20141328 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_Final_2March2015_reprint_20150316

Message I Baker eFTP
0 N T E R N A T n 0 N A L
ivi K7717-:1 -
M essage I D
EmsU7i ht
From
To
croessl er aynbakeri ntl .com
croessl er aynbakeri ntl .com
Subj ect
reprinted mitigation plan
Access Restriction
Anyone can down) oad
M essage Expi res
M arch 27, 2015
Publ i c U RL
https://eftp.mbakerintl.com/message/EmsU7ihtixJcrrZrN2Ey2c
Publ i c U RL
Anyone can down) oad
A ttached f i I es
Page 1 of 2
• ThomasCreek M i ti gati on PI an Fi nal 2M arch2015 repri nt 13M ar2015. pdf (58 M B)
Checksum (SHAD: 4628cb0780ce8c94e934712297c743bbd8d429ef
L egal D i scl ai mer: T hi s websi to i s i ntended sol el y f or use by M i chael Baker I nternati oval, L L C, i is
aff i I i ates, cl i ents, subcontractors, and other desi gnated parti es. A I I i of ormati on uti I i zed on thi s websi to
i s f or desi gnated reci pi ents onl y. A ny di ssemi nati on, di stri buti on or copyi ng of thi s materi al by any
i ndi vi dual other than the sai d desi gnated reci pi ents i s stri ctl y prohi bi ted. The M i chael Baker
Corporation, its affiliates and employees, makes no representation or warranty (express or implied) as
to the merchantabi I i ty or f i tness for a parti cul ar purpose of any documents or i nformati on avai I abl e
https-Heftp.mbakerintl.com/message/EmsU7ihtjxJcrrZrN2Ey2c 3/16/2015

Message I Baker eFTP
Page 2 of 2
f rom thi s websi to and therefore assumes nei Cher I egal I i abi I i ty nor responsi bi I i ty f or the accuracy,
completeness, technical/ scientific quad i ty or usefulness of said documents or information.
https-Heftp.mbakerintl.com/message/EmsU7ihtjxJcrrZrN2Ey2c 3/16/2015

FINAL
Stream Mitigation Plan
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Wake County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project ID No. 96074
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004 - 020010
USAGE Action ID No. SAW- 2013 -02009
� Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
� tenj 152 Mail Service Center
' .i Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
March 2015 A �•�' '�'�•r'',o�
SEAL
w� 22561� rZ
SCOTI

FINAL
Stream Mitigation Plan
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Wake County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project ID No. 96074
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004 - 020010
USACE Action ID No. SAW - 2013 -02009
Prepared for:
d11'0 stem
aWe' lent
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
March 2015
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II 8
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore 4,687 linear feet (LF) of stream, and enhance
3,952 LF of stream Thomas Creek and several unnamed tributaries. The Thomas Creek Restoration Project
site (project) is located in Wake County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 2. 1), approximately 1.5 miles
southwest of the Community of New Hill. The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin within NC
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03 -06 -07 and in the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) of
Harris Lake (HU 03030004- 020010), as listed by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP). The
purpose of the project is to restore and/or enhance stream and riparian buffer functions along impaired stream
channels at the site. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 22.7 acres (Figure 3.1) will protect all
stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity. Examination of available hydrology and soil data indicate
the project will potentially provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Harris Lake
subwatershed, as well as to the Cape Fear River Basin.
Based on the NCEEP 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan, the Thomas Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Cape Fear River
Basin (2009 Cape Fear RBRP), and is located within the Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks
Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area (LWP Fact Sheet). The restoration strategy as stated in the RBRP for
the Cape Fear 03030004 8 -digit Catalog Unit (CU) is to promote Low Impact Development, stormwater
management, restoration and buffer protection in urbanizing areas, and buffer preservation elsewhere.
The primary goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions through the restoration and enhancement
of streams and buffers in a degraded, urbanizing area as described in the NCEEP 2009 Cape Fear RBRP, and
are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries throughout the site,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing streambank erosion, and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent fencing
and thus reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated streambank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along streambank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve
streambank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water
temperature,
• Control invasive species vegetation within much of the project area and, if necessary, continue
treatments during the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

The proposed project aligns with overall NCEEP goals, which focus on sediment, nutrient and other non -
point source (NPS) pollutant management. Specific NCEEP RBRP goals include restoring streams and
riparian areas, maintaining and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of floodwaters, and improving fish
and wildlife habitat. 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 Harris Lake subwatershed, while
improving water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic species, including priority species
identified in the Cape Fear River Basin RBRP ( NCEEP, 2009).
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 IV 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Table ESA Thomas Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Existing
Design
Reach
Design
Reach
Reach
C edit
Potential
Stationing
Approach
Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
(LF)
(LF)
Comment
Unnamed Tributaries to Thomas Creek (Reaches
Rl, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, TI, T2)
Restoration will continue from Reach R2 with
a Priority Level II approach to tie into existing
bedrock at the downstream project extent. A
single thread meandering channel will be
RI
R
397
266
1:1
266
41 +81 to
constructed mostly in line with the existing
44 +47*
channel; energy will be dissipated by
incorporating a step pool sequence. Work
will include vegetation planting in disturbed
riparian buffer areas, and permanent cattle
exclusion fencing around the easement.
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level 11 approach initially but will transition
to Priority Level I near the stream crossing.
riorty II is favored in the upstream portion of
e reach due to the existing locations of
mature trees. However, in the downstream
R2
R
1,995
2,107
1:1
2,087
0 +74 to
2 0 4
section work will consist of raising the
+ *
streambed elevation and constructing a new
channel off -line. Work will also include
planting native vegetation in disturbed
riparian buffer areas and permanently
excluding cattle from the easement with
fencing.
Restoration will primarly consist of Priority I
restoration though there are sections where
R3
11 +30 to
shallow Priority II will be implemented. The
(downstream
R
937
949
1:1
929
*
20 +74ortion
streambed will be raised along the upstream
section)
of the reach, and a bankfull bench,
here necessary, will be graded to provide
connection to a geomorphic floodplain.
Enhancement Level II will be implemented
along the reach. A 50 -foot riparian buffer will
R3
(u p stream
E II
130
130
5:1
26
10 +00 to
e planted with native vegetation along each
11 +30*
bank and a conservation easement will be
section)
established. Invasive species will be removed
throughout the buffer area.
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level 11 approach. Work will involve a
R4
10 +10 to
combination of raising a section of the
(downstream
R
327
361
1:1
361
13 +71 *
streambed along the upstream portion of the
section)
each, and grading a bankfull bench to provide
connection to a geomorphic floodplain.
Enhancement Level II will be implemented to
plant a 50 -foot riparian buffer on each bank
R4 (upstream
E II
870
870
10:1
87
0 +99
and establish a conservation easement.
section)
*
9 +69*
Invasive species will not be removed per an
agreement with the NCIRT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE V 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level I approach, and will involve a
combination of raising the elevation of a
R5
section of streambed and constructing a new
(downstream
R
883
1064
1:1
1044
29 +45 to
channel off -line. Work will also include
section)
40 +09*
planting native vegetation in disturbed
riparian buffer areas and permanently
excluding cattle from the easement with
fencing.
Enhancement Level II will be implemented to
RS
28 +08
plant a 50 -foot riparian buffer on each bank
(upstream
E II
137
137
5:1
27
*o
29 +45
and protect with a conservation easement.
section)
Invasive species will also be removed.
Enhancement Level II will be implemented to
R6
12 +10 to
plant a 50 -foot riparian buffer on each bank
(downstream
E II
1618
1618
5:1
320
28 +08*
and establish a conservation easement.
section)
Invasive species will also be removed.
Work will follow an Enhancement Level I
approach and will consist of the
implementation of a step pool sequence and
R6
10 +00
bank grading, to include floodplain
(upstream
E I
210
210
1.5:1
140
*o ertical
12 +10
benches. Work will also include native
section)
vegetation planting in disturbed riparian
buffer areas. A conservation easement will be
established.
Enhancement Level II will be implemented to
R7
13 +60 to
plant a 50 -foot riparian buffer on each bank
(downstream
E II
286
286
5:1
57
16 +46*
and protect with a conservation easement.
section)
nvasive species will also be removed.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for the
each. Work will include minor streambank
R7
10 +00 to
sloping and stabilization, use of in- stream
(upstream
E II
360
360
2.5:1
144
13 +60 *
structures to provide grade control, and
section)
vegetation planting in disturbed riparian
buffer areas. A conservation easement will be
established.
Initially, Enhancement Level I will be
implemented to stabilize the channel. This
T1
E I
242
253
1.5:1
155
10 +00 to
will be followed a Rosgen Priority Level 11
12 +53*
approach and tie in to Reach R2. Work will
also include vegetation planting in disturbed
riparian buffer areas.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for the
each. Work will include minor streambank
10 +00 to
sloping and stabilization, limited use of in-
T2
E II
171
158
2.5:1
63
11+58*
stream structures, vegetation planting in
disturbed riparian buffer areas, and permanent
cattle exclusion fencing around the easement.
*Note: Crossings have been removed from the potential
Total
-
5,706
SWs provided in this table.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................... ............................... 1 -1
2.0 SITE SELECTION .............................................................................................................
............................... 2 -1
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................
............................... 2 -1
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................
............................... 2 -2
2.1.2 Successional Trends and Watershed Overview ............................................................
............................... 2 -2
2.2 VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................
............................... 2 -4
2.3 WATERSHED MAP .............................................................................................................
............................... 2 -5
2.4 SOILS MAP ........................................................................................................................
............................... 2 -7
2.5 CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP .............................................................................................
............................... 2 -8
2.6 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS MAPS .......................................................................................
............................... 2 -9
2.7 LIDAR MAP ...................................................................................................................
............................... 2 -12
2.8 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................
............................... 2 -13
2.8.1 Reach RI ....................................................................................................................
............................... 2 -13
2.8.2 Reach R2 ....................................................................................................................
............................... 2 -14
2.8.3 Reaches R3 and R4 ....................................................................................................
............................... 2-15
2.8.4 Reaches RS and R6 ....................................................................................................
............................... 2 -16
2.8.5 Reaches R7, T1, and T2 .............................................................................................
............................... 2 -17
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT .............................................................................
............................... 3 -1
3.1 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT SUMMARY INFORMATION ...............................................
............................... 3 -1
3.1.1 Potential Constraints ...................................................................................................
............................... 3 -1
3.2 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FIGURE ...........................................................................
............................... 3 -2
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ...........................................................................................
............................... 4 -1
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ..................................................................................
............................... 5 -1
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ....................................................................................
............................... 6 -1
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..........................................................................................
............................... 7 -1
7.1 TARGET STREAM TYPE(S), WETLAND TYPE(S), AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
..................... ............................... 7 -1
7. 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 -1
7.3 DATA ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................
............................... 7 -5
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN ....................................................................................................
............................... 8 -1
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .....................................................................................
............................... 9 -1
9.1 STREAM MONITORING ......................................................................................................
............................... 9 -1
9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions .....................................................................
............................... 9 -2
9.1.2 Cross Sections ..............................................................................................................
............................... 9 -2
9.1.3 Pattern .........................................................................................................................
............................... 9 -2
9.1.4 Longitudinal Profile .....................................................................................................
............................... 9 -2
9.1.5 Bed Material Analyses .................................................................................................
............................... 9 -3
9.1.6 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................
............................... 9 -3
9.2 VEGETATION MONITORING ...............................................................................................
............................... 9 -3
9.3 WETLAND MONITORING ...................................................................................................
............................... 9 -4
9.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING ....................................................................
............................... 9 -4
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................
............................... 10 -1
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................
............................... 11 -1
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................
............................... 12 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VII 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 -1
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1
14.1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1
14.2 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 -3
15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................ ............................... 15 -1
16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA .................................................. ............................... 16 -1
16.1 USAGE 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 -17
17.1.3
Reference Reach Data Indicators ........................................................................ ...............................
17 -31
17.2 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................... ...............................
17 -35
17.2.1
Bankfull Stage and Discharge ............................................................................. ...............................
17 -35
17.2.2
Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions) ....... ...............................
17 -35
17.2.3
Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge ..................................................... ...............................
17 -37
17.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ ...............................
17 -39
17.3.1
Background and Methodology ............................................................................ ...............................
17 -39
17.3.2
Sampling Data Results ........................................................................................ ...............................
17 -39
17.3.3
Predicted Channel Response ............................................................................... ...............................
17 -42
17.4 EXISTING VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... ...............................
17 -45
17.4.1
Maintained /Disturbed ......................................................................................... ...............................
17 -45
17.4.2
Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas ................................................................ ...............................
17 -45
17.4.3
Dry -Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest /Alluvial and Bottomland Forest ....................... ...............................
17 -46
17.4.4
Invasive Species Vegetation ................................................................................ ...............................
17 -46
17.5 SITE WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... ...............................
17 -46
17.5.1
Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment ..................................................................... ...............................
17 -46
17.5.2
Wetland Impacts and Considerations .................................................................. ...............................
17 -48
17.5.3
Climatic Conditions ............................................................................................. ...............................
17 -48
17.5.4
Soil Characterization .......................................................................................... ...............................
17 -49
17.5.5
Plant Community Characterization ..................................................................... ...............................
17 -49
17.5.6
Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings ............................................................ ...............................
17 -50
17.6 SITE CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... ...............................
17 -52
17.61
Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction ... ...............................
17 -52
17.62
In- stream Structures and Other Construction Elements ...................................... ...............................
17 -53
18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS ................................................................. ............................... 18 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VIII 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

LIST OF TABLES
Table
ES.1
Thomas 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 11
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
Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Table
17.7
Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Table
17.8
Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Table
17.9
Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Table
17.10
NRCS Soil Series (Wake County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1970)
Table
17.11
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Table
17.12
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Table
17.13
Proposed In- Stream Structure Types and Locations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IX 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1
Vicinity Map
Figure
2.2
Watershed Map
Figure
2.3
Soils Map
Figure
2.4
Current Conditions Plan View
Figure
2.5
Historical Conditions Plan View (1938)
Figure
2.6
Historical Conditions Plan View (195 9)
Figure
2.7
Historical Conditions Plan View (1981)
Figure
2.8
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 Sections for Project Reaches
Figure
17.2
Existing Cross - Section Data for Project Reaches
Figure
17.3
Mitigation Work Plan
Figure
17.4
Reference Streams Location Map
Figure
17.5
Sediment Particle Size Distribution
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE X 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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 XI 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Thomas Creek Project is located in the Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks Local
Watershed Plan (LWP) area ( NCEEP, 2006; LWP Fact Sheet). The project site watershed includes
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030004 - 020010 which was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in EEP's 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan ( NCEEP, 2009; 2009
Cape Fear RBRP) and is identified in the Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks LWP Project
Atlas (Atlas Reference Designation).
EEP developed a local watershed plan for the 180 square mile drainage area that included land use
analysis, water quality monitoring and stakeholder input to identify problems with water quality, habitat,
and hydrology. The Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks LWP covered a large area so only a
subset of the watershed received further assessment. Thomas Creek was in the portion of the LWP that
did not undergo further evaluation and assessment. Additionally, the Harris Lake subwatersheds
(including Thomas Creek) were excluded from the functional assessment process. Nutrient management
was cited as a key concern for the management of Harris Lake, though it was determined to be outside of
the relevant scope of issues important to the rest of the study area.
Animal operations, agricultural development, disturbance of natural riparian buffers (timber harvesting)
and other various land - disturbing activities in the Thomas Creek subwatershed have negatively impacted
both water quality and streambank stability along Thomas Creek and its various tributaries. To improve
watershed health, the 2009 Cape Fear RBRP emphasized the need for increased implementation of
agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in the Thomas Creek watershed. Nutrients, sedimentation,
streambank erosion, livestock access to streams, channel modification, and the loss of wetlands and
riparian buffers were stressors observed by Baker staff within the watershed.
The primary goals of the project, as described in the NCEEP 2009 Cape Fear RBRP, are to improve
ecologic functions and to manage nonpoint source loading to the impaired reaches. These are identified
below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the UTs throughout the site,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• Improve aquatic habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of woody
debris, and reduction of water temperature.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source (NPS) loading to receiving waters,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent
fencing and thus reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools
and reducing sediment from accelerated streambank erosion,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along streambank and floodplain areas, protected
by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve
streambank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water
temperature,
Control invasive species vegetation within much of 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
value by 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 nonpoint 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
Thomas Creek subwatershed, while improving water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic
species, including priority species identified in the Cape Fear River Basin RBRP ( NCEEP, 2009).
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system (USACE,
2010, Schafale et al., 1990) which has been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle
grazing. Due to the productivity and accessibility of these smaller stream systems, many have experienced
heavy human and cattle disturbance. Though the upper portion of the mainstem (Reach R3) has a narrow
wooded buffer, some sections have become highly unstable and are experiencing active widening and
downcutting. The lower mainstem (Reaches R1 and R2) flows through active pasture, and is downcutting
and widening as it seeks to reestablish stable stream pattern.
Restoration practices will include raising the existing streambed elevation, reconnecting the stream to its
relic floodplain, and restoring natural overbank flows to areas previously drained by ditching activities.
The existing channels to be abandoned within the restoration areas will be partially filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing will be
installed around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers where cattle have access (RI, R2, lower R5,
upper R4, T1, and T2). Vegetation buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along both sides of the
reaches and a conservation easement consisting of 22.7 acres (AC) will be recorded protect the site in
perpetuity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Project Description
The Thomas Creek Restoration Project (project) is located in Wake County, North Carolina (NC)
(Figure 2. 1), approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Community of New Hill, as shown on the
Project Site Vicinity Map (Figure 2.1). To access the site from Raleigh, take Interstate 40 and head
south on US -1 towards Sanford, for approximately 12 miles. Take the ramp for Exit 89 to New
Hill /Jordan Lake. At the end of the ramp turn right on New Hill- Holleman Rd. and continue for 0.8
miles to the stop sign at Old US Highway 1. Turn left on Old US Highway 1 and continue 1.1 miles
before turning left on Shearon Harris Rd. The destination will be on the right in 0.5 miles. Turn right
onto the gravel road and continue to the end to park among the farm buildings. The restoration site is
to the west.
The project site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) subbasin 03 -06 -07 of the
Cape Fear River Basin (Figure 2.2) and includes numerous unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Thomas
Creek. Soils and topographic information (Figures 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) indicate that the project
reaches are underlain by Wehadkee and Bibb soils, which are frequently flooded and considered
hydric. See Figure 2.3 for soil conditions outside of the floodplain area. Note that the GIS soils layer
in Figure 2.3 does not line up well with the streams and conservation easement; however, the NRCS
1970 Wake County soil survey confirms that the floodplain soils for all of the project reaches are
Wehadkee and Bibb soils.
Project Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, and T1 are shown as dashed blue -line streams on the USGS
topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2.2a). Project Reaches R5, R6, R7, and T2 are not shown as
blue -line streams, dashed or solid. Reaches R1, R2, R3, and R4 are listed as perennial streams within
the project limits on the 1970 Wake County Soil Survey. The remaining reaches are all shown in the
Soil Survey maps and are listed as intermittent, unclassified streams. The presence of historic valleys
for each of the project stream systems can be seen from LIDAR imagery for the site (Figure 2.8) and
was confirmed during field investigations.
Field evaluations of intermittent /perennial stream status were made in late March 2012. These
evaluations were based on NC Division of Water Resources ( NCDWR) Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v 4.11) stream assessment
protocols. Table 1 below presents the results of the field evaluations along with the assessed status of
each project reach. Figure 2.2b shows the intermittent and perennial sections of the project reaches
based on the field evaluations. Copies of the NCDWR classification forms are located in Appendix B.
Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Project
Existing Project
NCDWR Stream
Watershed Drainage
Stream Status
Reach
Reach Length
Classification Form
Area (acres)
Based on Field
Designation
(ft)
Score
Analyses
RI
397
37.5
246
Perennial
R2
1,995
38
176
Perennial
R3
1 067
37 / 25
68
Perennial /
Intermittent
R4
1,197
31
36
Perennial
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

R5
1,020
31
53
Perennial
R6
1,828
25
32
Intermittent
R7
646
35/20
14
Perennial /
Intermittent
TI
242
23.75
49
Intermittent
T2
171
20.75
5
Intermittent
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on USGS topographic (NC Streamstats) and
LIDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
The project site is located in the middle of the Durham- Sanford Triassic subbasin (Figure 2.1). This is
part of the Chatham Group, which consists of sedimentary rock, including conglomerate,
fanglomerate, sandstone, and mudstone. Observations by field staff in the watershed indicate that the
project area has sandstone and mudstone; as such, fine grained sediment is prevalent, and material
coarser than gravel is essentially absent. Bedrock is evident in isolated locations, which provides
grade control for the streams in those locations.
The geomorphic setting is at the headwaters of the Thomas Creek subwatershed. Many of the project
reaches are zero- or first- order. The zero -order streams include Reaches R6, R7, and T2, and the first -
order streams include Reaches R3, R4, and T1. Reaches R2 and R5 are a second -order stream and
Reach R1 is a third -order stream. The floodplains are generally narrow, though Reaches R5, R2, and
RI have wider available floodplains, which are typically inactive due to incision and channelization.
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The project is situated in a rural area of southern Wake County (project watershed percent
impervious cover less than 5 percent). The majority of the land use within the project watershed is
comprised of a mix of forested and active agricultural (cropland and pasture) lands. Residential,
urban, and transportation uses make up a small percentage of the remaining land use. Figure 2.2
shows the topography of the watershed for the project area. Soils data for the project are shown in
Figure 2.3. The project area (proposed conservation easement area) encompasses 22.7 acres of land
that includes agricultural fields, cattle pastures, clear cuts, riparian wetlands, and narrow forested
buffer lands (Figure 2.4). Potential for land use change or future development in the area adjacent
upstream to the conservation easement is moderate, given the proximity to the Research Triangle
metropolitan area.
Over time, channels have incised and the project reaches have become disconnected from their
historic floodplain, while the riparian buffer has been cleared or narrowed in numerous locations to
increase pastureland and harvest timber. These processes and practices have contributed excessive
sediment and nutrient loading to the project reaches and their receiving waters: Thomas Creek,
Harris Lake, and the Cape Fear River.
2.1.2 Successional Trends and Watershed Overview
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. According to the
landowner, whose family purchased the property in 1915, early settlers moved the stream (Reaches
R2 and R1) to one side of the valley in the 1800s to accommodate farming of the floodplain. The
hummocky floodplain along Reach R2 appears to show where the excavated material had been
deposited.
A historical aerial photograph from 1938 (Figure 2.5) shows that the area had reverted to forestland
and did not appear to be actively used for agriculture. However, a 1959 historical aerial photograph
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

(Figure 2.6) shows the area around Reaches R1, R2, lower R5, T1, and T2 had been cleared again
actively to be used for agriculture purposes (presumably pasture). This is the same area that is
presently grazed (2014). A 1981 historical aerial photograph (Figure 2.7) shows the timber
surrounding the remaining reaches (R3, R4, upper R5, R6, and R7) had been harvested in 1979. In
2011, much of the timber surrounding those same upper reaches (R3, R4, upper R5, R6, and R7)
was harvested again, leaving a very narrow buffer (10 to 30 feet) along those stream channels.
Figure 2.5 shows a 2012 aerial photograph with clearly narrow buffers.
Each project reach has been heavily impacted from historic land use practices, predominantly cattle
farming and forestry uses. Within the project area, approximately 90 percent of the streambanks
have inadequate (less than 50 feet wide) riparian buffers in both the right and the left floodplains.
Hoof shear and/or shear stress have severely impacted the streambanks along Reaches Rl, R2, and
R5. The lack of adequate and quality buffer vegetation, past land use disturbances, and current
cattle activities present a significant opportunity for water quality and ecosystem improvements
through the implementation of this project.
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. The existing conditions
assessment is presented in Section 17.1.1. Sections 7 and 17 describe the restoration approaches
proposed to achieve functional uplift and improve overall watershed health.
The project site is located in the Triassic Basin (see Figure 2. 1), which has notoriously erodible
soils. Additionally, the project watershed has fairly steep slopes and high runoff rates, and when
coupled with sand bed streams it makes for challenging conditions to conduct stream stabilization
work. Baker has taken steps to reduce risk of post - construction erosion, including higher width -to-
depth ratios to reduce stream power and frequent riffle grade control structures to prevent head cuts
from developing. Further discussion of the project approach is presented in Section 17.1.2.1
Proposed Design Approach and Section 17.3 Sediment Transport Analysis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -3 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.2 Vicinity Map
Figure 2.1
Project Vicinity Map
Thomas Creek Site
f
Fo-svitem
X
Pr nj e ct
Wake County ��x`, Location INTERNATIONAL
0 0.5 1 2
iiiiiA�ilqliles
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -4 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

2.3 Watershed Maps
Reach R2
Reach R6
Reach T2
� ttry
Reach R7
i`
# Reach R5 iL ti i
f '
i
Reach R4 +��
+0 4
AN
Reach T1
Reach RI
nJ Figure 2.2a
Michael Baker 0 300 600 Watershed Map
Fr °Fee' Thomas Creek Site
INTERNATIONAL ;i u vinet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL
Reach
'°N.
Reach 1 - 246 acres
Reach 2 - 176 acres.
Reach 3 - 68 acres
,
\�
Reach 4 - 36 acres
s
Reach 5 - 53 acres
Reach 6 - 32 acres
_
Reach 7 - 14 acres
P'y�
u Reach T1 - 49 acres
/��ti,,p•°°
each R3
Reach R2
Reach R6
Reach T2
� ttry
Reach R7
i`
# Reach R5 iL ti i
f '
i
Reach R4 +��
+0 4
AN
Reach T1
Reach RI
nJ Figure 2.2a
Michael Baker 0 300 600 Watershed Map
Fr °Fee' Thomas Creek Site
INTERNATIONAL ;i u vinet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

� IV
Reach R4
z.
Reach R3
Reach R6 f
Reach R2 ,
• r„ 1
Reach T2
•. � _ .. � is 4S .. L�
4.
Reach R7
X116' ".,, .•i�, �"1., -_.
Reach T1
Conservation Easement
Streams
Reach R3
Intermittent
Perennial
Reach R1 r
Michael Baker 0 150 300 N Figure 2.2b
oFeet Stream Determinations
N T E R N A T I 0 N A L �cc ystem ' Thomas Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -6 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.4 Soils Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -7 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.5 Current Conditions Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL
Conservation Easement
;_ �,z•:
Surveyed Reaches
Jurisdictional Wetland Areas
-_ ikY.' " � -':1 �. � .,a a
> _ °•�.
� f Reach R3 t f
-
Reach R4
.� '
Yr a r ' ru
n
er
@ r 1
k
Reach R6
II ru-
1
h - Reach Tl
Reach RT �• I' -
rz
r K -.
�F
�, Reach R5
r�
T
Reach R1
sf
a.
Figure 2.4
Michael Baker
a X50 300
°Feet
Current
Condition Map
INTERNAT10NAL
OR
ll neni
Thomas Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

2.6 Historical Conditions Maps
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -9 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Conservation Easement
.A
I
'
L.
! I
Michael Baker
r-�f 0 150 300 Figure 2.6
oFeet Historical Conditions Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L' Osstem t Thomas Creek Site
� er�len
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -10 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Conservation Easement ..
IT- to-14
AV
Mir
. �. - �� �y Aim• � T' -.4�V
f+ '��I+ '��i., - r w7e.M" ,tw" Y VL,,�•ik y r v
#. ,• �'•. ✓ir7 'fit
I Aerial Photography
h� e ESSra ^�bigitalGlobe GeoE je i c ih ^` Earthstar Geogr phncs,�
Michael rY 0 150 300 Figure 2.7
I ®Feet Historical Conditions Map
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L LIll�eIIl Thomas Creek Site
emetlt
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -11 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.7 UDAR Map
N
Conservation Easement �a-
Elevation .,0 tj
Value _P2 �
High: 337
Low =230
J. r
7A,
I
r �
J�
�JJ
1 f
y
J17f
I
i
R1
M
Michael Baker Figure 2.8
r_�, monst�� 0 500 1,000 LIAR Map
Fe et
NTERNATIQNAL 'I1ClWL171., Thomas Creek Site
IrieW
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -12 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

2.8 Site Photographs
2.8.1 Reach RI
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -13
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL
3/13/2015

2.8.2 Reach R2
View looking upstream at confluence of Reach R3 (left) and View looking downstream at impacted riparian buffer and
Reach R4 (right) to form Reach R2 (4/25/13) cattle access trails near middle of Reach R2 (5/21/13)
Looking upstream at cross section R2a on lower Reach R2
(5/21/13)
View looking at incised channel, eroding outside bend, and
minimal buffer along lower Reach R2 (5/22/13)
Looking upstream at cross section R2b on upper Reach R2
(5/21/13)
Collecting sediment sample and assessing sediment
composition at depth on upper Reach R2 (5/22/13)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -14 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.8.3 Reaches R3 and R4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -15
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL
3/13/2015

2.8.4 Reaches R5 and R6
View looking upstream on Reach R5. Cattle trampling is
evident (5/8/2013)
Enhancement Level II section of upper Reach R5 (4/25/13)
Incised channel targeted for enhancement on upper Reach R6
(5/22/2013)
View looking upstream on Reach R5 at transition from
forest to pasture (5/8/2013)
View looking at proposed Enhancement Level II section of
lower R6 (5/8/13)
View of riparian corridor on upper Reach R6 targeted for
enhancement (5/22/2013)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -16 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.8.5 Reaches R7, T1, and T2
View looking upstream along Reach R7. This area is targeted
for supplemental buffer planting only. (5/8/13)
Vo':a9SiE`31
View looking upstream along Reach T1 (& across Reach R2
in foreground), which is targeted for enhancement. (5/9/14)
-x .�.._. ,..
Spring at head of Reach T2 (4/25/13)
View looking upstream at incised channel on Reach R7
(5/22/13)
v 1L;
View looking downstream along Reach T1 at trampled
banks and minimal buffer vegetation (4/17/14)
Cattle loafing at spring head on T2 (5/21/13)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -17 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project 96074
Parcel
Landowner
PIN
County
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Number
Instrument
Page Numbers
Protected
CE -1
Irvin Woodrow
0619268591
Wake
Conservation
15894/2170
1.51
Goodwin
easement
Irvin Woodrow
Conservation
CE -2
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
easement
15894/2170
6.52
Irvin Woodrow
Conservation
CE -3
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
easement
15894/2170
6.01
Irvin Woodrow
Conservation
CE -4
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
easement
15894/2170
0.10
Irvin Woodrow
Conservation
CE -5
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
easement
15894/2170
1.12
Irvin Woodrow
Conservation
CE -6
Goodwin and Michael
0619368876
Wake
easement
15894/2276
1.98
L. Goodwin
Irvin Woodrow
Conservation
CE -7
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
easement
15894/2170
0.01
Irvin Woodrow
Conservation
CE -8
Goodwin
0619268591
Wake
easement
15894/2170
1.31
Conservation
CE -9
Michael L. Goodwin
0619473680
Wake
easement
15894/2236
1.26
Conservation
CE -10
Michael L. Goodwin
0619473680
Wake
easement
15894/2236
0.41
Conservation
CE -11
Michael L. Goodwin
0619473680
Wake
easement
15894/2236
2.50
Baker has obtained a conservation easement from the current landowners for the entire project area. The
easement and survey plat was reviewed and approved by NCEEP and State Property Office (SPO) and is now
held by the State of North Carolina. The easement and survey plat (Deed Book BM2015 / Pages 121 -122)
was recorded at the Alamance County Courthouse on January 16t'', 2015. The secured conservation 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. Five existing farm crossings along
Reaches R3, R4, R5, R6, and T1 will be improved as part of this project. No existing or proposed easements
for power and telephone utilities are located within the project boundary. Riparian buffer widths will be at
least 50 feet from top of bank along all proposed streambanks (100 foot minimum total buffer width) for all
of the stream reaches. In fact, many of the project buffers are more than 120 feet in total length. None of the
proposed project reaches are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain (Figure 16.1); thus, FEMA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

permitting or documentation is not required. Baker has notified the local floodplain administrator and
learned that Wake County has requirements for a flood study and permit fees if culverts are installed
(Appendix B). Consequently, Baker has decided that ford crossings will be used, which do not require flood
studies or permit fees. 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
will be included in Section 15, Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map
imm
Parcels
Conservation Easement
u
d�
i w �
,.i
a
Michael Baker r-�j Fi gure 3.1
0 200 400 Site Protection Instrument Map
INTERNATIONAL �% teni °Feet Thomas Creek Site
L'n`�I.n�ent
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -3 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Project Information
Project Name
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
County
Wake
Project Area (acres)
22.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and
longitude)
35.6636 N, - 79.9547 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14-
di it
03030004 / 03030004020010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03 -06 -07
Project Drainage Area (acres)
246 (Reach Rl main stem at downstream extent)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<1%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (66% ) Agriculture (19 %) Impervious Cover (I %)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R1
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach linear feet
397
1,995
1,067
342
1,020
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
246
176
62
36
62
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
37.5
38
1 37/25
31
31
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream e)
Bc
F (upstream)/
Gc (downstream)
Gc (upstream)/
Be (downstream)
Bc
Bc
Evolutionary Trend
Bc —>Gc-->F
Bc-->Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
H dric
H dric
H dric
H dric
H dric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0165
0.0083
0.014
0.0102
0.0172
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%
25%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach R7
Reach TI
Reach T2
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,828
646
242
171
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
32
14
49
5
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
25
35/20
23.75
20.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream a
GSc (upstream)/
135c (downstream)
G5 (upstream)/
135c downstream
135c
135c
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan -
NCEEP Project No. 96074
Evolutionary Trend
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.015/0.025
0.025
0.020
0.041
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Re ula ory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix
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 (LAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Flood lain Com liance
No
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix
B
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix
B
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan, Wake County - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Mitigation Credits
Non - riparian
Nitrogen
Phosphoru
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient
s Nutrient
Offset
Offset
Type
R, E1, E2
R
E
Totals
5,706 SMU
0.0
0.0
Project Com onents
Project Component or
J P
Stationing/
Existing
Restoration or
Restoration
Mitigation
Reach ID
Location
Footage/
Approach
Restoration
Footage
Ratio
Acreage
Equivalent
Reach RI
41 +81 —44+47
397 LF
Restoration
266 SMU
R
1:1
Reach R2
20 +74 —41+81
1,995 LF
Restoration
2,087 SMU
R
1:1
Reach R3 (upstream section)
10+00— 11 +30
130 LF
Enhancement
26 SMU
130 LF
5:1
Level II
Reach R3 (downstream
section)
11 +30 —20+74
937 LF
Restoration
929 SMU
R
1:1
Reach R4 (upstream section)
0+99-9+59
870 LF
Enhancement
87 SMU
870 LF
10:1
Level II
Reach R4 (downstream
section )
10 +10 —13 +71
327 LF
Restoration
361 SMU
R
1:1
Reach R5 (upstream section)
28 +08 —29+45
137 LF
Enhancement
27 SMU
137 LF
5:1
Level II
Reach R5 (downstream
section)
29 +45 —40+09
883 LF
Restoration
1,044 SMU
R
1:1
Reach R6 (upstream section)
10 +00 — 12 +10
210 LF
Enhancement
140 SMU
210 LF
1.5:1
Level I
Reach R6 (downstream
Enhancement
section)
12 +10 —28+08
1,618 LF
Level II
320 SMU
1,598 LF
5:1
Reach R7 (upstream section)
10 +00 —13+50
360 LF
Enhancement
144 SMU
360 LF
2.5:1
Level I1
Reach R7 (downstream
Enhancement
section)
13+50— 16 +46
286 LF
Level II
57 SMU
286 LF
5:1
Reach T1
10 +00 —12+53
242 LF
Enhancement
155 SMU
233 LF
1.5:1
Level I
Reach T2
10 +00 — 11 +58
171 LF
Enhancement
63 SMU
158 LF
2.5:1
Level II
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
Non- riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
(AC)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
Riverine
Non -
Riverine
Restoration
4,687
Enhancement I
443
Enhancement II
3,539
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

