVjMOVATl1t►j7�T�TjT��
• • • • • • • • a , •
+ ` •• C! IIT, 1T ,�TjT,rT�T�TI�iTjT�s�,T�T�T�T` TAT ,rT�,T,�T�TAT,U��T�TiTiT/►��►
• ' ` a ` ®' • ' ` • • • • • • • ` • ` • ��4T�T, �TrT�T�T�T�7�T, �TLT�7�T�T, �TjT,►T�T,�T�T�`�,QrT,►T,,i►T�. • • •
• • • r • • • �T�TANA, T,►TjT TT T T T T.�= , + a + • • •
• ` ��J►�fr,�
•;•;.;• o:•`•;•;••*.,• .•.•••.•r' "Y'�Tj,►�TI►T�T�T7�iT
• • • rte. "'� •i • ,
• . ± ~ • • ` + ► * ` : , : , • • • a ° • ' • ° a ° r ' m` a ° • ' • ' a a • ' • • r r i ' ` • ` ♦ ' • ° a•1, • ° a • r a , • • • r • * • + ° + r a ° • • , a + • . ?° ± •
• • • f • • ,yam 1 - • • • I i ! • 1� • • ♦ • f • • $ • + 6 • •
• • . , • a • • • P �, ®� f + !� • • ' • � S�j .� a , 1 �, I , • • i a • • • • + ! a • a • • ♦ • • r • • a + •
. ®T�T.�`ri/���aa•b •a ••r s • s • • • ♦•• •• , • • • • • • • • ••a• °'••a r +•r•� a °r,'� ♦_° • a • • • •, +a•
�T�T, T�T�T�TlT�T�T�T��i '��j�j�j4'�7dlllir.,��i.�a •• ••ar •'s °a'a °• rsaa ••••� • +•� •: er'a* : • +•� b` `` `:+• ar• •�rjr�T•�T-T�TLT,I�.�� • • ,•a•,
�TjT, TiTIYT, �IT�TI► T�TjT��j TjT�TiT1T�T ,�TI►TiT�T�'4��Tir�,...� r a • + a r • • . �r��1 ►rI,�T�TjT�T�TjTI►�'i►Tj,`►,� -• ; • . s : • ,
�T�T�T�T�Tj T�T�T�T�T�T` T�TLT�TjT�T�T, �T1T, �TjT�T.® ®,,,,�Ti►T,AT��;■....� a a a • + + r a �E. hT�T�T�_ TI► Tr��T���T -T,,►T,�T�TjTLT�T�T,�,Ti��• ` ,
I�TI T, �TITOTI ►TIeT,�►Ti►T�T�T,�T�TOTi► �T�► T, �T�T�TrTrT�T1 ►TjT��tJITIT�T�L►TIr����:,.�..� ' : • ; • ; • ; • ; • � • =: ��r7a��i����~ ��® f���` T����j��TI��T�T��,1Ti�IiTo7,Tr �:
► T,, �T1T�TjT, �T�T�T��I�T�T�7�T�T�TjrTjT- TI► T�T�TjT�Ti�7�T�T�r�w��r .�.f.�,.r.�.�.— c- � - -•.�- - -
UPLAND ZONE PLANTNGS
RIPARIAN ZONE PLANTINGS
LIVE STAKES
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
• �T�►w�w�wftw�wF
•
• •
1TOT1Tdf�;; • � ° ; • ;
,�114YY11111�
sc flYt �`..
111"1YYYYYYW�5
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

itt•itit i•••��t we,.
i•i +. i.iit •t +�i'iN nq.
• t + t +
i +i ii it i t + +• it tC t`: +7�.qY+
00 000-0-00
O oC�0000 O O g0040�20- oonOn00
PELt i
IMINARY PLANS R
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
DPLAND ZONE PIAN'fIN .CS �._,
1
Q
ss
ENE STAKESi SEA i
L
3J967 • zt: z 20 0 20 40
(44, 1*+
R,�,G�NE tom: HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
SCOT, TOWN CREEK
` / /►++rrr+W`y RFCTOPA —nOKJ

• — `� �•�• i•••.••,•..+ aw►. aaaaaaawaw�wjwaeiwiTiei�7ieiT ,�T�TI► TAT, �T, ��,► T1T171T11T1T1T1T ,T�T�T /T�T1T1Ti►T1�'�'!r�.� • •
; ! 4;► A���1T1T1T, �, T, �T1T�TiT1T1TiT, �T1T1T1T�TI► T1T1T ,�'T'�,,`T1TI►T�T1T�T�7,�T1T� , �T1T171T�T, rT1TrT1T1T1T1T���T1T1T� .iT171_Tr�� . • , • . • . • . ' ; ' :'= ';- '���►r'!rTLT,T��r'!''� : � • ; f ; .. • . • : • . •
��1 ►�. . , ; X14^+, �T1T/ TiTT1Ti1,! �T` r�`! rT�T1+ �T/ T, 1T�T�T1T171T1T�1T1T1TIrT1T�71T1T1VA V AT /TjT /T�T1T1T�►T171T�T1T1T1T�� ■• • •.•a•,•••a +,••�•;••+a•a •�.•a•.•.•f•.
'� • : ■ � • � +,,_ ° �' ��'��,'A���` -°`* : A .-�t,� a•, a � • � . ��TLTITI► T1TLT1T171T1�1T1T1T1T1T, �T1T1T1T1T�T1TIT�T /TITI►T1TOr��`: ' . • . • . ' �' �,�" ` • • • a .. `�. -- „r=
1T
7�T1T�T�TI ►T1T /T�T�T1T1Ti►T1T�TITI�'” ".�'�`sw���� . .. ,r ` = • . a ,.
• • !' • . + ,y/` by \ w • • 9 N O ir • • Y r � • • • ! . • ^++.; >+a ■ • ! • • • • a • is • •
• ■ , { . � _ s a ► �y r a �rr,�T�T�T1T�T�TLyTjw� > .�' • .' . . . - `'
. f .•.•!•.•• ?!t G�ai)•• ■•. ••a,pr a • • • • • *� ,Y�: pz'{y i • �i� f^ • • 4 • . • • s i •.
• - •'` ��1� � • i • • • r 1, '�' �M . A ! 1 �.d'' r a • r A • • iT1T1T1T1T/ ♦ . • 7 • • • • • f • f " � `+ ! . . . • '• • . • • • • : ':��� • • •
� • • • . • r � a• ! • • w, f • • • • . r � a • • �_ a • • • • • . / .� fie,-' r . s • r • '`'#x , + • • ■ + • a • f • + . �.; r • . ■ ' . , •
,_ '� A r • • • • • `� . s ■ • °w. r • s ! • `T!� • r • � "z `` a • • • ■ • a ° ��I�;,' . ! . r • � x ` • . • • • f I ... s • a ` . ` . • ¢'�'•�'`� •
L' a
. ".+s;: -' l +a +a +• +• +••• +•• - !'••f►a. IA �: • • • r ! `F � f•a �• • • it • • • • • • • • • .I� ?-'• • . • • • .
• • s • • r•_ ■ • • • x • r • r r • • a • �'3�^� �• • KM�I'� -' %• • • a • • a �' •` s • • • s • • e • • a • r ` • _ o ' • • s • • a • . • . •
• • • • ! .r11 • • ♦ • • • ! • • . _:•_l,g +!•••� =. • • • • . • ! • fib:' "� a • • • a • . • ®• •• • •. •••A• f.` . • • + • J • •
• • r !.o Era a ! •r.` a+l rsa. a.■/+ aaoa.•. a9.•• �■• a.•• a•••!*!•••f• a• a•:•.• a•.••• �i'* 1T�TITIT1t1T1T1T��� ::;;�..,.:.._- •�•,•��•
•.•••.•.•.•. %r ••! f■aA_.a�1T1T`T1Tl�lti.�,� . .,••!• •■••.• a!•. 4 .•.•..a••.. +.•.•a•.•rar••.•.rs �1 1T171TrT1T,► T1T171T,► T1TiT,�T1T1T,Tl���iN��rj������. .a
a • a . _; a�1T1T,,t T1T�T1�1T1T1T1T1T1TrT1017iea7a7� ,.�:�.._. a • �.�. �I�T1T1T1T1T1TLTIT,�T1T1T�T1T� 1T1T,�T1T1T,�T�T1T1Ti�`Tr ,�. •
• : • : • : • : • : • ' ":• i. 1TTITITITATITATIT�TITIT�T/ T1T1T�lTi�T1T�T1T1T1T1��T�T�► T,► TC1► ��- r►iraw,—:—..r���TrT1T171�it.� _ ` • • • •
• . • . • . ' ;. ar��1 1�T1TiT�T�i71TrT�T1T, �T1T�T1T1TATiTi71TI► 71T�T�T,`TITi71T�T /T�s1T�T�T�TL MITI► T�T1T�Tl T�_ g1T1TlT1T1T1�; �I1�' rwl' I► Ti► 7��1�1�Ij7�r17�T��1T1Tl�l��rl7�rj7 �1�I►lsi' .• /171
w��1T�TkVAV& 4 r�T171T�T1T1717�T1T�7/ T# T1T1TiT1T1T1T, �T1T1T1T1TIT1T1T ,►71TI►T1T�TATITITATITIT�T & i► T,► T�7, T1T�TL T/ T1T1T�TjTiT, 1T1T1T1T, �T1T1TI7�T ,iT1T1TiT�T1T1T1T1T1T��i1T' �1T1T�
1T�T1T1T1T1T1T1T: 7A7�71T/ T, TiT17�T1T17�T1T1T1Tl T1T�TIT1T `T1TAT1T�'I�71T1T /TATAVAVA I�1 SAWNSAVAT, LV AT/ T1TAT1T1417, T1T17 ORION
' f1T1T1T1T1T��1T�T�TIT�TITLTIT�T1 'I�T1T1T�T .I,�71T1T
T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T��� I1T1T1T17�T1T1T1T1T T1T1T1T1` x` 1T1T1T1T1TiT1T, �71T1T AVA T1TI► T1T1T1TIT1T�T171T1T1T1T1T1T�T1T1T1T1T1T_ 1T1_ T1T�T/ T1TiT/ TiT1T1T1T1T1Ti71T�7 ,1►T1TI►T1TIT�TIT�T �I1T,T1T�.
ar.��l�Tr71TA�Ll, ,1T►T�TwT'T�����TQI�7 IT►�1�1�1� /w �17� 1T1T �1� 1� ���1�� ��1r���1�1 �1 1T T�T�r wr*�T�TI- %VL ATATi��171ThT���Tr�r�.�.• ��1T1T1T1T t r
— -' ►••`,: rs�T�, T�TiT1r 1T1T1 ►T >T17,,�71T1T�T����l�l�•�.�,� — �° — TALVAMM1
iT1TAT 1
WAVARMA
v
- � r
I�
r
•
I
AMEN - Ir

•
, • • + w • + • � " ".€-g.^+ -► +rte, *.R�, r •, +
►irir irir • ►��;1�••r�•;,•••••rR
kAfflri ; ~�,r� �rri`ir�lrir
W
I
Z
2
UPLAND ZONE PWi71NM
00000
RIPAR4lN ZONE PIANSING5
4 O O
LIVE VW.