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 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
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met
10%
40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
50%
are being met
10 0/1,
(60 % *)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
60%
are being met
I W
(70 % *)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
65%
are being met
5%
(75% *)
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
75%
are being met.
100/0
(85 % *)
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
80%
are being met.
5%
(90 %)
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
90%
are being met and project has received closeout approval.
10%
(100 %)
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the
USACE covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction
means that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an
as -built report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to
project closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
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 10%
of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankf ill 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 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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 Little White Oak Creek system,
which is now the Harris Lake reservoir. Prior to selecting the proposed design approach, Baker
considered assigning an appropriate stream type for the corresponding valley that also accommodates
the existing and future hydrologic conditions, as well as sediment supply. This decision was based
primarily on the desired performance of the stream of the channels given the valley slope and width.
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
No wetland restoration or enhancement is included in this mitigation project.
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities
Native species riparian vegetation will be established in the riparian buffer throughout the site.
Schafale and Weakley's (1990) guidance on vegetation communities as well as the USACE Wetland
Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN- RS -4.1 (1997) were referenced during the development
of riparian planting lists for the site. In general, bare root vegetation will be planted at a target density
of 680 stems per acre. Live stakes will be planted along the channels at a targeted density of 40 stakes
per 1,000 square feet. Using triangular spacing along the streambanks, the live stakes will be spaced
two to three feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the straight sections between the
toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.
Baker prefers to have a row of livestakes near the toe in case of drought conditions, when baseflow may
only sustain livestakes at that elevation.
Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) will be removed to allow native species plants to become established within the
conservation easement. Larger native tree species will be preserved and harvested woody material will
be utilized to provide streambank stabilization cover and/or nesting habitat. Hardwood species will be
planted to provide the appropriate vegetation for the restored riparian buffer areas. Species will include
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum
dentatum), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii).
7.2 Design Parameters
Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference reach
data, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from past projects, and best professional
judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from multiple Piedmont
stream projects provided pertinent background information to determine the appropriate design
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

parameters given the existing conditions and overall site potential. The design parameters for the site
(shown in Section 17, Appendix C) also considered current guidelines from the USACE.
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) with active bank
erosion.
2. Cattle access has resulted in significant degradation through the lower reaches (Reaches R1, R2, T1,
and lower R5) of the site;
3. Past agricultural and silvicultural activities, such as channelization and timber harvesting, have
resulted in streambank erosion, excessive sedimentation, and the loss of woody vegetation within the
riparian zone;
4. Enhancement or preservation measures alone would not achieve the highest possible level of
functional lift for many portions of the degraded stream system.
For design purposes, the stream channels were divided into nine reaches labeled Reaches Rl, R2, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7, T1, and T2, 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
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach
Proposed
Stream Type
Approach /Rationale
Restoration: Priority Level II Restoration will ensue below the confluence
of Reaches R2 and R5 to tie into the existing bed elevation by the
downstream extent of the project. The restored channel will be designed as
Reach R1
C
a Rosgen C type channel. The existing channel will be stabilized and a
floodplain benches will be incorporated along this reach. Riparian buffers
in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both sides of Reach
RI.
Restoration: A combination of Priority Level I and II approaches will
provide floodplain reconnection and long -term channel stability. In upper
Reach R2, below the confluence of Reaches R3 and R4, the existing
channel is in the process of forming stable, but narrow and localized,
floodplain benches. The existing pattern will be used with minor
alterations to provide improved bedform diversity and floodplain benching
will be incorporated to both widen and provide continuity throughout the
reach.
Reach R2
C
Once Reach R2 enters the open field (just downstream from Reach T2) it
becomes less sinuous and lacks riparian buffer along the streambanks.
Here, Priority Level I restoration will be targeted by constructing a Rosgen
`C' stream type channel off line in order to reconnect the channel with its
historic floodplain and restore adequate meander geometry.
These restoration techniques will create a stable channel with appropriate
bedform diversity, as well as improve channel function by improving
aquatic habitat, increasing overbank flooding frequency, restorating
riparian and terrestrial habitats, and excluding cattle from accessing the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach
Proposed
Stream Type
Approach /Rationale
stream. The design width/depth ratio for the channel will be 14, and over
time, the channel may narrow to an E -type channel due to deposition of
sediment and streambank vegetation growth. Riparian buffers in excess of
50 feet will be restored along both sides of Reach R2.
A 20 -foot wide ford stream crossing will be constructed near the transition
from upper to lower Reach R2. Gates will be included to restrict livestock
access to the crossing.
Enhancement: Level II Enhancement will be implemented in the upper 130
feet of Reach R3. The channel is mostly stable thoughout this upper
section; however, the riparian buffer width is narrow. A 50 -foot buffer will
be planted on both sides of the existing channel, invasive species will be
removed, and a conservation easement will protect the area in perpetuity.
Restoration: The remaining downstream portion of Reach R3 will be
restored using Rosgen Priority Level I and II Restoration. In the transition
Reach R3
E/C
area from enhancement to restoration there is a significant headcut that has
been restrained by trees roots. This headcut will be stabilized with a grade
control log jam and restoration will continue below it. A restoration
approach is warranted because the channel is incised and the streambanks
are eroding, particularly on the outside of meander bends. The riparian
buffer along Reach R3 will be planted with native riparian vegetation to a
width of at least 50 feet from the top of the streambanks.
An existing ford crossing at the lower end of Reach R3 will be enhanced.
Cattle do not and will not have access to this crossing.
Enhancement: Reach R4 begins as a stable, 870 -foot reference - quality
section; thus, Enhancement Level 11 is proposed. This will include
supplemental planting to restore the riparian buffer and establishing
conservation easement. Invasive species will not be removed per
agreement with the NCIRT during the post - contract site visit. This
agreement is due to a low credit ratio of 10:1 for this upper section.
Restoration: The downstream portion of Reach R4 will be designed as a
Rosgen `E /C' stream type using Priority Level II restoration. Grade control
Reach R4
C
structures will be implemented to dissipate flow energies and eliminate the
potential for upstream channel incision. Channel banks will be graded to
stable slopes, bankfull benches will be incorporated to promote stability,
and the riparian vegetation will be reestablished. This section of Reach R4
will be designed as a Rosgen C type channel. The design width/depth ratio
for the channel will be 13.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along both sides of
Reach R4 in its entirety. A stable existing ford crossing at the upper end of
Reach R4 will remain. Cattle do not and will not have access to this
crossing.
Enhancement: Reach R5 begins as a stable channel; thus, Enhancement
Level IL will be incorporated in the upstream extent of the reach. Work will
Reach R5
C
include supplemental native planting to restore the riparian buffer, invasive
species control, and establishing a conservation easement to protect the
reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -3 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach
Proposed
Approach /Rationale
Stream Type
Restoration: Priority Level I restoration will begin, approximately 145 feet
from the origin of Reach R5 at an active headcut and will continue
throughout the remainder of Reach R5 to address an incised channel and
eroding streambanks. The new channel will be constructed mostly off -
line. This approach will restore floodplain connections, will allow channel
pattern to accommodate the preservation of desirable native species, and
will restore natural channel functions.
An existing ford crossing will be moved slightly upstream and improved.
Gates will be included to restrict livestock access to the easement.
Enhancement: Due to a steep valley slope of 3.7 %, Baker will stabilize
approximately 210 feet of the upstream section of Reach R6 by
implementing Level I Enhancement to form a floodplain bench near the
existing channel elevation
The stream channel on the lower 1,618 feet of Reach R6 is relatively stable
despite typically high bank height ratios of greater than 2.5. Consequently,
Reach R6
Bc
Baker proposes Enhancement Level II including supplemental planting,
invasive species control, and conservation easement establishment to
enhance and protect the reach.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or enhanced along
both sides of Reach R6. An existing stream crossing near the upstream end
of Reach R6 will remain as part of the proposed project. Livestock will not
have access to this area.
Enhancement: The upstream section of Reach R7 is unstable and a headcut
is actively migrating upstream. Level II Enhancement will be implemented
in this section, Seven grade control structures will be used to promote
channel stability and bedform diversity. Minor grading of isolated sections
of the streambanks, as well as gully stabilization of a tributary ditch will be
included. A credit ratio of 2.5:1 is proposed for the upper 360 feet of this
reach.
Reach R7
Bc
The lower section of Reach R7 will employ Level II Enhancement but the
practices will focus on supplemental planting, invasive species control, and
conservation easement establishment. The lower section is proposed at a
lower 5:1 credit ratio.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or enhanced along
both sides of Reach R7. No stream crossings will be included on Reach
R7.
Enhancement: Reach T1 is a tributary that has been historically re- routed
to form a channelized ditch running perpendicular to the mainstem of
Thomas Creek. Putting the stream back in its historic path is not feasible,
however, due to a lateral constraint between the property line to the east
and a need to provide a cattle crossing on the reach.
Reach T1
C
A Level I Enhancement approach will be employed to form a step pool
channel along T1 that will conform to the existing valley and allow flow
energies to be dissipate vertically. The channel will continue off -line once
it attains the Reach R2 floodplain. A 1.5:1 credit ratio is proposed for
Reach T1.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-4 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach
Proposed
Stream Type
Approach /Rationale
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along both sides of
Reach T1. An existing ford crossing at the upstream end of Reach T1 will
be improved and gates will be installed to eliminate livestock access to the
stream and easement.
Enhancement: Reach T2 is a tributary that runs from a continuous spring to
Reach R2. The channel is mostly impacted by heavy cattle use, though a
Reach T2
Bc
headcut has migrated upstream and grade is currently held by tree roots.
Baker will implement Level II Enhancement to provide grade control, to
stabilize bank slopes, to exclude cattle from the reach, and to restore the
riparian buffer. A 2.5:1 credit ratio is proposed for Reach T2 .
7.3 Data Analysis
Baker 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 channels throughout the project have
been straightened/channelized or moved in the past. This manipulation has impacted channels so that they
are now overly wide and deep for their respective drainage areas. Additionally, detailed topographic
surveys were conducted along the channel and floodplain to determine the elevation of the stream where
it flows throughout property, and to validate the valley signatures shown on the LiDAR imagery (Figure
2.6).
The design approach follows a step -wise methodology in which dimensionless ratios from successful past
project experience, and to a lesser extent reference reaches, 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. Critical shear stress and boundary shear stress analyses were used
verify that the design channels will not aggrade nor degrade.
The Thomas Creek project includes several headwater reaches that are steeper and have narrow valleys.
Often this setting may be associated with Bc stream types. However, the entrenchment ratio on the
restored channels will be greater than 2.2, which makes either an E or a C channel. Though the channels
will no longer be incised or entrenched, narrower valley widths and boundary conditions that prevented
pattern adjustments commonly associated with C or E meander geometry. This typically translates to
shorter riffles with higher slopes, and thus higher stream power. Higher stream power is ameliorated to
some extent by increasing the width -to -depth ratios than the nearby reference reach. Additionally,
constructing higher width -to -depth ratios (e.g., 11 -14) will put less stress on the newly constructed
streambanks. The channel may narrow with time as vegetation becomes established and if sediment
deposits along the channel.
The channel substrate throughout the project area is predominately sand with minimal gravel.
Consequently, Baker collected bulk sediment samples in order to evaluate bed material characteristics,
classify the stream type, and complete sediment transport and stability analyses.
Regional curve equations, developed for the North Carolina Piedmont, (Harman et al., 1999) estimate a
bankfull cross - sectional area of approximately 11.2 square feet for the downstream terminus of Reach
Rl's 0.384 square mile watershed (see Appendix C, Table 17.5). Rosgen's stream classification system
(Rosgen, 1996) depends on the proper identification of the bankfull elevation. The existing upper and
middle sections of the main stem (Reach R3 & R2) were classified as channelized B5c -F5 stream types
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -5 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

based on their calculated entrenchment ratios (where the bankfull areas were based on an estimation of
bankfull area from the published NC Piedmont regional curve), channel slope, and channel substrate
(sand). Entrenchment ratios of greater than 1.4 put the channel in the Be category though the channel is
clearly incised with bank height ratios of 1.9 to 3.3.
Bedform diversity and riffle /pool feature formation throughout the impaired reaches is poor and habitat
diversity is minimal. The pools in the impaired project reaches are typically not noticeably deeper than
the riffles. The riparian buffer vegetation is scattered and marginal along most the reach areas. Each
stream displays limited meander geometry due to their current channelized conditions and valley
formation.
The existing and proposed conditions data indicate that the mitigation activities will result in the re-
establishment of a functional stream and floodplain ecosystem. The restoration and enhancement efforts,
including site protection from a conservation 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 quality and flooding.
Currently, sediment, excess nutrients, and cattle excrement are entering the system from adjacent farm
fields and pastures where existing riparian buffer widths are marginal or non - existent. Reducing
streambank sediment loading and removing cattle will provide ecological uplift by improving water
quality and promoting the restoration of diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the
piedmont ecoregion and landscape setting.
Additionally, by raising the streambed and reconnecting the active floodplains, the maximum degree of
potential uplift will be provided, restoring stream, buffer, and wetland functions whenever possible.
Uplift will also be provided to the system by improving and extending wildlife corridors that connect with
wooded areas near the downstream extent of the project. The water quality of Thomas Creek will be
improved by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs, and providing cattle exclusion fencing along all
tributaries. Approximately 22.7 acres of riparian buffer will be restored and/or protected in perpetuity by
a conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -6 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be performed at least
once a year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These
site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance 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
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Component/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 streambank 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 be 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 road 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 dam breeching /dewatering and /or removal. Beaver
management will be performed in accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
rules and regulations using accepted trapping and removal techniques only within the project
boundary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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 2003 and October 2005
(USAGE and NCDWR) and NCEEP's recent supplemental guidance document Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation dated November 7, 2011. All monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years, unless the site demonstrates complete success by year 5
and no concerns have been identified. An early closure provision may be requested by the provider for some
or all of the monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through written approval from the
USACE in consultation with the NCIRT.
Based on the design approaches, 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 and the 2011 NCEEP supplemental guidance. For reaches
involving Enhancement Level 11 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 10/14/2010).
Further description of the performance standards are provided below; however, a brief synopsis is listed here:
• Two bankfull discharge events within a five year period (two events cannot be in the same calendar
year)
• Cross sections will be surveyed to demonstrate channel stability.
• Pattern (planimetric survey) and profile (longitudinal profile survey) are measured as part of the
baseline survey (year 0) and should be checked by visual monitoring in subsequent years.
• 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 streambank vegetation becomes established and a minimum of two bankfull flows or greater
have been documented.
• At year five, planted tree stem density must be no less than 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210, 7 -year old, planted trees per acre at
the end of the seven -year monitoring period, which must average 10 feet in height.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted once a year for five to
seven years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration
practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross sections), pattern (planimetric
survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), and visual observation with photographic documentation.
The success criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level I1 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
pressure transducers and photographs. Three pressure transducers gauges will be installed on the
floodplain within five to ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel. Installing the instrument on the
floodplain reduces the risk of it being washed away by stormflow. The instruments will record water
depth and flow duration. 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 the five- to seven -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.
9.1.2 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at an approximate rate of one cross section per twenty
bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream, with
approximately twelve (12) cross sections located at riffles, and five (5) located at pools. Each cross
section will be marked on both streambanks with permanent monuments using rebar cemented in place
to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross sections and to
facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data. The cross - section surveys will occur in years one, two,
three, five, and seven, 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
streambanks, 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 streambanks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Using
the Rosgen Stream Classification System, 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 streambanks. Photographs will be taken of
both streambanks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
streambanks. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the
streambank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers shall make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
9.1.3 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.
9.1.4 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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.
9.1.5 Bed Material Analyses
After construction, there should be minimal change in the bulk sample 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 certain 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 streambank vegetation becomes established and a minimum of two bankfull flows or
greater have been documented.
9.1.6 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 streambank 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 (v1.5, 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, streambank 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 criteria are achieved, vegetation- monitoring quadrants will be installed and monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (Lee at al., 2007). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be a minimum of 2% of the planted
portion of the site with a minimum of five (5) plots established randomly within the planted riparian
buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants will be established within the
undisturbed wooded areas of Reaches R4, R5, R6, and R7. 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 1St and
November 30th, species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent
year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success
criteria are achieved. The restored site will be evaluated between 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. At year five, density must be no less than 260,
5 -year old, planted trees per acre. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210, 7 -year
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -3 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

old, planted trees per acre at the end of the seven -year monitoring period, which must average 10 feet in
height. However, if the performance standard is met by year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260, 5-
year old stems /acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE and the
NCIRT.
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 Wetland Monitoring
No wetlands are proposed at the site therefore no such monitoring will be included.
9.4 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 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Figure 9.1 Proposed Monitoring Device Locations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -5 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
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
Stream Mitigation
Monitoring
Cross sections to be monitored over seven (7)
•
Dimension
Guidelines and November
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
years and shall include assessment of bank height
2011 NCEEP Monitoring
and 7
ratio (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 as nee
and needed
a
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
Monitoring
riffles are installed as part of the project. One
X
Substrate
Stream Mitigation Guidelines and November
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
constructed riffle substrate sample will be
2011 NCEEP Monitoring
and 7
compared to existing riffle substrate data collected
Requirements
during the design phase.
As per April 2003 USACE
A Crest Gauge and/or Pressure Transducer will be
•
Surface Water
Wilmington District
wall y
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
Monitoring
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
and 7
Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols.
Exotic and
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will
X
Nuisance
Semi - Annually
be visually assessed and mapped a minimum of 5
Vegetation
months apart.
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 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to a third
party for long term management as described in EEP's In Lieu Fee Instrument. This party shall be responsible
for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed
restriction documents (s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions
shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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 USAGE.
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 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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 managementplan. 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

14.2 References
33 CFR 328.3, (b), (c)
40 CFR 230.3, (t)
Arcement, G.J., and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for
Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 2339.
htt2://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2339/report.pdf
Buck Engineering, a Unit of Michael Baker. 2007. Sediment Transport in Sand Bed Streams — a Report for
NCEEP. Cary, NC.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, New
York.
Earth Tech. 2003. Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan, Little Beaver Creek, Wake County, NC.
Submitted to NC Wetland Restorations Program, NCDENR, Raleigh.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith. 1999. 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.
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
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234 -1279.
Leopold, L..B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some
Physiographic Implications. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. US Dept of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Leopold, L. B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San
Francisco, CA. (151).
Natural Resource Conservation District (MRCS). 1970. Wake County Soil Survey. USDA. Available URL:
http: / /www.nres. usda .gov /lntemet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS /north carolina /wakeNC1970 /text.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC. Available URL:
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org/ web /wq /ps/bpu/basin/capefear /2005.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2006. Water Quality Stream Classifications for
Streams in North Carolina. NCDENR, November 2006. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Reference Reach Database. In publication.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2006. Kenneth and Parker Creeks/Harris
Lake Local Watershed Plan, Factsheet.. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /www.nceep. net /services /lwps /Harris- Kenneth/NEW Harris %20Lake.pdf.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -3 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2009. Upper Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /www.nceep .net /services /restplans/Upper Cape Fear RBRP_2009.pdf .
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.ncfloodmqps.co .
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. Cited from http: / /www. geology. enr.state.nc.us /usgs /geomap.htm
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:H149.l68.l.l96 /ghp .
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency
Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 18 -26, March 25 -29, 2001, Reno, NV: Subcommittee on
Sedimentation.
2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). San Fort Collins, CO.
(648).
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.
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.
_. 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. ERDC /EL TR -10 -9, Vicksburg, MS.
http:/ /www.saw.usace.army. mil /Wetlands /JDs /EMP_PiedmonL —
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
Personal communication, 2011. NC BEHI/NBS rating curve.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover Data. 2002. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http: / /seamless.us sg gov /.
Walker, A. 2011 NC BEHI/NBS rating curve. NRCS Soil Survey Division. Personal communication.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14-4 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2012. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. Unpublished, NRCS. Personal
Communication.
Wolman, W.G., and L.B. Leopold. 1957. River Flood- plains — Some Observations on their Formation.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282C: 87 -109.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -5 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

This page intentionally left blank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -6 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 15 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

OWNER(S) CERTIFICATE
PIN: 0619268591
PIN: 0619368876
WE, IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN AND SPOUSE, MARY FRANCES GOODWIN HEREBY CERTIFY THAT
WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH WERE
CONVEYED TO US BY DEEDS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 2653, PAGE 235 AND DEED BOOK 2653
PAGE 233 (PIN:0619268591), AND LIFE ESTATE IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK
8959, PAGE 108 (PIN:0619368876), OF THE WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY; AND THAT WE HEREBY
ADOPT THIS PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND GRANT AND CONVEY THE EASEMENTS HEREIN WITH
FREE CONSENT. FURTHER, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND AS SHOWN HEREON IS WITHIN
THE SUBDIVISION REGULATION JURISDICTIONS OF WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN DATE
zMYAI LMci9MersZ *1s1^il►I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF �qt6 - - - - ®—
DATE
1,% "^'1 J� A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE COUNTY AND STATE
AFORESAID, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN AND WIFE, MARY FRANCES
GOODWIN PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS DAY AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE DUE
EXECUTION OF THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS AG —DAY OF Jq~ 2015.
NOTA& PUBLIC t4 P�
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ® ®7 A
NOTES tqT� Q
1.THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS DEPICTED AS CE -1, CE -2, CE -3, CE -4, CE -5,
CE -6, CE -7, CE -8, CE -9, CE -10 AND CE -11 AS SHOWN HEREIN.
2. BOUNDARY INFORMATION IS DERIVED FROM FIELD SURVEY, DEEDS, PLATS,
GIs DATA, AND TAX RECORDS OF THE WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY AS SHOWN
HEREON. SURVEYED BOUNDARY LINES ARE SHOWN AS SOLID LINES.
APPROXIMATELY 2900' OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY WAS FIELD LOCATED FOR
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMON SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY LINE OF
PIN:0619268591 (IRVING GODWIN), AND THE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY LINE
OF PIN:0619147086 (DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS INC.) IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE
EASTERLY EXTENT OF CE -4 AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENT OF CE -3.
APPROXIMATELY 850' OF STREAM CENTERLINE WAS FIELD LOCATED FOR
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMON EASTERLY LINE OF PIN:0619268591 (IRVING
GOODWIN), AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF PIN:0619268591 (MICHAEL L. GOODWIN)
IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE EASTERLY EXTENT OF CE -8 AND THE WESTERLY
EXTENT OF CE -9.
3. NORTH CAROLINA GRID COORDINATES FOR CPS DERIVED CONTROL POINTS
WERE ESTABLISHED BY MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. (COMBINED
FACTOR = 0.99988976)
4. ALL DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. THE BEARING BASIS FOR THIS PLAT IS NAD 83 (2011) NC GRID.
6. ALL AREAS SHOWN WERE CALCULATED BY COORDINATE COMPUTATION.
7. ALL CONSERVATION EASEMENT POINTS ARE MONUMENTED WITH REBAR AND
CAP WITH NC STATE SEAL, AND NUMBERED TO COORDINATE WITH SURVEY.
8. THE RIGHT(S) OF NON– EXCLUSIVE INGRESS, EGRESS, AND REGRESS OVER
AND ALONG ANY AND ALL EXISTING PATHS /ROADS TRANSECTING SUBJECT
PROPERTY, AS SHOWN ON SHEET 2 of 2 OF THIS PLAT, ARE RESERVED BY
THE GRANTOR(S) AND THE GRANTEE(S) OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
FOR USES AND PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE USES OF THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS DESCRIBED HEREON.
THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING FARM ROADS FOR NON– EXCLUSIVE ACCESS
SHOWN ON SHEET 2 OF 2 OF THIS PLAT WERE DERIVED FROM GIS BASED
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND VERIFIED BY FIELD SURVEY.
A FLOOD STUDY MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE WAKE COUNTY FLOODPLAIN
MANAGER IN THE FUTURE IN ORDER TO INSTALL PIPES AND BRIDGES AT
STREAM CROSSING. PROPOSED FENCE COINCIDES WITH EASEMENT AT STREAM
CROSSING. THE CURRENT ZONING IS R -30.
9. MICHAEL L. GOODWIN EXECUTES THIS PLAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY AND
PROVISIONS OF A SEPARATION AND PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, A
MEMORANDUM OF WHICH IS RECORDED AT BOOK 015886, PAGE 01958- 01961,
WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
IN T E R N A T I O N A L License #: F -1084
183 ,
0111
OWNER(S) CERTIFICATE
PIN: 0619473680
PIN: 0619368876
MICHAEL L. GOODWIN CERTIFIES THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH WERE CONVEYED TO HIM BY DEED RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 8959,
PAGE 105 OF THE WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY WHICH INCLUDED THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED UNDER
PIN :0619473680 AND PIN:0619368876; AND THAT HE EXECUTES THIS DOCUMENT UNDER
AUTHORITY OF NCGS 39 -13.4 (SEE NOTE 9, BELOW) AND HEREBY ADOPTS THIS PLAN OF
SUBDIVISION AND GRANTS AND CONVEYS THE EASEMENTS HEREIN WITH FREE CONSENT.
FURTHER, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND AS SHOWN HEREON IS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION
REGULATION JURISDICTIONS OF WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
MICHAEL L. GOODWIN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I Ale,1447(
A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE COUNTY AND STATE
AFORESAID, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT MICHAEL L. GOODWIN PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE
ME THIS DAY AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE DUE EXECUTION OF THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS /go -DAY OFVO'0�&* " , 2015.
M,
C
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _ 6-- ® __
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AREA SUMMARY
CE -1
1.51
Acres
PIN: 0619268591
(MICHAEL L. GOODWIN)
CLASS OF SURVEY: CLASS C
\1 11111 /s //
CE -2
6.52
Acres
PIN: 0619268591
DATE(S) OF SURVEY: 03/17/14
. ® . °7 `d
CE -3
6.01
Acres
PIN: 0619268591
GEOID MODEL: GEOID 12A
CE -4
0.10
Acres
PIN: 0619268591
HORIZONTAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAD83 \NSRS (2011)
CE -5
1.12
Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE -6
1.98
Acres
PIN: 061 9368876
CE -7
0.01
Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE -8
1.31
Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE -9
1,26
Acres
PIN: 0619473680
CE -10
0.41
Acres
PIN: 0619473680
CE -11
2.50
Acres
PIN: 0619473680
.� pp
(IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN)
(IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN)
(IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN)
(IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN)
(IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN)
(MICHAEL GOODWIN & IRVIN)
(IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN)
(IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN)
PIN: 0619268591 (IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN): 16.58 Acres
PIN: 0619368876(MICHAEL GOODWIN & IRVIN): 1.98 Acres
PIN: 0619473680(MICHAEL L. GOODWIN): 4.17 Acres
TOTAL ACRES: 22.73 Acres
1
sl�
sy
2
5
N
�o
VICINITY MAP
N TS
REFERENCES
WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY
PB 2001, PG 857
DB 2653, PG 235
DB 2653, PG 233
DB 8959, PG 105
DB 8959, PG 108
DB 15289, PG 2437
DB 14278, PG 344
WA!5F COUNTY CERTIFICATION
y I — r" PLANNING DIRECTOR AND REVIEW OFFICER OF WAKE
COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION
AND THAT IT MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
BECAUSE OF ITS "EXEMPT" STATUS, THE COUNTY HAS NOT REVIEWED THIS
PLAT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOT STANDARDS AND OTHER
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (e.g., road standards). PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS
SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PLANS FOR BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT MAY BE
DENIED FOR LOTS THAT DO NOT MEET APPLICABLE COUNT`( STANDARDS.
Aprorw t fxpirts if Not At t®#Ift.f p t +port i . 30-1—,
DATE PLANNINWIRECTOR,71REVIEW OFFICER
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
I, MARSHALL WIGHT, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER
CATEGORY AND IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION.
MA -HALL WIGHT, P L -5034
I, MARSHALL WIGHT, CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION
FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION USING REFERENCES SHOWN
HEREON; THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE SHOWN AS BROKEN LINES
PLOTTED FROM INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS
CALCULATED IS 1:10,000 +; THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH G.S. 47 -30 AS AMENDED. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS -.5 6L DAY OF d 2015.
MARSHALL WIGHT, PLS ® L -5034
yo
-�y
(MICHAEL L. GOODWIN) I, MARSHALL WIGHT CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION
FROM AN ACTUAL CPS (OR GNSS) SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THE
FLOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS USED TO PERFORM THE SURVEY.
(MICHAEL L. GOODWIN)
CLASS OF SURVEY: CLASS C
\1 11111 /s //
POSITIONAL ACCURACY. .15' (NETWORK RTK)
\\
����� CA R 0 7��f
(MICHAEL L. GOODWIN) TYPE OF CPS (GNSS) FIELD PROCEDURE: VRS
® C
°
® ®�° . •� � 5 o0° •, Off'
DATE(S) OF SURVEY: 03/17/14
. ® . °7 `d
DATUM /EPOCH: NAD 83 (2011)
a SEAL m-
PUBLISHED FIXED CONTROL: N /A —VRS
L-5034
GEOID MODEL: GEOID 12A
COMBINED GRID FACTOR: 0.99988976
`p� SUFU���
UNITS: US FEET
HORIZONTAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAD83 \NSRS (2011)
VERTICAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAVD88 USING (GEIODI2A)
EEP PROJECT NAME: 'THOMAS CREEK' Drawing No. Thom asCreek- 96074 —CE— Baker— Final.dwg
THOMAS CREEK CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA — ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
ON THE PROPERTY OF
IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN & MARY FRANCES GOODWIN AND MICHAEL L. GOODWIN
BUCKHORN TOWNSHIP WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SPO FILE No. 92 —DV, 92 —DY, 92 —DZ
EEP Project No.: 96074
PROGRAM BE Project No.: 135794
Date: September 27, 2014
Scale: 1"=200'
S- 100 -15 SHEET 1 of 2

EASEMENT CORNERS
Point
Northing
Eastin
1
697362.95
2012468.87
2
697440.47
2012576.84
3
697196.22
2012789.07
4
697017.65
2012898.72
5
696991.75
2012786.11
6 1
696963.69
2012775.69
7
696993.29
2012904.33
8
696735.68
2013022.59
9
696542.84
2013041.95
10
696314.14
2013091.02
11
696102.03
2013186.65
12 1
695918.15
2013232.19
13
695782.87
2013334.15
14
695639.47
2013368.68
15
695545.18
2013247.21
16
695733.13
2013161,15
17
696002.71
2013026.02
18
696050.15
2012845.86
19
696036.22
.2012594.44
20
696163.80
2012576.23
21
696186.52"
2012773.83
22
696192.18
2012970.95
23
696416.67
2012905.43
24
- 696768.64
2012879.96
25
695529.76
2013259.96
26 '
695637.37
2013398.60
-27
695593.64
2013472.44
28
695779.16
2013616,29
29
695901.31
2013642.88
30
696057.51
2013715.60
31
696406.02
2013738.46
32
696455.90
2013856.83
33
696391.05
2013898.96
34
696270.13
2013870.42
35
696265:22
2013947.06
36
696150.47
2013938.16
37
696152.10 ' .
2013897.70
38
696024.69
2013867.03
39
695698.64
2013738,91
40
695542.12
2013614.73
41
695343.79
2013618.05
42
695068.53
2013551.42
43
695069.09
2013394.33
44
695344.06
2013454.36
45
696263.94
2013967.02
46
696287.10
2014004.75
47
696174.49
2014003.17
48
696149.66
2013958.16
49
696426.00
2013734.37
50
696520.51
2013646.47
51
696641.82
2013662.57
52
696639.33
2013788.11
53
696634.95
2014008.14
54
696476.41
2013854.32.
55
696824.03
2013864.76'.
56
696921.94
201397152
57
697040.37
2013860.18
58
1 697065.50
2013897.27
59
697064.26
2013942.67
60
697139.51
2014166.73
61
697047.21
2014141.42
62
696817.22
2014052.71
63
696764.42
2013985.75
64
697120.12
2013977.87
65
697086.13
2014001.23
66
697245.83
2014060.79
67
697238.09
2014112.42
68
697178.93
2014177.54
69
697073.88
2013874.82
70
697095.58
2013805.36
71
697213,80
2013673.88
72
697539.93
2013485.35
73
697665.89
2013445.00
74
697738.45
2013540.13
75
697509.53
2013691.80
76
697318.29
2013765.11
77
697276.27
2013872.13
78
697137.08
2013966.34
79
697310.91
2014099.94
80
697400.38
2014198.74
81
697686.61
2014450.23
82
697863.17
2014558.13
83
697795.29
2014676.41
84
697719.34
2014642.82
85
697437.75
2014443.66
86
697321.72
2014338.36
87
697216.66
2014179.50
LEGEND
/
WAKE COUNTY, INC 41
LAURA M RIDDliv
REGISTER OF DEEDS
PRESEMT-Et 1I RECORDED ON
01,0
,02 915 14:51:83
11111111 I'll 111111111
/ / BOOK : BH2815 'PAGE : @@ 122
CONTROL POINT No.9
N= 697,515.55 (Y)
E= 2,012,542.06 (X)
TIE LINE
S 25 °37' 18" W
169.24'
CE -1 \C
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
N 54'l 9' 17" E
132.92'
L2
S 40'59'15" E
323.58'
L3
S 31'33'11" E
209.55'
L4
S 77'02'43" W
115.55'
L5
N 40'31'07" W
488.30'
\ AREA: 6.52 Acres
\ PIN: 0619268591
_1�
SEAL
L-5034
® SVO y
UR`1°
N/F \
W C CALTON JR
DB 14278, PG 344 \
PIN: 0619057319
Current Zonning R -30
EIP
AREA: 1.51 Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE-2
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
1_6
N 77'02'43" E
132.00'
L7
S 24'39'31" E
283.46'
L8
S 05'44'07" E
193.81'
L9
S 12'06'36" E
233.90'
L10
S 24'15'58" E
232.67'
Lt 1
S 13'54'44" E
189.44
1_12
S 3700' 12" E
169.40'
L13
S 13'32'19" E
147.50'_.
L14
S 52'10'49" W
153.77';
L15
N 24'36'02" W
X5 .-7I'
L16
N 26'37'22" W
01.56'
L17
N 75'1457" W
186.31'
L18
5 86'49'49" W
254.80'
U9
N 08'07 27" W
128.87'
L20
N 83'26 24" E
X98,90'
L21
N 88'21'26" E
197:20'
L22
N 16'16'18" W
233.86'
1_23
N 04'08'21" W
352.89.
1_24
N 28 °07'40" W
221.17
PROPERTY LINE SURVEYED ..................
PROPERTY LINE(R /W) NOT SURVEYED........
CONSERVATION EASEMENT .....................
CENTERLINE OF STREAM
IS PROPERTY LINE
82
N/F
IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN
8C
N/F
MARY FRANCES GOODWIN 74 MICHAEL L. GOODWIN
DB 2653, PG 235 CENTERLINE OF STREAM DB 8959, PG 105
PIN: 0619268591 ���' �� Is PROPERTY LINE PIN: 0619473680 81
Current Zonning R -30
TIE LINE 72 ��,'; , 75
A
TIE LINE N 25 °03'13" w CE-
39 °56'35" E
98.14' 4 Y� % �� L89
J, r
298.22' CONTROL POINT No.8
N= 697,451.02 (Y) x' L91
E =2 013 526 91 (X) 76
3
6
TIE LINE
67'00'14" W
410.8' /CE -1
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS INC. \
DB 15289, PG 2437
- -PIN: 0619147086- -
83
EXISTING CATTLE FENCE TO BE REMOVED
Proposed fence approx 2' outside CE
5 \CONTROL POINT No.13
N= 697,471.39 (Y)
E= 2,014,478.10 (X)
7,
�o
Z\
y
CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY
IS PROPERTY LINE
y 79
\�
TIE LINE ��
LSB `' <� og 77 SHED �� �9, 6 MICHAEL L. GOODWIN
S 33 °59'40" E CE 103 �
385.14'
FARM L9 `� 'Yo - �` 7 / TIE LINE MARY FRANCES GOODWIN
CONTROL POINT No.10 SEE NOTE S. 71 / : \ (Life Estate) `l
N= 697,286.91 (Y) L97 Y� / f S kJ (�E "10 j N 33 °51'34° E i
(SHEET 1 OF 2) / p
- -( ) - _ -- -_- {, ,o 683.64' DB 8959, PG 108
--
E= 2,012,733 52 _ X - -_ _ J < r� e �- 4� 60 Lva PIN: 0619474182
/ Current Zonning R 30
' - Property line and fence cross, see Detail "A" 1_102 [�q �,o . 65 -- -
Crossing width 25', X �� Proposed fence a ox 2' outside CE
TIE LINE I x - - - -X - �-- : 61 p p
4 CONTROL POINT No.7 Ls -
L4 S 12 °57 17 E x Crossing width -20' S7 5p '` EXISTING CA4'f1E,FENCET EREMOVED / O {,'E 9',
�_- 25.00' N= 697,131.71 (Y) �'
7 1_59 , FARM ROAD ��p', 7
E= 2,015,742.24 (X) �ENOTes. i, 2
I p �' E - L6 (SHEET f of z)
X '
STREAM CROSSINGS '-+ �� �C 1� 6' ` 6 4
i SEENOTE B a r� 03 C /E ^10
SHEET,OF2) X SEE DETAIL A 5
.CE-6 - � 70 C�q� -
MICHAEL L. GOODWIN CONTROL ��O T N0.12 �s7 6s
55 ftp ftylinea"drencecrpss V
2 I NI= 696.;'903.70 (Y) x - x -
24 I IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN - / E'= 2,01.4,097.21 (x) x x:`-
(Life Estate) ,, 53 _. -, _ N/F 57 x x
CE,'- S, 8 DB 8959, PG 108 TIE LINE
m, S, 1a °2o'10" W IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN
PIN: 0619368876 -
I Current Zonning R -30 ? + 283' 13' �S) CE-fi
y 51 1 52
Propertyene - 4 MARY FRANCES GOODWIN
y x , X / 53 Property line
DB 2653, PG 235
wX ✓x Proposed fence approx 2' outside CE :f \, of +_ PIN: 0619268591 DETAIL
{� I EXISTING CATTLE FENCE TO BE REMOVED />, CE -5'i� Y Current Zonning R -30 1"=10c,
/ 9 X x X _ X �< n � t' Property line-
r ' y so 51 �1R- _ CE -3 - - �E -8 - CE-9
-
\ Ticrossino widt -20'
EXISTING FENCE ........... ....................... _ X _ X _ CONTROL POINT No.23
PROPOSED FENCE ............................... ..... - x - x - x - N= 695366.20 (Y)
EXISTING IRON PIPE /ROD(EIP) ................................ O " E= 2,012,686.83 (X)
EASEMENT MONUMENT SET .... ............................... s N
N
TIE LINE 1
20'59'17" W
1 12.08'
CONTROL POINT SET ............... ............................... D o S g4 °30'46 W
PIN., ............. PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER rn 616.10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 200 400 600
1 " =200'
(US Ft.)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS INC. -
DB 15289, PG 2437
PIN: 0619147086
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
IN T E R N A T I O N A L License #: F -1084
CONTROL POINT N0.2/
0
N= 695,425.11 (Y)
E= 2;013,300.11 (X)
N
NCGS "WK 84"
N= 693,827.35 (Y)
EIP E =2,013,201.35 (X)
PID: EZ1947
Property line S 89'10'26" E
1411.97'
�1
N
O
Co
O
ZZ
43
14o
TIE LINE
33 N 41 °31'19" W
180.02'
Crossingwi (th20'
4 4 ' Easement coincides with property line
CE -4
tk1 4 7
Eli
TIE LINE
N 29'57'07 E
354.02'
X = ,/� i X STREAM CROSSINGS
J.^ SEE NO'T'E 8.
Ar
L25
h y (SHEETI OF 2)
49
L26
23 ' X� ti
�
rTl
L W
CONTROL POINT No.5
31=
C)
a o
05
z
CO
X N= 696,291.22 (Y)
172.30'
L30
�/� E= 2,013,853.71 (X)
X�
349.26'
CONci
0)
10
128.45'
L32
v Cn
CL
L33
\ i\ X
3
°
\
u TIE LINE
®
n
21 L21 22 /��o N 09 °09'43 E
115.09'
20
L20 y v k \ / %', 454.10'
x
40.49'
L37
X x
131.05'
L38
`
350.33'
`
t ;< \
<
> 11
CE- 2
199.80'
L40
S 00'57'32" E
198.36'
L41
1 y18
3S
19
C»
`x CONTROL POINT N0.4
157,09'
L43
N 12'18'52" E
281.45'
L44
17°
, .
CEX -
L97
�' /. E= 2,013,781.41 (X) 29
17.01'
L98
S 88'13'33" E
38.77'
'r> Proposed fence approx 2' outside CE
CENTERLINE OF EXISTING STREAM e+�' ��,
/
S 21'36'10" E
27.18'
/
\ly
I S 03'44'53" E
X- X-
EXISTING CATTLE FENCE TO BE REMOVED / �'`� i
13 28
S 12'12'53" W
24.93'
X_ X_ X
S 42'09'41" E
21.02'
16
S 7942'14" E
12.72'
Proposed fence approx 2' outside CE r �� �' Crossing width 20' J,
)
39
54.81'
I
".
S 55'22'25" W
43.55'
STREAM CROSSINGS
SEE NOTE 8.
N 72'38'57" W
72.77'
(SHEET1 OF2)
N 48'02'27" W
176.82'
,Ilk
I N 30'01'52" W
EXISTING FENCE ........... ....................... _ X _ X _ CONTROL POINT No.23
PROPOSED FENCE ............................... ..... - x - x - x - N= 695366.20 (Y)
EXISTING IRON PIPE /ROD(EIP) ................................ O " E= 2,012,686.83 (X)
EASEMENT MONUMENT SET .... ............................... s N
N
TIE LINE 1
20'59'17" W
1 12.08'
CONTROL POINT SET ............... ............................... D o S g4 °30'46 W
PIN., ............. PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER rn 616.10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 200 400 600
1 " =200'
(US Ft.)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS INC. -
DB 15289, PG 2437
PIN: 0619147086
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
IN T E R N A T I O N A L License #: F -1084
CONTROL POINT N0.2/
0
N= 695,425.11 (Y)
E= 2;013,300.11 (X)
N
NCGS "WK 84"
N= 693,827.35 (Y)
EIP E =2,013,201.35 (X)
PID: EZ1947
Property line S 89'10'26" E
1411.97'
�1
N
O
Co
O
ZZ
43
14o
TIE LINE
33 N 41 °31'19" W
180.02'
Crossingwi (th20'
4 4 ' Easement coincides with property line
CE -4
tk1 4 7
Eli
TIE LINE
N 29'57'07 E
354.02'
CE -6
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L25
N 52'10'49" E
175.50'
L26
fTl
w
o
rTl
L W
't
� z
C)
a o
05
z
CO
N 24'57'45" E
172.30'
L30
o O
349.26'
CONci
0)
G
128.45'
L32
v Cn
CL
L33
0
124.25'
°
z
76.80'
n
CE -6
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L25
N 52'10'49" E
175.50'
L26
S 59'21'52" E
85.82'
L27
N 37'47'22" E
234.75'
L28
N 12'117'05" E
125,01'
L29
N 24'57'45" E
172.30'
L30
N 03'45' 10" E
349.26'
L31
N 67'09'01" E
128.45'
L32
S 33'00'37" E
77.33'
L33
S 13' 16'40" W
124.25'
L34
S 86'19'56" E
76.80'
L35
S 04 °26'10" W
115.09'
L36
N 87'41'13" W
40.49'
L37
S 13'32'09" W
131.05'
L38
S 21'27'04" W
350.33'
L39
S 38°25'48" W
199.80'
L40
S 00'57'32" E
198.36'
L41
S 13'36'27" W
283.21'
L42
N 89'47'40" W
157,09'
L43
N 12'18'52" E
281.45'
L44
N 46'18'42" W
268.84'
AREA: 6.01 Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE -4
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L48
N 04'26'10" E
114.62'
L45
N 58'26'41" E
44.27'
L46
S 00'48'03" W
112.62'
L47
S 61'06'55" W
51.41'
AREA: 0.10 Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE -5
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L49
N 42'55'27" W
129.07'
L50
N 07'33'38" E
122.38'
L51
S 88'51'35" E
125.56'
L52
S 88'51'35" E
220.07'
L53
S 44°08'01" W
220.89'
L54
S 67' 12'18" W
130.1 1 '
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L52
N 88'51'35" W
220.07'
L55
N 22'32'12" E
199.98'
L56
N 48'00'24" E
146.34'
L57
N 4344'27" W
163.93'
L58
N 55 °52'43" E
44.81'
L59
S 88'26'35" E
45.41'
L60
N 71'26'09" E
236.36'
1_61
5 15'20'07" W
95.71'
L62
S 21'05'31" W
246.51'
L63
S 51'44'41" W
85.27'
I rA
S 09'48'44" E
131.39'
AREA: 1.12 Acres
PIN: 0619268591
AREA: 1.98 Acres
PIN: 0619368876
EIP EEP PROJECT NAME: 'THOMAS CREEK'
THOMAS CREEK CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
ON THE PROPERTY OF
IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN & MARY FRANCES GOODWIN AND MICHAEL L. GOODWIN
BUCKHORN TOWNSHIP WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L77
N 17 45 43 W
132.26'
L78
N 52'39'59" E
61.53'
L79
S 22'05'53" E
64.76'
L80
S 28'53'58" E
45.32'
L81
S 23'10'07" W
18.32'
L82
S 1717'45" E
17.00'
L83
S 45 14'50" E
36.15'
L84
S W40'23" 23" E
30.26'
L85
S 48 13'45" E
59.23'
L86
S 21 07'29" E
43.28'
L87
S 15'29'47" W
24.46'
1_88
S 8224'36" E
13.96'
1_89
S 24'17'41" E
29.00'
L90
S 41'21'36" E
34.34'
L91
S 43'33'57" W
20.50'
L92
S 08'46'51" W
31.72'
L93
S 17'45'53" E
24.19'
L94
S 57'40'46" E
17.50'
L95
S 27'29'07" E
44.60'
L96
S 77'38'19" E
70.00'
L97
S 30'04'56" E
17.01'
L98
S 88'13'33" E
38.77'
L99
S 21'36'10" E
27.18'
L100
I S 03'44'53" E
28.52'
1_101
S 12'12'53" W
24.93'
1_102
S 42'09'41" E
21.02'
L103
S 7942'14" E
12.72'
L104
S 55 36'32" E
54.81'
L105
S 55'22'25" W
43.55'
L74
N 72'38'57" W
72.77'
L75
N 48'02'27" W
176.82'
L76
I N 30'01'52" W
376.70'
AREA: 1.31 Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE -7
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L65
N 55'52'43" E
38.70'
L66
S 54'34'14" E
13.61'
L67
S 08'34' 1 1 " E
15.23'
L59
N 88'26'35" W
45.41'
AREA: 0.01 Acres
PIN: 0619268591
CE -11
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L112
N 47'50'15" E
133.29'
L113
N 41'18'11" E
381.02'
L114
N 31'25'43" E
206.91'
L115
S 60'08'51" E
136.38'
L116
S 23'51'22" W
83.04'
L117
S 35'16'13" W
344.90'
L118
S 42'1340" W
156.69'
L119
S 56. 31'16" W
190.46'
1_120
N 40'10'07" W
1 123.33'
U
0
00
0
Q
z
U
z
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L107
N 34'05'36" W
168.08'
L108
N 68'33'43" W
114.97'
L109
N 20'58'35" W
204.80'
L110
N 33'31'30" W
274.60'
L111
S 52'39'59" W
58.12'
L79
S 22'05'53" E
64.76'
L80
S 28'53'58" E
45.32'
L81
S 23' 10'07" W
18.32'
L82
S 17' 17'45" E
17.00'
L83
S 45' 14'50" E
36.15'
L84
S 64'40'23" E
30.26'
L85
S 48-13'45" E
59.23'
L86
S 21'07'29" E
43.28'
L87
S 15'29'47° W
24.46'
L88
S 82'24'36" E
13.96'
L89
S 24'17'41" E
29.00'
L90
S 41'21'36" E
34.34'
L91
S 43'33'57" W
20.50'
L92
S 08'46'51" W
31.72'
L93
S 17'45'53" E
24.19'
L94
S 57'40'46" E
17,50'
L95
S 27'29'07" E
44.60'
L96
S 77'38'19" E
70.00'
L97
5 30'04'56" E
17.01'
L98
S 88'13'33" E
38.77'
L99
S 21'36'10" E
27.18'
1_100
S 03'44'53" E
28.52'
L101
S 12'12'53" W
24.93'
L102
S 42'09'41" E
21.02'
L103
I S 79'42'14" E
12.72'
L t 04
S 55'36'32" E
54.81'
L106
1 N 55'22'25" E
67,67'
AREA: 1.26 Acres
PIN: 0619473680
CE -10
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L67
N 08'34'11" W
15,22'
L66
N 54'34'14" W
13.61'
L68
N 55'52'43" E
58.66'
L69
S 34'29'49' E
41.24'
L70
N 20'27'13" E
170.45'
L71
S 81'28'24" E
52.21'
l72
S 4744'24" E
87.98'
L73
S 15'20'07 W
40.86'
L60
S 71'26'09" W
236.36'
AREA: 0.41 Acres
PIN: 0619473680
' xx
AREA: 2.50 Acres' '
PIN. 061947368 /
Drawing No. /'fhomosCreek- 96074- CE- Bgk'er /Final.dwg
SPO FILE No. 92 -DV, 92 -DY, 92 -DZ
EEP Project No.: 96074
BE Project No.: 135794
Date: September 27, 2014
Scale: 1"=200'
S- 100 -15 SHEET 2 of 2

Prepared by and return to:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. O. Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
WAKE COUNTY
Revenue $ W Xv
SPO File Number: 92 -DV
EEP Project Number: 96074
WAKE COUNTY, NC 185
LAURA M RIDDICK
REGISTER OF DEEDS
PRESENTED & RECORDED ON
e1r16r2615 14:51:63
STATE OF NC REAL ESTATE
EXCISE TAX: S32e.e6
BOOK:e15894 PAGE :e2178 a e2186
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
NO.: 5549
CE -1, CE -2, CE -3, CE -4, CE -5,
CE -7, and CE -8
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of J �/Lt , 20 /S , by IRVIN WOODROW GOODWIN and wife,
MARY FRANCES GOODWIN ((Grantor"), whose mailing address is 4300 Shearon Harris
Road, New Hill, NC 27562, to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address
is State ofNorth Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall
include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for
the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and
riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
Page 1 of 11

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 5549.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is
to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program with an effective date of 28 July, 2010,
which supersedes and replaces the previously effective MCA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Buckhorn Township, Wake County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more particularly
described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 149.99 acres and being conveyed
Page 2 of 11

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

r
I. 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(s) described on the survey recorded in Plat Book , Page
of the County Registry as "reserved stream crossing ". Said crossing shall not
exceed feet in width, and must be maintained and repaired by Grantor, his successors or
assigns to prevent degradation of the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited with the following exception:
Page 4 of 11

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

discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1652.
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.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property within the Conservation Easement Area to restrict livestock
Page 6 of 11

access. Although the Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the
right to maintain, repair or replace the fence at the sole discretion of the Grantee and at the expense
of the Grantor, who agrees to indemnify the Grantee for any costs incurred as a result of
maintenance, repair or replacement of the fence if such costs are required to protect the
Conservation Easement Area from repeated incidents of grazing or other prohibited activities.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
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 any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
Page 7 of 11

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
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 sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
Page 8of11

addressed to:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
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.
Page 9 of 11

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hand and seals, the
day and year first above written.
1AI r (SEAL)
Irvin Woodrow Goodwin
IVA44 -e �& � 4B (SEAL)
Mary FraRces Goodwin
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF buJ416�
I, ® i7- % �i ` �l `�� , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife, Mary Frances Goodwin, Grantor,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing
instrument. 7 /
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the // fa
day of TI" , 20
Notary Public
My commission expires:
s -e�Zo
00375363/ 1
Page 10 of I 1
'�'O T,q,�,L-
9 AUS 00
ou

Exhibit A
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Thomas Creek
Wake County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -1)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book Lo I S ,
Page 1 Z f 1 Zv , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,012,542.06;
Y= 697,515.55, and identified as Control Point # 9 on the above referenced plat and
running S 25° 37'18" W, 169.24' to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 54'19'17 " E a distance of 132.92' to a point;
thence S 40'59'15" E a distance of 323.58' to a point;
thence S 31 °33'11" E a distance of 209.55' to a point;
thence S 77 °02'43" W a distance of 115.55' to a point;
thence N 40 °31'07" W a distance of 488.30' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.51 acres, more or less
2. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -2)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book P 15 ,
Page/?,/-)?,,?- , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:

Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,012,898.72;
Y= 697,017.65, and identified as Conservation Easement Point # 4 on the above
referenced plat and running S 12 °57'17" E , 25.00' to a point, which is the POINT AND
PLACE OF BEGINNING, Conservation Easement Point # 7; thence continuing the
following courses and distances:
S 24 °39'31" E a distance of 283.46' to a point;
thence S 05 °44'07" E a distance of 193.81' to a point;
thence S 12 °06'36" E a distance of 233.90' to a point;
thence S 24° 15'58" E a distance of 232.67' to a point;
thence S 13 °54'44" E a distance of 189.44' to a point;
thence S 37'00'12" E a distance of 169.40' to a point;
thence S 13 °32'19" E a distance of 147.50' to a point;
thence S 52 °10'49" W a distance of 153.77' to a point;
thence N 24 °36'02" W a distance of 206.71' to a point;
thence N 26 °37'22" W a distance of 301.56' to a point;
thence N 75 °14'57" W a distance of 186.31' to a point;
thence S 86 °49'49" W a distance of 251.80' to a point;
thence N 08 °07'27" W a distance of 128.87' to a point;
thence N 83'26'24" E a distance of 198.90' to a point;
thence N 88 °21'26" E a distance of 197.20' to a point;
thence N 169618" W a distance of 233.86' to a point;
thence N 04 °08'21" W a distance of 352.89' to a point;
thence N 28 °07'40" W a distance of 221.17' to a point;
thence N 77 °02'43" E a distance of 132.00' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
6.52 acres, more or less
3. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -3)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book 2® 14 ,
Page /Z /-- /z9w , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,300.11;
Y= 695,425.11, and identified as Control Point # 2 on the above referenced plat and
running N 20 °59'17" W, 112.08', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING, Conservation Easement Point # 25; thence continuing the following
courses and distances:

N 529 0'49" E a distance of 175.50' to a point;
thence S 59 °21'52" E a distance of 85.82' to a point;
thence N 374722" E a distance of 234.75' to a point;
thence N 12 °17'05" E a distance of 125.01' to a point;
thence N 24 °57'45" E a distance of 172.30' to a point;
thence N 03 °45'10" E a distance of 349.26' to a point;
thence N 67 °09'01" E a distance of 128.45' to a point;
thence S 33 °00'37" E a distance of 77.33' to a point;
thence S 13 °16'40" W a distance of 124.25' to a point;
thence S 86 °19'56" E a distance of 76.80' to a point;
thence S 04'26'10" W a distance of 115.09' to a point;
thence N 87°41'13" W a distance of 40.49' to a point;
thence S 13 °32'09" W a distance of 131.05' to a point;
thence S 21'27'04" W a distance of 350.33' to a point;
thence S 38 °25'48" W a distance of 199.80' to a point;
thence S 00 °57'32" E a distance of 198.36' to a point;
thence S 13 °36'27" W a distance of 283.21' to a point;
thence N 89 °47'40" W a distance of 157.09' to a point;
thence N 12'l 8'52" E a distance of 281.45' to a point;
thence N 46'18'42" W a distance of 268.84' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
6.01 acres, more or less.
4. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -4)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book Z o / , ,
Page IZ / - /zz , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,781.41;
Y= 695,842.92, and identified as Control Point # 4 on the above referenced plat and
running N 29 °57'07" E, 354.02', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 04'26'10" E a distance of 114.62' to a point;
thence N 58 °26'41" E a distance of 44.27' to a point;
thence S 00 °48'03" W a distance of 112.62' to a point;
thence S 61'06'55" W a distance of 51.41' to a point;

the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
0.10 acres, more or less.
5. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -5)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property oflrvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book ?,,OIS ,
Page /L/ - l ZTi , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN :0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,853.71;
Y= 696,291.22, and identified as Control Point # 5 on the above referenced plat and
running N 41 °3V1 9" W, 180.02', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 42 °55'27" W a distance of 129.07' to a point;
thence N 07 °33'38" E a distance of 122.38' to a point;
thence S 88 °51'35" E a distance of 125.56' to a point;
thence S 88 °51'35" E a distance of 220.07' to a point;
thence S 44 °08'01" W a distance of 220.89' to a point;
thence S 671 2' 18" W a distance of 130.11' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.12 acres, more or less
6. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -7)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Mich el L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book 2 0/? ,
Page /Z/ ° l �p , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,897.27;
Y= 697,065.50, and identified as Conservation Easement Corner # 58 on the above
referenced plat, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence
continuing the following courses and distances:

N 55 °52'43" E a distance of 38.70' to the center of the stream
thence S 54'34'14" E a distance of 13.61' to the center of the stream
thence S 08'34'11 " E a distance of 15.23' to a point;
thence N 88 °26'35" W a distance of 45.41' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
0.01 acres, more or less.
7. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619268591) (CE -8)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book 00 /,1- ,
Page /&- LZ , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary Frances Goodwin (PIN:0619268591), more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,526.91,
Y= 697,451.02, and identified as Control Point #8 on the above referenced plat, and
running N 250 03'13" W, 98.14' to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING, Conservation Easement Point # 72; thence continuing the following
courses and distances:
N 17 °45'43" W a distance of 132.26' to a point;
thence N 52 °39'59"
E a distance of 61.53' to the center of the stream;
thence S 22 °05'53"
E a distance of 64.76' to the center of the stream;
thence S 28 °53'58"
E a distance of 45.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 23'10'07"
W a distance of 18.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 17 °17'45"
E a distance of 17.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 45 °14'50"
E a distance of 36.15' to the center of the stream;
thence S 64 °40'23"
E a distance of 30.26' to the center of the stream;
thence S 48 °13'45"
E a distance of 59.23' to the center of the stream;
thence S 21'07'29"
E a distance of 43.28' to the center of the stream;
thence S 15 °29'47"
W a distance of 24.46' to the center of the stream;
thence S 82 °24'36"
E a distance of 13.96' to the center of the stream;
thence S 24°17'41"
E a distance of 29.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 41 °21'36"
E a distance of 34.34'to the center of the stream;
thence S 43 °33'57"
W a distance of 20.50' to the center of the stream;
thence S 08 °46'51"
W a distance of 31.72' to the center of the stream;
thence S 17 °45'53"
E a distance of 24.19' to the center of the stream;
thence S 57 °40'46"
E a distance of 17.50' to the center of the stream;
thence S 27 °29'07"
E a distance of 44.60' to the center of the stream;
thence S 77 °38'19"
E a distance of 70.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 30 °04'56"
E a distance of 17.01' to the center of the stream;
thence S 88 °13'33"
E a distance of 38.77' to the center of the stream

thence S 21 °36'10 "
E a distance of 27.18' to the center of the stream;
thence S 03 °44'53"
E a distance of 28.52' to the center of the stream;
thence S 12 °12'53"
W a distance of 24.93' to the center of the stream;
thence S 42 °09'41"
E a distance of 21.02' to the center of the stream;
thence S 79'42'14"
E a distance of 12.72' to the center of the stream;
thence S 55 °36'32"
E a distance of 54.81' to the center of the stream;
thence S 55 °22'25"
W a distance of 43.55' to a point;
thence N 72°38'57"
W a distance of 72.77' to a point;
thence N 48 °02'27"
W a distance of 176.82' to a point;
thence N 30 °01'52"
W a distance of 376.70' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.31 acres, more or
less.
7. Access to the Permanent Conservation Easements
Access to and through the permanent conservation easements described above and
conveyed herein, shall be (1) as provided in this deed,(2) as provided on the Plat
referenced above (see Note 8, Sheet 1 of 2), from the 60' Public Right -of -Way of
Shearon Harris Road, (NCSR 1134), to provide ingress, egress, and regress for purposes
of accessing the permanent conservation easements set forth above, and as shown on the
aforesaid map recorded in Plat Book Z a/ i , Page of
the Wake County Registry.
00377201/1

oil
NORTH CAROLINA
B00K : 015894 PAGE : 02170 ° 02106
Please retain yellow trailer page
recording.
• s 1 •
Register of Deeds
Wake County Justice Center
300 South Salisbury Street, Suite 1700
Raleigh, NC 27601
❑ New Time Stamp
❑ Additional Document Fee
This Customer Group
# of Time Stamps Needed
❑ $25 Non - Standard Fee
❑ Additional Reference Fee
This Document
17 # of Pages

W
WAKE COUNTY, NC 156
LAURA M RIDDICK
REGISTER OF DEEDS
PRESENTED & RECORDED ON
0111612615 15:01:00
STATE OF NC REAL ESTATE
EXCISE TAX: $1$4.00
BOOK:015894 PAGE:0227G ° e22BB
Prepared by and return to:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. O. Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
WAKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
NO.: 5549
CE -6
Revenue $ / 0100
SPO File Number: 92 -DY
EEP Project Number: 96074
T11IS DEED", F CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this ADay of \1 Ah!% , 20/S , by MICHAEL L. GOODWIN pursuant to authority
described in Section V, Para raph H, below, and with respect to their life estate in the Property,
Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife, Mary Frances Goodwin, (collectively "Grantor "), whose
mailing address is 4232 Shearon Harris Road, New Hill, NC 27562, to the State of North Carolina,
( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration,
State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1321. The designations of
Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns,
and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for
the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and
Page 1 of 12

Fa
riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 5549.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is
to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program with an effective date of 28 July, 2010,
which supersedes and replaces the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Buckhorn Township, Wake County, North Carolina (the "Property "), subject to a life estate in
Page 2 of 12

W
Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and Mary Frances Goodwin, and being more particularly described as
that certain parcel of land containing approximately 8.48 acres and being conveyed to the Grantor
by deeds recorded in Deed Book 8959 at Page 105 and Deed Book 8959 at Page 108 of the Wake
County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the areas
of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and purposes
hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The
Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Thomas Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows:
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Tract Number CE -6 containing a total of 1.98 acres as shown on a Plat
entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation Easement Survey for the State of
North Carolina- Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the Property of Irvin
Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L. Goodwin"
dated September 27, 2014, certified by Marshall Wight, PLS Number L-
5034 and recorded in Plat Book 20/5, Page /2/— 12?i ,
Wake County Registry.
TOGETHER with an easement for access, ingress, egress and regress as
described on the above - referenced recorded plat and this Conservation
Easement Deed.
The Conservation Easement(s) described above are hereinafter referred to
as the `Basement Area" or the "Conservation Easement Area" and are
further set forth in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
Page 3 of 12

I. 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(s) described on the survey recorded in Plat Book , Page
of the County Registry as "reserved stream crossing ". Said crossing shall not
exceed feet in width, and must be maintained and repaired by Grantor, his successors or
assigns to prevent degradation of the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited with the following exception:
Page 4 of 12

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

discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated -ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1652.
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.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property within the Conservation Easement Area to restrict livestock
access. Although the Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the
Page 6 of 12

right to maintain, repair or replace the fence at the sole discretion of the Grantee and at the expense
of the Grantor, who agrees to indemnify the Grantee for any costs incurred as a result of
maintenance, repair or replacement of the fence if such costs are required to protect the
Conservation Easement Area from repeated incidents of grazing or other prohibited activities.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
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 any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
Page 7 of 12

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. 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 sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
Page 8 of 12

addressed to:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
H. Michael L. Goodwin executes this document pursuant to that certain Memorandum of
Marital Separation and Property Settlement Agreement recorded at Book 15886, Page 1958, Wake
County Registry in accordance with N.C.G.S. §39 -13.4, authorizing his free and valid conveyance
of real property without the consent or joinder of Bethany R. Goodwin.
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.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hand and seals, the
Page 9 of 12

day and year first above written.
Michael L. Goodwin
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 1YA/
dJA,iyy 'Lt/ (SEAL)
Irvin Woodrow Goodwin
i
�r (SEAL)
Mary Fratices Goodwin
a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify th t Michael L. Goodwin, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the 16
day of J % , 20
/10<zz`� 0 7'x 1
Notary Public _ y .�- A
My commission expires: `-
�'� �QLIG
Page 10 of 12

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF U) Wr'
a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Ir n Woodrow Goodwin and wife, Mary Frances Goodwin, Grantor, who
have a life estate in the above - referenced Property, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument. r
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the �l�
day of -,20/S-.-
gaq�809Sg�g
�,
00a r �
Notary Public 4� .�
My commission expires
00375370/1
Page 11 of 12

Exhibit A
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Thomas Creek
Wake County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619368876) (CE -6)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book 2.6 I'S
,
Page XV- f I�?i , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Michael L. Goodwin, subject to life estate of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin and wife Mary
Frances Goodwin, (PIN: 0619368876), more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,014,008.14;
Y= 696,634.95, and identified as Conservation Easement Point # 53 on the above
referenced plat, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence
continuing the following courses and distances:
N 88 °51'35" W a distance of 220.07 to a point;
thence N 22 °32'12"
E a distance of 199.98' to a point;
thence N 48 °00'24"
E a distance of 146.34 'to a point;
thence N 43'44'27"
W a distance of 163.93' to a point;
thence N 55 °52'43"
E a distance of 44.81' to a point;
thence S 88 °26'35"
E a distance of 45.41' to a point;
thence N 71 °26'09"
E a distance of 236.36' to a point;
thence S 15 °20'07"
W a distance of 95.71' to a point;
thence S 21'05'3 1 "
W a distance of 246.51' to a point;
thence S 51'44'41 "
W a distance of 85.27' to a point;
thence S 09 °48'44"
E a distance of 131.39' to a point;
the point and place of beginning, said permanent conservation easement containing
1.98 acres, more or less.
2. Access to the Permanent Conservation Easements
Access to and through the permanent conservation easements described above and
conveyed herein, shall be (1) as provided in this deed,(2) as provided on the Plat
referenced above (see Note 8, Sheet 1 of 2), from the 60' Public Right -of -Way of
Shearon Harris Road, (NCSR 1134), to provide ingress, egress, and regress for purposes
of accessing the permanent conservation easements set forth above, and as shown on the
aforesaid map recorded in Plat Book 0 / s , Page /Z / ° / L v , of
the Wake County Registry.
00377203/ 1

BOOK:615894 PAOE:82275 ° 02288
OEM
NORTH CAROLINA
Please retain yellow trailer page
It is part of the recorded document and must be submitted with the original for re-
recording.
❑ New Time Stamp
❑ Additional Document Fee
This Customer Group
# of Time Stamps Needed
❑ $25 Non - Standard Fee
❑ Additional Reference Fee
This Document
13 # of Pages J-

WAKE COUNTY, NC 193
LAURA M RIDDICK
REGISTER OF DEEDS
PRESENTED & RECORDED ON
01x16 ?2015 14:57:56
STATE OF MC REAL ESTATE
EXCISE TAX: $320.60
BOOK:015894 PAGE:02236 ° 02249
Prepared by and return to:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. O. Box 1351
Raleigh, NC 27602
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
WAKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
NO.: 5549
CE -9, CE -10, and CE -11
Revenue $ 31,0 - '00
SPO File Number: 92 -DZ
EEP Project Number: 96074
THJ DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
�
this / 6 day of Vl � u y , 20 / �,—by MICHAEL L. GOODWIN pursuant to
authority described in Section V, Paragraph H, below, ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is
4232 Shearon Harris Road, New Hill, NC 27562, to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "),
whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property
Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and
Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall
include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the, provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for
the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and
riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
Page 1 of 11

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to
provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 5549,
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is
to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program with an effective date of 28 July, 2010,
which supersedes. and replaces the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8t' day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Buckhorn Township, Wake County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more particularly
described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 29.93 acres and being conveyed
Page 2 of 11

M
to the Grantor by deeds recorded in Deed Book 8959 at Page 105 of the Wake County Registry,
North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the areas
of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and purposes
hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The
Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Thomas Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows:
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Tract Number CE -9, CE -10 and CE -11 containing a total of 4.17 acres as
shown on a Plat entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation Easement Survey for
the State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
Property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and
Michael L. Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, certified by Marshall
Wight, PLS Number L -5034 and recorded in Plat Book
g0 /5-, , Page /Z /-- fzZ Wake
County Registry.
TOGETHER with an easement for access, ingress, egress and regress as
described .on the above - referenced recorded plat and this Conservation
Easement Deed.
The Conservation Easements described above are hereinafter referred to as
F the "Easement Area" or the "Conservation Easement Area" and are further
set forth in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. 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
Page 3 of 11

use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
IL 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(s) described on the survey recorded in Plat Book , Page
of the County Registry as "reserved stream crossing ". Said crossing shall not
exceed feet in width, and must be maintained and repaired by Grantor, his successors or
assigns to prevent degradation of the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited with the following exception:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there is a fence within the Conservation Easement Area, the
Grantor reserves the right to mow and maintain vegetation within 10 feet of the Conservation
Easement boundary as shown on the Survey Plat and extending along the entire length of the
Page 4 of 11