• s
was ^z,`'•,•• • '• •♦ ••
aa°QOOQ000
n b 6 r1�.,
• ' • • • +4fgs .e
• •
•
•
* � • . • r rya . ♦ . . ♦ , • , . r r
• • , sg -�• • 4 • • •
��•.r,� • , r • , • • ; • • ; r • R ; arjr�r��rir•�r
PIADELIMINARY FLANS
ISO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
g _
22967 r=
IN
illw' scoYr
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

0
U
Lit
D
O
ry
n
Z
0
I
LLJ
W
L,J
I
U
Z
Q
CV
LL }
N GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 20 40
LSJ PLANS
ND
ry
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
Q
BEGIN REACH 1
� CE
STA: 10 +34 _ E
En
0 f tZ
LO D LE
CE
4
L LJ —
Ir-
cff)
END REACH 1
BEGIN REACH 2
STA: 13 +50
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LNC BAI" PROJECT RITOU CE Pilo. tam II
PRELIMINARY PLANS 124526 E 9
DO NOT USE SHEET INDEX IN
SEDIMENT ! EROSIO f CONSTRUCTION ECi SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL TITLE SHEET
EC2 -EC9 ...... ................ _.SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL CONTROL PLAN
EC3
CE LE
E CE CE _
t a-
�4 E
k ~ END REACH 2
STA: 20 +58
- _ - -EC4
CE CE
]D Li1D
BEGIN REACH 3
STA: 20+78
HAUL ROAD
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
OLD SALISBURY
THIS PROJECT CONTAINS
SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL PLANS FOR ALL
PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL DISTURBED A=.-A.
Cr CE
LOD —
CE � -- CL , LE
i
❑ 'i
f.�
p�
END R
REACH 3 �
EC$1
�S% ✓ `
BEGIN R
REACH 4 E
D--
ry °
GROUND STABILIZATION CRITERIA
SITE AREA STABILIZATION STABILIZATION TIME
DESCRIPTION TIME FRAME FRAME EXCEPTIONS
Perimeterdikes,
swales, ditches and 7 days None
slopes
High Quality Water 7 days None
(HQW) Zones
If Slopes are 10 or less in
Yopes steeper than 7 days Length and are not steeper
3:1 than 21, 14 days are
allowed
7 -days for slopes greater
Slopes 3:1 or flatter 14 days than 50feet in length
All other areas with None (except for
slopes flatter than 4:1 14 days perimeters and HWQ
Zones)
Notesr,
1. The table above provides the mi nI criteria for site stabili ration.
2. Project fequirements call for the stabilization of the site at the end of
every wok day.
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
IZA
NCD €NR — ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
2728 CAPITAL BLVD„ SUITE 1H 103
RALEIGH, NC 27604
NCEEP CONTACT: HARRY TSOMIDES
NCEEP CONTACT: HARRY TSOMIDES
PROJECT MANAGM
wtp
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
Michael Baker Engirraedng, Inc.
797 Hayvmod Road
• Swine 200
Ash Wvi, NC 28806
Phon.:M835014015 -
Fa',c: 820.350 1409
SCOTT HUNT III, P -E.
PROJECT ENW EFR
MICKY CLEMMONS
PROJIECT DE9011431t
END REACH 5
STA: 47 +74
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
PROPOSED LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED HI -VIZ SAFETY FENCE
EXISTING WETLAND
TEMPORARY
STREAMIWETLAND CROSSING
TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
TEMPORARY ROCK
CHECK DAM
EXISTING FARM ROAD
TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD
EXISTING FARM ROAD
TO REMOVE /RELOCATE
CHANNELPLUG
CHANNEL FILL
PROPOSED PUMP AROUND
PR
SEX -
67 a_
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
IZA
NCD €NR — ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
2728 CAPITAL BLVD„ SUITE 1H 103
RALEIGH, NC 27604
NCEEP CONTACT: HARRY TSOMIDES
NCEEP CONTACT: HARRY TSOMIDES
PROJECT MANAGM
wtp
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
Michael Baker Engirraedng, Inc.
797 Hayvmod Road
• Swine 200
Ash Wvi, NC 28806
Phon.:M835014015 -
Fa',c: 820.350 1409
SCOTT HUNT III, P -E.
PROJECT ENW EFR
MICKY CLEMMONS
PROJIECT DE9011431t
END REACH 5
STA: 47 +74
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
PROPOSED LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED HI -VIZ SAFETY FENCE
EXISTING WETLAND
TEMPORARY
STREAMIWETLAND CROSSING
TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
TEMPORARY ROCK
CHECK DAM
EXISTING FARM ROAD
TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD
EXISTING FARM ROAD
TO REMOVE /RELOCATE
CHANNELPLUG
CHANNEL FILL
PROPOSED PUMP AROUND
PR
SEX -
67 a_

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CE - -- CE - -- C£ CC
f CE _ CE CE
_ CC CE
LOD LOD LOD ` Lal) LDD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE CE ~ CE --- CE _ CE —'CC CE
LO-1) _� C€ -- CE CE — CE
LOD CE CE CE .
LOD LOD LOD — LOD �- -
CHANNEL I LO➢ — LQD y LOD PLUG ` --
;c; LO➢ LIID —_ Lt7D
HAUL ROA � - -°
r_,;s-- _ - _ -_ srgGlRGrsroarrlLe INSTALL SILT FENCE
12 �.. /��(TYP) :l
LO
J
1 / PUMP AROUND (TYP} CHANNEL FILL 5
r L013 r LOD r LOD LOD —, LOD -_ LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD - LOD LOD 9� Ii
LOD LOD LOD 4 LOA LOD _ LOD --- LOD z �
L OD
LOD LOD —_— LO➢ LOD
G
/ W
CE — CE — CE CE CE — CE — CE CE CE — CE — CE — CE — CE CE CE CE CE — CE CC — CE CE e — �.j
C CE CE CE — CE — CE
PORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WITH PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
0 BE PLANTED IN ALL DISBURSE!] AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May I - A�gue1 15)
Application Rote
Smwntop Millet- Pani -m mm,s,m
11 lbs /acre
Winter Seeding (August 75 - Moy 1)
Appli -ti.n Rets
Rya Groin- Secale —1.
44 Ih. /.
MPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WITHOUT PERMANENT
O BE PLANTED IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND
RIPARIAN SEED M151
PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15}
pli -tian Nat.
Bno.m p Millet- Pon inseam
44 lbs/wre
inter Seeding (August 15 - May 1)
pli..U.n Rate
Rye Groin - Secol. tamale
430 the /acre
w
Z
��� „Ilulrrrrr
,16 CAR
LOD
USr ' 9
SEAL
229/67`
CE — CE
,In L 1
%
SCOTS ;v;.
'lrllllls0”
P—�
*b,
vita �
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
CE CE l CE `- Cf _ C
ci�
-__ CC �! CONSERVATION EASEMENT ° CE — CE
CE � C€ � CE
CE � CE � CE � CE
_'CIE CE — CE CE CE ° CE CE
LOD CE ° -- CE CE CE ° CE ~ CE - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
LOD � LOD LQD
LOD LOD
LOD _LO➢` LQD ., LQD ❑D LOU L(]D � LOP — LOD ' —= _. AJID =� ° LQ ➢. LQD
LOD -
LOD LOU
_ INSTALL SILT VENCE — —z
` r TYP
ROAD STOCNPILIEWAGING ( )
ARIA
t,DS _ _ �, _ _Ll1 s �SF +
+ _ -
}
LOD
!Jf \\ s
' ' r ' r ' a ' r ' r + ' / l/\ PUMP ARUUND (TYP)
LOD 4 r ' s i r ' s r rA \ \INSTALL HI -V1Z LDD r L6➢ r LOD —__ Lill) LO
CE �� CDD �i •s s• 's r '�r 3s r 'a is + 'i s • r s ' t r3 '+% SAFETY FENCE L4➢ r LOD r
CE N GE C£ �� €. \` I'"t6' ss • r rs r ♦� ; rs r� r si r3 r• +l 1^!�
LOD �( ? LOD LAD r LOU 1 LOU d
— CE Y C �_ ]�-t wt8 , r r r r LOD J L
Lu CE -� EXISTING WETLANDS '"'� Wt B' . ' ' yf'WL5 CE CE ~ CE ��u
C,E DO NOT DISTURB ~- ' WLa CE
Iw _ CC �1 CC �� CE CE � CE � CE l CE � CE � CE � CE � CE �- CE � CE � CE � CE � C€ � GE w
cYly �
Z Z
uj
U U
LOD —
MPORARY SEEDING - PLANIED WITH PERMAMENR RIPARIAN SEED MI\
0 BE PLANTED IN ASi DISTl1RKD AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
Pik. ion Rate
Bro-t.p Millet- Panicum re
13 lbs /acre
Winter sensing (August 15 - Mgy 1)
ptlocticn Rote
Rye Grol - Seeole ..reef.