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

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1652.
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.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property within the Conservation Easement Area to restrict livestock
access. Although the Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the
right to maintain, repair or replace the fence at the sole discretion of the Grantee and at the expense
of the Grantor, who agrees to indemnify the Grantee for any costs incurred as a result of
Page 6 of 11

maintenance, repair or replacement of the fence if such costs are required to protect the
Conservation Easement Area from repeated incidents of grazing or other prohibited activities.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
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 any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
Page 7 of 11

including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. 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 sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
Page 8 of 11

addressed to:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
.•
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.
H. Michael L. Goodwin executes this document pursuant to that certain Memorandum of
Marital Separation and Property Settlement Agreement recorded at Book 15886, Page 1958, Wake
County Registry in accordance withN.C.G.S. §39 -13.4, authorizing his free and valid conveyance
of real property without the consent or joinder of Bethany R. Goodwin.
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.
Page 9 of 11

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hand and seals, the
day and year first above written.
l(i� (SEAL)
Michael L. Goodwin
NORTH CAROLINA,-- /,
COUNTY OF ig &
a,{2/ a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that Michael L. Goodwin, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of 20 /r
Notary Public ®I'v,c
My commission expires: 5 t1— U / f fir
00375372/1 °{ �+-
Page 10 of 11

Exhibit A
Legal Description
Permanent Conservation Easements
Thomas Creels
Wake County, NC
1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619473680) (CE -9)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book 20 /5, ,
Page/&/-/Z,2- , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Michael L. Goodwin (PIN: 0619473680), more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,013,966.34;
Y= 697,137.08, and identified as Conservation Easement Point # 78 on the above
referenced plat, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence
continuing the following courses and distances:
N 34 005'36" W a Distance of 168.08' to a point;
thence N 68 °33'43"
W a Distance of 114.97' to a point;
thence N 20 °58'35"
W a Distance of 204.80' to a point;
thence N 33 °31'30"
W a Distance of 274.60' to a point;
thence S 52 °39'59"
W a Distance of 58.12' to the center of the stream;
thence S 22 °05'53"
E a Distance of 64.76' to the center of the stream;
thence S 28 °53'58"
E a Distance of 45.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 23'10'07"
W a Distance of 18.32' to the center of the stream;
thence S 17'17'45"
E a Distance of 17.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 45 °14'50"
E a Distance of 36.15' to the center of the stream;
thence S 64 °40'23"
E a Distance of 30.26' to the center of the stream;
thence S 489 3'45"
E a Distance of 59.23' to the center of the stream;
thence S 21'07'29"
E a Distance of 43.28' to the center of the stream;
thence S 15 °29'47"
W a Distance of 24.46' to the center of the stream;
thence S 82 °24'36"
E a Distance of 13.96' to the center of the stream;
thence S 24'17'41"
E a Distance of 29.00' to the center of the stream;
thence S 41'21'36"
E a Distance of 34.34' to the center of the stream;
thence S 43 °3.3'57"
W a Distance of 20.50' to the center of the stream;
thence S 08 °46'51"
W a Distance of 31.72' to the center of the stream;
thence S 17 °45'53"
E a Distance of 24.19' to the center of the stream;
thence S 57 °40'46"
E a Distance of 17.50' to the center of the stream;
thence S 27 °29'07"
E a Distance of 44.60' to the center of the stream;

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

3. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 0619473680) (CE -11)
A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Buckhorn Township, Wake
County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Thomas Creek Conservation
Easement Survey for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the
property of Irvin Woodrow Goodwin & Mary Frances Goodwin and Michael L.
Goodwin" dated September 27, 2014, and recorded in Plat Book 20/S' ,
Page /L /- /TiL , of the Wake County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned
by Michael L. Goodwin (PIN: 0619473680), more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of X= 2,014,478.10;
Y= 697,471.39, and identified as Control Point #13 on the above referenced plat and
running S 67 °00'14" W, 410.81', to a point CE 79, which is the POINT AND PLACE
OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances:
N 47°50'15" E a Distance of 133.29' to a point;
thence N 41 'l 8'11" E a Distance of 3 81.02' to a point;
thence N 31 °25'43" E a Distance of 206.91' to a point;
thence S 60 °08'51" E a Distance of 136.38' to a point;
thence S 23 °51'22" W a Distance of 83.04' to a point;
thence S 359613 " W a Distance of 344.90' to a point;
thence S 429 3'40" W a Distance of 156.69' to a point;
thence S 56 °3V1 6" W a Distance of 190.46' to a point;
thence N 40 °10'07" W a Distance of 123.33' to a point;
the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent conservation easement
containing 2.50 Acres, more or less
4. Access to the Permanent Conservation Easements
Access to and through the permanent conservation easements described above and
conveyed herein, shall be (1) as provided in this deed,(2) as provided on the Plat
referenced above (see Note 8, Sheet 1 of 2), from the 60' Public Right -of -Way of
Shearon Harris Road, (NCSR 1134), to provide ingress, egress, and regress for purposes
of accessing the permanent conservation easements set forth above, and as shown on the
aforesaid map recorded in Plat Book , Page 121 of
the Wake County Registry.
00377205/ 1

oil
NORTH CAROLINA
BOOK:015894 PAGE:62239 ° 82249
rz
• •.•-
M U-1 .- _ _ - original Tor re
Register eed
Wake County Justice Center
300 South Salisbury Street, Suite 1700
Raleigh, NC 27601
❑ New Time Stamp
❑ Additional Document Fee
This Customer Group
# of Time Stamps Needed
❑ $25 Non - Standard Fee
❑ Additional Reference Fee
This Document
P # of Pages

16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Meeting Minutes
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5549
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Gary, Nodh Carolina 27518
Phwmr 919,453.5488
Fax: [phone]
Date Prepared:
October 18, 2013
Meeting Date, Time,
October 9, 2013, 9:00 am
Location:
On -site (Wake County, NC)
USACE — Todd Tugwell, Tyler Crumbley, James Lastinger
NCDWR— Eric Kulz, Jennifer Burdette, Ginny Baker
Attendees:
NCEEP —Guy Pearce, Jeff Schaffer, Heather Smith
Baker —Scott Hunt, Chris Roessler
Subject:
Site visit w/ NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
An on -site meeting was held on October 9th, 2013 to discuss the Thomas Creek Restoration (Full
Delivery) Project in Wake County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Familiarize the NCIRT with the stream restoration project and discuss basic concepts for the
proposed mitigation plan;
2. Reach agreement on mitigation approaches and credit ratios for each project reach and section;
3. Identify and discuss potential concerns /issues based on field observations.
After introductions, Chris Roessler provided background approaches for the project. Essentially, Baker
proposes a watershed -based approach to include nearly all of the intermittent and perennial reaches on
the property, as well as enhancement and restoration to provide functional uplift. The site visit began in
the middle of Reach R2 and proceeded in a generally clockwise direction around the project area. All of
the project stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, RS, R6, R7, T1, and T2) were observed and
discussed. Observations and conclusions for each reach are noted below.
Note: maps from the proposal and following this visit are included with this memo.
Reach R2 (middle & lower)
Group walked to middle of Reach R2 below wooded area and agreed with Priority 1 approach. After
discussing Reach T1, the group continued down Reach R2 and agreed with continuing a Priority 1
approach.
Reach T1
Initial discussion on T1 focused on whether this reach is jurisdictional or not. The soils are hydric but the
channel morphology is not well defined. The USACE described draft mitigation target of 30 consecutive
days of flow for a jurisdictional channel, as typically monitored by a pressure transducer. That
requirement will not apply for this project.
Recommendations were to keep channel at existing grade (instead of proposed Priority 1). The
mitigation plan should discuss the goals and functional uplift to be provided if restoration is
implemented. It was agreed that the Draft 30 -day flow standard would not apply to this feature, but it
still would be required to meet /exceed jurisdictional standards for flow when restored. The concern
from the IRT was a removal from the groundwater if a PI approach was conducted. Scott Hunt had
mentioned perhaps utilizing trail cameras to document flow events in lieu of transducer

implementation. The IRT is interested in this approach and the potential utility of this methodology.
Baker will try to implement this methodology if the budget allows.
The group moved slightly down valley and decided that a relic channel for T1 could be restored instead
of the existing channel. The existing channel is perpendicular to the valley /Reach R2 and it will be filled.
The plan will be for T1 to follow the relic channel below a farm crossing as Priority 2 and gradually come
up to Priority 1 as it enters the design floodplain for Reach R2.
The NCIRT noted wetland pockets in the relic channel. These should be delineated and quantified for the
PCN; however, the impacts to them will be offset and considered temporary because wetland pockets
should develop around a restored T1 channel, particularly in the floodplain of Reach R2.
Reach R1
Baker pointed out where Reach R1 (below confluence of Reach R2 and 115) is expected to transition from
Priority 1 to Priority 2 in order to match grade at the downstream end of the project area. Bedrock at
the downstream end will provide a stable point for the restored channel to tie to existing grade.
Reach R5
The proposed Priority 1 approach was accepted by NCIRT. Discussion about a stream crossing at this
location ensued and the NCIRT expressed a preference for culverted crossings and mentioned that
crossings can be included in the easement if language is included to allow for approved uses.
The group stopped at a headcut on upper Reach R5 to observe the transition point from restoration
(downstream) to what was previously proposed as preservation (upstream). The NCIRT explained that
the existing vegetation condition did not warrant preservation status and really what should be
proposed is Enhancement Level II at a 5:1 credit ratio. This approach should be used on upper Reach R5,
lower Reach R6, and lower Reach R7; supplemental planting should be done to bring the buffer width to
50 feet on both sides of the channel. No channel work will be done along these reaches.
Reach R7
As discussed above, lower R7 will be enhanced using Enhancement Level II at 5:1 credit. Where shown
on proposal maps as Enhancement Level II, approximately 100 feet upstream from confluence with R6,
Baker will implement Enhancement Level II at 2.5:1 credit ratio. To attain this ratio, Baker will install
grade control structures approximately every 150 feet and stabilize the eroding side gullies by installing
additional grade control and bank stabilization measures. The grade control structures should maintain
and increase development of the benches forming along the channel, as well as re -wet some of the soils
along the channel. As with all project reaches included for mitigation credit, 50 -foot buffers will be
established. This Enhancement Level II section will extend upstream of the headcut where the group
stopped to complete an NCDWQ stream form. The mitigation plan should justify the 2.5:1 credit ratio.
The previously proposed preservation section located upstream from the headcut will be omitted from
the project.
Reach R6
The group reconvened at the lower section of Reach R6 that was proposed for Enhancement Level II at
2.5:1 credit ratio. The NCIRT concluded that though the reach is incised and has several headcuts, the
streambanks are not actively eroding and the hydrology is not likely to induce problematic erosion. Thus
it was concluded that the approach should be changed to Enhancement Level II at a 5:1 ratio. No
channel work will be done along this reach. Invasive species vegetation removal and supplemental
planting will be completed to bring the riparian buffer width to 50 feet beyond both streambanks.
Continuing upstream on Reach R6, the NCIRT recommended Enhancement Level II at a 5:1 ratio through
what had been previously proposed as preservation, the upstream extent of which is approximately 300
feet above the existing stream crossing. Thus, all of Reach R6 up to this point will be implemented at
Enhancement Level 11 at a 5:1 ratio. The uppermost approximately 265 feet of this section has low bank

height ratios and unverified wetlands along it. However, just upstream from this stable section, the
channel is degraded and eroding in numerous locations. The NCIRT accepted Baker's proposal to
implement Priority 1 restoration on the uppermost 200 feet of Reach R6 with the design target being
similar to the stable and wet reach just below it, albeit with a high quality, planted buffer.
Reach R3
After a vigorous bushwhack across cutover terrain, the group reassembled on upper Reach R3. Similar to
much of Reach R6, the NCIRT recommended Enhancement Level II at 5:1 ratio on upper Reach R3,
instead of preservation as Baker proposed. Moving downstream, the 100 feet upstream from the closed
stream crossing will be targeted for Enhancement Level I or possibly restoration. The channel begins to
degrade and show eroding banks in this section. Baker will evaluate the survey data to determine if
beginning restoration is appropriate upstream from the closed crossing.
Below the closed stream crossing the group noted a wider floodplain, as well as a degraded and eroding
stream channel. The NCIRT stated that they were OK with Enhancement Level I at 1.5:1, as proposed, or
restoration, with a preference toward Priority 1 to provide functional uplift through floodplain wetting.
Baker expressed interest in implementing stream restoration in this section beginning with Priority 2
and transitioning to Priority 1 when the earthwork for the reach balances. The NCIRT agreed with this
approach but cautioned that the existing condition survey would need to be analyzed in detail to
determine if Enhancement Level I or restoration is most appropriate.
Reach R4
The group debated the appropriate credit ratio for Reach R4 after agreeing that an Enhancement Level 11
approach is warranted. Supplemental planting will be needed, particularly on the right bank, where the
buffer is presently 10 -20 feet wide. The livestock exclusion fence will need to be moved to allow for a
50 -foot buffer on the lower left to middle left bank. Todd Tugwell expressed a preference for
Enhancement Level 11 at a 10:1 ratio and stated his general disfavor crediting of invasive species
vegetation removal, considering that at the end of the project and beyond existing seed sources allow
many of the invasive plant species to become re- established. Baker accepted the 10:1 credit ratio but
will not do invasive species removal in this reach. 50 -foot buffers will be established, with livestock
exclusion fencing on the left side adjacent to existing pasture.
The entire group did not walk along lower R4 but a restoration approach was tacitly accepted. Most of
this section will need to be Priority 2 as the incised channel is brought up to grade. Baker should
describe the functional uplift that will be attained through restoration in the mitigation plan.
Reach R2 (upper)
The group walked around to the origin of upper Reach R2 at the confluence of R3 and R4. Continuation
of Priority 1 restoration is proposed in this section and the NCIRT accepted this approach.
Reach T2
This short reach begins at a spring at the base of a hill. Existing tree roots are providing grade control
though the channel is steep and downcutting pressure is evident. The NCIRT recommended that
Enhancement Level I at a 1:1 credit ratio. Baker will install a grade control structure where T2 ties into
R2 at the R2 stream bank, and elsewhere, as appropriate.
Contacts
• Heather Smith will serve as the EEP Project Manager and main point of contact. Chris Roessler
will be the Baker Project Manager and coordinate /submit project deliverables directly with
Heather Smith for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Steps

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

16.1 USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms — per
regional supplement to 1987 Manual
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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

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

r
Wetland W9: 0.35 ac
r
Jurisdictional
Wetland W11: 0.15 ac
Jurisdictional.
s
Wetland W12: 0.07 ac s '
Jurisdictional +
6 ' } Wetland W10: 0.11 ac
,y,+ Jurisdictional
i
Wetland W1: 0.25 ac 1 +
Jurisdictional
Wetland W8: 0.06 ac`
Jurisdictional
6i s
Wetland W7: 0.04 ac
4." Jurisdictional
2 Wetland W6: 0.18 ac
Jurisdictional
Wetland W2: 0.47 ac
Jurisdictional / Wetland W5: 0.05 ac
Jurisdictional
(adjacent not abutting)
Wetland W4: 0.09 ac
Jurisdictional
Wetland W3: 0.11 ac
Jurisdictional
S,
Wetland Areas

� eWETLANDD DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern lMooulrtains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: 11 C 4zl, -L City /County: Wa I(-� Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: R&114' CH!(rY+uiJr- State: Sampling Point: v i
Investigator(s): 1 c,> Tf" I
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)/: f P
Soil Map Unit Name:
v
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): rte. Slope ( %):
L0aac 35, G& (11 R Long: -19, R S �( t g 2 Datum: NA C) R 3
L toaw. NWl classification: —
v
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation )< , Soil , or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes k� 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No�
Nom
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two recuired)
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
\ /
No !C
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Nom_
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Remarks: //
7tJ Q /QLt LS �/'Q�f'dn'vr�F �(�
(/ /�
(�i YdC 2.p0
/ ,! �,jp"
tG +^aA / tip -'tl-e
y�] 7
vee, 6 `tAA r5 4id
t ,r�sJ2 (PA1-�fZ I_
OC C16ve
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
HYDROLOGY
Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two recuired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is recuired:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen SuNde Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0)
_ Moss Trim Lines (Bt 6)
_ 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 (84)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ 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_
Saturation Present? Yes _ No_
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No _x__
(includes capillary fringe)
_
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
/io "�('J hl�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W t
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species u
/
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x2=
1
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x6=
2.
g
q
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 <_3.0'
= Total Cover
q - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: JI.� r )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
8O f& i ,
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2. r` (i rP S FEC U
OAA
3. �6i- . (L i F,4C u
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4' ` 10 A C_
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
//
c` 5. Sh,,,��., GII /Of� N91 0 S' FACQ
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
9
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 It (1
10.
m) tall.
11.
ISO
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
50% of total cover: &f 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
1. Y4SVVC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
Present? Yes _ No
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
f
LPC,,�.j�, ;s Iti G.P� 5
�1rA2ep ��r C�tY(� , I ] is ff,- l e fwt I S /v,( r. Iu�C
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

SOIL
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) %
lu 2 5 3
3 ID /,(3 too
-t2 r' lo n- RN _a
or
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tvoe Loci
Ivf 2 G 3 2v L M
RM= Reduoed Matrix. MS= Masked Sand Gn
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Texture
eta.,
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 (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
NAit- Sotl � /JrlS�v
Sampling Point: w
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 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 — Version 2.0

-/j WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern I/Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: IVbrv4, Ltl.(,LL City /County: WoLiice- Sampling Date: S �� ��
ZR/
ApplicantlOwner. Q a l/n I� N C in eer t sn State: sip Sampling Point: '''�
Investigator(s): vtAe_e rr��// // Section, Township, Range:
Ut
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): VaZ511. I N
vl w4u�Local relief (concave, convex, none): 6n " y4 Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 3 Ur Lat:. 35 . Igii 22 Long: —4 S. 41 S 3 5S Datum: NAB 2?3
Soil Map Unit Name: W t`l,l
NWI classification: —
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation W - Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _A_ 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
within Wetland- Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: /r Q
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (814)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7)
�. Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (137)
_ 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 (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
X Geomorphic Position (02)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(87)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes_
No )C' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes —
No % Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X_ No
includes ca pillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge,
monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks: _/ (� n
L,4iA,. tS
In �Ulvin -24l/ r�
n�J3ifir ih✓\ /re J
�C,a
A
/r
A A tu„ � G1,f.61C
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
3.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: I ss0 (A/B)
= Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x2=
1. 4TnL FAC species X3=
2 FACU species x4=
3. UPL species X5=
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: I S r )
7.
8.
9.
11.
Herb –All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
(s = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
50% of total cover:.. S 20% of total cover. Z 3
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) helnht
2.
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a ser
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
_ = Total Cover Present?
20% of total cover:
4001 4 10,, "/I ti /h Ackv
jV�wl.{(c�33 , .I�c itn �rir.W�
Yes , No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
Total _
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20% of total cover o
— 4
_ 2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
S� !
!acs
F& k., P
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2D Y
YES oaL
) S C
C����� '
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
10 F
F:�. c D
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
to NO jD(iL
to A
A/ U FAC L) T
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub– Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft It
m) tall.
Herb –All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
(s = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
50% of total cover:.. S 20% of total cover. Z 3
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) helnht
2.
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a ser
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
_ = Total Cover Present?
20% of total cover:
4001 4 10,, "/I ti /h Ackv
jV�wl.{(c�33 , .I�c itn �rir.W�
Yes , No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

SOIL
or confirm the absence
Sampling Point: \1/2
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Hislosol (At)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
(inches) Color moi t %
R I� 85
Color moist
2 4&
%
Tvoet
Locr-
Texture Remarks
o w
(MLRA 147, 148)
R L(I/-
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Si 1+
(MLRA 136, 147)
100
Id
A
M
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Hislosol (At)
_ 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 (89) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
' Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Ry Is r h� C
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _1�1 No _
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

- /WETLAND /DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Projecf/Site: 1 rbwsx s �ti�r L City /County: W4 IBC Sampling Date: ` /2 RI c(
R41111 Applicant/Owner: [�a1111 r,-n„w )p State: NC Sampling Point: W 3 _
Investigator(s): It lcii,,4 "nr�// q Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): V� 41asJr� Local relief (concave, convex, none): — Slope ( %): �%
(LRR or MLRA): I 0!I3 Lt: 3S. (�25ag Long: -��. a—Er-
Subregion (1� Datum: NA0 4?
Soil Map Unit Name: % SaA 3 NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes A� 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 i No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes: No
Remo ks: f(
(' 0
S S ;4F IJ /OCA+'Y.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (At) _ 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 (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CS)
_ Drift Deposits (83) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes y No _ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes i No _ Depth (inches):
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes _X_ No
(includes ca illa frin e)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
wt�j hr4(•� 11ji ",5 Prey
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3V f ) % Cover Species? Stalu s
1—AL Ar.K, SID FA c
3. Cnr t, riD : FAL
4.
7.
I I v = Total Cover
50% of total cover: ,S'S 20% of total cover: 22
_i
6.
7.
3D '( FAc
�II
EA C
n�n
— FA C
I D
- FAC
10 -
FAC W
F A l v
'14�_ = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 1`4­—T 20% of total cover: (.S
I,
8.
9.
15 V
Multiply bw
OBL species
F�AAC�W
FACW species
FAC
10 -
FAC W
(o -
SAW
iti Y
09L
l``wr
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 4q ,S 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum / (Plot size: 1 s r )
2. 2.,fyY otrA. G, l 20 _ FAc u
3.
'
�- ,5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: '22—T 20% of total cover:
marks: (include photo numbers here or on a sep�arraa
�
� ot(I( TI L w6( -dA , Pr'! ,VV✓t '
Sampling Point: W 3
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant I D
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species /
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 900/, (AIB)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply bw
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
i( 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.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 it (1
m) tall.
Herb —AII herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tall.
vine — Al woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point:
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color fmoisp % Color (moist) % Type' LOG' Texture Remarks
D —& " 10M 4 11 144, _<" talt" ,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Hislosol (At)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
1IipoL soil P'`°_7/�
_ 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 (1`13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
on: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators 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— Version 2.0

Project/Site:
Applicant/Omer:
Investigator(s): _
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region /
'iav�a.S Wi. ic- City /County: IW 1 162 Sampling Date:
RA f4, Fr,g,h& .nal state: /iC Sampling Point wL
Landform (hillslope, terrace,
Subregion (LRR or MLR A):.
Soil Map Unit Name: X11
Section, Township, Range: —
C /
Local relief (concave, convex, none): e / Slope ( %): •.� °�a
Let: -Sy. �. /2 8 3 Long: 4 . Datum: /V/40 d03
bK NWl classification: —
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X' No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _, Soil _, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _, Soil _, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _ No_>�_ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nom within a Wetland? Yes No A_
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nom
Remarks:
�� Xvt,Q
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ 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 (616)
_ 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 (84)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dt)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes _
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
—
Saturation Present? Yes _
No Depth (inches):
\'
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No �c
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge,
monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: -.w <<
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0
! Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3VI ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
0 FAC U
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
K `S 0�
3.
- rFAC
�0 - rr
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: d (B)
4. 30 jR0 4 - A C
5.
-4411%
Ol .,m Arvw�Lbw� I o - U PL
f
Percent of Dominant Species p p m
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: JO (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
�{ =Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multioly bv:
50% of total cover: �? S 20% of total cover: 20k
OBL species x 1 =
Sa lin /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20f )
FACW species x2=
1.
clv A FA(U
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
2 r✓rv./ �. t� FA L
-t
3.
LifNt /4 m.Wlr.. a,FYic.ct 10 -- rAC_
WA
UPL species x5=
4.
Pn -S -( LeX-1 I S - C
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
�,t
Q- -4z-s w %A �,� - FACU
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 °k
9.
I= Total Cover
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
50% of total cover: N4. 20% of total cover:
- 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Her Stratum Plot size: I S r )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1.
a�it w, Acws4i&L�Q l t FiCv
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
2.
4 . 1 4.,^+ e*AUS �� - FAC
,
3.
1CTir
1+ �.S •. L �_ - L
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
(
A. d bP 4:3 nova kW raUMd I S 2 - FAC
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 or equal to 3.28 It (1
m) tall.
10.
11.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
,A = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: 3.8
Woody Vine Stratum Plot ize: � � �
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
height.
1.
V iS lb�n �1 20 t/ F ,r
Ar
2.
2 Q y co
3.
d ...s
Hydrophytic
4. t- i�i� i A!.
5.
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
/�T = Total Cover
50% of total cover: ?,z. s 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

SOIL
Depth
Matrix
(inches)
Color moist %
D- (o `
l Z 4 13 vv
-k'2 "
lu 2 (ov
_ Histosol (At)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Beim Dark Surface (At 1)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 146)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
I�Y�<< SDtI
or
Redox Fe ure
Color (moist) % Tvoe Lo
Sampling Point: w
Texture Remarks
lca"
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (173)
_ 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 (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (1721) (MLRA 127, 147)
rla F ,,f_Wj Aezx
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators 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— Version 2.0

-( "_WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site:_ 1r'x�p 'Is L-IL City /County: 2C Sampling Date: l/
Applicant/Owner: iJ +1(h E&"e m State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, I
Subregion (LRR or k
Soil Map Unit Name:
Section, Township, Range: i o!
FL Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %):
Lat. ff3�, GG(,C�3S Long: Datum: IVA083
So I IS N W I classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes y No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation _, Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �� No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remar s:
A La�1�
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Surface Water (At)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (El 6)
_ Water Marks (81)
_ 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)
t� Water- Stained Leaves (89)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
GGGGGG
Surface Water Present? Yes_
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes _
Saturation Present. Yes
No � Depth (inches):
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:
W14'
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use Scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratu (Plot size: 3CSf ) % Cover Species? Status
2. v u 2D t FA
3. 'iko t4 — 1 K(-�
7.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
6.
7.
Herb Stratum
1. Zuhes-S
q0 Y FAC
- FAC v
140 Y FAC
?0 — C�-C�SSCJ
—� - EAC
(20 = Total Cover ��ttrr
50% of total cover: �� 20% of total cover: V_
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
10 Y FIC V
5 - ORL
10 if CA FA �
2 - FL
?_ - Nr
Iv FACu
3� = Total Cover
50% of total cover: IQ . Y 20% of total cover: 1.2
Woody Vine S��tra(pJtum (Plot size: (5, ) rrAr
I. l-U l 1f/-..7 +�r. nAr/ > FA C
2. Swa(� rn'M�.c; i0. 34) C
3. 6i,,PZ"Z rAA S S — FA
4. A_ 06*SAurno,1. flccl
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: ( 8
narxs: linciube photo numbers nere or on a separate sneer.)
Sampling Point: WY
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species pq o/
That Are DEL, FACW, or FAC: 6 1 (c (A/B)
Total % Cover of:
Multioly by:
DEL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index =
B/A =
_ 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.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 R (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
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to
Sampling Point: WS_
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color moo % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
U 5 K to,> s (kv 1012',
10 5 80 S S 2� C. M (� loe, ,
Z r' U 2 � 2.5 30 C A �I0A. \
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, 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 (1`19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (At 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ 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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No _
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

.mil WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern (Mountains and Piedmont Region /
ProjecUSite: rHv�^ -era 4- iL City /County: L✓e I`< Sampling Date: " / /�,�
Applicant/Owner: Rth a .rA..«.l -g State: NC Sampling Point: '
Investigator(s): K; ;A Section, Township, Range:
u
Landtorm (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Ylar✓ Slope ( %):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P — ( (Lac 3 S. IGC� 5'� I °C Long: -IS . q 51 & S4 Datum: A 0 83
Soil Map Unit Name: �iIYYYNNN�t IIILt 4 e,tC SDIIS NWl classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes -X— No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _, Soil , or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No
Are Vegetation J Soil or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No within Is the Sampled Area
within Wetland? Yes No
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No i
Remarks: �/ I ,.jL� ���%
SAw ( pJiV✓' lS Jj)T (v4;'Vr 4ri( lk s<
r
HYDROLOGY
Welland 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 (A1)
_ 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 (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 (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
_ 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):
Welland
Hydrology Present? Yes _ No-L—
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
p /
NO
l(,11cy
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
^
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3c" ) % Cover Species? Status
Y PAC -
2. FM iij
3. Au, F4L
4.
7.
'5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: (,S
Sa lin / hru r tuIrn ((/Plot size: 3Ur 1
1. SG Moom *� irA 25 _Y FACU
2. VV IA. nr60rfAej. - UP_
3.
7.
8.
9.
10.
3"t _ = Total Cover
50% of total cover: )q .S 20% of total cover: 1-2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: r )
1. MC rk i (D �r/� c
2. RJWS Rrw..41 3
3.
4.
?5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: MY 20% of total cover:��
re or on a separate sheet.)
4
Sampling Point: W(�
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 60 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species a/
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50'/> (A/B)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
VO = Total Cover
x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover:
8
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
( r )
x 4 =
UPL species
1. Pa.
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
FAC
2. CD/IGY drilQA
�_ -
06C
3. �o x u
oS0.
4. PMOyt1;`(G,.,..
,<„,sl;��. ;,fir
2 —
FrA^C'O
5. Ai;a *gan..
yi�W.�n07 ,
217
9.
10.
3"t _ = Total Cover
50% of total cover: )q .S 20% of total cover: 1-2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: r )
1. MC rk i (D �r/� c
2. RJWS Rrw..41 3
3.
4.
?5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: MY 20% of total cover:��
re or on a separate sheet.)
4
Sampling Point: W(�
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 60 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species a/
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50'/> (A/B)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 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.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
M) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Art FA C / -kY — 4114
� L �w- v I:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
or
Sampling Point: W/&
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) olor IMoist % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
Iub
A- Q" IUY2 b CAL9
Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (At)
_ 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 (At 2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
_ 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 (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? yes No k
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont– Version 2.0

o '
Reach R6: 1,911 ft
r`
Jurisdictional
^
Reach T2:
171 ft
Jurisdictional
STR -3
Reach R2. 1,995 ft
Jurisdictional
Reach T1: 222 ft
STR -2
Jurisdictional
Reach R7: 832 ft
Jurisdictional
Reach R5: 1,060 ft
Jurisdictional `
Reach R1:
425 ft
Jurisdictional
n Stream Data Point
— Surveyed Reaches
Conservation Easement
COO Me M 5111111
M, C Ce ter for Geogr phi Inform tlio nd
Boa d
0e aakar En9;6aarin9, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
800 R
Streams Map
-
Cary, Noah Carolina 27518 0
250
500
Thomas Creek Site
Phone'. 919.463.5468
Feet
Fax: [phone]
26 Aug 2014

s CW !
USACE AID# DWQ # Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ST I
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: //
1. Applicant's name: Ih k 2. Evaluator's name: SG i7 A
3. Date of evaluation: 5 2 2-�^ 1 4. Time of evaluation: 10.10 A. 5. Name of stream: t 4, ✓1AA rib 6. River basin: C&Ai F/.
7. Approximate drainage area: = 60 Ar, 8. Stream order: V 1 5�
9. Length of reach evaluated: 2 's- 10. County: q
11. Site coordinates (if known): 1 prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): p-
La6tude(ex.34.872312): 35• ���b2 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): --+8. S tO
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet -Oitho (Aerial)Thoto /GI Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed chann
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions t
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed _(I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ® NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: i+ a c-
r'"`
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? &D NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey. YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: � , Q- k
—% Commercial —% Industrial lD %Agricultural
V % Cleared / Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): a -k -4-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 269
Evaluator's Signature Imo/ f /t�r� Date 1~127 fi( (
This channel evaluation form is intended to bi used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
MEGION PO
E
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmout
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0
'
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
— 5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
0 -6
0 -4
0 -5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer — max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0— 3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
4
U
►.r
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
D
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max points)
p"
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
O
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 — 4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands — max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 - 4
0-3
`Z
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &banks =max points)
O
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
E+
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points
rA
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
0
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
F
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent varied habitats = max points)
0— 6
0— 6
0— 6
2
f�
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0— 5
0-5
0— 5:
2
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
_
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
(�
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 — 5
0 — 5
>4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types max points)
0
21
.=
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0— 4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
0
22
Presence of fish nt.A L" F -: ."
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
2 6
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
0 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET STR 2
Provide the following in/��fa anon ,f,l(oo-r the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: I t.'ve,�r 2. Evaluator's name:_ Sw I_
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: 2 D D o
5. Name of stream: evz L r- i 6. River basin: Cao< F,a.�
7. Approximate drainage area: ; Rc- 8. Stream order: 2 h=
9. Length of reach evaluated: 2. ,5- �� 10. County: W-4 ,;
11. Site coordinates (if known):: / prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): —
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 'i. S i& . 2 I'1 a Longitude (ex. -77.556611): — 04 S . R 5 3 2 S
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet QQ tl o enal) Photo /G Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: k4bt f ZaykA�/ l�rn q
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SI/ YtU1� (�141rJ d! 1_ ii7 iritc,., �y Esc,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed_(I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluatiot
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (0 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential
ID %Forested
22. Bankfull width: (! '
24. Channel slope down center of stream: x Flat (0 to 2 %;
point? (�5 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:-La-4
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (!a NO
_% Commercial % Industrial qa% Agricultural
5% Cleared/ Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): N
_Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 20
Evaluator's Signature 14olf /�- Date 5J 2 Z I (C(
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.
a 6„
Pnnf

_TR 2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANG E
SC
Coastal
Piedmont,
Mountain
-
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
O
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
C)
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0 -3
0 -4
0 -4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
ry
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0
0
0
2
rn
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
-4
-4
-2
J
G�7+
p"
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0— 6
0 —4
0— 2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0— 5
0— 4
0— 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0— 5
0— 4
0— 4
a
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(�
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
�
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks =max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
E+
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
IS
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
O
(substantial impact =0; no evidence =max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
=points)
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed =
H
17
Habitat complexity
0 -6
0 -6
0 -6
Q
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
O
deep) embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
>4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es =max oints
0
21
Presence of amphibians . MA `
0-4
0 - 4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish �1 hXi K0Plrb
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
�
(no evidence = 0• common numerous types =max points
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
too
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
2 (�
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

ST23
USACE AID# DWQ # Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
;,a,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following info mation for the stream reach under assessment:J/
1. Applicant's name: �� 1 ;M4 2. Evaluator's name: Sc�T[ �` i L4
3. Date of evaluation: �5 2 2 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: C'm N- 4,; b 6. River basin: `-W ��w•�
7. Approximate drainage area: :k 3l7 ac. 8. Stream orde1r:` / (�—
9. Length of reach evaluated: Z5 X-L 10. County: VVu ke
11. Site coordinates (if known): 3 / prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): �1 � O p
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): • V' ? , 2 Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): 7 • Q 5, & 3 Z
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet enall Photo %GIST Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): �
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunf,4 I%AAvv� M.Cc�t-
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ;
17. Identify any special waterway classifica tons known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed _(I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 1 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
/ II �% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2 y d
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: _Straight _Occasional bends XFrequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):_ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature /Or-
/4., Date 5 ( 2 -11 ( "\
This channel evaluation form is intended fo be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.

ZZ 3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECORRGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
iedmon ;
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
-
0-5
3
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
Z
3
Riparian zone
0 -6
0 -4
0 -5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
►w
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0
rn
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
-2
2
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
Q"
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding - max points)
-
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0- 6
0- 4
0- 2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
^L
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0- 5
0- 4
0- 4
Ja
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 t
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
C
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes - max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
>.
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
[�
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0 -3
0 -4
0 -5'
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence =max points)
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
16
Presence of riffle- pooVripple -pool complexes
- 0-3
0 - 5
0-6
F
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
d
17
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0 -6
0 -6
0 -6
L
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA'
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)cgpy'v
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
V'
21
Presence of amphibians W � " , r2 (r
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use W,,. ;rti�i�
0 -6
0 -5
0 -5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence =max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

16.2 NCWAM Forms — Existing Wetlands
NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) Forms were not included for this project,
as the NC Division of Water Resources and the USACE did not require them at the
time this project was evaluated.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -3 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

16.3 NCDWR Stream Classification Forms
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -4 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

�(' V

Thomas Creek Intermittent /Perennial Break Descriptions:
Reach R3 I/P Break description:
The break occurs just below the location where an ephemeral tributary (not shown as a surveyed stream
on our map, but clearly visible on aerial photos and from topographic lines) joins the primary
intermittent channel. The channel deepens from this point down.
Reach R6 I/P Break description:
The break occurs at a head -cut located just below where a small drainage from the concave slope to the
east (as identifiable from topographic lines) meets the surveyed channel. Notable stream geomorphic
changes are observed above the head -cut in that the channel is shallower and narrower.

NV DWO Ntream Tdentification Form Version 4.11
-.
-
01 r
Project /Site.
Latitude;
Evaluator: j-,J, I I
County: Wo i
Longitude:
.�.(-
2
� 3;
Total Points: �. __
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle -gne)1
Perennia
Other &je w f 1, f'
Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent
e.g.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =-Y22 _5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
� 3;
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
t'
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
71
2 _
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
G2'
3
8. Headcuts
C 0
1
2
3
9. Grade control - ,�,r'�,. -G,° j,.�,.rl„.,
0
0.5
1 7
1.5_
10. Natural valley
0
1 0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes '= 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
-
R HvArninnv lgiihtntal= ) J 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
< =,)
3
11 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
05 1
1
1.5
,16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
O.,da ... ->
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Ye - 3
C Rinlnnv tSnhfntA = 1'3. 5 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3',' "r
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
(.5%
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
X9.5, a
25. Algae
0
05 -
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other= 0 '
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: I , r
.
Sketch: I r of ^� ors,

br,
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ,y.r �l .,�
Project /Site: ; ��`�� ' t'
Latitude:
Evaluator: P)
County: �,')rlj„�,
Longitude: jt; o,51``bff,l
0
1
2
Total Points: - ,
Stream Determination (cirdle'r;ne)v
Other
nt � -
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial?
e.g. Quad Name:
if ! 19
if? 19 or perennial if z 30*
30*
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3 7
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
/'" 2_�
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
�-- 2 -�
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
_
`. _.1�•
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
- "2'>
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
<"1.5 ..
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1-
2
3 "a
8. Headcuts
0"
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
< `(j,5 -
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 8'
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual - --
B. Hydrology Subtotal = /.
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
12%
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
' " { >-
2
3
14. Leaf litter
L 1-5.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
1
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
(_ "O.v.
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yew
C. Biology (Subtotal = CI.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
`C_,.3-
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
0
20, Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
-
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
0`
1
2
3
22, Fish
0
0.5
1
<"1.5 ..
23. Crayfish
0
x'"6. -6
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
4,
1.5
25. Algae
0
E 0 5 ) -
1 - - - -.�
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other' = dJ
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
F s
Sketch:
>t
�t
I t.
l-

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j � � �3 (� '
Project/Site: .., t
Latitude:
Evaluator ' ;..1 .. I
County: ,. „�
Longitude.
0
1
2
Total Points;, �.- ...
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent j J
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2 19 or perennial if z 30*
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = �' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
�
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
If I-ID
2
3
5. Active /relictfloodplain
0
1
(2-
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
e 1 5
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
IT)
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
,'1?
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5-
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
rr1.5_
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0� _ >t
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ,,�_ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
Z" J"
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
-' 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
11;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
Yes =-3'_%
C. BiologV (Subtotal = f k )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed -
t .3..
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(`3 - -`
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
,;' 0 3
-1
2
3
22. Fish
r''0,)
0.5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0
0.5-
1 - ")
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1-
e 1 5
25. Algae
0
0-5_
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW {0.7 _,,-
BL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: -4:1�;,
r
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: - f�->i >ntt-S'
Project /Site: &' �
Latitude:
Evaluator. 3 - (r -
County: f
Longitude
0
C
,.rBs
Total Points: 1 r
3treamDeter naYign`('�ircleone)
Other t ,
Stream is at least intermittent ,?`.:
Ephemeral
Ephemeral ntermittenY Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
i/2 19 or perennial if? 30* ,,.,�°
0
1L:2
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1.)
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
1L:2
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
�_
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
l `1_
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
�0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0'
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0_.
;':1'.>
2
3
9. Grade control
r'0'
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
_
1.5 -
11. Second or greater order channel
No' =b ,-
Yes = 3
• artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow,
0
1 ,)
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
/0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
x''1..:7
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
Q_'_ :�,
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
Yes!
3"
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3-
2
1 _-
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C.3_.'.
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
`0�.
1
2
3
22. Fish
i Vii"
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
r`D.�a
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0_,.._
0.5
F-7:5
1.5
25. Algae
,r' 0: '
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants In streambed
I
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Othgf"="
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

l�rk�
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: S� /�f-� ,7-s'
Project/Site: G11'�` ���` J„
Latitude: r)Z a
Evaluator: �� Y�ur�r� �(
County: C_I�J '-
Longitude:
0
1
L'2 2
Total Points:
Stream Determinatjo circle one)
Other Oe° A)
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral 'ntermitter Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if z 30*
0
�11�
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
L'2 2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1.
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
�11�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplaln
0
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
/%71 j
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
`- 0
;l
2
3
9. Grade control
0
(' 0.�,,
1
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. Hvdrolopv (Subtotal = U- ' )
12. Presence of Baseflow
3,,a
2
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
Q!
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
°` 1't
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
'0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.6 -:-
1
,,,,. 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Ye v= 3'
C. Biolo Subtotal = 9 . � )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3,,a
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3. -_
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
Q =`
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
�('�
1
2
3
22. Fish
Of`._'
0.5
1
1,5
23. Crayfish
p0's
0.5 _
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
1
1.5
25. Algae
jq;ry - -'
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
e
Sketch:
i
r
i

j
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: _1 (,- �,
Project/Site: ` "' ,' ,
Latitude:, o, N8 5°
t
Evaluator �� ?.. {, ���;...
g /
County: F
r.
Longitude:
0
,
2
Total Points: /2
Stream is at least intermittent
re 9etermination (circle one)
Other Orr)
(4 J;
phemera Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if 30*
/01
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Ab nt
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a 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
/01
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
b
1 " ,>
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
.-'O0 %
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
%'0' i
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
"1
2
3
9. Grade control
0 -.)
-0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1 5 `
11. Second or greater order channel
No =0 '
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = b . S,
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
j' 0'
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
i- 0'
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
-- NI Z0)
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = a )
18. Fibrous roots In streambed '
3
2
i 1 ,I
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
/ -2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
/"0')
1-
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
i'0 A
1
2
3
22. Fish
,/0)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
,' 0" t
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
t'0" ,,
0.5
1
1,5
25. Algae
0 -1
0.5
1 1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
-
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other= 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
n�

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: _;
Project/Site: �r�rxl%u� "�
Latitude t
Evaluator. ,;� =-
County: n,la ('C T_.
�
Longitude
Total Points:
Stream Deter i a ' n Fircle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent i ., -"
Y-^'
Ephemeral I termitte i Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 39* ^r
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = EL- )
Absent
W
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
i -
L 1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
,'' 1 1`
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 -..
,'1 '
2
3
8. Headcuts
:' 0 -- '
1...
2
3
9., Grade control
0
'°0.5~?
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
...,,. 0.5
_
/1 f
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discusVions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= U
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
C1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
777
3
14. Leaf litter
(''1,5. -)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
'-0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
i" 0 _ t
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high watgj table?
No = 0
Yes'= 3
C. Biologv (Subtotal = 17.' ),5-)
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
r'I",?
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
`�0� )
t
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
{'.:
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.6
,!�.�,T "..�
1.5
25. Algae
0
05 - ._.,r"
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW, `_ 0.75,- OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes: _
J
Sketch:
__r
s -

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: .> 71 8 `�C t
t' <'y°a„
Project/Site: ,g ,
Latitude r r- ��r d
Y
Evaluator: ��. �� h 6 -• �y c. ..''
' k
County: �,� �� /c
Longitude: -
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent _ q „T--
J �tt
Stream Deter m' io circle one )
Other
�/ i "-�
Ephemeral ICtermitte t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if519 or perennial if?30*
0.5
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
(_2 '
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
(1; i
_
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5 ,'
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
<_1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
! 1,'
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
l "1,
2
3
9. Grade control
0
" -0.5 )
1
1.5
10. Natural valley -
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0 ,_)
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = a 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
�_ ,
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0,,-�f
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5:'x,?
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
Yes = 3
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
"' 3 "_'.
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3'1
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
24. Amphibians
0
0;5
1
(' .
25. Algae
0
C 0.5._ -
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI =
1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ;, � ;� ,�, ` <'
Project /Site:
�e(<
Latitude: ° 'e ''5
Evaluator:
County: i.
Longitude: ^ "t�
01....:
<__ _1_
2
Total Points:
Stream Det na �o circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
E hemeral Interfa tent Perennial
P
e. Quad Name:
g
if2 19 or perennial if? 30*
0
�' 1�
-
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_E' -5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
01....:
<__ _1_
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
9
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
�' 1�
-
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
! 1�" _ i
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
,- 2 )
__..
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
,' 0 '_7
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
"cl `
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
C_,1. ?
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natura'valley
0
0.5
1 ')
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
N - 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual �` --
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = ,r-' ", )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(^ 1 ��%
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
<__ _1_
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
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
Yes__= 3>
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ir) )
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_
_ ---
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0"
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 ?
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
`0'57
1
L5
24. Amphibians
0
- -05
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0 5 ?
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL' "= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: 1 m - i�� ^,?
)'P
Sketch:

k�JG
ATO "W" Q4rnum Tdnnf-It7Pnfinn Fnrm VPr9inn 4.11
Date:
Project /Site: �r' - �� " .. .'
Latitude: j"j_ (C., 66 06
Evaluators �� � F�, �'((
Count Y�
Longitude;
Total Points: l /
Stream Determination (circlyTe
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or erennial if? 30*
�P'erenn%l
- - --
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I t1 )
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
-3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
-
�(�
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
<�_T _
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
: ']
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
' 2` "7
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
:n
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
No,= O "':�.?
Yes = 3
.artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
d')
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
-'0,3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
�;`�..��
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
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
Yes 3
f- Di-[ -- , /Q d.V..4ol _ I// 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
r3,
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
:'" 3 �:�
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0 _.
(. "_r, %
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 -'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1 _ ='
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1 '
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 '
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other := 07
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: � rte. , �`rSi, t�
Sketch:
la

la v
C 115
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: f �y eyt'(
Project/Site: ` ` "' g ��
Latitude: 15S, U Imo
Evaluator: C.l -� nn (r
County:
p
Longitude
Total Points: l;. f
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other (lie rN
Stream is at least intermittent %t y %`i
t
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2 19 or perennial if z 30* v
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence -
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )II )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2 )
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
�2..
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence -
0
1
2
<3D
4. Particle size of stream substrate
01`-,.
C.5%
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
r27)
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
r2'._,?
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
'3_
8. Headcuts -
0
_�_l i
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
, 1.5 i
1.5
10. Natural valley
1 0
0.5
1 .)
11. Second or greater order channel
I No"= 0?
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria_
0.
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
. " „i. ,�
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
° "6,5i'
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
C.5%
1
_ 1.5
bd evidence of high water table?
17. Sil - ase
No = 0
Yep"-
3 ,.
o C. Biology (Subtotal =
Lo--P )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 '
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
r "` 1_..
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0'1.
1
2
3
22. Fish
0'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
10.5.%
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
, 1.5 i
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 .)
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 6?
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
V:
Sketch:
"

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �° r "�� '7
Gc� ., r..= ,r
Project/Site:
Latitude: c
a T i
Evaluator; -fa"
County: e
Longitude:-
1I�1c', r
C
4_4
Total Points:
"Z (,.°
Stream Determination cir�one
( )1
Other
Stream
rpere least
Ephemeral Intermitte t`Perennial
Name:
e.g. Quad Name:
: 19 perennial
if 2 19 or erennial if t 30`
if
0
__
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I �) )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
4_4
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
__
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relictfloodplain
0
1
2
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2'"
3'
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
�' 1,,7
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1,_.-
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0
24. Amphibians
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No,=O „.,,-
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see dis sions in manual
c
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = L�i 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0,1
,.,.
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
r' 1,
2
3
14. Leaf litter
(..j „5. ---
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
r " 5` •-'
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 -5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3.r
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = I ( )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
�. 3: ��^'
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 7
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 }
1
2
3
22. Fish
,._ ,?
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
-''6a
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
r
1 1 '
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other_' =.0� -3
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: tjqjcE A r, /7
n ter,, =e
1'jfy�e 3 'r'
Sketch:
LIP

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Pro'1 ect/Site; �`�'r�`'
Latitude: a-!�`r /,�'Q
`'
Evaluator:
County: ,.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (ci c e one
nn
Other �'
Stream is at least intermittent 'S J
Ephemeral Intermittent ere a
e.g. Quad Name., r
if 2 19 or perennial if? 30' l
0.5
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
-7727-
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
Y
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
r'3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
� "1_'__>
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
�' 0' -)
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
Cr y_ " }
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
UL__')
1
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
!'J
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
C2 _ %_
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
: "1-"" ` "»
2
3
14. Leaf litter
r 1.5=
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
r: 0.5 3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
05- 3
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3-
C. Biology (Subtotal = i )
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
1 7
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
'0 ..
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5"
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
10.5._ ,.... - "'
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 7
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: 44.. r 1 1 t ' -
Sketch: :>

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ��
'rr '_� :.
Project /Site: € r ,. ..,. i
Latitude: YS, (,G,� lj :3"
Evaluator: A
County: t �, AI,
Longitude:.
0
1
-�
Total Points:
' �)
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at intermittent �._..
hemerral Intermittenr0e enn a)l,
p
e.g. Quad Name:
perennial
if 2 19 or erennial if 2 30*
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
-�
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
<,1w.
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
K1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
0.5 .�
3
8. Headcuts
0
24. Amphibians
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5..-1
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
(1.
11. Second or greater order channel
No -'01.
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = c%, -5)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(�1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
-�
3
14. Leaf litter
(1,5
1
0.5 _ _
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
<,1w.
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
'1 ?
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high, water table?
No = 0
Yes= 3_-
C. Biolorav (Subtotal = 11 - J ) )
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
r 01-,
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
r ' 1 �7
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW ''0,7.5; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual
Notes: i
Sketch:
m
u

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j �� ' 7i) ( -f
Project /Site: -� `
Latitude c r
Evaluator: 7) !} % --
County: �„ �� ,
Longitude:.
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent �}
Stream Dete m io I(circle one)
Other /J e,,) t�
_
Ephemeral ntertt t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if 2 30"
2
3
A. Geofnorpholog (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
; - "1'7
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
�2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1.'
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
- i -
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
�_ 0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
T.
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
C_ =2:�
3
9. Grade control
0
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0 )
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = j
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1 1''. >
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
6'=>
1 _
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
,%-1' r
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
r" 6'>
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
Yes = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = `T, _1.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
_- ^_2._i
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�`.
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
' 9"
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
''6"
"9'
2
3
22. Fish
'' �0'' - -- '
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
6.6 -'
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 1_75) OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. �~
Notes: G rr "
Sketch:

I .,�
NC DWQ Stream Identifiication Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project /Site: �'' �'"
r
Latitude: D�S,
Evaluator: - / r t',' -
County: ( a
Longitude: J r'(3 1-j y'
0
7i
,
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent J
Str a ermination (circle one)
Other
1
phemera�lntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
ifz 19 or perennial ifz 30`
-
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
7i
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0-
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
�-- "J
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 I
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplaln
<-0' - _)
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 '
1
2
1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
6' -'
1
2
3
8. Headcuts_0_::_:>
1.5
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
x`0.5 ,,
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
".g.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 =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
r -1��
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5_
" " "0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
' __. )
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? .ix1�,{r:."'>
= 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = '3.s ` )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
10'�>
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
.)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
c 0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0.. }
1
2
3
22. Fish
i.,..9, '
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0, :+
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
r" 0.X
1
1.5
25. Algae
Or
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0'.
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: �l1 =� /�, i�� -sF- -✓
rc - �,.���_,
t,�
i -,, , ,r,",-
,,
Sketch:
«ate
J
t" o'
i
Utz

NC DWO Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project /Site: / '
Latitude: S. G`�6.0'
Evaluator. t;: 111
County: �)r (��
Longitude: � ��, 16 3 phi
Total Points:
Stream Determination,(clrcle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent �- --
7
Ephemeral Intermittenjj Perennial
e.g. quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if z 30*
2
3
\ J
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = G , ly )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
3 >
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
,� " " "1 ".
--
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
r ,
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3 ,
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 `
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 .}
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
•' 9'7
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
lyo = 0 ".
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R_ Hvrirnlnnv (Siihtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1 '
.,1 ."
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
3 >
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
Yes = 3 ,
C. Biolo Subtotal = 2 1 z.5 °"
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
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
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.= "0.75;%OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods, See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Dater r % (?
!!! b
a�cJ,. r' r b
Project/Site: t,...,; ,.�
Latitude: /-�
`��"
Evaluator: �:� , �,�
County: Mrr `/,; r.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determi n (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least Intermittent 1 _ _
Stream intermittent
• `
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if 19 of perennial i 39' -�
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
'Z%
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
r % 11 ,�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
__
<1`_
2
3
5. Active /relictfloodplain
0
_1°_7
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
_
0` 7
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
01
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
r 0'>
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
10511
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
��0.'5�
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
3-- 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual `
R_ Hvrlrninnv (Ruhtntsl = t 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
17
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
c'1..�
2
3
14. Leaf litter
<' 1.5 :7
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
+'., q.ST�
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
i 0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No_- 0
Yes = 3 .)
R Rinlnnv IRuhtntal = (q '') },...1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
(".,%
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
'C-3)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
b- -'
1
2
3
22. Fish
0',)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5'
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.'5 ,_
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACVY- 0.76; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual."
Notes: �,nb�r�,�Fs �,nr -r "l. f I•
I,,,r- >cnr
Sketch: Fn
p„ r /ar

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 �.
Date: �-- ,� -
Project/Site: ,' f„
latitude:...5 "n
Evaluator: / "
). ��U � -�
County; (t) � ;�
Longitude:
0
„ �...
2
Total Points:
isatleastlntermittent 1 )
�$. etr'am e't mination (circle one)
/Ephemeral I�rtermittent Perennial
Other
if z 19 or erennral if 2 30* �
if
_�
2
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = J )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1.,,
_�
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1 -'i
�=
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
''0>
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
l0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
'_ 1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
"_---04_D
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o,= 0''
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolopv (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 7
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes - 3
U. loo (Subtotal = -? :< -a
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
_" 2 : 3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
; " -3'>
2
1
0
20. Macmbenthos (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
j 0",
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
(0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
'0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Othet = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: i0 c �ti« me �rsJ
td
Sketch:

16.4 FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -5 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

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

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

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Thomas Creek Stream Restoration Site
Count Name: wake
EEP Number: 96074
Pro ject S onsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Chris Roessler
Project Contact Address: 1 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 500 Cary NC 27518
Project Contact E -mail: I croessler @meakercerp.com
EEP Proect Mana er: I Heather Smith (heather.asmith @ncdenr.gov)
Project Description
The Thomas Creek Restoration Project in Wake County, North Carolina is located approximately 1.5 miles
southwest of the community of New Hill, within North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) sub -basin 03 -06 -07 and the targeted local watershed 03030004 - 020010 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
The proposed project is a full- delivery effort for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in
response to RFP#: 16- 005020. Project goals include the restoration of approximately 8,400 feet of stream for the
purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin. The project mitigation plan is under
development, but based on estimates following the site visit with the IRT, it is anticipated to include 4,868 feet of
Restoration, 248 feet of Enhancement 1, and 3,241 feet of Enhancement 2. This project would be considered a
"Ground- Disturbing Activity" and the entire CE checklist has been completed.
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
- 13 -�y��
Date or Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 1/6/14
Name Of Project Thomas Creek Stream Restoration Project
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration
County And State Wake, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By NRCS 1/8/14
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). 0 ❑
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
110
Major Crop(s)
Corn
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 85.4 % 467,992
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 446,451 %80
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Wake County LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
1/8/14
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
21.2
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
21.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
0.2
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
11.0
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
84.6
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
44
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
12
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
11
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
12
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
7
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5
10. On -Farm Investments
17
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
109
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
44
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
109
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
153
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ® No
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (10 -83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff 1 Eel •

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

�.�. STATE
m. iryy (A91
V
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
January 16, 2014
Ken Gilland
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Re: Thomas Creek Stream Mitigation, Wake County, ER 13 -3040
Dear Mr. Gilland:
Thank you for your letter of December 27, 2013, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.gledhill-
earleykncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
60KRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
Advertiser Name: MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING
Address: 8000 REGENCY PARKWAY, SUITE 600
CARY. NC 27518
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Wake
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and
authorized to administer oaths, affirmations, etc.,
personally appeared DEBORAH MAHAFFEY, who
being duly sworn or affirmed, according to law, doth
depose and say that he or she is Accounts
Receivable Specialist of The News & Observer a
corporation organized and doing business under
the Laws of the State of North Carolina, and
publishing a newspaper known as The News &
Observer, in the City of Raleigh, Wake County and
State aforesaid, the said newspaper in which such
notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement
was published was, at the time of each and every
such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section 1 -597 of
the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a
qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section
1 -597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina,
and that as such he or she makes this affidavit; and
is familiar with the books, files and business of said
corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication the attached advertisement for
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING was inserted in
the aforesaid newspaper on dates as follows:
01 /24/2014,01/29/2014
DEBORAH MAHAFFEY, Accounts Reclii le pecialist
Wake County, North Carolina
Ad Number
0000870014
NOTICE OFAN OPPORTUNITY I
FORM INFORMATIONAL
PUBLIC MEETING ON THE USE OF
PROPERTY FOR THE
RESTORATION OF STREAMS
Wake County
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. pro-
poses to acquire a preservptian ease-
ment on a 21.1 acre tract of land In Wake
County, NC, southwest of the New Hill
community. The purpose of using this
Property is to provide mitigation for ua-
gvotdable impacts to streams Mat will
result from existing or future develop
mein in this area. The project will re-
store Thomas Creek, a tributary to
Sheeran Harris Reservoir.
Anyone desiring that an informational
Public meeting be held for this proposed
action may make such a request by reg
istered letter to Michael Baker Engi-
neering, Inc., at 8000 Regency Parkway,
Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518. Request must
be mode by February 24, 4014. If addi-
tional information is required, Please
contact Ken Gilland m919-481-57W.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program
reserves the right to determine if a Pat,
tic meeting will be held.
N80: January 24, 29, 2014
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This 30th day of January, 2014
My Commission Expires:
Notary Signature
Z',
N s
4.
Cam,
l,lilli„ ,.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This 30th day of January, 2014
My Commission Expires:
Notary Signature

INTERNATIONAL February 4, 2015
Subject: EEP stream mitigation project in Wake County
Picoides borealis (Red - Cockaded Woodpecker)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: October 13, 1970
The red - cockaded woodpecker once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west
to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and
Missouri. The red - cockaded woodpecker is now found only in coastal states of its historic
range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina
moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations
found in the Piedmont and northern Coastal Plain are believed to be relics of former
populations.
The red - cockaded woodpecker is approximately 8 inches long with a wingspan of 14 inches.
Plumage includes black and white horizontal stripes on its back, with white cheeks and
under parts. Its flanks are streaked black. The cap and stripe on the throat and side of neck
are black, with males having a small red spot on each side of the cap. Eggs are laid from
April through June. Maximum clutch size is seven eggs with an average of three to five.
Red - cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and 120 years
old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. Dense stands are avoided. A
forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous
with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker. These birds
forage in pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees that are 10
inches or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded woodpecker is up to
500 acres. The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites. While other
woodpeckers bore out cavities in dead trees where the wood is rotten and soft, the red -
cockaded woodpecker is the only one that excavates cavities exclusively in living pine trees.
The older pines favored by the red - cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a fungus called
red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner wood to become
soft. Cavities generally take 1 to 3 years to excavate. The red - cockaded woodpecker feeds
mainly on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood - boring insects and spiders, and
occasionally fruits and berries.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A survey for suitable habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker was conducted for the entire
study area on February 4, 2015. No such habitat was found. No mature pine stands were
observed anywhere on the project area, and only five individual trees of appropriate age
were discovered (see map for details). Each was inspected and determined not to have any
excavated cavities. Thus, it was concluded that the project will not affect this species. As

suitable habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the study area, a half
mile survey was not conducted.

a
r �
Michael ._ _ Red- Cockaded
0 250 500 Woodpecker Survey
N T E R N A T I 0 N A L Feet Thomas Creek Site
4Feb2015

16.5 FEMA Compliance - NCEEP Floodplain Requirements
Checklist
The topography of the site and location in the upper watershed supports the design without creating the
potential for hydrologic trespass. The site is not located in a FEMA mapped area and therefore a
hydraulic analysis is not required to obtain a "No- Rise/No- Impact" certification. Baker notified the
Wake County Floodplain Manager about the project. The NCEEP Floodplain Checklist was provided to
the Wake County Floodplain Manager along with applicable figures and information from this report.
Wake County has requirements for a flood study and permit fees if culverts are installed. Consequently,
Baker has decided that ford crossings will be used, which do not require flood studies or permit fees.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -6 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

r�
Lira emeni
r�
PROGRAM
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. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
Thomas Creek
County:
Wake
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Wake County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
3720060800 (0608)
Consultant name:
Chris Roessler
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Phone number:
919- 481 -5737
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist ThomasCr Figures included.docx Page 1 of 10

Design Information
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. proposes to restore 4,748 linear feet (LF) of stream, and
enhance 2,874 LF of stream along Thomas Creek and several of its tributaries. The
project site is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of New Hill, NC (see Figure 1).
The project site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -06 -07 and the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Targeted Local Watershed 03030004 - 020010 of
the Cape Fear River Basin. The purpose of the project is to restore and/or enhance stream
and riparian buffer functions and improve area water quality where impaired stream
channel flows through the site. The project will provide numerous water quality and
ecological benefits within the Thomas Creek and Harris Lake watersheds, and the Cape
Fear River Basin. A recorded conservation easement consisting of approximately 20.1
acres will protect all stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
Reach
Length
Priority
Reach RI
266 LF
Restoration
Reach R2
2,087
Restoration
Reach R3
130 LF (upstream) and
929 LF downstream
Enhancement II
Restoration
Reach R4
336 LF
Restoration
Reach R5
142 LF (upstream) and
897 LF downstream
Enhancement II
Restoration
Reach R6
210 LF (upstream) and
1,598 LF downstream
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Reach R7
286 LF
Enhancement II
Reach TI
233 LF
Restoration
Reach T2
158 LF
Enhancement II
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
Yes 0 No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
F- Redelineation
F- Detailed Study
F- Limited Detail Study
F- Approximate Study
F- Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
F- AE Zone
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist ThomasCr Figures included.docx Page 2 of 10

❑ F000dway
❑ Non - Encroachment
M None
F_ A Zone
❑ Local Setbacks Required
❑ No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment /setbacks?
® Yes 0 No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F_ State owned (fee simple)
F_ Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
F Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
919 807 -4101
Is community /county participating in the NFIP program?
0 Yes ❑ No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: State NFIP Engineer, 919 715 -8000
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Betsy Pearce
Phone Number: 919 - 856 -7541
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
r- No Rise
r- Letter of Map Revision
F- Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Z! - _\
F_ Other Requirements
List other requirements:
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist ThomasCr Figures included.docx Page 3 of 10

Comments:
Name: Chris Roessler Signature: y
Title: Technical Manager Date: 8/28/2014
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist ThomasCr Figures_included.docx Page 4 of 10

Now
WAKE Environmental
COUNTY Services
NORTH CAROLINA
TEL [phone]
FAx [phone]
Water Quality Division
336 Fayetteville Street • Raleigh, NC 27602
www.wakegov.com
Wake County Flood Study Checklist
Under County ordinance, encroachments into Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) require Permit and Certification Requirements per
Article 14, Flood Hazard Areas, of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The purpose of a Flood Study Report is to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare by reducing public and private losses caused by flood conditions in SFHA. This checklist
shows what information needs to be provided and what issues need to be addressed when preparing a Flood Study Report. All items
listed may not be applicable to each site, nor is the list all- inclusive. It is meant to serve as a guide for the engineer preparing a Flood
Study Report.
Part 1 - For all Flood Studies
Part 2A For Minor Flood Studies (Drainage area less than 100 acres)
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW/D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Use of Bureau of Public Roads Culvert chart for inlet and outlet computations provided for review
Part 213 For Major Flood Studies (Drainage area greater than 100 acres).
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW/D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Provide Standard Step Method or equivalent computations and field surveyed cross sections locations on construction plans.
Delineate Crossings and Label On Ma p 1 "equals no more than 100' & Drawings
Provide flood study report narrative describing study objectives and include a summary of findings
Existing and proposed watershed, sub - watershed, and land use boundaries with supporting Zoning overlaid. Wake County
requires Flood Study reports to be designed for upstream built out conditions._
Include all assumption for supporting methodology used for determining Cubic Feet per Second (Q100).
Drainage area worksheets delineating u stream drainage area in Acres.
Existing and proposed Tc/Tt flow paths used to calculate pre/ post development flows.
Show /label all flood encroachment information, including field surveyed cross - sections referenced to station locations,
proposed culvert inverts, profile view, plan view, back slopes, all elevations, channel slope and sum of disturbed areas are
required.
Indicate the location and establishment of a temporary or permanent benchmark, note must be NAVD 88 for all SFHA's.
Documentation supporting applicant's choice of Manning "n" values for channel and/or over bank.
A velocity dissipater design specifying length, width, mean stone diameter, outlet velocity and detail is required for each
culvert.
Note the Minimum Finished Floor Elevation on lots that are affected by the SFHA 100yr flood lain . Example FFE = 268.4'
Should flood study design incorporate overtopping of PRIVATE driveway, specify stabilization scope and type of downstream
embankment. Overtopping shall not exceed 0.5 feet.
Place an *(asterisk) on all lots affected with flood hazards and add note to plans " * - Before Acquiring a Building Permit for
Lots Marked with an " * " the Builder May Need to Obtain a Flood Hazard Permit from County Zoning Administration. The
Builders Engineer, Architect of Surveyor Must Certify on Any Permit That All Flood Hazard Requirements Are Met. There
Shall be No Filling or the Erection of Permanent Structures in the Areas of Wake County Flood Hazard Soils or Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Zones.
For submerged culverts to meet 404/401 certification, adjust the effective flow area in HEC -RAS report to reflect this
condition.
Summarize the pre - construction and the post - construction BFE at the upstream and downstream property lines before and after
the proposed encroachment.
Should flood study report prove offsite backwater, applicant must secure and record any necessary backwater encroachment
easements. For on -site backwater, label backwater area with flood elevation plus 1'.
Overlay and Label Future Conditions / 500 year FEMA Floodplain.
Submit draft flood study as built compliance document.
Signature, Date And Professional Seal: for all Material to be reviewed.
Part 2A For Minor Flood Studies (Drainage area less than 100 acres)
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW/D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Use of Bureau of Public Roads Culvert chart for inlet and outlet computations provided for review
Part 213 For Major Flood Studies (Drainage area greater than 100 acres).
Inlet and Outlet Control Head Water computations and elevations for all culverts
Delineate HW/D backwater area plus 1 (one) foot rise and label as Q100 backwater easement and label FFE on all affected lots
with Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Provide Standard Step Method or equivalent computations and field surveyed cross sections locations on construction plans.