N Ibe /gcre
TEMPORARY SEEDING L PLANTED "OUT PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
O BE PUNTED IN ALL DLSRIRSED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (Mey I - August 15J
Appli=t,cn Rote
Brornlep Millet- Pgnitum r%m43um
49 IQs /gcre
Enter Seeding (August 15 - My 1)
App{ic licn Rcto
Rye Grain- Secdle c reole
130 Ibs /oo
CE
1A \TAR `err
?aok S51p'
SEAL
2�§ 7
210 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONSERVATON EASEMENT CE CE — CE CE ` CE - CE CE
Cr CE CE
CE CE `` CE
CE j CE CE CE
CE CE CE
w � CE
u
TE 1 CE w � S8u
CE u
LOD
� LflW �
w LOD L122 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE LOD LOD L+:..' LO➢ 1� LOD L4D LOD LQ➢ '. LOD LDD
u LOD LOD LOD -- LOD LDD � J
LIB 14}
LOD � LOD
LOD
.� LflD II rINSTALL PERMANENT (� An
� %j ((''jj� ? _
STREAM CROSSING (TIP) !} _ 22 +00 ti
U
TALL TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD
r
ROCK CHECK DAM (TYP)— r r
N
0
YV / u I � LOU . 1 LOD 1 LOD
LOU LOD r LQD _1
C —{- LOD LOD LOD LOD -�
LO J
L
— CE — CE — CE CE CE --- Cr ` CE CE
D i LOD — LDD -- LOD
LQ➢ — LOD — LOD — I-OD LOD — LOD — LOD
CE — CE — CE — CE — CE
i
CE C€ — CE CE --- CE -- CE
p Li
—CE —(
MPORANY SEm7NG - PIANIID WITH PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
D BE R7_ANTEp IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLWFNG ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
plication Rate
Brorntop Millet- Panicum ramasum
13 W.I.—
Winter Seeding (August 15 - May 1)
AppliI Rote
Rya Grain- Seaale c.—I.
EXISTING FARM ROAD J
TEMPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WfTHOUT PERMANENT RIPARIAN SE MIX
O BE PIgNfEp IN ALL D[STURRED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
w
p. tian Rate
Browntap Millet- Panicum m ©sum
" Ibs lase
TO BE ABANDON 1
ppliaalian Rote
Rye Grain- 5eaa1e c reule
130 lbs /aa
�T
NEW FARM ROAD
!-
_.I
TO BE RELOCATED
V'
OUTSIDE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
�L
f '
EXISTING FARM ROAD
MPORANY SEm7NG - PIANIID WITH PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
D BE R7_ANTEp IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLWFNG ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
plication Rate
Brorntop Millet- Panicum ramasum
13 W.I.—
Winter Seeding (August 15 - May 1)
AppliI Rote
Rya Grain- Seaale c.—I.
44 lb./ac
TEMPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WfTHOUT PERMANENT RIPARIAN SE MIX
O BE PIgNfEp IN ALL D[STURRED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Sgmmsr Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
p. tian Rate
Browntap Millet- Panicum m ©sum
" Ibs lase
inter Seeding (August 15 - Moy 1)
ppliaalian Rote
Rye Grain- 5eaa1e c reule
130 lbs /aa
XCEEP PROECT NO. 25= nATE e/15/M4
I Mrw« Lw mo�i��u, Ler. I
+�I�rI111i1J
1r
�" oFE
• kk CA
. O
'I�.r••r. essil
• 4 -
:;tt•�9 CNGIN
'• scortl
20 0 20 40I
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
RESTORATION
PROJECT- OPTION B
SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN

-�
Lpn_
3', L
CE
-�` CE
I t
I
EMPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WITH PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
G BE PLANTED 1N ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - Auguat 15)
ApplkoUa Rata
Brorntcp Millet- Ponicum mmosum
13 lb, /acre
Winter Seeding {August 15 - May 1)
placation Rate
Rye Grain- Secale cereole
A Ibs/acre
MPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WITHOUT PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
O 6E PWJTED IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
placation Rate
I3—tep Millet- Ponicum r,mmum
M ibs /ac
Winter $.,ding (August 15 - May 1)
pli -tion Rote
Rye Grain- $.tale —.1.
130 lb. /acre
PRELIMINARY FLANS
ISO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
uµt�
4ad
� �Qn
CE — CE —
tttt��lUllf�y�
C OT
�t +t
' Z,4;
20 0 20 4 I
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
C€ CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT / GE CE LE CE -'��- C�
CL CE Y� CE / E
.- LE CE
LE
-� CE -� CE �_ Cr -�_ f e CE � 'l 7U Cc
CE - -_ � CE � L� Ce
-___ CE — CE LE Cf
DD � LD➢ �— LOD � C£
D LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
-� - LQD /- INSTALL SILT
NCE (TYP) LQ➢ u *`
1,OD / y �-. LOA r LOD + T� LOD LQD OD LOD — LOD J
O
Isu
LO
4' `�` \ -plj LOD
/ 1 g7OC1�ILE5T0.GING
NSiA MPORARY AREA � � -
• k0 NG (TYP)
i 47- ypp yr
U ` LQO 4Tt 1 yp4 r
LU
LQD U>
L LOD LQ
b
W �1 LOD
W L Q
= EXISTING FARM ROAO-� f / D �i `i! (Qry
CE P o
- CE � CE TO BE REMOVED WITHIN % ++ PUMP AROUND (TYP)
CE CE _� CE -- /J HAUL ROAD t d -~`- LOD
CE /
~ Cf �E CE
~ CE CE CE ��
CE CE
Q CE ~_ CE Cfn
CE CE � Q
CE
CL
CE ` rt
EMPORMiY SEEDING - PLANTED WITH PERMANENT RIPARLAN SEED MIX
4 BE PLANTED IN Ail DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
Application Rate
Broentop Millet- Panic— ro ovum
lj Ipa %gcr4
Winter Seeding (August 15_— May 1)
Applicafon Role
Rye Grain— Sacco emeale
44 I6./acne
TEMPORARY SEEDING — PLANTED WITHOUT PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
0 BE PLANTED IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May I — August 15)
plicertian Rote
Bro-top Millet— Pcnieum remosum
44 Itnfacne
Winter Sewing (August 15 — May 1)
Applieotian Rate
Rye Grain— Secale a vale
150 Ibs /sere
* % %W1111111,11
x 6 7
1 r
� JtNlta,SCOTS �, ,
�e
20 0 20 40I
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
{ OR CONSTRUCTION
CE CE CE CE — CE CE — CE CE CE E
�\ Cf
G�-
`s7Ci CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Cf
/GE
Cf �` C C
�. f PUMP AROUND (TYP) LOD
Lp �p0 sr
DIOD LOD LOD — LOD -- -�_
Q k
Ar si <00 X
LIMYTS OF DISTURBANCE
�4q / ice +?,•., \ t r ` +
LpbLOD��_ 1- a�jLt]D— •r;�t`'!INSTALL SILT `�'' �.. f..Bl -ti -yam �•
\ LOD j LOD r LOD FENCE (TYP) �- ~
�• a /— �. � � STOC1g'IIESTAGWG
AREA -1
+
11 /{.`
AREA y ` % LOP, ri +'� -' . 'tl y/ off„, cOD `
A. {a 0
C INSTALL HI -VIZ
/ q CE,- - SAFETY FENCE (TYP) CE
CE
Vw
rPQ ,,rr f.:. /Q +. EXISTING WET LANG CE �� CE E
` F' .� .. ` / %• -� / "sl 4 DO NOT DISTURB
Od X �d9 / U
HAUL ROAD �<DA w
LoD w
°— L L4q G� w
cn
r^
vJ INSTALL TEMPORARY G w
CROSSkNG (TYP) Z
ct Z & J
c€
Cf �
U CE C£
CE CE
C£ CE �� CE CE
CE
MPORARY SEEDING - PLAHFED WRH PERMANENT RIPARDtN SEED MIX
q B€ PL.4'TED IN A" DYSTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer S.ndiag (My 1 - August 15)
plicali.1 Rale
R,. —I.p Millet- Panicum mmneem 113
Iba /acre
1Ynter Seeding ( Auguat 15 - May t)
plic -- Rote
Rye Grain- Seca le ..-1.
4 Iba /ac
MPORARY SEEDING - PLANED WITHOUT PERMANENT WPARAN SEED MA
0 BE PL.X= IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May 1 - August 15)
plicatlan R..
8—top Millet- Panicum m
" lba /acre
Winter Sanding (August 15 - May 1)
pscatl.n Rut.
Rye Grain - Sxcln cere.I.
130 IPol.—
,���.�rrrrrrr
•`�a�'iN CARL
67f�
.g, a ��{" ,�
*",
scams
'I'rerrrr.t! o,
2G 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
r
CE E r CE �_ CE � Cf E E LE CV CE —_ CE -� CE CE z C CE -� CE _
~- CE -- CE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE CE r-
CE CE / LL
toD j O LUD LOD LOD -- LOD L13D L4
r
f7d LOD -� LOD LOO s �LO LO➢ i LOD LS1A,
LOD LOD-9,— LOD LOD LOD L48 J
INSTALL HI -VZ
NIE TURD SAFETY FENCE (TYP)
tp
HAUL RO AD '-✓ ' -�' LL "- '`.\ h I wi r=�� SF SF S /
y .r, ' gas
6*OCXRILE/STp01NG
� AREA Ir
_!`t INSTALL SILT /
VTAL
SL HI -V12 � j' FENCE (TY?)