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

Figure 16.1 FEMA Floodplain Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -7 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND
ANALYSES
17.1 Channel Morphology
17.1.1 Existing Conditions Assessment
17.1.1.1 Reach Classification
The project channels are small, perennial and intermittent streams with a total drainage
area of approximately 0.275 square miles for Reaches R2, T2, T1, R3, and R4, and 0.097
square miles for Reaches R5, R6, and R7 (Figure 2.2). The combined, total watershed
area at the bottom of Reach RI is 0.384 square miles. Historically, the project streams
have been negatively impacted due to agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. The
main stem of Thomas Creek (Reaches R1, R2, & R3) is sparsely vegetated, and some
sections have become extremely unstable and are actively incising and widening.
For analysis purposes, Baker labeled the existing unnamed tributaries Reach R1, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7, T1, and T2. The existing reach locations are shown on Figures 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 17.2, and 17.4. The main stem begins at the northernmost project boundary
as Reach R3 and flows south towards a farm access road towards the confluence with
Reach R4. During field verification with the USACE of intermittent or perennial status
and subsequent site visits with NCEEP, Reaches R1, R2, lower R3, R4, R5, and lower R7
were determined to be a perennial stream based on a minimum score of 30 for perennial
streams and/or the presence of biological indicators using the NCDWR Determination of
the Origin of Perennial Streams stream assessment protocols and guidelines (DWQ,
2010; see NCDWR stream forms in Appendix B). The remaining project reaches (upper
R3, R6, upper R7, T1, and T2) were similarly determined to be intermittent.
Baker staff conducted geomorphic 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. Data collected on the reaches
included representative cross sections, longitudinal profiles, and sediment samples. The following
paragraphs summarize these findings and the results were used to assign the geomorphic conditions
for the project stream reaches. Sections 7 and 17 further describe the restoration approaches
proposed to achieve functional uplift and improve overall watershed health.
Reach RI
Reach R1 extends upstream from the downstream extent of the project at the property
line to the confluence between Reach R2 and Reach R5. Its valley length is
approximately 365 feet in length. Reach R1 has a drainage area of 247 acres. Cattle have
direct access to this reach. Reach R1 is significantly incised and moderately high bank
height ratios, which typically exceed 2.0. At the downstream end of the reach, this
incision has reached bedrock; however, without protective measures in place the incision
may continue to migrate upstream. Further bank scour and channel widening are also
likely to continue if left unaddressed. Evidence of active bank erosion along Reach R1
was observed along approximately 90 percent of the reach, predominantly in the form of
surficial scour. Cattle access to Reach R1 and are causing localized erosion at several
crossings. Though there are some isolated mature trees along the streambanks,
approximately 70 percent or more of the reach has no trees on at least one of the
streambanks. Baker plans to incorporate the mature trees into restoration design where
feasible.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Based on existing conditions, Reach R1 is classified as an incised `Bc" Rosgen stream
type, due to a moderate entrenchment ratio of 1.8. The surveyed bank height ratio,
however, was 2.5, which is indicative of severe incision.
The bed material in Reach RI is mostly composed of sand with less than 4 percent
silt /clay and 1 percent gravel.
Cattle have access to all of Reach R1.
Reach R2
Reach R2 begins at the confluence of Reaches R3 and R4 and directly upstream from Reach R1. It
flows southward through actively grazed pasture to its confluence with Reach R5. The existing
length of Reach R2 is 1,995 feet in length. Reach R2 has drainage areas of 176 acres at the
downstream end. Cattle use the reach often for watering and loafing and have extensively trampled
the streambanks. Reach R2 has been significantly degraded through the removal of the riparian
buffer, cattle access, and relocation of the channel to the right side of the valley floor. According to
the landowner, whose family purchased the property in 1915, the stream was moved in the 1800s to
accommodate farming of the floodplain. The hummocky floodplain along Reach R2 appears to
show where the excavated material was deposited.
Reach R2 lacks bedform diversity, with riffles constituting less than approximately 20
percent of the channel. There are very minimal coarse gravel accumulations (i.e., 4
percent of total) in the riffles; it is essentially a sand bed system. The degree of incision
along Reach R2 varies according to the presence of headcuts and bedrock knickpoints,
but the bank height ratio is frequently greater than 1.5. Evidence of active bank erosion
along Reach R2 varies considerably, from 60 percent at the top, to a low of 30 percent in
the middle, and back to 90 percent on the lower one third. This erosion is in the form of
surficial scour. Currently, mass wasting is not evident.
The lower two thirds of Reach R2 have buffers consisting of active cattle pasture along
both banks, with mid - successional or mature trees largely scattered or absent. Most often,
the streambank cover is limited to fescue and other typical pasture grasses and forbs. In
addition, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is abundant on the streambanks in this section
of the reach. The buffer in the top third of the reach includes a mature forest stand but
cattle have removed all smaller vegetation through grazing, resulting in an unnaturally
open understory. As such, more than 80 percent of the lengths on both banks have
longitudinal breaks or interruptions of the existing tree line in lengths greater than 20 feet.
The entire length of Reach R2 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the
form of direct livestock access.
Based on existing conditions, Reach R2 has a Rosgen stream type classification of "F" in
the upstream segment and "Gc" in the downstream segment, with bank height ratios of
3.3 and 2.2, respectively. Existing conditions cross sectional survey of theupper portion
of Reach R2 show a bank height ratio of 3.3 and an entrenchment ratio of 1.4, while
lower portion of Reach R2 has a bank height ratio of 2.2, as well as an entrenchment ratio
of 1.4.
Cattle have access to all of Reach R2.
Reach R3
Reach R3 originates south of Old US Highway 1, just upstream of where it enters the
northern sector of the project property. The drainage area for Reach R3 is 62 acres. Due
to logging in 2011, the mature riparian buffer is less than 50 feet wide along the entire
length of both streambanks, and often less than 20 feet. However, successional trees
and/or understory species are present along the entire length, less the two existing stream
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -2 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

crossings. Invasive vegetation is present throughout the reach, but not abundant. The
upper portion of Reach R3 (above Station 11 +30) is generally stable; however, conditions
are likely to be threatened if downstream headcuts are allowed to continue migrating
upstream. The lower 940 feet of Reach R3 is incised with bank height ratios above 2.0.
Channel scour is typical along 30 to 40 percent of this section of the reach, mainly in
sections where tree roots are not present to provide streambank protection. Bedform
diversity is lacking due to a low percentage of riffles. The floodplain along R3 does not
appear to have been historically altered.
Based on existing conditions, Reach R3 has a Rosgen stream type classification of "G" in
the middle segment and `Be" in the downstream segment, with bank height ratios of 2.3
and 3.2, respectively.
Cattle do not have access to Reach R3 and the floodplain has not apparently been altered.
Reach R4
Reach R4 begins at the northern property line just downstream from the confluence of
two small drainages in the northeast end of the project site. The drainage area for Reach
R4 is 37 acres. The upper 870 -foot section of Reach R4 is very stable and will be used as
a reference reach for the project (see Section 17.1.3). The lower 336 -foot segment of
Reach R4 is incised and laterally unstable channel due to a headcut that has migrated
upstream to this point. The buffer on the lower left bank narrows to approximately 20 to
30 feet and invasive species vegetation are somewhat abundant. The surveyed bank
height ratio is 3.0. The buffer remains largely adequate north of the lower parcel line
(and barbed wire fence) but very minimal south of the line. Active channel scour is
evident in approximately 40 percent of the downstream segment.
The bed material in Reach R4 is mostly composed of sand with less than 7 percent
silt /clay and 2 percent gravel.
Reach R4 has a Rosgen stream type classification of "E" in the upstream reference
segment and `Be" in the downstream segment, with bank height ratios of 1.0 and 3.0,
respectively.
Reach R5
Reach R5 begins at the confluence of Reaches R6 and R7 and flows downstream for
1,016 feet to its confluence with Reach R2 to form Reach R1. The drainage area for
Reach R5 is 63 acres. Reach R5 is divided by a headcut leaving the upstream segment
stable and the downstream segment an unstable. The upstream segment of Reach R5 is
143 feet long. Active channel scour is less than 10 percent in this segment and the
riparian buffer is of moderate to high quality with adequate width and a combination of
overstory and understory vegetation species. The unstable downstream segment of Reach
R5 is 873 feet in length. It is mostly incised and contains three active headcuts, including
the one mentioned above. Active channel scour is approximately 70 percent on either
bank for most of the lower portion of this segment and decreases to about 30 percent
towards the top. A headcut originatesfrom Reach RI and stops at an existing stream
crossing. There are some areas of channel widening in this lowest section, though for the
most part the channel is narrow and deep. Another headcut located about 50 feet
upstream from the ford crossing is slowly migrating because tree roots are impeding its
progress.
The lower 660 feet of Reach R5 is located within an active cattle pasture. The riparian
buffer within this section is of poor quality with only minimal width and canopy
diversity. Cattle access in the upper 380 feet of lower section of Reach R5 is restricted by
fencing; therefore this section has a wider, more natural and intact riparian buffer with
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -3 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

adequate canopy diversity. However, the channel incision in the lower portion of this
reach is so severe that the tree stability along the channel is threatened.
Reach R5 has a Rosgen stream type classification of "C" in the stable upstream segment
and `Be" in the unstable downstream segment, with bank height ratios of 1.0 and 2.4,
respectively.
Reach R5 is also a sand bed stream with 3.4 percent silt /clay, 1.3 percent gravel, and the
remainder sand.
Cattle have access to the lower two- thirds of Reach R5.
Reach R6
Reach R6 begins at the confluence of several drainage swales in the northwest quadrant
of the project property and extends 1,828 feet downstream to the confluence with Reach
R7, where Reach R5 begins. The drainage area for Reach R6 is 32 acres. The riparian
buffer on the lower approximately 300 feet of Reach R6 is of adequate width and quality.
However, for the upper 1,500 feet of Reach R6, the riparian buffer is roughly only 20 to
30 feet wide on each side of the channel.
Reach R6 begins upstream of several migrating headcuts. The small drainages converge
into an incised and eroding channel that runs for 210 feet. This upstream segment consists
of approximately 70 percent bank scour. Though the riparian buffer throughout the reach
remains narrow, the incised channel transitions into a stable section where riparian
wetlands are present. Moving downstream, channel instability resumes along the middle
segment of Reach R6. Here, the channel is incised, but bank scour is limited to
approximately 30 percent due to protection provided by tree roots. Moderate incision is
present in the upper portion of the lower 300 feet of Reach R6. The remainder of the
reach is not incised. Bank scour throughout this portion is minimal and approximately 10
percent.
Reach R6 has a Rosgen stream type classification of "G" in the unstable upstream
segment and `Be" in the unstable middle segment, with bank height ratios of 4.4 and 2.9
and entrenchment ratios of 1.4 and 1.5, respectively. Cross sections were not surveyed in
the upstream or downstream stable segments but bank height ratio assessments indicate
the upper area is not incised (BHR < 1.1) while the lower area ranges from not incised to
minimally incised (BHR — 1.2). Enhancement activities will be targeted for the whole
reach, with actual work on the channel limited to the upper 210 -foot segment.
Cattle do not have access to any of Reach R6.
Reach R7
Reach R7 originates on the western edge of the project property and extends 636 feet
downstream to the confluence with Reach R6. The drainage area for Reach R7 is 14 acres
and is fed by a spring and a wetland just upstream of the project area. The project reach
begins at a headcut that has migrated through the middle segment of R7 and caused
severe incision, particularly in the upper 100 feet. The project work will begin on Reach
R7 by stabilizing this headcut and continuing with enhancement activities focused on
stabilization for the next 360 feet. The riparian buffer on the lower half of Reach R7 is of
adequate quality though it is often less than 50 feet in width. The buffer on the upper half,
however, is overly narrow with an estimated width of only 20 to 30 feet on each side of
the channel.
Channel bank scour is limited to 20 percent, resulting from temporary protection
provided by tree roots, as well as limited and isolated bench formation. A cross section
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -4 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

was surveyed in the middle segment of Reach R7, which indicates a Rosgen stream
classification of `Bc" with a bank height ratio of 4.2.
The bed material for Reach R7 is mostly sand, with 8.5% silt /clay and 0.5% gravel. Cattle
do not have access to this reach.
Reach T1
Reach T1 is a tributary that enters the middle of Reach R2. It has a drainage area of
approximately 49 acres, draining through a farm pond and subsequently through adjacent
forested land owned by Progress Energy. Approximately 253 feet of Reach T 1 are
included in the project. It is located in active pasture and has almost no trees along its
banks. Buffer vegetation is largely limited to fescue and other typical pasture grasses.
Bank scour is evident along approximately 40 percent of the channel length. A cross
section was surveyed and indicates a Rosgen stream classification of `Bc" with a bank
height ratio of 2.6.
Cattle have access to all of Reach TI.
Reach T2
Reach T2 is a tributary that emanates from a spring and enters the upper segment of
Reach R2. All 171 feet of Reach T2 is included in the project. Cattle use the channel as a
wallow and much of its length is impacted by trampling. A headcut has mirated upstream
through Reach T2 from Reach R2, though tree roots have prevented major lateral
degradation. Bank scour is estimated at 30 percent. A cross section was surveyed and
indicates a Rosgen stream classification of `Bc" with a bank height ratio of 3.6.
Cattle have access to all of Reach T2.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -5 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for Project Reaches:
Stream Channel Classification Level II
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach Rl Reach R2
Parameter XSRl I XSR2a I XSR2b I XSR2c
Existing Reach Length (ft)
397
1,995
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.384
0.275 / 0.153 / x
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
44.6
35.0 / 22.9 / x
Feature Type Riffle Riffle Riffle Pool
Rosgen Stream Type 135c G5c F5 -
Bankf ill Width (Wbk f) (ft) 9.0 6.5 9.4 7.5
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft) 1.26 1.19 0.64 2.09
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf) 7.2 5.4 14.8 3.4
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft) 11.2 7.7 6.0 15.7
Bankf ill Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft) 1.94 1.59 1.39 2.58
Floodprone Width (Wfa) (ft) 16.2 9.03 13.2 78
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) (ft) 1.8 1.4 1.4 11.1
Bank Height Ratio ** 2.5 2.2 3.3 -
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross- 43 +00 35 +65 21 +75 24 +60
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf= 3.9 3.9 3.8 -
(Kbkf/Abkf) (ft/S)
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d5O) * **
d16 / d35 / d50 / dS4 / d95 (mm) 0.15 / 0.27 / 0.34 / 0.75 / 0.11 / 0.22 / 0.32
1.39 /0.85/1.89
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0098
Average Water Surface Slope (S) 0.0028 0.0082
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * ** 1.18 1.17
* Bankfull discharge estimated using published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al.,
1999)
* *High bank height ratios (values greater than 2.0 indicate systemwide self - recovery is
unlikely)
** *Sediment samples taken along main stem only (Reaches R4 & R5) given shorter reach
lengths, proximity to upstream impoundments, and similar substrate material.
* ** *Additional meander geometry information such as meander width, meander length, and
radius of curvature were not measured. The channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has
been strai htened/channelized, and/or is classified as a step-pool channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -6 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Reach R3 Reach Reach
Parameter R4 R5
XSR3a XSR3b XSR4a XSRSa
Existing Reach Length (ft)
1,067
327
1,020
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.106 / 0.064
0.056
0.097
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
16.5/12.2
11.1
16.5
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
135c
135c
135c
135c
Bankf ill Width (Wbkf) (ft)
5.3
4.5
4.5
4.4
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.8
0.67
0.7
1.04
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf /dbkf)
6.5
6.7
6.4
4.2
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
4.3
3.0
3.1
4.5
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.54
1.03
1.44
1.55
Floodprone Width (W f a) (ft)
9.5
6.7
9.9
7.8
Entrenchment Ratio (WfpaAVbkf) (ft)
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.8
Bank Height Ratio **
3.2
2.3
3.0
2.4
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
15 +60
11 +00
21 +15
36 +80
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf
(QbkWAbkf) (mss)
3.8
4.1
3.6
3.7
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d5O) * **
d16 / (135 / dso / d84/ d95 (MM)
/
0.14/0.29/0.41 1.16/ 3.05
-
-
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0182
0.0105
0.0133
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.0150
0.0121
0.0177
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * **
1.22
1.16
1.42
* Bankfull discharge estimated using NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999)
* *High bank height ratios (values greater than 2.0 indicate systemwide self - recovery is
unlikely)
** *Sediment samples were taken at representative riffles along main stem
* ** *Additional meander geometry information such as meander width, meander length, and
radius of curvature were not measured. The channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has
been strai htened/channelized, and/or is classified as a step-pool channel.
Parameter
Reach R5
Reach R6
XSR5b
XSRSc
XSR6b
XSR6c
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf) 23.6 2.8 0.86 5.8
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft) 3.4 12.5 2.5 1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (d,,bkf) (ft) 0.83 2.58 0.86 0.9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -7
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL
3/13/2015
Existing Reach Length (ft)
1,020
1,828
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.083
0.050
0.019
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
14.4
10.2
5.1
Feature Type
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
C5
-
135c
G5c
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
8.9
5.9
4.3
3.2
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.4
2.11
0.59
0.55
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf) 23.6 2.8 0.86 5.8
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft) 3.4 12.5 2.5 1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (d,,bkf) (ft) 0.83 2.58 0.86 0.9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -7
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL
3/13/2015

Floodprone Width (WfPa) (ft)
>30
99
6.5
4.5
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) (ft)
5.4
16.8
1.5
1.4
Bank Height Ratio **
1.0
1.0
2.9
4.4
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
29 +10
34 +00
23 +00
11 +25
Bank/f ill Mean Velocity, Vbkt=
Qbktr Abkf ft/S
4.2
-
4.1
?.5
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d5O) * **
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 (mm)
15/0.30/0.40
0./0.86/1.48
-
-
-
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0134
0.43
0.025
0.0361
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.0177
18.6
0.0148
0.025
Average Channel Sinuosity (K) * * **
1.31
0.8
1.13
1.13
* Bankfull discharge estimated using NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999)
* *High bank height ratios (values greater than 2.0 indicate systemwide self - recovery is
unlikely)
** *Sediment samples were taken at representative riffles along main stem (Reaches R4 &
R5)
* ** *Additional meander geometry information such as meander width, meander length, and
radius of curvature were not measured. The channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has
been strai htened/channelized, and/or is classified as a step- ool channel.
Parameter
Reach R7
Reach T1
Reach T2
XSR7
XSTl
XST2
Existing Reach Length (ft)
646
242
171
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.022
0.077
0.008
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)*
5.7
14.0
2.7
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
135
B5c
135c
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
3.6
7.2
2.1
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.43
0.39
0.38
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)
8.4
18.6
5.6
Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
1.6
2.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
0.64
0.66
0.6
Floodprone Width (Wfpa) (ft)
5.4
10.8
3.4
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.6
Bank Height Ratio **
4.2
2.6
2.3
Longitudinal Stationing of Cross-
Section Along Existing Thalweg (ft)
14 +15
11 +50
10 +95
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkt-
QbkWAbkf ft/S
3.6
5 0
3.4
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d5O) * **
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 (mm)
12/0.29/0.43
0.-
/0.87/1.39
-
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.036
0.0120
0.0417
Average Water Surface Slope (S)
0.025
0.0203
0.0414
Average Channel Sinuositv (K)* * **
1.11
1.09
1.17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -8 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

17.1.1.2 Valley Classification
The project site is located in southwest Wake County within the Piedmont hydrophysiographic
region of North Carolina. Undisturbed Piedmont valleys in this region are generally classified as
Valley Type `VII' ( Rosgen, 2006), although it is understaood this classification does not describe
specific landforms within the provinces through the mid - Atlantic /southeast region. The province is
characterized by broad, rolling, interstream divides across variable steep slopes along well - defined
drainage ways. The underlying geologic unit of the project area consists of sandstone interbedded
with siltstone (Tres /si2) within the Triassic Basin geologic formation and Level III Ecoregion
(Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geological Survey, 1998). The area receives moderately
high rainfall amounts with precipitation averaging 46.9 inches per year (MRCS, 1970).
17.1.1.3 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). Fourteen representative cross sections and
longitudinal profiles 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 Figure 17.1 and compared with the Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
shown in Table 17.2. The representative existing riffle cross sections have a typical Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) of greater than 1.5. Some of the cross - section data illustrate the
presence of existing berms or overburden from channelization and the lack of natural
floodplain deposits.
Consistent bankfull indicators were challenging to find in the field, though in the end they
became more evident. The indicators tended to agree with the bankfull cross - sectional
area estimates from the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and in some cases were
slightly smaller (i.e., approximately 10 %) than the regional curve (Reaches R1, R2, R5).
Thus, for the most part, Baker used the regional curve to size the channels but sized them
down slightly if the bankfull indicators were consistent and suggested a smaller cross -
sectional area was more appropriate.
The longitudinal profiles show the channel slopes vary from 0.0082 to 0.018 ft /ft and
have average valley slopes of 0.0098 to 0.025 ft/ft with several long riffle sections and
infrequently spaced pools. The sinuosity for the reaches is typically between 1.1 and 1.2,
a result of prior straightening /channelization and valley morphology. Long sections of
the project reaches are moderately entrenched and unstable as shown on the cross- section
data. This likely indicates a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
downcutting, streambank erosion), especially in portions of the reach where numerous
active headcuts are present (vertical instability) or streambanks are actively eroding
(lateral instability).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -9 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Table 17.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No.
96074
Rating
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
-Stability
Stable low risk of degradation)
1.0 -1.05
unstable
1.06 - 1.3
-Moderately
Unstable (high risk of degradation)
1.3 - 1.5
unstable
> 1.5
-Highly
Notes: (Ros en, 2001)
The channel stability assessment incorporated qualitative and quantitative site
observations using detailed topographic data collected for the project. Conclusions
reached from these methods were used to define overall channel stability and determine
appropriate restoration approaches for the site. The reaches were identified as perennial
and intermittent streams that originate from a watershed that is predominantly forested
with agricultural land and two homes with associated farm buildings comprising the
remaining land use. Due to past channel manipulation, a majority of the reaches are
moderately to severely incised as evidenced by bank height ratios greater than 1.5.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -10 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.1 Existing Cross Section Locations for Project Reaches
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -11 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Figure 17.2 Existing Cross Sections for Project Reaches
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Bc 11.3 9 1.26 1.94 1 7.17 2.5 1.8 95.8 98.69
Cross Section R1
101
100
99
o 98
w
97
U 96 --- - - - - --
95
94
93
0 20
Stream
Tvoe I BKF
112
110
c
108
r 106
104
w 102
100
98
0
40 60 80
Station
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
6.46 1.19 1.59 5.42
Cross Section R2a
IVV ILV IYV
--- - - - --- Bankfull --- -o- - - -- Floodprone
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB BE
2.2 1.4 101.16 102.99
20 40 60 80 100 120
Station o - - -- Bankfull --- -e - - -- Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle F 6 9.43 0.64 1.39 14.84 3.3 1.4 91.22 94.46
Cross Section R2b
106
104
102
c 100
w 98
> 96
w 94
92
88
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station --- -o- - - -- Bankfull --- -o- - - -- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -12 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -13 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
4.3
5.27
0.81
1.54
1 6.53
3.2
1.8
96.5
99.85
Cross Section R3a
102
101
100
0 99
97
w
—
96
95
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station --- -a - - -- Bankfull a - - -- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
TVpe
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
3
4.51
0.67
1.03
1 6.71
2.3
1.5
98.6
99.89
Cross Section R3b
104
103
102
°- 101
is
> 100
w 99
98
97
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station o - - -- Bankfull - - - -o Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
I Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
3.1
4.48
0.7
1 1.44
1 6.4
3
2.2
90.5
93.41
Cross Section R4a
100
98
0 96
94
m
w 92
90
88
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station --- -Q - - -- Bankfull o Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -13 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

103
102
c
101
w 100
m 99
w 98
97
96
Stream I I BKF I BKF I Max BKF
0 10 20
Stream BKF
Feature I Tvoe BKF Area Width
99.5
99
98.5
98
c
9 7. 5
97
a> 96.5
w 96
95.5
95
94.5
94
Cross Section R5a
30 40 50 60
70
80 90
Station
o - - --
Bankfull
- - -- Floodprone
BKF
Max BKF
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
G
1.8
3.21
Dept
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
1.4
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
0.38
0.83
23.57
0.8
5.4
95.5
95.34
Cross Section 115b
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station a - - -- Bankfull G - - -- Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
I Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
G
1.8
3.21
0.55
0.9
5.79
4.4
1.4
96.8
99.86
102
101
c
100
M
99
98
W 97
96
95
Cross Section R6c
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station --- -o - - -- Bankfull - -o - -- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -14 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -15 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
1.6
3.63
0.43
0.64
1 8.39
4.2
1.5
97
99.06
Cross Section R7
101.5
101
100.5
100
c 99.5
99
m 98.5
w 98
97.5
-
97
--------------- -- --
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station o - - -- Bankfull a - - -- Flood prone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
0.8
2.12
0.38
0.6
5.6
3.6
1.6
98.76
100.34
Cross Section T2
103
102.5
102
101.5
c 101
'�l 00.5
> 100
L- 99.5
99
98.5
98
97.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station o - - -- Bankfull --- -o - - -- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
2.78
7.2
0.39
0.66
1 18.6
2.6
1.5
107.15
108.21
Cross Section T1
111
110.5
110
'109.5
109
.2
16108.5
108
-
407.5
------ - - - - --
107
106.5
106
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station a - - -- Bankfull o Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -15 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

17.1.1.4 Bank Erosion Prediction (BEHIANBS)
Sedimentation from streambank erosion is a significant pollutant to water quality and aquatic
habitat. Predicting streambank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment
for Non -point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001a)
considers two streambank erodibility estimation tools: the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI), and
Near Bank Stress (NBS). This rating method is used to describe existing streambank conditions and
statistically quantify the erosion potential of a stream reach in feet /year. Since it is an
estimation/prediction method, the intent is to be used as a relative comparison for pre- and post -
restoration conditions.
Published curve data were initially developed from sites in Colorado with varying sediment
sources, vegetation, and fluvial geomorphic processes characteristic of that region. Although the
published BEHI/NBS curve is not directly applicable to piedmont streams in North Carolina, it can
provide a framework to develop similar relations in other hydrophysiographic regions. Therefore,
Baker used local unpublished NC piedmont BEHI and NBS ratings (obtained through personal
communication with NRCS, Walker, 2011) to estimate sediment loss and support field observations
and streambank height measurements taken during existing conditions assessment.
The BEHI/NBS estimates for the existing conditions (pre- construction) were determined in the
field. The majority of BEHI ratings varied from `low' to `moderate' with a few middle sections
rating on the `high' category based on changes in the velocity gradient and shear stress, and depth
of incision. This is typical of a partially degraded stream system with active streambank erosion in
localized areas. After stabilizing streambanks using the proposed restoration measures, post -
construction BEHI/NBS estimates typically predict a significant decrease in sediment loading
throughout the entire project area, especially considering the limited sediment supply entering the
system from the upstream drainages.
17.1.1.5 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. Lane (1955) proposed a generalized relationship of stream
stability; 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 downstream, if backwater) 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 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 stages:
1. Pre - modified
2. Channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -16 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

5. Aggradation and widening
6. Quasi - equilibrium.
The channel evolution process initiates 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 streambanks and, when critical
streambank heights are exceeded, the streambanks begin to fail and erosion or 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 project reaches are predominantly in Stages 4 or 5 of the Simon Channel Evolution
Model. This indicates that the floodplain connection has been severely compromised by
vertical degradation and the channels will likely experience continued erosion prior to the
channel form stabilizing on its own (Stage 6 — Quasi - equilibrium). Whether a given reach
is in Stage 4 or 5 largely depends on when the headcut passed through; if it has been
recently then the channel is likely to be in Stages 3 or 4, while if widening has already
occurred then it is likely to be in Stage 5. Reaches that are in Stage 5 include RI and
upper R2. Reaches that are in Stage 4 include lower R2 and R6. The remaining reaches
(R3, R4, R5, R7, and T1) are somewhere between Stages 4 and 5, with typically the
downstream end in Stage 5 and the upstream end in Stage 4. This is not always the case,
however, as Reach R5 (lower restoration section) continues to degrade and widen at the
downstream end, while the upstream end is generally aggrading and widening.
Where Reaches are in Stage 5, Priority 2 restoration tends to be more appropriate to
advance the channel to Stage 6. In other reaches, Priority 1 restoration can essentially
move the channel back more or less to Stage 1.
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 and enhancement of
stream functions within the project area while minimizing disturbance to existing wooded
areas and protecting existing, ACOE - verified jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to impacts from
past channel manipulation, topography and soils on the site indicate that the project area most
likely functioned in the past as a small tributary stream system with associated hillslope seep
wetlands, eventually flowing into the larger Thomas Creek system.
Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore and/or enhance this type of system.
First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired stream functions was
selected and designed to improve historic flow patterns within the project area. Then a design
plan was developed in order improve the floodplain hydrology and base flow interaction
impaired by current cattle impacts, active degradation, and other agricultural land
manipulations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -17 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

17.1.2.1 Proposed Design Approach and Criteria Selection
For design purposes, the stream channels used the same nine reach labels as the existing
reaches: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, T1, and T2 (see Figure 17.3). Selection of a general
restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for all reaches. The
approach was based on the potential for restoration as determined during the site
assessment. Next, specific design parameters were developed so that plan view layout,
cross - section dimensions, and a longitudinal profile could be implemented for developing
construction documents. The design philosophy is to use these 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 under the processes of flooding,
re- colonization of vegetation, and local watershed influences.
The Thomas Creek project includes several headwater reaches that are steeper and have
narrow valleys. Often this setting may be associated with Bc stream types. However, the
entrenchment ratio on the restored channels will be greater than 2.2, which makes either
an E or a C channel. Though the channels will no longer be incised or entrenched,
narrower valley widths and boundary conditions prevented pattern adjustments
commonly associated with C or E meander geometry. This typically translates to shorter
riffles with higher slopes, and thus higher stream power. Higher stream power is
ameliorated to some extent by increasing the width -to -depth ratios than the nearby
reference reach. Additionally, constructing higher width -to -depth ratios (11 -14) will put
less stress on the newly constructed streambanks. Grade control structures were incorp-
orated to maintain stability despite steeper riffle slopes. The radii of curvature ratios of
between 2 and 3 were followed, so structures are less common in the channel bends.
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 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, Baker staff made detailed refinements to accommodate the existing valley
type and channel morphology. This step minimizes unnecessary disturbance of the
riparian area, can help reduce the number of in- stream structures, and allows for some
natural channel adjustment following construction. The design plans have been tailored to
produce a cost and resource efficient design that corresponds to the tools of construction.
One overarching design comment about the Thomas Creek site is warranted since there
are generally steep valley slopes combined with sand bed streams. This makes grade
control challenging because there is higher stream power and shear stress, but not
adequate bed material size or resistance to match those erosive forces. Consequently, the
risk of channel degradation is exceedingly high. Stability in the reference reaches is
primarily maintained through a combination of appropriate /natural meander geometry,
and, more importantly, extensive mature tree roots running along and beneath the
streambed. Meander geometry can help flatten channel slopes and is achievable through
the design process, but mature tree roots in the streambed are generally not achievable at
the early stages right after construction.
Baker has considered this design challenge and offers the following solution. First,
frequent grade control is necessary. Limiting this to the riffle sections is preferred since
this is where most gradient is typically lost in a stream. Second, using more natural grade
control to mimic reference reach conditions is preferred. This favors woody material in
the form of log jam constructed riffles, log rollers, and log weirs. These structures will be
used in perennial streams (submersion prevents rapid breakdown of wood by fungi) and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -18 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

where woody material is available (i.e., within a particular reach if clearing is needed to
implement restoration/enhancement). However, in more intermittent streams and in
locations where trees are not abundant (lower Reach R2), more rock material may be
incorporated to build constructed riffles and step pools. These structures are necessary to
maintain grade control given the steeper channel /riffle slopes and sandy bed material.
Baker has investigated other sources of wood, such as nearby slash piles on Duke Energy
land, but in the absence of sufficient woody material for structures, rock will be
substituted.
Reach R1 Restoration
Reach R1 is significantly incised, though the top -of -bank width varies from quite narrow
towards the confluence of Reaches R1 and R2, to rather wide at cattle crossings in the
middle of the reach. A Priority Level II restoration approach will be initiated at the upper
end of Reach RI in order to return the channel to the existing grade within approximately
250 feet at the downstream extent of the project. The lower part of Reach R1 has incised
to an existing bedrock feature and the streambanks are actively eroding.
The restored channel will be constructed along the existing channel, and will be designed
initially as a Rosgen `C' stream type as it is lowered to meet bedrock at the downstream
end. In- stream structures such as constructed riffles will be installed to control grade,
dissipate scour energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision.
Additionally, log vanes and weirs will be incorporated for step -pool formation, bank
stability, and habitat diversity.
The design width/depth ratio for the channel will be 14, and over time, the channel may
narrow due to deposition of sediment and streambank vegetation growth. Channel
narrowing should not risk downcutting because any narrowing would be in response to
stabilizing processes (i.e., tree establishment, point bar formation). The bankfull
floodplain bench would provide energy dissipation when that is needed to maintain
channel stability.
Channel banks will be graded to stable, 2:1 or flatter slopes, bankfull benches will be
incorporated to further promote stability, and riparian vegetation will be re- established to
the confluence.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along all of Reach RI.
No stream crossing or breaks in the easement are proposed along this reach. Invasive
species control will be conducted.
Reach R2 Restoration
Work along Reach R2 will involve a combination of Priority Level I and II restoration
approaches to provide floodplain reconnection and promote long -term channel stability.
Presently, the reach is incised and eroding. The upper end is overly wide and initial bench
formation has ensued in some areas. Mature hardwood trees are abundant for the first 600
feet of existing channel, after which the channel enters pasture and hugs the right side of
the valley for 1,300 feet.
To preserve the existing canopy and improve the floodplain width of a stabilizing
channel, Priority Level II restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach R2. In
this upper section of Reach R2, the design will target a Rosgen `C5' stream type and will
be built as a nested channel with a width/depth ratio of 14 and an entrenchment ratio of
greater than 2.2.
Once Reach R2 begins the channelized section that flows through pasture, Priority Level
I restoration will be implemented. This reach will be designed as a Rosgen `C5' stream
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -19 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

type, though initially the valley is narrower and thus the pattern is more typical of a B5c'
stream type. The design width/depth ratio for the channel will be 14 with 2.5:1 riffle side
slopes, and over time, the channel may narrow due to sediment deposition and
streambank vegetation growth. Channel narrowing should not risk downcutting because
any narrowing would be in response to stabilizing processes (i.e., tree establishment,
point bar formation). The bankfull floodplain would provide energy dissipation when that
is needed to maintain channel stability.
This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, more
frequent overbank flooding, restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats, exclusion of
cattle and associated pollutants, and decreased erosion and sediment loss from
streambank erosion.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the lower Reach R2 floodplain will be either protected
during the construction process or enhanced through the grading activities. Wetland
enhancement may be achieved by raising the streambed and thus increasing the hydro
period, as well as the wetted area. Additionally, wetland vegetation will be improved.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach R2. One stream
crossing and break in the easement is proposed along Reach R2, at the transition from
Priority Level II to Priority Level 1. Invasive species control will be conducted.
Reach R3 Restoration
After an initial 130 -foot section of Level 11 Enhancement (supplement buffer planting and
invasive species removal only), work along Reach R3 will involve a combination of
Priority Level I and II restoration approaches to provide floodplain reconnection and
promote long -term channel stability. In its existing condition, the reach is incised and
actively eroding. The landowner had much of the timber along Reach R3 harvested in
2011; therefore, restoration activities can be conducted with minimal impact to existing
mature trees. These techniques will allow restoration of a stable channel form with
appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved
aquatic habitat, more frequent overbank flooding, restoration of riparian and terrestrial
habitats, and decreased sedimentation from streambank erosion. Appropriate bedform
diversity in this case may be defined as riffle /pool sequences according to calculated
pool -to -pool spacing and facet slopes, which lead to a stable longitudinal profile and
diverse microhabitat for aquatic organisms.
This reach will be designed as a Rosgen `E /C' stream type. The design width/depth ratio
for the channel will be 12 to account for a steeper valley slope and to reduce stress on the
streambanks. A higher width -to -depth ratio yields a relatively higher channel width and
lower depth, which reduces stream power. Meander geometry of a stable E/C stream type
is possible given the narrower valley width; consequently, additional grade control
structures will be installed to maintain channel stability.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the upper Reach R3 floodplain will be either protected
during the construction process or enhanced through the grading activities. Wetland
enhancement may be achieved by raising the stream bed and thus increasing the hydro
period, as well as the wetted area. Additionally, wetland vegetation will be improved.
Invasive species control will be conducted.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach R3. One stream
crossing /easement break is proposed along Reach R3. An existing ford crossing will be
enhanced. Cattle do not and will not have access to this crossing.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -20 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

A slight change to the approach for Reach R3 was made from the IRT site visit on
October 9, 2013. The project work will begin farther downstream with Level II
Enhancement based on jurisdictional channel considerations (i.e, channel definition
upstream weakens) and the presence of a headcut where restoration now begins.
Reach R4 Restoration and Enhancement
Work on Reach R4 will involve restoration approaches on a 330 -foot section of the
downstream end to its confluence with Reach R3.
The primary source of impairment for Reach R4 is incision caused by a headcut that has
migrated up from Reach R2. An existing ford crossing has stopped the migration of the
headcut; consequently, immediately upstream from it Reach R4 is highly stable and has
been used as a reference reach. The upper 870 -foot section of Reach R4 will be included
as an Enhancement Level II reach. The riparian buffers are largely adequate but will be
supplementally planted so that they are at least 50 feet wide. The fence along the eastern
edge, where cows have access, will be replaced. Per agreement with the IRT, invasive
species control will not be conducted in upper Reach R4.
Along the downstream end of Reach R4, the channel is in poor condition due to incision.
This reach section will be restored through using Priority Level II restoration and the use
of logjams and constructed riffles to control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the
potential for upstream channel incision. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes,
and bioengineering measures will be incorporated to further promote stability and re-
establishment of riparian vegetation. This section of Reach R4 will be designed as a
Rosgen `C5' stream type. The design width/depth ratio for the channel will be 13.
Floodplain benches will be incorporated to increase the entrenchment ratio to greater than
2.2, thus reducing stress on the restored channel.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach R4. The existing
ford crossing above the project reach will be maintained as a ford crossing since livestock
will not have access to it. Additionally, an existing downstream bridge crossing will be
removed. Invasive species control will be conducted in lower Reach R4.
Reach R5 Enhancement and Restoration
Work on Reach R5 will continue the enhancement approach (planting, invasives species
control, and easement establishment) from lower Reaches R6 and R7. This work will
extend to the top 142 feet of Reach R5, at which point the approach will switch to
Priority Level I restoration, beginning at an active headcut. The first 200 feet of the
Priority I section is in a forested area and the lower 700 feet are in active pasture. The
benefits of this approach include: floodplain reconnection; limited impact to desirable
native species trees along the existing channel; and full restoration of a natural channel
pattern and appropriate stream functions.
Lower Reach R5 will be designed as a Rosgen `C5' stream type with a width/depth ratio
of 13 and 2.5:1 riffle side slopes. Log structures to maintain pools and grade control will
be employed. The new channel will be constructed both off -line from and on -line with
the existing channel. Existing mature trees will be preserved wherever possible. At the
downstream end of the reach, minimal floodplain benching will be required. Though the
restored reach will be elevated by more than two feet from the existing channel, benching
will be required in the lower 150 feet to match the elevation of proposed Reach R2.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the upper Reach R5 floodplain will be either protected
during the construction process or enhanced through the grading activities. Wetland
enhancement may be achieved by raising the stream bed and thus increasing the hydro
period. Additionally, wetland vegetation will be improved.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -21 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach R5. The existing
stream crossing near the downstream end of Reach R5 will be replaced and improved as
part of the proposed project. A ford crossing with gates will be installed to provide access
across the stream. The new crossing will be fenced along the sides to exclude cattle from
entering the restored stream. Finally, invasive species control will be conducted.
Reach R6 Enhancement
Work on Reach R6 will involve two distinct enhancement approaches. The upstream,
210 -foot segment is incised, degraded, and widening; as such, Level I Enhancement will
be employed to lower the bank angles and create floodplain benching. The proposed
channel dimension will include a width -to -depth ratio of 14 with 2.5:1 riffle side slopes,
allowing the channel to narrow as vegetation establishes. Combined with planting of
native riparian buffer, this will eliminate future channel erosion on the reach and enable
long -term stability.
In the proposal stage, Baker had proposed Priority Level I restoration for this upper
segment of Reach R6. The concept was to make this segment similar to a reference -
quality segment just below it. However, the survey revealed that the incised segment is
much steeper (valley slope is 0.037 ft /ft) than the reference segment and this is likely the
cause of the instability. As such, it is not feasible to recreate the reference segment and
more of a stabilization (enhancement) approach will be targeted.
Below the upstream, degraded section, the mitigation approach will transition to
Enhancement Level 1I that focuses on easement establishment, invasive species control,
and buffer planting; no channel work is proposed. Though the bank height ratios exceed
2.0 in some locations, the IRT felt that it is important to maintain the existing vegetation
and the smaller stream channel size is such that further erosion is likely to be limited, plus
the benefit of doing further work is limited.
One existing stream crossing on upper Reach R6 will be maintained and left out of the
conservation easement. The crossing will remain in its current condition since it is stable
and cattle do not have access to it.
Portions of the riparian buffer along Reach R6 have been cleared as part of the 2011
timber harvest, increasing the importance of planting the appropriate riparian species.
Design parameters for upper Reach R6 will be consistent with comparable `Be' stream
types for the project. Design parameters for this section are included in Table 17.3, but
not for the downstream end of Reach R6 because only Enhancement Level II approaches
will be considered and dimension, pattern, and profile will have no adjustments.
Reach R7 Enhancement
Similar to Reach R6, work on Reach R7 includes two different enhancement approaches.
The upstream segment is degrading and very steep with a channel slope in the first 160
feet of 0.044 ft /ft, so the approach is to stabilize the head cuts and channel gradient, as
well as the unstable side slopes on the upper 350 feet of Reach R7. This work will
involve installing constructed riffles, log weirs, and rock step structures, bank sloping and
matting, and riparian buffer planting. Rock structures, though not natural in a sand bed
system, provide some insurance because they are not subject to rotting before grade
stabilizing vegetation can become established.
Wetlands are located just above the project reach and the aim is to prevent the headcut
from migrating through and degrading this aquatic resource. This work is proposed at an
Enhancement Level II credit ratio (2.5:1).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -22 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

The lower 286 -foot segment of Reach R7 is mostly stable with floodplain benches
developing in many locations. The work here will be similar to lower Reach R6 and
upper Reach R5, including easement establishment, invasive species control, and riparian
buffer planting. No stream crossings are planned for Reach R7.
Reach T1 Enhancement
Work on Reach T1 will include Enhancement Level I because it involves a combination
approaches, including restoration at the downstream end to tie into the Thomas Creek
floodplain (Reach R2). As discussed with the NCIRT at the preliminary site visit, Reach
T 1 appears to have been moved from its original location so that it is now flowing
perpendicular to Thomas Creek. After this meeting, the initial intent was to do restoration
by routing the flow through the relic channel. However, because of the property boundary
location, it is not feasible to reroute the streamflow to the relic channel while also
including a 50 -foot buffer and a necessary cattle crossing (i.e., there is limited available
space in this area). Consequently, the channel will be enhanced in its existing location by
initially fencing out an undisturbed wetland area, installing a step -pool sequence, and
transitioning to a meandering channel that is constructed off line until its confluence with
the mainstem (Reach R2).
This reach will be designed as a Rosgen `C5' stream. The design width/depth ratio for the
channel will be 13, and over time, the channel will likely narrow due to fine sediment
deposition and streambank vegetation growth.
These techniques will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate
bedform diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic
habitat, more frequent overbank flooding, restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats,
exclusion of cattle and associated pollutants, and decreased erosion and sediment loss
from streambank erosion.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands along Reach T1 will be protected at the upper end. Below
the crossing, they will be enhanced through the construction process by incorporating
them as floodplain benches, raising the stream bed, and thus increasing the hydro period.
Additionally, wetland vegetation will be improved.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach T 1. One stream
crossing/ break in the easement is proposed along upper Reach T1. An eroding existing
ford crossing will be improved by adding channel rock and fencing will be installed to
exclude cattle from the easement area. Finally, invasive species control will be
conducted.
Reach T2 Enhancement
Work on Reach T2 will include Level II Enhancement to maintain channel stability and
exclude cattle. This approach has been changed from the IRT site visit when Level I
Enhancement at 1:1 credit was proposed, because less work is needed to stabilize the
channel than anticipated. The Reach T2 channel has two locations with steep drops in
elevation which would likely become headcuts if tree roots were not there to prevent that.
Furthermore, the channel lacks any pool habitat. Thus, Baker proposes to incorporate
grade control structures to stabilize the headcuts and form pools that provide increased
bedform diversity.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along all of Reach T2. Cattle, which
currently use this channel as a favorite wallow area, will be permanently excluded. No
stream crossings are proposed on this reach. Finally, invasive species control will be
conducted.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -23 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.3 Natural Channel Design Criteria for Project Reaches
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Composite Reference
Values
Design Values
Rationale
Reach RI
Reach R2
Reach Rl
Reach R2
upper/lower
Rosgen Stream Type
C5
C5
C5
CS
Note 1
Bankf ill Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
_
44.6
23.0/29.7
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.5-5
3.5-5
4.0
3.8/3.9
V -Q /A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
_
_
11.2
6.0/7.7
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
-
12.5
9.2/10.4
Abkf *W /D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
_
0.9
0.7/0.7
d -A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
12-18
10-15
14
14/14
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
_
>25
>18
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.4-2.2
> 2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
1.1
0.8/1.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax /Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.1-1.4
1.2
1.2/1.4
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
1.0
Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
_
_
105
75-107
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
7-14
7 - 14
8.4
7.8-11.1
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft)
_
_
25-35
17- 26/20 -30
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
2 - 3
2 - 3
2-2.8
2 - 3
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
_
_
30
32-45
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5-8
3.5 - 8
2.4
3.3-4.7
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.1 -1.3
1.2-1.5
1.22
1.20
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft /ft)
.005-.015
.002-0.01
.01
.01
Sval / K
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
_
_
0.022
0.0047/0.0083
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
_
-
0.028
0.0094/0.02
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif /Schap
1.2-1.5
1.2- 1.5
1.3
2.0/2.4
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
-
0.0001
0.0006/0.0014
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool / Schan
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
0.0
0.16/0.1
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
_
2.4
1.7/1.9
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.2
2.4/2.7
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
_
17.5
12.0/14.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1 - 1.7
1.1 - 1.7
1.4
1.3/1.4
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
_
24-60
25- 55/45 -75
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.5-7
3.5-7
3.6-5.5
2.7 -6.0/
4.3 -7.2
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -24 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 Bc' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (generally greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankfull discharge analysis was estimated 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 evol ionary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R3
Reach R4
Rosgen Stream Type
E /C5
C5
E /C5
CS
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
-
-
16.5
11.1
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.5-5
3.5-5
3.8
3.6
V =Q /A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
-
-
4.1
3.1
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
_
7.0
6.3
Abkf —*W / D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
-
_
0.7
0.5
d =A /W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
10-14
10-14
12(11-13)
13(12-14)
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
_
>16
>13
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
>2.2
> 2.2
>2.2
>2.1
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
0.7
0.6
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax /Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.1 — 1.4
1.2
1.2
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
1.0
Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
_
_
70-80
60-75
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
5 -12
7-14
9 - 11.5
9.5-12
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
_
-
15-21
12-18
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
2 - 3
2 - 3
2-2.7
2 - 3
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
-
_
18-28
20-29
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5 -10
3.5-8
2.6-4.0
3.2-4.6
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -25 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.2-1.5
1.2-1.5
1.2
1.13
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft /ft)
0.005—
0.005—
0.0182
0.024
0.015
0.015
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
_
_
0.015
0.017
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft /ft)
_
_
0.031
0.029
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif /Schan
1.1-2.0
1.1-2.0
2.1
1.7
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
-
0.005
0.005
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool /Schan
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
0.3
0.2
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
_
1.5
1.1
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.5
2.2
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
-
10.0
8.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1 — 1.5
1.3
1.4
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
_
28-48
28-43
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2-6
2 - 6
3.7-6.3
4.6-7.0
Note 7
Notes:
1 A `C' stream type is appropriate for a lower slopes (generally less than 0.015 ft/ft), wider alluvial valleys (generally
greater than 100 ft). A `Be' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (generally greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankf ill discharge analysis was estimated 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 evolut onary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R5
Reach R6
Reach R5
Reach R6
Rosgen Stream Type
C5
135c
C5
135c
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
-
12.0
5.0
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft /s)
3.5-5
4-6
3.3
3.3
V— /A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
_
_
3.6
1.5
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
_
6.8
4.6
Abkf * W / D
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -26 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
_
0.5
0.3
d =A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
10-14
12- 18
13
14
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
-
-
>16
>9
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
> 2.2
1.4-2.2
>2.3
>2.0
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
-
_
0.7
0.4
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax /Dbkf
1.1-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.4
1.3
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft /ft)
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
1.0
Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
_
N/a
60-90
N/a
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm /Wbkf
7-14
N/a
8.8-13.2
N/a
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
-
N/a
14-20
N/a
Note 7
Re Ratio, Rc /Wbkf *
2 - 3
N/a
2 - 3
N/a
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
-
N/a
28-45
N/a
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5-8
N/a
4.1-6.6
N/a
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.2-1.5
1.1 - 1.3
1.42
1.05
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft /ft)
0.005-
0.015
0.005-
0.015
0.0134
0.033
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
-
-
0.0124
0.030
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
_
-
0.0265
0.040
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif / Schan
1.1-2.0
1.1 -1.8
2.1
1.3
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
-
0.0025
0.02
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
0.2
0.7
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
-
1.3
1.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.6
3.3
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
_
9.0
6.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1 -1.5
1.1 - 1.5
1.32
1.3
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
-
-
25-55
N/a
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.5-7
2-6
3.7 - 8. l
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -27 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 Bc' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (generally greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankfull discharge analysis was estimated 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 evol ionary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R7
Reach T1
Reach R7
Reach T1
Rosgen Stream Type
135c
135c
135c
135c
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
-
-
5.0
13.9
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4-6
4 - 6
3.33
3.66
V =Q /A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
-
-
1.5
3.8
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
_
4.6
7.0
Abkf —*W / D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
-
-
0.3
0.6
d =A /W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
12-18
12-18
14
13
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
_
N/a
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.4-2.2
1.4-2.2
N/a
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
0.4
0.7
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax /Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.3
1.17
Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
1.0
Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
N/a
N/a
N/a
13.5-18
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
N/a
N/a
N/a
2.0-2.6
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -28 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.1 — 1.3
1.1 — 1.3
1.11
1.16
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft /ft)
0.005—
0.005—
0.036
0.005
0.015
0.015
Sval / K
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
_
_
0.032
0.004
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft /ft)
_
_
N/a
0.0135
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif /Schan
1.1 — 1.8
1.1 — 1.8
N/a
3.4
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
_
N/a
0.0001
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool /Schan
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
N/a
0.0
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
_
1.0
1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
3.3
2.0
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
_
6.0
9.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool /Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1 1.5
1.3
1.32
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
_
N/a
25-42
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2-6
2 - 6
N/a
3.7-6.2
Note 7
Notes:
1 A `C' stream type is appropriate for a lower slopes (generally less than 0.015 ft/ft), wider alluvial valleys (generally
greater than 100 ft). A `Be' stream type is appropriate for higher slopes (generally greater than 0.015 ft/ft), in more
confined valleys. The channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankf ill discharge analysis was estimated 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 -29 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.3 Mitigation Work Plan
Thomas Creek Mitigation Plan
Resto ration
Enhancement I (1 -5.1)
Enhancement 11 (2.5.1)
Enhancement 11 (5.1)
Enhancement II (10 =1)
1.5:1 credit ratio
Mr E1 on upper Rfi
Existing stream crossing
Reach Rfi
5.1 credit ratio
for E2 on Iovmr
Rfi and R7, plus
upper R5
2.5:1 credit ratio
for E11
Reach R7
Reach R^
Improved stream crossing
Reach R3
1f2 restoration
ry ,*
r
4, L i "k � ti
:E2'
t ratio
upper R3 -
t
10:1 credit ratio
fcr E2 cn upper Rd.
Existing stream crossing.
E2 at 2.5:1 credit ratio
Reach T2
Reach R2
4
Reach R1
s
5
P1110Priarity 1!2 restoration
Reach Rd
WNknproveed stream cross ing
1.5:1 credit ratio
forEI
Improved strearm Gros -sing
Reach T1
N Figure 17.3
Michael ■ 0 200 400 Mitigation Work Plan
Feet Thomas Creek Site
INTERHATI0NAL11
Lr ialc'ticllk
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -30 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators
Reference reach surveys are valuable tools used 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, as well as with similar
watershed land use. 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 large trees and/or other deep rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters,
such as radius of curvature, are particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios
observed 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.
Baker selected two nearby reference reaches, the Little Beaver Creek reference reach and
Thomas Creek upper Reach R4, as shown on Figure 17.4. The Little Beaver Creek reference
reach is located three miles northeast of the Thomas Creek property and is also located within
the Triassic Basin. The surveyed reach is located to the north of Fairfield Lane, Lots 19 and
20, and begins approximately 900 feet upstream from the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's
Little Beaver Creek mitigation project. The drainage area is approximately 198 acres or 0.30
square miles. The watershed has a two percent slope and the landuse is similar to what
Thomas Creek will become after it has been restored; namely, mostly forested with few
pasture areas and limited development (i.e., low imperviousness).
Earth Tech, Inc. surveyed the Little Beaver Creek reference reach in July 2002, recording
dimension, pattern, and profile for 360 linear feet of stream channel (Earth Tech, 2003). The
bankfull dimensions were 14.4 feet for width and 0.85 feet for mean depth. It is classified as a
Rosgen `C5' stream type that is suitable as a reference for the lower reaches of the Thomas
Creek project, including R1 and lower R2, and to a lesser extent, R5.
The second reference reach is on the Thomas Creek project property. The restoration segment
of Reach R4 is on the downstream end. An existing ford crossing has stopped the migration
of a headcut that started in Reach R2; consequently, upstream from the crossing Reach R4 is
of reference quality.
Reach R4 begins at the northern property line just downstream from the confluence of two
small drainages in the northeast end of the project property. The drainage area for Reach R4
is 37 acres. The bankfull dimensions were 3.5 feet for width and 0.8 feet for mean depth,
which equates to a width -to -depth ratio of 4.4. Upper Reach R4 is a Rosgen "E" stream type
with bank height ratio of 1.0, which makes somewhat suitable for use as a reference reach for
the upper reaches of the Thomas Creek project, including Reaches R3, lower R4, lower R5,
and T1. The valley slope for upper Reach R4 is 0.015, which is quite steep for an E stream
type. The sinuosity is 1.3, which reduces the channel slope. Tree roots and stems are provide
grade control and bank stability. The design channels will target higher width to depth ratios
than upper Reach R4 to reduce stress on streambanks that lack mature vegetation.
One difference between upper Reach R4 (reference reach) and Reaches R3 and lower R4
(restoration reaches) is that the valley width for the reference reach is noticeably wider. This
difference is important because it prevents the restoration reaches from achieving the same
meander geometry as the reference reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -31 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

These data 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 reaches fall within the same climatic, topographical, physiographic, and
ecological region as the Thomas Creek restoration site. These systems exist as smaller
intermittent/perennial streams in which flows tend to be relatively steady, with floods of short
duration, and seasonal periods of low or even no flow. Upper Reach R4 is more on the
intermittent end while the Little Beaver Creek reference reach is more on the perennial end of
the continuum.
The wooded portions of the site consist of a combination of Dry-Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest
in the uplands with Piedmont /Mountain Alluvial Forest and Bottomland Forest in the lower
areas and floodplains on the site (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). See Section 17.4 for further
description of the existing Thomas Creek site vegetation. The vegetation community at
nearby Little Beaver Creek is representative of native species found throughout the Thomas
Creek site.
The primary soil series mapped at the Little Beaver reference site is Wehadkee silt loam
(WnA) and can be generally described as poorly drained alluvial loam found on floodplains
(MRCS, 1970). As described in section 2. 1, the soils on upper Reach R4 and the rest of the
Thomas Creek project area are Wehadkee and Bibb series. Thus, the reference site soils are
essentially the same as the project site soils. Both the Wehadkee and Bibb have slow to
ponded surface runoff. Infiltration is fair for the Wehadkee and good for the Bibb (sandy
loam in top 4 to 12 inches), owing to slightly more sand in surface layer.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -32 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.4 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design Ratios
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Little Beaver Creek
Thomas Creek R4
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.3
0.05
Stream Type (Rosgen)
C5
E5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
40
10
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
14.4
3.5
Bankfull Riffle Cross - Sectional Area,
Abkf (sq ft)
12.3
2.7
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft /s)
3.3
3.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ( ft/ft)
15.6
18.4
4.5
5.6
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
8.9
13.6
12.3
12.3
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
2.2
2.5
1.6
1.7
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
3.2
4.7
6.7
10.8
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
0.76
1.3
2.6
4.7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
0.35
1.5
5.4
8.1
Sinuosity, K
1.2
1.3
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0061
0.015
Channel Slope, Schan (ft /ft)
0.0051
0.012
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
3.3
3.3
0.9
1.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps /Wbkf
1.0
3.3
2.7
5.4
d16 (mm)
0.175
0.13
d35 (mm)
0.375
0.34
d5O (mm)
1.0
0.52
d84 (mm)
13.6
1.19
d95 (mm)
19.3
1.79
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -33 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.4 Reference Streams Location Map
Reference Stream Localions
M10
01
C HA T,4'A M
C 0 U N T
Upper Reach R4
Little Beaver Cr.
'Ai KE -
0 U N T Y
I Proied Location I
J
Harris
Lake,
43
Fi gu re 17.4
Reference Stream
M-PILMM Locations Map
Miles
Thomas Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-34 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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. The 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. 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 bankfull discharge,
which also corresponds with the dominant discharge or effective discharge, is considered to
be a peak flow, along with the range of flows, that moves the most sediment over time in
stable alluvial channels and helps form the shape and size of the active channel.
The correct identification of bankfull stage in the humid Southeast can be especially difficult
and subjective because of dense understory vegetation and a long history of channel
modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology. Field indicators commonly
include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the highest
scour line, or the top of the streambank (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 streambanks (Harman et al.,
1999).
Upon completion of the geomorphic field survey, accurate identification of bankfull stage and
corresponding discharge could not be made in all reach sections throughout the site due to
incised/impaired channel conditions. Although, some field indicators were apparent in
portions of Reaches R2, R4, and R5, with lower streambank heights and discernible scour
features, the reliability of the indicators was inconsistent due to the altered condition of the
stream channels. For this reason, regional curve relationships (based on drainage areas) were
used to develop the bankfull discharge estimates for the project reaches. The curve
relationships were compared to stable representative cross sections on -site to select an
appropriate design discharge estimate.
17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions)
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 (195 3) describes the interrelations between dependent variables such
as width, depth, and area as functions of independent variables such as watershed area or
discharge. These rainfall /runoff 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 ungaged 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).
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 the updated NC
Piedmont Regional Curve developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(Walker, 2012) were used for comparison with other site - specific methods of estimating
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -35 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

bankfull discharge. Baker has successfully implemented a significant number of stream
restoration projects in North Carolina using the published curve data and has produced "mini -
curves" specific to many of these projects. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional curve equations
developed from the studies are shown below in Table 17.5.
Table 17.5 NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
Equations
Equations (Revised NC Rural
(Harman et al., 1999)
Piedmont Regional Curve
Walker, 2012
Qbkf = 66.57 Ate, 0.89 R2 =0.97
Qbkf = 58.26 Aµ, 0.78 R2 =0.99
Abkf = 21.43 AW 8 R2=0.95
Abkf = 15.65A,'-'9 R2 =0.99
Wbkf = 11.89 AW 3 R2 =0.81
Wbkf = 11.64 A, 0.46 R2 =0.98
Dbkf = 1.50 AW R2 =0.88
Dbkf = 1.15 AW 0.21 R'=0.96
Based on observations made in small rural piedmont streams, a growing number of data
points provide supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull indicators that produce
smaller dimensions and flow rates than the published regional curve data. However, that does
not appear to be the case for all the Thomas Creek project reaches.
As a comparison of a representative stable cross section (2b) identified within upper Reach
R2, the NC Piedmont Regional Curve estimates a bankfull cross - sectional area (Abkf) of
approximately 6.0 sf and a bankfull discharge (Qbkf) of approximately 11.1 cfs for a 0.153 mil
watershed. The revised rural piedmont regional curve estimates the Abkfof 4.3 sf and the Qbkf
of 13.5 cfs. The existing surveyed channel dimension has cross - sectional area at the top -of-
streambank/bankfull indicator of 5.6 sf. Similarly, for the representative stable cross section
(4b) in upper Reach R4, the NC Piedmont Regional Curve estimates a bankfull cross -
sectional area (Abkf) of approximately 3.1 sf and a bankfull discharge (Qbkf) of approximately
11.1 cfs for a 0.056 mil watershed. The revised piedmont regional curve estimates the Abkfof
2.1 sf and the Qbkf of 6.2 cfs. The existing surveyed channel dimension has cross - sectional
area at the top -of- streambank/bankfull indicator of 2.7 sf.
Other measurements were taken around the Thomas Creek project area with similar results;
the published (1999) Piedmont regional curve was generally close to the bankfull area from
field measurements (see Table 17.6). In one case, the measured bankfull area was larger than
that estimated by the regional curve. Thus, it appears that published Piedmont regional curve
is generally useful for the smaller Triassic basin streams that are part of the Thomas Creek
project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -36 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.6 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Reach
DA (sq mi)
Estimate from 1999
Regional Curve (sq ft)
Measured At Bankfull
Indicator (sq ft)
RI
0.384
11.2
12.0
R2 lower
0.219
7.7
7.5
R2 upper
0.153
6.0
5.6
R4
0.056
3.1
2.7, 3.1
R5
0.083
4.0
3.4, 3.75
Note: drainage areas in this table apply to cross section locations, not the outlet point of each reach.
17.2.3 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge
As described above in Section 17.2.1, 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 given the existing channel conditions,
geologic features, and flow regime /dentritic drainage patterns.
Table 17.7 provides a bankfull discharge analysis 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 estimations based on the proposed design cross
sections for all project reaches.
Manning's roughness (n) was estimated using the USGS paper "Guide for Selecting
Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains" (Arcement and
Schneider, 1989). Although selecting a Manning's roughness coefficient can be somewhat
subjective, the goals was to select a design value representative of a sand bed channel
immediately after construction with some influence from debris, meandering, and minimal
vegetation (e.g, livestakes, log jams, log vanes, herbaceous growth, etc.). The stream power is
higher and the sediment supply should be lower for this system, so a conservative n value was
chosen. Considering additional bedform roughness will be created (e.g., logjams, constructed
riffles), over time the roughness should increase as vegetation establishes so that n values
may range from 0.07 to greater than 0.10.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -37 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.7 Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Estimating Method
Bankfull Velocity
(ft /sec)
Bankfull Discharge
(cfs)
Reach R1
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
4.0
44.6
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.4
27.6
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method3
6.0
67.8
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness3
4.9
55.0
Manning's "n" from stream type
3.4
38.0
Design Estimate
4.1
47.0
Reach R2
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.9
29.7
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.2
17.8
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method3
4.3
33.3
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness
3.6
27.5
Manning's "n" from stream type3
2.5
19.0
Design Estimate
3.7
30.0
Reach R3
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.8
16.5
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.0
9.4
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method3
4.0
17.3
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness
3.5
15.0
Manning's "n" from stream type
2.4
10.4
Design Estimate
3.7
16.0
Reach R4
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.6
11.1
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.0
6.2
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method3
3.1
9.7
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness
2.8
8.7
Manning's "n" from stream type
1.9
6.0
Design Estimate
3.3
10.0
Reach R5
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.7
14.7
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.4
9.4
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method3
4.0
14.4
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness
3.5
12.5
Manning's "n" from stream type
3.1
8.6
Design Estimate
3.9
14.0
Notes:
' NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
2 Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by NRCS (Walker, 2012).
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
0.035 to 0.055 based on channel slopes, depth, bed material size, and vegetation influence.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -38 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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
streams should be transporting the total sediment load delivered from upstream sources. 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). Lane (195 5) describes a
generalized relationship of stream stability and dynamic equilibrium wherein the product of sediment
load and sediment size is proportional to the product of stream slope and discharge.
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 /meterz). 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 stream's
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) particle size.
In sand bed streams, such as Thomas Creek and its tributaries, sediment transport capacity is the critical
analysis. 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. The bedload generally includes relatively larger particles, such as
coarser sand and finer gravel, which are mobilized by rolling, sliding, or bouncing (saltating) along the
bed.
Given the steeper slopes of the project reaches, there is ample stream power (i.e., capacity) to move the
sediment load and very little risk of aggradation. Baker developed a HEC -RAS model for Reach R3 and
found that stream power remains high in the proposed conditions, particularly at the lower end of the
riffles. Thus, to guard against degradation, very frequent constructed threshold riffles that are immobile
have been included in the design. This is one of the recommendations from a study of Piedmont sand
bed streams conducted by Buck Engineer (now Baker) for NCEEP (Buck Engineering, 2007). The
watershed does not appear to be sediment supply limited, so material that is transported from riffle beds
may be replaced by sediment supply from upstream. However, given the high stream power and
channel stabilization measures (which will reduce sediment supply) undertaken as part of this project,
incorporating frequent grade control in the riffles provides insurance against channel degradation.
Additionally, should the watershed further develop, riffle grade control will protect against a flashier
hydrologic response.
17.3.2 Sampling Data Results
Sediment samples, consisting of bulk samples across the active channel bed, were collected along the
project reaches and dry sieved in a lab to obtain a sediment size distribution. The sample locations are
shown on Figure 17.1. The sieve data shown in Figure 17.5 show that all samples have a d50 in the
0.25 -0.5 mm range, indicating that the dominant bed material in the stream channel is medium sand
under current conditions. Additionally, the largest particles are fine to medium gravel in all cases, with
the largest particles less than 16 mm.
It should be noted that the modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen, 1994) is not appropriate for sand -
bed systems; therefore, a bulk sample procedure was only used to characterize the bed material for all
of the Thomas Creek sediment samples. All of the reaches contain sand, silt, and muck stream bottom
due to the parent soil and cattle impacts. Gravel composes approximately one (R1, R5, R7) to eight
(R3) percent of the substrate in all locations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -39 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.5 Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R1
100
90
90
80
70
80
70
60
tCumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
tCumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
60
C
c
u 50
`m
IL
2 50
`m
a
40
30
40
30
20
10
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
100
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R2
- — - -, —.. -.. _..
90
80
70
tCumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
60
C
u 50
`m
IL
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -40 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

Figure 17.5 Sediment Particle Size Distribution (Continued)
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R3
100
90
80
70
60
--m—Cumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
tCumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
c
v 50
60
c
v 50
d
CL
40
d
a
40
30
30
20
10
20
10
ELI
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0
0.01 01 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R5
100
90
80
70
tCumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
60
c
v 50
d
a
40
30
20
10
ELI
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
4 ------------ —
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -41 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

Figure 17.5 Sediment Particle Size Distribution (Continued)
100
Sediment Particle Size Distribution - Reach R4
90
80
70
tCumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
60
c
u
50
m
a
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
17.3.3 Predicted Channel Response
The existing streams have sand beds, with a few localized sections of bedrock that control grade. Based
on field observations and position within the upper watershed, the streams receive mostly fine materials
from bank erosion and minimal sediment loading from the upstream drainage. Further investigations
confirmed that the sediment supply from upstream sources is limited during larger storm events due to
impoundments (farm ponds), smaller headwater drainages, and controlling vegetative cover. While it is
predicted that the restoration and enhancement efforts will reduce localized stream bed/bank erosion,
the channels still must transport smaller bedload material from upstream sources while maintaining
stream bed/bank stability.
Sediment transport competency /entrainment and capacity were compared for the existing channels and
the design conditions for restored stream systems. Table 17.8 shows bankfull boundary shear stress and
stream power values for existing and design conditions. Bankfull boundary shear stress and stream
power values are somewhat lower for the proposed conditions than the existing conditions, because the
design channels are wider and shallower than the existing, generally incised channels. The proposed
conditions are still high enough, however, to move the expected sediment load.
Using another sediment transport competency comparison, boundary shear stress was plotted on
Shield's Curve to estimate the largest moveable particle. Not surprisingly, in all reaches, as shown in
Table 17.8, the Shield's Curve predicts the mobility of particles much larger than the d100 observed in
the existing bulk samples. However, the Shield's Curve also informs the size of the d100 in the design
constructed riffle. This competency analysis ensures that the d100 of the proposed riffle material will
not mobilize at the design discharge.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -42 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