3AFETY FENCE (T'JP} �` �.�� I��
4a W /
Lm
W LDit- P 1MP AROUND (TYP)
LOD
CE CE
--m W E CE CE CE �'F { CE — CE — CE CE — CE —� CE ° CE
WCE -- CIE �- / - CE CE CE — CE CE CE CE CE C�\\
Z %%% FARM ROAD WLL BE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
p �RFMOVED AND RELOCATED RELOCATED FARM ROAD j Z
J A� TO REMAIN AFTER CONSTRUCTION
r� LOD — LOD -= LOD LO
LOB LO➢
G D
MPlIr SEEDING - PLANTED WITH PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
DBE PIANI'ID IN ALL DISTURBED MEAT AND PLANTING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May I - August 15)
pli—b— Rote
El—tap Millet- Paaicum ramgaum
13 Ibs /ocm
Winter Seeding (Auquet 15 - May 1)
plicat;on Rate
Rye Grain- Scale cereal.
44 Ilb l..
MPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED WIFRODT PERMANENT RIPARIAN Sill) MIX
TO BE PLANTED IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONE
Summer 5eedinq (Nay I - Auguat 15)
vplication Rate
"—top Mllfel- P-i— ro
44 !b. /—
Winter Seading (August 15 - May 1)
Ii..U.. Rate
Rye Groln- Scale Genet.
130 Iba /oarc
ti
•
SEA =
=fp j9 •"
v c
/��JiJer111tN��
'Y+o
kr;z'�
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

` eE
C
_ CE
la ��-
LQa �
1
i ♦ � YJ
1
Ca
w �
f
f �O
4
�flq
PppARY SEmING - PANTED WITH PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
TO DE PLANTED IN ALL DIS71iRBED AREAS AND PLATING ZONES
Summer Seeding (May i - August 15)
piiaalion Paie
Bm..t.P Millet- Poniaum ra
1.i lb. /.
W',ntar Seeding (ALgual 15 - May I)
0,ation Rat,
Rye Gmin- S.aale ae-nle
44 Ib5 leaf.
TEMPORARY SEEDING - PLANTED VOTROUT PERMANENT RIPARM SEED MIX
TO SE PLANTED IN ALL D1SiURIBED AREAS AND PLANTING ZONES
Summee Seeding (May t - Auguat 15)
Appl —tion Rote
8-1.p Millet- Pad— ra—um
44 Ida /r.—
W,.ter Seeding (August 15 - Way 1)
Application Rat.
Rya Groin- S ... I. ..... 1.
15C lb. /oc
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER r I
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
a
1 EXISTING SECTION OF
� FARM ROAD VALE BE
l� REMOVED AND RELOCATED J/
IT
-- f
re RELOCATED FARM ROAD HALL
~� �4 �� CONNECT TH EXISTING
CF FARM ROAD
S /
C{- -
-�` -0E
CE
LOD , LOD —LID.— LOD ° LDD —�d— p i(01)
PUMP 1=- LIMITS TURBANCE
AROUND (TYP) LOD ---- LOD LOO _:.
(j L .HAUL ROAD �
=:., s — -t
'' G ! INSTALL TEMPORARY ROCK
// G'
! ' p,
CHECK DAMS (TW)
INSTALL HI -1R2 64
SAFETY FENCE (TYP) ++j
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
INSTALL PERMANENT
/ y
STREAM CROSSING {TYP)0 f f y f y f y y y f \\ _
LD
!�Q,� „Y,f „,YrY,Y,,,,.,Y� �
I fJ
Y Im
'}� I4` Y f y , , I / f Y' f Y f y y a4 a y f f y f� �t✓�
EXISTING WETLAND \
Ce Loa �4 Jam' 3 , Y Y Y , . ,, ,� 00 NOT DISTURB "J
LQa L
Qa
t;.
t1114111111111�'F
!
DRESS
a SEAL -
6 7
%GIN ”
Sc
����ll /f/llltlt
20 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

0
O
0
LOG VANE STRUCTURE NOTES PROFILE B -B
1. BOULDERS SMALL BE AT LEAST 3')(2'X7'.
8'
w
I
O
Q
5 VANE ARM LOG SHALL BE BURIED INTO THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 6'.
VANE
LOG
�I
WELL GRADED MIX
7 USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS
YI
CLASS A & B STONE
O
O
9 NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO TOP OF HEADER LOG USING 3" I Od GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON I SPACING ALONG LOG
0
11 AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-VTE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG
HEADER LOG
12 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND THE HEADER LOG SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER LOG.
FLOW
3 —HOOK LOG VANE
N
VANE LOG
TO BOTTOM OF iO BOTTOM
OF 'MATH OF HEADER BOULDER
*MBE111
PLACE BOULDER ON TOP OF TYPE II FILTER FABRIC
DINT
CHANNEL CHANNEL ELEVATION POINT
CHANNEL
NO GAPS IN HEADER ROULOERS
VANE ARM TO STABILIZE IN BANK
Z0' 38
TOP OF BANK HEADER BOULDER
ELEVATION POINT HEADER LOG
ACKFILL(ON-SITE ALLUVIUM)
I ;BANKFULL
BURIED NMBANN
_
ROW - -� — —. — — MINIMUM5'
FOOTER LO
I 4-T%
x
STIR AMBEC ELEVATION
BURIED IN BANK
BACKFILL (ONSTE ALLUVIUM) FOOTER LPG
/
MINIMUM 5' SECTION A -11
I A SCOUR CLASS A 5 S STONE
POOL
sy
PROFILE V EW
A$T AJ
FLOW - SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
PER PROFILE
(�
�
EDGE OF TYPE II SET ELEVATION OF TOP OF
HEADER LOG
STREAMBED
FILTER FABRIC TOP OF BANK LOGS TO DESIRED ELEVATION
Ih BACKFILL {ONSAE ALLUVIUMI FOOTER LUG
,
}
TYPE 11 FILTER FABRIC
OF STREAM13ED
A-�
SECTOIVA -A
JA' } BANKFUL L
BURIED IN BANK
l�2'�11
f
L�
/
Pm VI LW
- _ - R _ _ _ MINIMUM 5'
L-HOOK LOG VANE STRUCIINIE NOTES
O
47X �
D INS
EAM8ED�
I
PLACE ONE BOULDER B D _
MINIMUM
1'
3 SINGLE WITH A INIMM DIAMETER
THAMINI MAY REUSED IN PLACE OF TWOLOG& {A
ON EACH SIDE OF VANE ARM
BURIED IN y� ~
OU SITMEGINEERflINCHES
HEADER AND FOOTER) ENGINEER APPROVAL
HEADER AND
113 BOTTOM
B LOGGSOULDERS
5 USE FABRIC SEA GAPS
SEARED
TO STABLILZE ARM
STREAMBED ki
TRENCH BELOW FOR FOOTEN
START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER
THE BED FORFOOTEALCULDER
5 OIGAouLDER
WIATH OF'
CHANNEL
-
J MtNfMUM 1'
B L- - EAGER LOG
ANUERS
ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
P� VIEW
8 INSThLL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE $EGIMNING AT THE MIDDLE pF THE HERDER Lflp,BDUY,DERS
—
AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOWBOULDERS. AND THEN.
UPSTREAM FOR A MWIMUM OF SIX FEE T
FOOTER LOG APPROXIMATE TOE OF SLOPE
LOG VANE STRUCTURE NOTES PROFILE B -B
1. BOULDERS SMALL BE AT LEAST 3')(2'X7'.
2 LOGS SHALL BE AT LEAST 12'01 DIAMETER WITH A MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 24 ". RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND HARDWOOD
3. A SINGLE LOG WITH A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 36 INCHES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TWO LOGS (A HEADER AND FOOTER) PER ON -SITE ENGINEER APPROVAL.
4. LOGS FOR LOG VANES SHALL BE A MWMNUM OF 30' IN LENGTH.
5 VANE ARM LOG SHALL BE BURIED INTO THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 6'.
B DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER LOG. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER LOG FIRST AND THE HEADER LOGS, CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND
SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
7 USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS
B. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER LOG AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOG, AND THEN UPSTREAM
FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
9 NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO TOP OF HEADER LOG USING 3" I Od GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON I SPACING ALONG LOG
10 USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND B STONE ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STRUCTURE
11 AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-VTE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG
12 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND THE HEADER LOG SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER LOG.
3 —HOOK LOG VANE
N
TO BOTTOM OF iO BOTTOM
OF 'MATH OF HEADER BOULDER
DINT
CHANNEL CHANNEL ELEVATION POINT
CHANNEL
NO GAPS IN HEADER ROULOERS
Z0' 38
TOP OF BANK HEADER BOULDER
ELEVATION POINT HEADER LOG
I ;BANKFULL
BURIED NMBANN
_
ROW - -� — —. — — MINIMUM5'
I 4-T%
STIR AMBEC ELEVATION
BACKFILL (ONSTE ALLUVIUM) FOOTER LPG
ARLL GRAOEP MIX €ODTER BOLLDER
I A SCOUR CLASS A 5 S STONE
POOL
PROFILE V EW
FLOW - SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
PER PROFILE
WELL GRADED MIX
ffi CLASS A 1110 STONE
HEADER LOG
STREAMBED
Ih BACKFILL {ONSAE ALLUVIUMI FOOTER LUG
,
}
TYPE 11 FILTER FABRIC
~'
6
SECTOIVA -A
l�2'�11
O]
L�
O
Pm VI LW
0-
L-HOOK LOG VANE STRUCIINIE NOTES
O
H
1 HOULDERSMUST T
SHOULD BEAT LEAST 12
INCHES 3 DIAMETER WAFIVES A %Ip1LIM DIAMETER 062/MCYEG,
PJLOBEIGHT
RE
FLELAT HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HSMAYRp
3 SINGLE WITH A INIMM DIAMETER
THAMINI MAY REUSED IN PLACE OF TWOLOG& {A
OU SITMEGINEERflINCHES
HEADER AND FOOTER) ENGINEER APPROVAL
HEADER AND
B LOGGSOULDERS
5 USE FABRIC SEA GAPS
SEARED
TRENCH BELOW FOR FOOTEN
START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER
THE BED FORFOOTEALCULDER
5 OIGAouLDER
FIRST CON
FIRST AND THE HEADER l60lBOULDERS CONTINUE WITH STFLUCfl1R €, FOLLOWPIG
LOOLE
ANUERS
ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
8 INSThLL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE $EGIMNING AT THE MIDDLE pF THE HERDER Lflp,BDUY,DERS
AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOWBOULDERS. AND THEN.
UPSTREAM FOR A MWIMUM OF SIX FEE T
T NAIL FALTER FABRIC TO LOP DFHEADER LOG USING 3- 14 GALVAN12Ep COMMON NAIL ON 1'
SPACWGALOMGLOG.
B USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND B STONE ON UPSTREAM SiOE OF STRUCTURE
B AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-8ITF
ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOGIROCK
10 FILTERFAIiRICSHALL BE MIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THESUNE BACKFILL AND THE
HEADER LOGMOULDEAS SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER
LOGSOL1DEA5
UNDISTURBED
EARTH
1
Y
STAKE TOP LAYER
OF MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE EROSION CONTROL
MATTING DETAIL)
SLOPE VARIES
FLAT TO 5:1
A
$7 O
LL
I
W
0.
0
Ln
Ll
O
w
O
I
AI I
I
PLAN VIEW
OF
WN
VEGETATED GEOLIFT PDU ( IMIN A Ry pL . NS
NTS 1tEL i1'j jijt] LHIv
DO NOT USE
'FOR CONSTRUCTION
70P OF
BANK BANK HEIGHT /2 LIFT OF COMPACTED
ON—SITE 541E (TIP)
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
ENCOMPASSES LIFT
APPROX. 3 OF STONE
TOE ABOVE BASEFLOW PROPOSED BED
ELEVATION
7
POINT BAR OF CHANNEL
J BED MATERIAL
STOELNE TOE 6' (SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)
�-/I, BDW f7NISHEO
C) C7 BED ELEVATION
FOUNDATION OF EQUAL MIR OF
CLASS A AND CLASS 9 RIPRAP
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
NITS
HEAD OF
RIFFLE MATERIAL 16' -18"
DEPTH MIX OF 60% CLASS A.
20% CLASS W. AND 20R 57
STONE
TAIL OF RIFFLE
� •1
PROFILE A -A' `KEY
TOWN CREEK P ROjECT SPECIFIC SPECS
ROSION ALL REACHES EA _
CONTROL e C
KEY LENGTH 3 FT MATTING ZZ�'`96 ti
KEY DEPTH 76 -16 IN
dr
RIFFLE DEPTH 16 -18 IN
RIFFLE CDMPOSTION 0-113 X ONSI TE COARSE ALLUVIUM IF SyQ ii
60 X CLASS A pro 01,
CLASS 20 X
2D %57STON!< SECTION E3-B'
O OTHER r Tl mki !-OCCtz

BOULDER STEP
ROCS
ER 70E
NT5
I/i TO 2�
2/3
HEALER
CONSTRUCT BOULDE R
PRELIMINARY PLANS
BANKFULL
TYPICAL POOL
o TOP
BANK
DO j NOT USE
ratans of
HEADER ROCK
1J
CHANNEL PLUG
l
FLOW
FOR CONSTRUCTION
NTS
!y~
+
ON -SITE
PLUNGE
FLOW 4!{, TO 7% SLOPE
1
{
ALLUVU
POOL
-20 atr
A
1
_
+
EROSION CONTROL MATTIN LAYS OVER
A
_
�''---
STR.EAMBED ELEVATION ____ _____-
_ �---------- _
TOP OFFABRIC3f
BOULDER TOE
I
FOOTER OR
"SPLASH "1
BACKFlLL (ON -SITE ALLUVIUM-//
BOULDER
lu
I +
FOOTER ROCK
ALTERNATIVE Pf1tN VIEW TWO_ @QUj.0ER5 FORM INVERT
NSTALLEO BELOW STREAM BED
4
Fp,
a
LEGEND:
PROPOSED y
EXISTING CHANNEL PLUGGED
+I
NO GAPS CLASS B STONE
ON —LINE
WITH COMPACTED FILL
J
CHANNEL
BETWEEN
BOULDERS FABRIC PROFILE VIEW
APPRO \IMATE LEVEL OF BASEFLOW
PLAN VIEW
_
+f
WATER SURFACE
THALWEG / CONTROL LINE
PROPOSED CHANNEL
CHANNEL
PLAN VIE
STEP HEIGHT FROM PROFILE
IN PLANS
C�gp ',
CHANNEL BED MATERIAL
FILL REMAINDER EL
UNCOMPACTEO TOPSOIL EXISTING CHANNEL
SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS
0.5' MINIMUM FINISHED GRADE
A A+
CHANNEL SEDIMENT
FOR STREAME AND TREATMENT
SLOP NT T
+�
SCOU
STREAMBED
i• 1 ' j� ROCK.
T
UNDISTURBED IN -SITU SOIL
CROSS SECTION VIE�Ii
1
NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
OR NO.
COMPACTED SELECT
SECTION A —A
NON -WOVEN ' PLUNGE
CC ,:
-
EXISTING
STREAM BED
FILL FREE OF
DEBRIS
POOL
FILTER FABRIC (TYP) POOL (TYP)
Q �/ '
C)
BOULDER: 2'x3.5'xI' to 3't3'.2
j -
ROCS
ER 70E
I/i TO 2�
2/3
NTS
/1960TTPM
BANKFULL
ratans of
HEADER ROCK
CHANNEL
FLOW
TUCK EROSION CONTROL MATTING
FLOW 4!{, TO 7% SLOPE
BEHIND BOULDERS IN BANK. TOP OF BANK
-20 atr
_
+
EROSION CONTROL MATTIN LAYS OVER
_
�''---
STR.EAMBED ELEVATION ____ _____-
_ �---------- _
TOP OFFABRIC3f
BOULDER TOE
A
BACKFlLL (ON -SITE ALLUVIUM-//
lu
OR NO. 57 STONE)
FOOTER ROCK
NSTALLEO BELOW STREAM BED
Fp,
ELEVATION POINT CLASS STONE
m�7
+I
NO GAPS CLASS B STONE
- BASEFLOW
J
BETWEEN
BOULDERS FABRIC PROFILE VIEW
_
+f
z
CLASS A STONE
HEADER
BOULDER
FILTER FABRIC (SEECNq NOTE)
+�
SCOU
STREAMBED
i• 1 ' j� ROCK.
POOR
BACKFILL ( ALLUVIUM
CROSS SECTION VIE�Ii
OR NO.
CC ,:
-
SCOUR POOL(EXCAVATED) FILTER
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER FABRfiC
Q �/ '
FOOTER
ROCK
SEAL
PLAN in. W
Tor
CLASS B
NOTE:
% -
•MI
STONE
1. BOULDERS SHOULD E /TEND BELOW SCOUR DEPTH AND ABOVE 0
.Q
SECTION
A - A
BASE FLOW WATER LEVELS. FOOTER BOULDERS MAY BE REQUIRED,
DEPENDING ON E /1511NO BED MATERIAL,
NOTES
FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES -
1.
BgULQERS MUST BE AT LEAST 3' � 2' � 7'.
2 TOE SHALL T
, BOULDERS SL BE TOUCHING SO THAT VOID SPACE I5 MINIMIZED.
I/
2
INSTALL FABRIC FOR THE
MAJORITY BOULDER BURIED IN THE STREAM BANK,
/ / / y�1�
THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOMEF ©TER ROCK. AND THEN
LEAVING FACE F BOULDER E/POSED TO FFLOWE
3.
UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.
DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE PALL ON UPSTREAM
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND BOULDER TOE, BURIED BELOW
SIDE OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK.
BOULDER DEPTH, AND E /TEND INTO THE BANK.
4.
START AT BANK AND PACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
5. EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHOULD BE PLACED AGAINST BOULDER
5.
CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
BEFORE BACKFILL, THEN FOLDED RACK OVER SEEDED BANK SLOPE.
6.
A SMAL.. BOULDER OR LARGE ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT
TOWN REEK
D
UFABRIC B FBOULDER AND COMPACTED,
7.
USE CLASS ASS B STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF BOULDERS, AND CLASS A
VOID SPACE BETWEEN NO SHOULD BE MINIMIZED,
RESTORATION
B.
STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF CLASS I STONE.
AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE NTH
7. BOULDER TOE SHOULD NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM BANKFULL ELEVATION.
BOULDER
Cyr CC
-PROJECT-OPTION C
ON -SITE ALLUVIUM OR #57 STONE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP CF THE HEADER ROCK.
PLAN VIEW
DETAILS

WELL
CL45:
BACKFILL IONSITE
TYPE II FILTE
ROCK CROSS VANE
NTS
SECTION A - N
PER PROFILE
FLOW -
NOGARSB €TWEEN
FOOTER BdJlDERS LEVATION POINT
TOP OF BANk URIEO INTO BANK
EADER. BOULDER MINIMUM B'
{BAN %FULL
STFII
MLL GRATED MIX — —
CLASS A A B STONE 4- 7°F,r� — —
ATED ._
BACKFILL IONSFIE ALLUVIUM 4' TYPE II FILTER FABRICOOTTiR BOLILD €R
PRDFILE VIEW B-B'
ROCK CROSS VANE STRUCTURE NOTES:
1 BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 3'x2'xV
2 USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.
3 DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER BOULDERS, START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER
BOULDERS FIRST AND THE HEADER BOULDERS. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE
AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
4. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER BOULDERS
AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER BOULDERS, AND THEN
UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
5 USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND 6 STONE ON UPSTREAM S1DE OF STRUCTURE
5. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH
ON -SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER BOULDER,
7 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND
THE HEADER BOULDERS SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER BOULDERS.
"JE STAKE
f�
CROSS - SECTION
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED 8
O 0 a a 0 0 INSTALLED FROM TOP OF BANK , ,,,,, ,� , ,,,,
TO TOE OF SLOPE DRAINAGE UNDER STONE
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
0
0
TOE OF SLOPE
BED
BERM (0.5' MAXIMUM HT) BERM(S)
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS
OF ROOT WADS
FLOODPLAIN �
EROSION CONTROL
TRENCH SHALL MATTING
J
ACCDMQpATE ROOT WAD
.
MAINTAIN A 1:1 SLOPE WHEN
TIEING INTO EXISTING GRADE,
BACKFILL OVER STRUCTURE S-12 FEET LONG
AND COMPACTTO A 95% �12'0IAMETER
COMPACTION RATIO
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ROSOT WAD U4 NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER ENTIRE BANK d
CONSTRUCTION IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
MID MARCH, BANK SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH
BRUSH MATTRESS
S' MAX ROOT
-BALL DIAMETER
// TOP OF
BANK
'
LOCATED LL
LOCAT
LED D BELOW
STREAM
BED
LOG
CROSS- SECTION VIEW
PLAN VIEW
COVER LOG
SHALL BE
ANCHORED
BETWEEN
ROOTWADSOR
WITH A BOULDER
ROOT WAD ITYPI
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
LEVATION POINT
-
TRENCHING METHOD:
DRIVE POINT METHOD.
O OAP5 BE- %EEN
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO
TRUNK D O SHALL
THE TRUNK ENO 4F THE LOG SHALL BE SHARPENED
ELEVATION WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE EQUAL TO THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE
HEADER BOULDERS
WITH A N BEFORE 'D INTO THE
ELEVATION
B
DOTER ROLLDFR
I
SHALL BE USED THIS METHOD REQUIRES
T
EADER BOULDER
I
z I
AT A ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER
E
ROOTWAD MASS IS BELOW THE BASEFLOW WATER SURFACE
x
�I
i
THE ROOT WAD SHALL REMAIN BELOW
LLI
If
NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS
THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED THE
ROOTWADS WERE NOT INSTALLED PROPERLY ACCORDING TO THIS DETAIL
o CIA
ROOT WAD . THE BOU OU
BOULDER SHALT BE
APPROXIM ATELY 3' X 2'
SCOUR 'I
POOL
O
M
o
I
I
"
cCLR a
p
PER PR 4
ILI
�
I
I
WELL
CL45:
BACKFILL IONSITE
TYPE II FILTE
ROCK CROSS VANE
NTS
SECTION A - N
PER PROFILE
FLOW -
NOGARSB €TWEEN
FOOTER BdJlDERS LEVATION POINT
TOP OF BANk URIEO INTO BANK
EADER. BOULDER MINIMUM B'
{BAN %FULL
STFII
MLL GRATED MIX — —
CLASS A A B STONE 4- 7°F,r� — —
ATED ._
BACKFILL IONSFIE ALLUVIUM 4' TYPE II FILTER FABRICOOTTiR BOLILD €R
PRDFILE VIEW B-B'
ROCK CROSS VANE STRUCTURE NOTES:
1 BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 3'x2'xV
2 USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.
3 DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER BOULDERS, START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER
BOULDERS FIRST AND THE HEADER BOULDERS. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE
AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
4. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER BOULDERS
AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER BOULDERS, AND THEN
UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
5 USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND 6 STONE ON UPSTREAM S1DE OF STRUCTURE
5. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH
ON -SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER BOULDER,
7 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND
THE HEADER BOULDERS SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER BOULDERS.
"JE STAKE
f�
CROSS - SECTION
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED 8
O 0 a a 0 0 INSTALLED FROM TOP OF BANK , ,,,,, ,� , ,,,,
TO TOE OF SLOPE DRAINAGE UNDER STONE
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
0
0
TOE OF SLOPE
BED
BERM (0.5' MAXIMUM HT) BERM(S)
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS
OF ROOT WADS
FLOODPLAIN �
EROSION CONTROL
TRENCH SHALL MATTING
J
ACCDMQpATE ROOT WAD
.
MAINTAIN A 1:1 SLOPE WHEN
TIEING INTO EXISTING GRADE,
BACKFILL OVER STRUCTURE S-12 FEET LONG
AND COMPACTTO A 95% �12'0IAMETER
COMPACTION RATIO
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ROSOT WAD U4 NOT USE
FOR CONSTRUCTION
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER ENTIRE BANK d
CONSTRUCTION IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
MID MARCH, BANK SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH
BRUSH MATTRESS
S' MAX ROOT
-BALL DIAMETER
// TOP OF
BANK
'
LOCATED LL
LOCAT
LED D BELOW
STREAM
BED
LOG
CROSS- SECTION VIEW
PLAN VIEW
COVER LOG
SHALL BE
ANCHORED
BETWEEN
ROOTWADSOR
WITH A BOULDER
ROOT WAD ITYPI
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
T. ROOTWAOS SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES WITH A 12' MINIMUM DIAMETER
2. THE CHANNEL BASEFLOW ELEVATION WILL VARY SEASONALLY AND MAY BE VERY
-
TRENCHING METHOD:
DRIVE POINT METHOD.
LOW DURING TIMES OF DROUGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, THE BASEFLOW
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO
TRUNK D O SHALL
THE TRUNK ENO 4F THE LOG SHALL BE SHARPENED
ELEVATION WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE EQUAL TO THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE
THE BANK OR THE BANK REQUIRES
WITH A N BEFORE 'D INTO THE
ELEVATION
RECONSTRUCTION, THE TRENCHING METHOD
BANK. ROOT WADS SHALL ORIENTED UPSTREAM
3. ELEVATION OF THE ROOTWADS WILL BE BASED ON THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE
SHALL BE USED THIS METHOD REQUIRES
AT THE
SO THAT THE STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD
ELEVATION. ROOTWAOS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT HALF OF THE
THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG
AT A ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER
E
ROOTWAD MASS IS BELOW THE BASEFLOW WATER SURFACE
PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. ONE -THIRD OF
BOULDER
AWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT L
4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGES TO THE ROOTWADS
THE ROOT WAD SHALL REMAIN BELOW
SHALL BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE
E
ELEVATION AND PLACEMENT IF IT IS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER THAT THE
NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS
THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED THE
ROOTWADS WERE NOT INSTALLED PROPERLY ACCORDING TO THIS DETAIL
ROOT WAD . THE BOU OU
BOULDER SHALT BE
APPROXIM ATELY 3' X 2'
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
NTS
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
FORD CROSSwG NDTES-
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW,
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON -SITE
BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3 MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS_ DO
NOTEXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM, COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE
STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4 INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW
5. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION
ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL
E. A STABILIZED PAD OF CLASS A STONE (75%) AND 057 STONE (26 %(, B
INCHES THICK, LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE SHALL BE
USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES,
7 WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE A 10' WIDE FARM VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
B. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP
ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED,
TONE
SCQll `
HI -VIZ SAFETY FENCE
NTS
DENSITY ORANGE
YLENE SAFETY FENCE
W T -POST DRIVEN
N GRADE
ZIP TIES TO SECURE
ONCE TO POST
GRADE
PLAN VIEW
SQUARECUTTOP
BUDS FACING UPWARD
NOTES
30" IN LENGTH 1.
STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLFT SHALL BE REJECTED AND NOT USED FOR CONSTRUCTION
MINIMUM 2.
STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARD.
LIVE CUTTING
3.
STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK,.
0.6" - 2' DIA
4.
STAKES SHALL BE 0.5' -2" INCHES 1N DIAMETER AND 15' IN LENGTH MINIMUM
5.
STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH APPROXIMATELY 3" OF STAKE REMAINING ABOVE GROUND.
0.
STAKE SPACING SHALL BE 4' ON CENTER ON RIFFLE BANKS AND X ON CENTER ON OUTSIDE BANK BENDS.
ANGLE CUT TO
..EGRESS 'I,
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
FORD CROSSwG NDTES-
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW,
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON -SITE
BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3 MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS_ DO
NOTEXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM, COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE
STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4 INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW
5. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION
ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL
E. A STABILIZED PAD OF CLASS A STONE (75%) AND 057 STONE (26 %(, B
INCHES THICK, LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE SHALL BE
USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES,
7 WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE A 10' WIDE FARM VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
B. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP
ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED,
TONE
SCQll `
HI -VIZ SAFETY FENCE
NTS
DENSITY ORANGE
YLENE SAFETY FENCE
W T -POST DRIVEN
N GRADE
ZIP TIES TO SECURE
ONCE TO POST
GRADE

BARE ROOT PLANTING
BARE ROOT PLATING NOTES.
HEAD WIDTH
1 BANKS SHALL BE SEEDED (PERMANENT S TEMPORARY) PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF
NTS
1
BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES SHALL BE PLANTED AS SHOWN ON
2. WOODEN STAKES SHALL BE PLACED IN A DIAMOND SHAPE PATTERN PER THE PLAN VIEW
A ilY D S
1� �y���yyy PLANS
3, TRENCH STAKES AND WOOD STAKES SHALL BE PLACED A MAXIMUM DISTANCE APART OF 3'
TOTAL LENGTH
THE PLANS
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMIN
STABILIZATION OF SLOPES 2.1 OR GREATER AND WITH MORE THAN 10 FEET OF
2.
COMPACTED SOIL SHALL BE LOOSENED PRIOR TO PLRNTING
I
3 INSERT PLANTING BAR 2 INCHES
UFFER WIDTH VARIES
SEE PLANTING PLAN
3
4.
PLANTS SHALL BE PLACED IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDPI=GH TO
ALLOW THE ROOTS TO SPREAD OUT AND GOWN WITHOUT J- ROOTING.
ROOTS SHALL BE KEPT MOIST BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS. BURLAP,
PLACED IN 12 INCH DEEP TRENCH. STAKED,
�® L \O� � T'1 BARE ROOT INSTALLATION PLANTING DETAIL
L{ I N-T
PLANTINGS
5.
OR STRAW WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
PLANTS SHALL BE MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MAINTENANCE NOTES
1 INSPECT ECM AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT (112 INCH OR GREATER)
SMALL MATTING STAKE
2. GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED. AND EROSION MUST NOT
PROMPTLY PLAFIT D UPONIA RI PROJECT SfTE.
UPON
OCCUR BENEATH THE ECM.
TOWARD PLANTER, FIRMING
��� CONSTRUCTION
EROSION CONTROL MATTING $HALL BE
4. IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE, THE PROBLEM SHALL
BAGKFILLED AND COMPACTED
BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED
/ BOTTOM DF CHANNEL
5 MONITOR AND REPAIR THE ECM AS NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED
0.
N ANT SP CI
SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR PLANT SPAC §NG.
7
SEE SPECIAL PROVISION, SEE DETAIL W26 AND PLANTING PLAN FOR
PLANTING DETAILS
STOP OF STREAMBANK
TOE OF SLOPE
I I
CROSS- SECTION
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
NTS
MATIING STAKE
WITH NAIL
TRENCH -
TOP OF BANK
LARGE
MATTING STAKE
WITH NAIL
CROSS- SECTION
TRENCH
-TOP OF BANK
r • / r r WOOD STAKE
• • • • •
TOE OF SLOPE i • • • i r r i
i • r r • r • •
r i i • • i i r
PLAN VIEW
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING TO BE EXTENDED
TO TRENCH AT TOE OF SLOPE
2.5 INCH
ROOFING
NAIL
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
THE WOOL? STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS
LEG LENGTH 17570 IN 43.18 CM TAPERED TO POINT
WIDTH LS IN 3.87 CM
THICKNESS 15 IN 3,81 CM
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
THE WOOD STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS.
LEG LENGTH
EROSION CONTROL MATTING NOTES
HEAD WIDTH
1 BANKS SHALL BE SEEDED (PERMANENT S TEMPORARY) PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF
HEAD THiCKNE55
MATTING.
LEG WIDTH
2. WOODEN STAKES SHALL BE PLACED IN A DIAMOND SHAPE PATTERN PER THE PLAN VIEW
LEG THICKNESS
3, TRENCH STAKES AND WOOD STAKES SHALL BE PLACED A MAXIMUM DISTANCE APART OF 3'
TOTAL LENGTH
4 EROSION CONTROL MATTING (RCM) SHOULD BE USED TO AID PERMANENT VEGETATED
STABILIZATION OF SLOPES 2.1 OR GREATER AND WITH MORE THAN 10 FEET OF
1 INSERT PLANTING BAR
VERTICAL RELIEF.
I
3 INSERT PLANTING BAR 2 INCHES
5. RCM SHOULD BE USED WHEN MULCH CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY TACKED AND WHERE
EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BE
IMMEDIATE GROUND COVER IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION DAMAGE.
PLACED IN 12 INCH DEEP TRENCH. STAKED,
6 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP IN THE HORIZONTAL
BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED
TOWARD PLANTER.
TOP OF STREAMBANK
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MAINTENANCE NOTES
1 INSPECT ECM AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT (112 INCH OR GREATER)
RAINFALL EVENT REPAIR IMMEDIATELY
SMALL MATTING STAKE
2. GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED. AND EROSION MUST NOT
TOE OF SLOPE
OCCUR BENEATH THE ECM.
TOWARD PLANTER, FIRMING
3. ANY AREAS OF THE ECM THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE
EROSION CONTROL MATTING $HALL BE
GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND STAPLED.
PLACED IN 12 FNCH DEEP TRENCH, SfiAKED.
4. IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE, THE PROBLEM SHALL
BAGKFILLED AND COMPACTED
BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED
/ BOTTOM DF CHANNEL
5 MONITOR AND REPAIR THE ECM AS NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED
MATIING STAKE
WITH NAIL
TRENCH -
TOP OF BANK
LARGE
MATTING STAKE
WITH NAIL
CROSS- SECTION
TRENCH
-TOP OF BANK
r • / r r WOOD STAKE
• • • • •
TOE OF SLOPE i • • • i r r i
i • r r • r • •
r i i • • i i r
PLAN VIEW
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING TO BE EXTENDED
TO TRENCH AT TOE OF SLOPE
2.5 INCH
ROOFING
NAIL
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
THE WOOL? STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS
LEG LENGTH 17570 IN 43.18 CM TAPERED TO POINT
WIDTH LS IN 3.87 CM
THICKNESS 15 IN 3,81 CM
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
THE WOOD STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS.
LEG LENGTH
11.00IN 27.04 CM
HEAD WIDTH
1.251N 3.18 CM
HEAD THiCKNE55
11401N 1.02 CM
LEG WIDTH
0.80 IN 1.52CM TAPERED TO POINT
LEG THICKNESS
1 0.40 IN 1.02 CM
TOTAL LENGTH
1 12.00 IN 30.48 CM
urrl lklr uA1
1 LOCATE A HEELING -IN SITE IN A SHADY, WELL PROTECTED AREA
2. EXCAVATED A FLAT BOTTOM TRENCH 12 INCHES DEEP AND
PROVIDE DRAINAGE.
3. BACKFILLTHE TRENCH WITH 2 INCHES OF WELL ROTTED SAWDUST
PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF WELL ROTTED SAWDUST AT A SLOPING
ANGLE AT ONE ENO OF THE TRENCH.
4. PLACE A SINGLE LAYER OF PLANTS AGAINST THE SLOPING END $O
THAT THE ROOT COLLAR IS AT GROUND LEVEL.
5 PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF WELL ROTTED SAWDUST OVER THE ROOTS
MAINTAINING A SLOPING ANGLE.
8_ REPEAT LAYERS OF PLANTS AND SAWDUST AS NECESSARY AND
WATER THOROUGHLY.
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
16
�2 inch
1 INSERT PLANTING BAR
2 REMOVE PLANTING BAR AND
I
3 INSERT PLANTING BAR 2 INCHES
12' INTO THE GROUND AS
PLACE SEEDING AT CORRECT
TOWARD PLANTER FROM SEEDING
SHOWN AND PULL HANDLE
DEPTH
TOWARD PLANTER.
5. PUSH HANDLE FORWARD
6. LEAVE COMPATION HOLE
4. PULL HANDLE OF BAR
TOWARD PLANTER, FIRMING
FIRMING SOIL AT TOP
OPEN WATER THOROUGHLY
SOIL AT BOTTOM
PLANTING NOTES:
PLANTING BAG
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL
BEREFT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR
SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT
THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING
�,%14111r111,fil
KBC PLANTING BAR Il��i
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE
WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,
AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG,
4 INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK
AT CENTER EA
2967
14.l�
ROOT PRUNING
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED.
.i
IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO ROOTS /// %
EXTEND MORE THAN 10 INCHES BELOW , sC/'\� ,�"
THE ROOT COLLAR. '1j /\!ii 111%1`

A
INVERT, REFER TO ELEVATION
CALLOUT ON PROFILE % FLOW
A
ANGLED LOG STEP
_ _ FLOIY
�� INVERT
E G
9 A %F I ;
a
1
ROCK, OR LOG DROP LOG STEP
PROTECT BANK TYPICALLY USING ONE OR
E CAVA MORE OF THESE:
POOL - STONE: BOULDERS, OR CLASS 7
6 -WOOD: ROOT WADS OR TOE WOOD FILTER FABRIC
BIOENGINEERING: BRUSH MATTRESS, ( TYPICAL )
TRANSPLANTS OR OTHER AS SPECIFIED
INVERT ---� IN PLANS SECTION A - A'
NOTES:
PLANTING OR OTHER BANK 1, LOGS SHOULD BE HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK ON EACH SIDE AT
N PLA
PROTECTION AS SPECIFIED MINIMUM DISTANCE SPECIFIED BELOW.
CAVA 2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED POR71ONS OF LOG
POOL 3. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL
a. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING AND INCORPORATED INTO
BANK
BANKFULL 5. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF BOULDERS WITH ENGINEER'S APPROVAL
PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECS
BOULDER STEP MINIMUM BOULDER SIZE 2.5x1.511 FT
MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER 10 IN
A MINIMUM LOG EXTEND INTO BANKS 3 FT
PLAN VIEW AVERAGE CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH 5 FT
APPRD /IMATE LOG LENGTHS 11+ FT
TOE WOOD
coo
ffrs-
COVER LOGS OR ROOTWADS TO BE 610 AND INSTALLED PER
THEIR RELATIVE DETAILS AS A SEPARATE STRUCTURE
y \i COMPONENT AND LOCATED WHERE SPECIFIED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE
SYMBOLS IN THE PLANS
MATERIAL SHOULD NOT E /TEND
`A\ MORE THAN 1/4 CHANNEL WIDTH
BANKFULL
MAX LIFT HEIGHT EQUAL 2',
WHEN BANK HEIGHT >2', USE
MULTIPLE LIFTS OF
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL HDGHT
PLAN VIEW TWO ATLERNATIVES FOR
A' FASCINE /LIVE BRUSH INSTALLATION
BACKFILL OVER BRUSH LAYER
LIVE FASCINE MATERIAL��I -_�
THICK BRUSH LAYER;
WASTE WOOD FROM LIMB TOPS,_
GENERATED FROM CLEARING, `
1 " -8" VARIOUS SIZES IN DIAMETER; �.
,J
COVER LOGS AND/OR ROOTWADS
TO BE INCORPORATED, AS SHOWN DN T
PLANS AND PER RESPECTIVE DETAILS
FOUNDATION WIDTH
FOUNDATION OF EQUAL MIX
CLASS A AND CLASS 1 RIPRAP
SEE PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECS
FOR FOUNDATION ANO OTHER SECTION MEW ASECTION A -A'
CHANNEL MEASUREMENTS OPTION 1• SOIL LIFTS
(EXTRA ARMOR AT TOE)
.PREJUMINARY PLANS
ON -SITE STREAM ALLUVIUM DV NOT USE
OTHERWISE USE A WELL
CLASS A, CLASS S. AND y57 Sr O CONSTRUCTION
LOG FOOTERS MAY REQUIRE TWO
LOGS TO SUPPORT HEADER
1 -3R SLOPE ACROSS
HEADER LOG OR ROCK OR,
INSTALL ON SLOPE WITH
INVERT OFFSET TO ONE 1511
OPTIONAL USE OF TREE LIMBS
OR TRUNKS AT TOE WHEN
AVAILABLE ON SITE, CAN BE
USED INSTEAD OF OR IN
CONJUNC1TON WITH BASE STONE
TO RAISE FOUNDATION HEIGHT
A'
DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION OF BANK WITH
ONE OR MORE BOULDERS, R007WADS OR
TRANSPLANTS
ELEVATION CALLOUT
(TYP)
SEE PROFILE FOR EXACT
ELEVATION
, BASE FLOW
SECTION B - 8' `—FOOTER. LOG OR BOULDERS
TRANSPLANTS OR BARER00T5
BANKFULL
SOD MATS �
LOVE STAKES AND 18" WOODEN STAKES
WITH SHROUD LINE BETWEEN STAKES
LIVE FASCINE MATERIAL
ERQJE '
SPECIFIC
SPECS
POOL WATER DEPTH
2.0
FT
FOUNDATION HEIGHT
12
IN
FOUNDATION WIDTH
2
FT
BRUSH THICKNESS
-8
IN
SECTION VIEW A -A'
OPTION _Z:_ SOD MATS
tttt,1111lll / / 'I/
i�
22567 ;
L
SC4Tj '`•.��'
��l111111Yt�t

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PUBLIC ROAD
PLAN VIEW
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOTES:
1. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED A 3.1 RATIO.
FILL MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS DESIGN RATIO.
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1 MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR
SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE THIS MAY REQUIRE
PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2 -INCH STONE.
2, AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP
SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.
& IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED,
WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS.
I
MINIMUM THICKNESS
= WASHED CLASS A
PONE
, 1. E II FILTER FABRIC
FOR DRAINAGE
STRAW WATTLE
SEE SECTION VIEW
WOOD STAKE (TYP)
'001v 5/ n -
ry
SLOPE
SURFACE
N
STAKE DETAIL ON BARE SOIL
NOT TO SCALE
W WATTLES
OF EROSION
TROL MATTING
E
ACE
STAKE DETAIL ON EROSION CONTROL MATTING
°0w,
NOT TO SCALE
JIAKL ULIAIL JLUIIUN VILW
NOT TO SCALE
STRAW WATTLE
(TYP)
TCP OF EROSION
CONTROL MATTING
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
F?R CONSTRUCTION
WOVEN FILTER F
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE NOTES
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
1 FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL SEA MINIMUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8 LINE WIRES WITH 12' STAY SPACING
2. WOVEN FILTER FABRIC TO 13E USED WHERE SILT FENCE IS TO REMAIN FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS,
3. STEEL POSTS SHALL BE W-W IN HEIGHT AND BE OF THE SELF - FASTENER ANGLE STEEL TYPE
4. TURN SILT FENCE UP SLOPE AT ENDS-
5 ' DRAINAGE AREA CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 114 ACRE PER 100 ITT OF FENCE.
B. SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT EXCEED CRITERIA SHOWN IN TABLE 6.92A. NORTH CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RLANNING AND
DESIGN MANUAL.
7- DO NOT INSTALL SEDIMENT FENCE ACROSS STREAMS, WETLANDS, DITCHES, WATERWAYS OR OTHER AREAS OF CONCENTRATED FLOW
B. INSTALL POSTS WITH THE NIPPLES FACING AWAY FROM THE SILT FENCE-
R. ATTACH THE FABRIC TO EACH POST VATH THREE TIES WITH THE TOP TIE WITHIN B' OF THE TOP OF THE FABRIC.
10. WRAP APPROXIMATELY S INCHES OF FABRIC AROUND THE END POSTS AND SECURE WITH 3 TIES.
11 CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH Of THE BARRIER TO AVOID JOINTS WHEN JOINTS ARE
NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4 FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE NOTES.
1. INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY
2. SHOULD THE FABRIC OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT PROMPTLY
3, REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
4. REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZE IT AFTER THE
CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
TEMPORARY STREAM/WETLAND CROSSING
TYPE II FILTER
PLAN WEw
r3.5 Li AJB- GRRIAG� BOLT
eu. rcnYwrcurce rTgP GF BANN
B RIP RAP
9 RIP RAP
aAM PRSJ = N IId/CE N0. LEFT Na
124526 D6
NCUP PRGA= la ON29 OATS 8/15/:
P"0xCT tNlaM
IIT H.aI GIx EnW,xex+ro. In[
f s.��. sa..�.
� e M�xmnyorl�
ca exam me
ANCHOR SKIRT B" MINIMUM
rLIV III11 ►!lIF.
TEMPORARY STREAMIWETLANO CROSSING STRUCTURE NOTES. I'- "L59IH gE�G+�s -A
1 CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT OWSITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS
3 MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM
4. LINE STREAMBANK AND ACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
5. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENOfCULAR TO THE FLOW
B MAINTAIN CROSSWG SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING
CHANNEL.
7, STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUDMAT
B. THE MUD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE
CROSSING THE CHANNEL,
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
RECOMMENDED AT A 5,1 SLOPE.
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING MAINTENANCE NOTES.
I INSPECT TEMPORARY STREAM1WE7lAND CROSSINGS AFTER RUN -OFF PRODUCING RAINS TO CHECK FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL, EROSION OF ABUTMENTS.
CHANNEL SCOUR, RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT, OR PIPING MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION
SCOTS
�3rri�rll�i>f1
RESTORATION
)JECT- OPTIOI
(DETAILS
STEEL POST
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
�c
► LL
F_-LOW cj
ANCHOR SKIRT B" MINIMUM
rLIV III11 ►!lIF.
TEMPORARY STREAMIWETLANO CROSSING STRUCTURE NOTES. I'- "L59IH gE�G+�s -A
1 CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT OWSITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS
3 MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM
4. LINE STREAMBANK AND ACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
5. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENOfCULAR TO THE FLOW
B MAINTAIN CROSSWG SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING
CHANNEL.
7, STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUDMAT
B. THE MUD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE
CROSSING THE CHANNEL,
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
RECOMMENDED AT A 5,1 SLOPE.
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING MAINTENANCE NOTES.
I INSPECT TEMPORARY STREAM1WE7lAND CROSSINGS AFTER RUN -OFF PRODUCING RAINS TO CHECK FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL, EROSION OF ABUTMENTS.
CHANNEL SCOUR, RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT, OR PIPING MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION
SCOTS
�3rri�rll�i>f1
RESTORATION
)JECT- OPTIOI
(DETAILS

Vie: + -' � • . ']3) "'
CLASS ISTONE
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
WORK AREA
O��v
20,
V- INSTALL AND MAINTAIN
PLAN VIEW THREE CHECK DAMS
AT DOWNSTREAM
ROJECT LIMIT
CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE SEDIMENTS
WHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES 12"
r TSS< 56 N.T.0
gY
�3
W (SPILL WAY )
MIN m
STREAM WIDTH
1' BELOW LOWEST
BMK LEVEL
SECTION A -A CLASS 1 STONE
57 STONE
<�]FLOW
SECTION B-B
MAINTENANCE NOTES
I INSPECT CHECK DAMS AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT(V2 INCH OR
GREATER) RAINFALL EVENT AND REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.
2, ANTICIPATE EROSION AROUND THE EDGED OF THE DAM. CORRECT ALL DAMAGE IMMEDIATELY.
3. REMOVE SEDIMENTS BEHIND DAMS WHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES 12 INCHES.
INSTALL ROCK CHECK CAI
SEE DETA
IMPERVIOUS
TEMPORARY
TYPICAL PUMP AROUND OPERATION
DIKE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE
FAR CONSTRUCTION
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND
1 INSTALL ROCK CHECK DAMS AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA
2 THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE
BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
4, INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED
AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA.
THIS WATER WILL FLOW INTO A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN.
5. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND FOLLOWING
THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
8. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS
DIKE. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSEIPIPING STARTING WITH THE
DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST
7 ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE THE STILLING BASINS AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH
SEED AND MULCH.
PUMP AROUND NOTES:
1. EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW
3 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STANLIZED IN ONE WORKING DAY
4. THE PUMP AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY CONVEY 1.0 CFS
5 PROVIDE STABILZED OUTLET TO STREAM BANK.
SANDBAGISTONE —
BASEFLOW
WORKING
AREA FLOW
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
ttj1jl11f1111
±A CAR(
rE5SCP
S _
229 7 =
r
004
ol
H c
,11111111111111