As a design consideration, the proposed substrate material mix (riffle armor) will contain particle sizes
larger than those predicted to move based on the Shield's Curve to achieve vertical stability
immediately after construction. The site has both steep (> 0.02 ft /ft) and flatter channel slopes
throughout the tributaries and the main stem. In general, the proposed design channels with riffle slopes
greater than 1 % will be constructed using larger particles. Any concerns regarding further channel
degradation and vertical stability will be addressed by installing a combination of grade control
structures such as constructed riffles and log /rock step pools.
The prediction calculations shown on Table 17.8 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 (WARS S, 2006).
Table 17.8 Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Reach RI
Existing
Conditions
Reach RI
Proposed
Conditions
Reach R2
Existing
Conditions
Reach R2
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
46
46
30
30
Bankfull XS Area (square feet)
11.2
11.2
7.7
7.7
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft/sec)
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
9.0
12.5
6.5
10.4
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
1.3
0.9
1.2
0.7
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/ foot)
7.2
14.0
5.4
14.0
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
11.5
14.3
8.9
11.9
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.98
0.78
0.87
0.65
Channel Slope (feet /foot)
0.016
0.016
0.009
0.0080
Boundary Shear Stress,,; (lbs /ft)
1.24
0.89
0.65
0.38
Subpavement d100 (mm)
6.8
6.8
13.5
13.5
Largest Moveable Particle (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
300
210
170
100
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.11
Predicted Critical Slope (feet/ foot)
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Stream Power (W /m2)
73.4
52.8
36.9
13.1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -43 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.8 cont. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Reach R3
Existing
Conditions
Reach R3
Proposed
Conditions
Reach R4
Existing
Conditions
Reach R4
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
16
16
10
10
Bankfull XSC Area (square feet)
4.4
4.4
3.1
3.1
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft /sec)
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.2
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
5.3
7.8
4.5
6.3
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
6.5
14.0
6.4
13.0
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
6.9
8.9
5.9
7.3
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.62
0.48
0.53
0.43
Channel Slope (feet/foot)
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.013
Boundary Shear Stress, T (lbs /ft)
0.76
0.56
0.52
0.40
Subpavement d100 (mm)
13.5
13.5
6.8
6.8
Largest Moveable Particle (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
190
140
140
100
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.16
0.16
0.2
0.18
Predicted Critical Slope (feet/ foot)
0.003
0.004
0.003
.005
Stream Power (W /mZ)
38.6
24.5
36.3
23.3
Parameter
Reach R5
Existing
Conditions
Reach R5
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
14
14
Bankfull XSC Area (square feet)
3.6
3.6
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft/sec)
3.9
3.9
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
4.1
6.8
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
1.0
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
4.2
13.0
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
6.4
7.9
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.69
0.46
Channel Slope (feet /foot)
0.015
0.012
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -44 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.8 cont. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Parameter
Reach R5
Existing
Conditions
Reach R5
Proposed
Conditions
Boundary Shear Stress, i (lbs /ft2)
0.84
0.37
Subpavement d100 (mm)
13.5
13.5
Largest Moveable Particle (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
200
100
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.16
0.15
Predicted Critical Slope (feet/ foot)
0.003
0.005
Stream Power (W /m2)
43.4
22.4
17.4 Existing Vegetation Assessment
The riparian areas within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of mature successional forest,
pasture, agricultural fields, and maintained/disturbed pine forest, as described by Schafale and Weakley
(1990). Historic land management surrounding the project area has been primarily for agricultural and
silvicultural purposes and the significant removal of native tree species vegetation in the riparian zone
(lower R5, lower R2, and R1). The wooded portions of the site consist of a combination of Dry-Mesic
Oak - Hickory Forest in the uplands with Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest and Bottomland Forest in the
lower areas and floodplains on the site ( Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The riparian buffer along upper
Reach R2 lacks much 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 Maintained/Disturbed
This community is primarily located in the fields adjacent to the upper portions of the project area along
Reaches R3 and R6. Past harvesting for silviculture is clearly evident in these areas with abandoned
logging roads and old woody debris piles present. Early successional vegetation such as sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pious taeda), and red maple (Acer rubrum) dominate, with a
thick shrub understory of similar species along with multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), as well as vines including blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
17.4.2 Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas
This community covers approximately 30 -40 percent of the project area. Currently, the pasture areas are
used for cattle grazing. The vegetation within open fields and pasture areas is primarily comprised of
fescues, clovers, and scattered weeds consisting of dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), horse -nettle
(Solanum carolinense), buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), and thistle (Cirsium vulgare). The wetland areas
found within the pasture contain these plants as well, but also include a variety of wetter species such as
shallow sedge (Carex lurida), awl -fruit sedge (Carex stipata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), blunt
spikerush (Eleocharis obtuse), and smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvaticum). In the narrow, wooded
riparian areas within the pastures and fields, the canopy is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), red
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -45 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

maple (Acer rubrum), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), with
a relatively sparse understory consisting of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Woody shrub and vine
species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia).
17.4.3 Dry -Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest /Alluvial and Bottomland Forest
These forested areas comprise approximately 60 -70 percent of the project area, mostly in the upper
reaches. The canopy and understory is dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak
(Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and pignut hickory
(Carya glabra), but also includes some black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboretum), water oak (Quercus nigra), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), winged elm (Ulmus alata), American holly (Ilex opaca), and mulberry (Morus rubra).
Woody shrubs are relatively sparse and generally just include younger specimens of the overstory
species. Vines and herbaceous species found here include blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), along
with multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), little brown jugs
(Hexastylis arifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), New
York fern (Parathelypteris noveboracensis), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.).
In the floodplains and lower portions of these forested areas, the vegetation shifts to species more
characteristic of piedmont alluvial and bottomland forests. The canopy and understory here includes
species such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), in
addition to the sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) commonly observed elsewhere on site. A dense and
diverse shrub and herbaceous layer is also present here with species such as wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), water oak (Quercus nigra), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), elderberry (Sambuca canadensis), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), spicebush (Lindera benzoin),
Joe -pye weed (Eupatorium purpureum), netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata), sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), soft
rush (Juncus effusus), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), false - nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical), and Jack -in- the - pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum). Numerous vines such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia), cat -briar (Smilax bona -nox), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are also
common in these areas.
17.4.4 Invasive Species Vegetation
The primary invasive species vegetation present on the project site are primarily Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), which were found interspersed throughout
the riparian buffer areas. Invasive species vegetation will be sprayed, cut and painted, or grubbed in
areas infested within the easement. Treatments will be conducted to control the invasive species
vegetation with the easement during the monitoring period as needed.
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -46 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 to 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 will 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 will decide 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 will 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 May 2014 to investigate potential
wetlands within hydric soils areas and confirm the perennial and intermittent streams in the project area.
In total, the field survey identified twelve separate wetland areas containing hydric soil indicators and a
predominance of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. These areas were identified, flagged,
and mapped, as described in Section 16.1. Wetland data forms are also provided in Section 16.1. The
wetland areas located in the pasture along stream reaches R1 and R2 exhibited marginal hydrologic
indicators and are dominated with herbaceous species subject to active cattle grazing. The remaining
wetlands were located along stream floodplains and/or within depressional areas. These areas were
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -47 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

confirmed by the USACE in July 2014, and the proposed mitigation plan for the site will seek to
enhance and avoid disturbance of these wetland areas wherever possible.
17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations
It is likely that small wetland seeps 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 and current agricultural land use practices have altered the composition of the plant
community currently present. Wetland stressors, such as cattle grazing and periodic logging operations,
have altered the vegetative composition and hydrological connections within the project area. The main
stem was likely moved and/or deepened to capture various sources of seepage in this portion of the
project area 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, the identified wetland areas will likely
experience a more natural hydrology and flooding regime, and the riparian buffer areas in these
locations will be planted with native woody vegetation species that are more 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 reach sections, which will lead to higher
water table conditions adjacent to the channels and more frequent out -of -bank flooding of adjacent
wetland areas. Additionally, the exclusion of cattle from large portions of the riparian buffer will allow
for the rehabilitation of soil structure that has been degraded and compacted by years of cattle grazing.
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 220 days
( htt p:// www. ces.ncsu.edu/hil/hi1- 709.htm1). The area experiences an average annual rainfall of 46.60
inches (MRCS, 1970) as shown on Table 17.9. During 2013, a wet year, the NOAA Apex SW weather
station (GHCND:US 1NCWK0084) recorded 49.51 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 17.9 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Month -Year
Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Average Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed
from Average (in)
Jan -2013
3.15
3.3
-0.15
Feb -2013
4.01
3.5
+0.51
Mar -2013
1.43
3.7
-2.27
Apr -2013
4.96
3.8
+1.16
May -2013
2.54
3.8
-1.26
Jun -2013
10.82
3.9
+6.92
Jul -2013
6.06
5.9
+0.16
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -48 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.9 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Month -Year
Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Average Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed
from Average (in)
Aug -2013
2.80
5.4
-2.60
Sept -2013
3.76
4.6
-0.84
Oct -2013
0.90
2.8
-1.90
Nov -2013
3.19
3.0
+0.19
Dec -2013
5.89
3.2
+2.69
Sum
49.51
46.9
+2.61
17.5.4 Soil Characterization
Soils at the project site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey data for Wake County (1970).
The areas proposed for stream restoration and enhancement are mapped as Wehadkee and Bibb soils.
Wehadkee and Bibb are predominantly hydric soils. All project reaches are underlain by Wehadkee
and Bibb soils; however, the soil data layer projection does not line up correctly with the floodplain and
the overlap between the reaches and the soil type is not correct. Nevertheless, the soil description and
existing topography indicate that the floodplains for each of the reaches should be Wehadkee and Bibb.
Figure 2.3 shows soil conditions throughout the project area and the soil descriptions are shown on
Table 17.10.
Table 17.10 NRCS Soil Series (Wake County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1970)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Miti ation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Soil Name
Landform
Hydric Soil
Description
Bibb
Depressions
Yes
Poorly drained soils formed in floodplains or upland
depressions. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 %. Permeability is
moderate to moderately rapid.
Wehadkee
Depressions
Yes
Poorly drained soils formed on floodplains. Slope ranges
from 0 to 2 %. Permeability moderate to moderately rapid.
17.5.5 Plant Community Characterization
Based on historical aerials and the landowner's verification, a majority of the proposed stream
restoration area is comprised of pasture land, narrow tree canopy and successional vegetation.
Historically, the surrounding pasture areas have been used for cattle production. Current canopy and
understory vegetation within the existing delineated wetlands are dominated by tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), with some green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
and American elm (Ulmus americana). Common shrub species include elderberry (Sambuca
canadensis), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora). Herbaceous and vine species primarily consist of jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
Jack -in- the - pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical), netted chain fern
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -49 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

(Woodwardia aerolata), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans).
17.5.6 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetative components of this restoration project include streambank, floodplain, and transitional
upland planting and described as the riparian buffer zone. These planting boundaries will be comprised
of species found within native plant communities as described in Section 17.4 and 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 lack diversity, 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 all proposed streambanks
(100 foot total minimum width) for all of the stream reaches within the project boundary. In many
areas, the buffer width will be in excess of 50 feet along one or both streambanks (more than 100 foot
total width) and will encompass adjacent jurisdictional wetland areas. In general, bare -root vegetation
will be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. Planting will be conducted during the
dormant season, with all trees installed between the last week of November and the third week of April.
Selected species for hardwood revegetation planting are presented in Table 17.10. Tree species selected
for restoration and enhancement areas will be weakly tolerant 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. 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. Disturbed soils across the
site will be prepared by sufficiently loosening to a depth of four inches prior to planting as described in
the technical specifications. Heavily compacted soils (e.g., hardpan or areas that have experienced
heavy cattle or equipment use) will be loosened to a depth of eight to ten inches by disking or ripping to
prepare for tree planting. In any areas where excavation depths exceed ten inches, topsoil shall be
separated from rocks, brush, or foreign materials, stockpiled, and placed back over these areas to a
depth of eight inches to achieve design grades and create a soil base for vegetation. 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 streambanks between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. Site
variations may require slightly different spacing.
Permanent seed mixtures 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
streambank, floodplain, and adjacent wetland areas. Mixtures 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 streambanks of the restored stream channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -50 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

The species provided are deep- rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream
channels, providing long -term stability.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed streambanks, 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.
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 Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Botanical Name
Common Name
%Planted by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Riparian Buffer Plantings - 8' x 8' spacing - 680 stems /Acre
Overstory Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
12%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
9%
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
9%
FAC
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
6%
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
9 %
FACW -
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
6%
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
9%
FACW -
Understory Species
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
15%
FAC
Viburnum dentatum
Arrowwood Viburnum
15%
FAC
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
10%
FAC
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Salix nigra
Black Willow
10%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
FACW -
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
30%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
40%
FACW+
Table 17.11 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Density
lbs /ac
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardii
Big blue stem
10%
1.50
FAC
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer tongue
15%
1.50
FACW
Carex crinata
Fringed sedge
10%
2.25
FACW+
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
1.50
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
10%
2.25
FACW+
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -51 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
1.50
FAC+
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
15%
0.75
FACU
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
0.75
FACU
Total
100%
15.00
17.6 Site Construction
17.6.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction
A general construction sequence is provided below and included on the plan set for the Thomas Creek
Restoration Project. The site construction, including grading and planting activities, will be conducted
using common machinery, tools, equipment and techniques for successfully implementing the 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 fence 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 Erosion and Sediment 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 Reach R3. 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 separated,
stockpiled and placed back over these areas to a depth of eight inches to achieve design grades and
create a soil base for vegetation according to the plans and specifications.
12. Contractor shall begin construction on stream Reaches R3 at Station 11 +30 and proceed in a
downstream direction until the upstream portion of Reach R2. The Contractor shall excavate the
channel to design grades in all areas except within 10 feet of the top of existing streambanks.
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -52 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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.
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 mulching 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 by installing ford crossings,
stabilizing side slopes, and modifying the farm 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 Thomas Creek Restoration Project site. Structures
such as grade control j -hook vanes, log vanes, rock cross vanes, grade control log jams, constructed
riffles, root wads, log weirs, boulder steps, and cover logs will be used to stabilize the newly- restored
streams 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -53 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.12 Proposed In- Stream Structure Types and Locations
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Structure Type
Location
In locations along outside of meander bends or against one streambank in
Root Wads
straight reaches to increase pool diversity and provide refugium for fish.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent to prevent possible
Grade Control J -Hook Vanes
downcutting or headcut migration, and stream bed/bank erosion.
Located throughout various meander bends to prevent to prevent possible
Log Vanes
streambank erosion.
Log Weirs / Step Pools
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent to prevent possible
downcutting or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
Located along outside bends or against one streambank in straight reaches to
Cover Logs /Toe Wood
increase pool diversity and provide refugium for fish.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible downcutting
Constructed Riffles
or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible downcutting
Grade Control Log Jams
or headcut migration, and bed erosion.
Installed along some or all of remnant channel segments to prevent subsurface
Ditch Plug / Channel Block
flow.
In locations outside of meander bends to increase streambank stability and
Vegetation Transplants
cover.
In locations outside of meander bends to create and /or increase streambank
Vegetated Geolift
stability and reduce near bank stress.
Root Wads
Root wads are placed at the toe of the streambank along the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for streambank 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 streambank and reduce near bank stress by deflecting
stream flows away from the streambank. In addition to streambank protection, they provide structural
support to the streambank 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 streambanks. These
vanes may be constructed out of logs and/or rock boulders. The structure arms turn water away from the
streambanks and re- direct flow energies toward the center of the channel. In addition to providing
stability to streambanks, 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 streambank 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 streambanks by reducing near -bank stress and redirecting flow
vectors away from the streambank. The length of a single vane structure can span one -half to two - thirds
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -54 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream flow
intersects the streambank 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.
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. 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.
Grade Control Log Jams
A grade control log jam is created by placing woody material 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 formation of a stabilized streambed. These structures can
be substituted for traditional constructed riffles using rock material, in a similar way as natural riffles;
the surfaces and interstitial spaces are crucial to the life cycles of many aquatic species.
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -55 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 streambanks. 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 streambank
and to provide a foundation for the geolifts. The geolifts are installed on top of the base material to
comprise the entire restored streambank up to the bankfull channel elevation. Geolifts can be used to
effectively stabilize restored streambanks for all sizes of streams simply by varying the number of lifts
required to form the streambank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -56 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 18 -1 3/13/2015
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Soo
W
V
•
•
V
W
O
VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF SHEETS
1 . . . . . . TITLE SHEET
1 -A - - - - - - STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
VEGETATION SELECTION
1 -B - - - - -- CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 - 2 -E - - - - -- DETAILS
3 - - - - -- GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
4 - 16 -..... PLAN VIEW
17-21 . . . . . . PROFILES
22-27 ...... REVEGETATION PLAN
EC1 - EC8 - - - - -- EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
NOR TH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LOCATION.
TYPE OF WORK:
WAKE CO UNTY
1.5 MILES SOUTHWEST OF THE COMMUNITY OF NEW HILL
STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
STATE
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
NC
135794
1
NCEEP ID No. 96074
J 1 H. I VT I V.VV
GRAPHIC SCALES STREAM LENGTH SUMMARY PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF: PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: PROJECT ENGINEER
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
REACH NAME EXISTING LENGTH (LF) PROPOSED LENGTH (LF) Michael cry, NORTH CAROLINA 275680
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
20 0 20 40 REACH 1 397 266 I N T E R N A T I O N A L License #: F -1084
REACH 2 1,995 1,089 NCDENR "t-0� CARpj�.,
PLANS REACH 3 1,067 1,231 ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
?:�oFESSi�ti9,9
REACH 4 1,197 1,201 1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WILLIAM SCOTT HUNT = SEAL "
20 0 20 40 , III, PE
- 2 967
REACH 5 1,022 1,828 RALEIGH NC 27699 -1652 PROJECT ENGINEER %ly ®lrr'
REACH 6 1,828 1,808 a el
PROFILE HORIZONTAL LETTING DATE: s T1
REACH 7 646 646
CHRIS ROESSLER
4 0 4 8 REACH TI 242 253 PROJECT MANAGER
REACH T2 171 158 CONTACT. JEFF SCHAFFER
PROJECT MANAGER PE
PROFILE (VERTICAL) TOTAL 8,565 8,480 1 SIGNATURE.

M
CV
CV
Q
LD
c0
Iv
n
0)
0
0
0
V
0
L
U
0
E
0
Ln�
o�
CVO
tllj
STREAM ��VENTIONAL SYMBOLS
SUPERCEDES SHEET I-B
o
ROCK J -HOOK
12%
ROCK VANE
Betula nigra
OUTLET PROTECTION
9%
ROCK CROSS VANE
LOG WEIR
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
LOG CROSS VANE
\\ LOG ROLLER
���oo CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BOULDER CLUSTER
ROCK STEP POOL
LOG STEP POOL
OVERNAL POOL
—Ds —SAFETY FENCE
—TF TAPE FENCE
FP 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
cE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- - -- 435 - - -- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
---- - - - - -- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
- ------ -- - -- --- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
PROPERTY LINE
® FOOT BRIDGE
L _-J TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TREE REMOVAL
* TREE " PROTECTION
DITCH PLUG/CHANNEL BLOCI
CHANNEL FILL
BRUSH MATTRESS
• •
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN- STREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS (3'x2'x2'), LOGS AND ROOTWADS.
2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN SPRING OF 2015.
4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE- CALL" BEFORE
EXCAVATION STARTS. (1- 800 - 632 -4949)
5. ENGINEER WILL FLAG TREES TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
6 " I' M1 \ 11) ,11 I'� 11 l" I ( I I
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 1 1 -A
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
CARO ��O
's, I
;��� SEAL APPROVED BY:
22967
SCOTI
DATE:
I
I
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael - 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
- Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ce se #: F310840
NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
MARCH 2009 (REV 20 13)
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE
12%
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR
Betula nigra
River Birch
9%
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR
Liriodendron tulipifera
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK
9%
ROOT WAD
®
LOG J -HOOK
a ®
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK
0
Swamp Chestnut Oak
9%
LOG VANE
LOG WEIR
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
LOG CROSS VANE
\\ LOG ROLLER
���oo CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BOULDER CLUSTER
ROCK STEP POOL
LOG STEP POOL
OVERNAL POOL
—Ds —SAFETY FENCE
—TF TAPE FENCE
FP 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
cE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- - -- 435 - - -- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
---- - - - - -- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
- ------ -- - -- --- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
PROPERTY LINE
® FOOT BRIDGE
L _-J TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TREE REMOVAL
* TREE " PROTECTION
DITCH PLUG/CHANNEL BLOCI
CHANNEL FILL
BRUSH MATTRESS
• •
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN- STREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS (3'x2'x2'), LOGS AND ROOTWADS.
2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN SPRING OF 2015.
4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE- CALL" BEFORE
EXCAVATION STARTS. (1- 800 - 632 -4949)
5. ENGINEER WILL FLAG TREES TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
6 " I' M1 \ 11) ,11 I'� 11 l" I ( I I
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 1 1 -A
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
CARO ��O
's, I
;��� SEAL APPROVED BY:
22967
SCOTI
DATE:
I
I
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael - 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
- Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ce se #: F310840
NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
MARCH 2009 (REV 20 13)
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
12%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
9%
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
9%
FAC
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
6%
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
9%
FACW -
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
6%
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
American Svcamore
9%
FACW-
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
15%
FAC
Viburnum dentatum
Arrowwood Viburnum
15%
FAC
Asimina triloba
PawPaw
10%
FAC
6.05 TREE PROTECTION
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.62 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Andropogon gerardu
Rpar><an Live > Stake plantings `
10%
Salix nigra
Black Willow
10%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
FACW -
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
30%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
40%
FACW+
6.05 TREE PROTECTION
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.62 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Andropogon gerardu
Big blue stem
10%
1.5
FAC
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer tongue
15%
1.5
FACW
Carex crinata
Fringed sedge
10%
2.25
FACW+
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
1.5
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
10%
2.25
FACW+
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
1.5
FAC+
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
15%
0.75
FACU
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
0.75
FACU
Total
100%
15
NCEEP ID No. 96074

N
N
L�
c
CLi
N
0
LL
L
0
ro
E
O
-C
NLn
\Cn
Ln�
M�
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
State Line ---- -----
County Line - -- - - --
Township Line -- --
City Line - -
Reservation Line
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin O
Property Corner —
El
Property Monument ECM
Parcel /Sequence Number @
Existing Fence Line —x x x—
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
Proposed Chain Link Fence ED
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence -
Existing Wetland Boundary - - - -WLB- - - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary WLB
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary EAB
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary EPB
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE:
Gas Pump Vent or U/G Tank Cap
o
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement — —TDE
S
Sign
PDE
W
W
Well
Small Mine
X
Foundation
0
Area Outline
Cemetery
t
Building
T
Existing Curb
School
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut - -
Church
P d SI St k F'll - --
HYDROLOGY.•
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone 2
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream
Cr%rinr4
Wetland
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
is
BZ 1
BZ 2 —
-- --
F— FLOW
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
RAILROADS:
Standard Gauge " " " "
CSX TRANSPORTATION
RR Signal Milepost o
g p MILEPOST 35
Switch
SWITCH
RR Abandoned -i-
RR Dismantled -- - - - - --
RIGHT OF WAY.-
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker A
Existing Right of Way Line -
Proposed Right of Way Line R
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Line with R
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Access a\A;1
Proposed Control of Access
Existing Easement Line E
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement -
E
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement — —TDE
♦-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement
PDE
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement
PUE
Proposed Temporary Utility Easement
TUE
Proposed Permanent Easement with
0
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES:
HH
Existing Edge of Pavement
T
Existing Curb
—
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut - -
- C - - -
P d SI St k F'll - --
F - --
ropose ope a es i
,Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp (KR)
Existing Metal Guardrail T T
Proposed Guardrail T T T
Existing Cable Guiderail n n
Proposed Cable Guiderail n n
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
VEGETATION.-
Single Tree �2?
Single Shrub 0
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard
Vineyard Vineyard
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall -
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES.-
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer
U/G Power Cable Hand Hole
H -Frame Pole
Recorded U/G Power Line
Designated U/G Power Line (S.U.E. *)
l CONC
) CONC WW
/*� CONC HW
CB
OO
S
i
b
4-
H"
9
-- - -P - - - -
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole
♦-
Proposed Telephone Pole
-O-
Telephone Manhole
O
Telephone Booth
Telephone Pedestal
Telephone Cell Tower
U/G Telephone Cable Hand Hole
HH
Recorded U/G Telephone Cable
T
Designated U/G Telephone Cable (S.U.E. *) - -
- - -T- - - -
Recorded U/G Telephone Conduit
TG
Designated LIAG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E. *y -
- - -TC- - - -
Recorded LYG Fiber Optics Cable
T FO
Designated U/G Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.* - -
- - -T FO- - -
R
SEAL
22967
�'�i l ••'FNG I N���' � ;.
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter
Water Valve
Water Hydrant
Recorded U/G Water Line
Designated U/G Water Line (S.U.E.
Above Ground Water Line
9
0
W
- -W — — — -
A/C Water
TV:
TV Satellite Dish C�
TV Pedestal
TV Tower
U/G TV Cable Hand Hole
Recorded U/G TV Cable TV
Designated U/G TV Cable (S.U.E. *) - - - —TV— - - -
Recorded LYG Fiber Optic Cable TV FO
Designated U/G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E. *}- - - - —TV FO- - -
GAS:
Gas Valve
Gas Meter
Recorded U/G Gas Line
Designated U/G Gas Line (S.U.E. *)
Above Ground Gas Line
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout
U/G Sanitary Sewer Line
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer
Recorded SS Forced Main Line
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E. *) —
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
Utility Pole with Base
Utility Located Object
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown U/G Line
U/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
A/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
U/G Test Hole (S.U.E. *)
Abandoned According to Utility Records
End of Information
0
0
- -G —- --
A/G Gas
A/C Sanitary Sewer
FSS
�S &�
U
— ?UTL
0
0
AATU R
E.O.I.

m
N
c
N
i
cn
r
L(�
(n
C
flo
n
i
C
u
O
4
i
1
V
N
N
L
L)
ro
E
O
F--
Or,_
N�
L�
\ o0
ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON -SITE
COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHEET 2 -A)
FLOOD PLAIN BERM (0.5' MAX. HT) BERM(S) TOP OF BANK
7 NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND
LIMITS OF ROOT WADS.
BANKFULL STAGE
COVER LOG
(6 " -8" DIA.)
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE AVAILABLE ON -SITE
TRANSPLANTS
(SEE SHEET 2 -A) TRANSPLANTS NOT TO
FLOOD PLAIN EXTEND BEYOND TRUNK TOP OF BANK
OF ROOT WADS.
COVER LOG (6" - 8" DIA.)
,\\i \X
s�
FA
Wb
Wbkf mom
Wb
RIFFLE
Wbkf
�1
NOTES:
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE ROUNDED
AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
2. POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS FOR MEANDER CHANNELS.
0
s
THE
PLAN VIEW
DVER LOG
" - 8" DIA.)
_.
NOTES:
1. INSTALLATION USING THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A
TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD.
ONE -THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL
BASE FLOW'', CONDITIONS OR CHANNEL BOTTOM.
2. THE NUMBER OF ROOTWADS ESTIMATED MAY VARY DEPENDING ON
THE ROOTMASS SIZE. IN GENERAL, ROOTWADS SHOULD PROTECT THE OUTER
MEANDER BEND AS SHOWN. SEE STRUCTURE TABLE FOR APPROXIMATE
STATION AND LOCATION.
3. INSTALL COVER LOGS BETWEEN ROOTWADS TO PROVIDE HABITAT
ONLY WHEN AVAILABLE FROM ON -SITE HARVESTING.
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES, ROOT WADS,
LOG VANES AND COIR FIBER MATTING
WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION
AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN.
2. ANY CHANGES TO NUMBER OR LOCATION
OF STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION
MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER.
3. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON
ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS, FLOODPLAIN BENCHING,
AND TERRACE SLOPES AS DESCRIBED IN THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS.
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
135794
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
i
i
i
�•``�H,CARP��i,
Ip• • q '•
s
' SEAL '
22967 f
10 ft
10'� •••' "*G
SHEET
2
APPROVED BY:
� m,
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
I
8000 Reaencv Parkway. Suite 600
518
1-1 -
TYPICAL RIFFLE. POOL. AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS - SECTIONS
TOP OF TERRACE
- WVARIES Wbkf
27
D -Ma)
Wb
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
VARIES
TOP OF TERRACE
VARIES -No- Wbkf No od VARIES
'x /
Wb
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
R1
R2 -To
R2- Bottom *
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
12.5
17.5
9.2
12.0
10.4
13.7
1.1
2.4
0.8
1.7
1.0
1.9
14.0
12.4
14.0
11.6
14.0
11.7
11.2
24.7
6.0
12.5
7.7
16.1
8.2
3.1
6.0
2.7
5.5
3.3
R3
R4
R5
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
7.0
10.0
6.3
8.5
6.8
9.0
0.7
1.5
0.6
1.1
0.7
13
12.0
11.3
13.0
12.0
13.0
11.5
4.1
8.8
3.1
6.0
3.6
7.1
4.0
1.8
3.9
2.5
3.3
1.9
R6 / R7 *
T1
T2
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
4.6
6.7
7.0
9.0
3.5
6.0
0.4
1.0
0.7
1.4
0.4
0.8
14.0
11.4
13.0
10.5
12.0
11.8
1.5
4.0
3.8
7.7
1.0
3.0
2.4
1.2
4.4
2.0
2.0
1.6
* USE 2.5:1 RIFFLE SIDE SLOPE
VARIES Wbkf VARIES
\-
7
Wb
STEP - POOL
3�
X
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf)
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D -Max)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (Wbkf / D)
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D -Max)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (Wbkf / D)
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf)
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D -Max)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (Wbkf/ D)
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)

N
N
TOP OF STREAMBANK
LIVE STAKE
TOE OF SLOPE
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
SECTION A - Al
Kit% 1 I %M OTA VCO r%Ki 0111A1T DAM
LIVE STAKING
TOP OF STREAMBAN
LIVE ST
TOE OF SLOPE
1
C
Q
N
i
cry
Lo
/
(n
C_
r-,
CL
C
2
In
0
0
/
0
LL
a�
L
L)
(n
E
0
o'er
N�
t1� j
\ o0
6' -8' SPACING 2' -3' SPACING
LIVE STAKE SPACING PLAN VIEW
A
TOP OF STREAMBANK
`�► A'
PLAN VIEW
'iUUAKt GU I I UI
BUDS FACING UPWARD
LIVE CUTTING MIN. 1/2" DIA
2'- 3' LENGTH
ANGLE CUT 30 - 45 DEGREES -`
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
2. DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
5. STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG.
6. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
/— TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
CROSS SECTION VIEW
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS
(5)
1•
it
it
it
i --. - - — —. —/
PLAN VIEW
kTERIAL
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK.
2. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT
BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND
ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
6. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE
TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEY TOUCH.
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
W
C�
J
J
LL
Y
z
Q
m
STONE BACKFILL
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER
1/3
BOTTOM
WIDTH
OF
CHANNEL
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
PLANTINGS
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
NOTES:
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER /PLANTING ZONE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. ALLOW FOR 6 -10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE.
3. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J- ROOTING.
6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP, OR STRAW.
7. HEEL -IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE.
ROCK VANE
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
135794
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
I
C A R q
,,,,o��ti� k.-
1
� �'FESSIp'':�q�'��
' SEAL -
22967
SHEET
2 -A
D BY:
i
11�if
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
N T E R N A TI O N A L License #: F -1084
=L ( EEP ID No. 96074
STREAM BED ELEVATION
BANKFULL-
FLOW
FLOW —�
ooC
0 STONE BACKFILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC-
\
NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS
4% TO 7% SLOPE
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
V
PROFILE VIEW
,SCOUR POOR
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
BOTTOM WIDTH - ►1
PLAN VIEW
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
1. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A
MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.
2. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE
OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK.
3. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
4. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
5. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
6. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH ON -SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 1 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
STONE BACKFILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
1, HEADER ROCK
STREAMBED
1'
1'
10' MINIMUM ►
SECTION A - A
FOOTER ROCK

M
N
N
C
m
N
I
J-
I,-
v�
C
ro
C
T)
0
i
0
LL
a�
L
L)
ro
E
0
Lng,
0-fl-
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
LOG WEIR
LOG VANE 135794 1 2 -B
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMBED
I
C A R p1��i�
STONE BACKFILL
TRANSPLANTS TRANSPLANTS
;'Q� 91s: I APPROVED BY:
: SEAL
22967
2/3
BANKFULL
�0v0�o"�oI \c�D \ \c�'C�o\ Oov�< �'e •'•FNGIN`�
800000g0000 00000000000c .,�,q •..
,(�, ,0 �\o0g �\�g \�ooOc I DATE:
00000)000 \00000 0or-
CHANNEL WIDTH
)o0 000000000\ 000`
1.5 X CHANNEL WIDTH
•''
HEADER LOG eo \o°o \� \oa \000)000
0 �(�00�� o0oc Michael Baker En ineerin Inc.
non o n oni o n o
TOP OF STREAMBANK
`�
. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
1/3 Michael . y'
I SCOUR 1
\
At
BANKFULL Phone: 9 9T3.5 548gLINA 27518
FOOTER LOG GEOTEXTILE Fax: [phone]
FABRIC I I N I T E R N A T I O N A L License #: F -1084
POOL
�A LOG WEIR
FLOW
° ° °'
-���
6' MINIMUM NCEEP ID No. 96074
-- - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - -- --
I I
STREAMBED
.
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SECTION A - A'
- -- - - ------ - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- S
5' A' S LOURP �
%-
.1
HEADER
LOG STONE BACKFILL
iEXCAVATE'
1 POOL ��\
�I
PLAN VIEW
GEOTEXTILE.FABRIC
i ROOTWAD
--
ROOTWAD
FOOTER
LOG
O 5'
TOP OF STREAMBANK
4' MINIMUM
FLOW
TRANSPLANTS
,
LOGS BURIED IN ''�'
STREAMBED
ZZ
SECTION A -A'
STREAMBANK
AT LEAST 5'
INVERT
PLAN VIEW
BOULDER
;-
ELEVATION
NOTES:
HEADER LOG NOTES:
-
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. FOOTER LOG
- -- -
-- - - _ 1.
-�' -�� ---� --
LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
2. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ANCHOR LOGS.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS. HEADER LOG
- — -'- - - -- - - -�_ = -- - FOOTER LOG
HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
4. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
2.
LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG.
INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
- - _ - -- - - - - -_ _ -
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG
5. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
3.
PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOG
6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
PROFILE VIEW
CROSS SECTION VIEW
APPROXIMATLEY 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
7. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION
OF ENGINEER.
4.
CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATLEY 50 PERCENT OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION.
5.
USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
6.
PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK.
BARB WIRE FIELD FENCE
WOVEN WIRE FIELD FENCE
STEEL FRAME GATES
END POST BRACE POST
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG 6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG
END POST BRACE POST
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG 6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG
20' AND 10'
iSTRAND
4„ (SEE PLANS FOR SPECIFIC LENGTH)
BARB WIRE BRACE WIRE
10 GAUGE WIRE (2 STRAPS OF
BARB WIRE (TYP.)
9 GAUGE WIRE)
3 INCHES (TYP.)
3 INCHES (TYP.)
X X X X X X X X X X X
X X
w W w `-
w
Qo Qo
GRADUATED IN SIZE
GRADUATED IN SIZE
E �z
§ w j w
48 INCHES X X X X X X X X X X X
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
48 INCHES X X FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
U) cn
GETTING LARGER IN
GETTING LARGER IN
SIZE TOWARD THE TOP.
SIZE TOWARD THE TOP.
X X X X X X X X X X X
X X
-1 I -
(V I
I I I I ih
I I_J I I I
X X X X X X X X X X X
GROUND LINE
X X
GROUND LINE
L---j
VARIES
VARIES 10 GAUGE WIRE 12.5 GAUGE WIRE
22HES
(TYP.)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I 24 INCHES (TYP.)
NOTES:
NOTE:
NOTE:
1. POST HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL BE THE SAME
AS REQUIRED FOR THE ADJACENT FENCE.
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF 10 -15 FEET.
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF 8 FEET BETWEEN POSTS, NOT ON CENTER.
2. CONSTRUCT AN END OR STRESS PANEL, AS
2. DUAL WOODEN POST TURN NEEDED IF CHANGE IN FENCE ANGLE IS >20 DEGREES.
REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFICATION, ON EACH
3. LINE POSTS SPACED LESS THAN 16.5 FEET APART.
SIDE OF GATE.
3. HINGES AND LOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED
AS SPECIFIED BY GATE MANUFACTURER.

CV
i
Cf
�I-
Ln
i
c
i
C
a�
0
i
0
LL
Z
L
(__)
fu
E
0
Lt�6'
or--
CVLD
\m
Lnj
BANKFULL
12" DIAMETER
OR GREATER
,
,
12" DIAMETER
OR GREATER
,
,
,
' BURY INTO BED /BANK
I 5 FEET OR GREATER
(TYPICAL)
i
A'
PLAN VIEW
6
BURY INTO BED /BANK
5 FEET OR GREATER
(TYPICAL)
C
END LOG STEP INVERT ELEVATION AND STATION
A
A'
PLAN VIEW
A
ST,gF\
M eFp
LOG STEP POOL
LUN
1' BELOW MAX
POOL DEPTH
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(TYPICAL)
SECTION A - A'
BANKFULL
FLOW ►
STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG
NOTES:
1. LOGS WITHOUT ROOT MASS MAY BE USED IF APPROVED BY PROJECT ENGINEER.
BEGIN LOG STEP INVERT ELEVATION AND STATION
STONE BACKFILL
8
PROTECT BANK USING
ROOT WADS
l
PROTECT BANK USING
BOULDERS
BANKFULL
NOTES:
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO
135794
PROJECT Fwr_Ir iFFR
I
I
i
I
CARp��•,�
SEAL =
_ I
22967
SHEET NO.
2 -C
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
1/2 TO 2/3 NOTES:
BANKFULL 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 NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL
BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A 3:1 SLOPE. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO
SIDE SLOPES.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER
EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF STONE BACKFILL, 6 INCHES THICK, LINED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC.
SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
8. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE
CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT
UTILIZED.
�OegsEF RIFFLE D -max
° —off/
TOP OF BAP "'
POOL
D -max
BOULDER
POOL TO POOL SPACING VARIES.
SEE STRUCTURE TABLE, LONG PRO
AND PLAN VIEW FOR APPROXIMATE
STATION LOCATION / ELEVATION
- - -_ �`- - -__ - STONE BACKFILL
7 _
- -
GETOTEXTILE FABRIC (TYP.)
SECTION A - A'
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD,
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED /STAPLED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE 3' X 2'X 2' AND PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
5. LOGS SHOULD BE ANGLED 600 - 70° FROM THE STREAM BANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD NOT EXCEED 2 %.
6. STEP HEIGHTS /DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.4 FT AND POOL DEPTHS NOT TO EXCEED 1.8 FT.
7. THE NUMBER LOG STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGIN AND END STATIONING DEPENDING ON
LOG DIAMETER SIZE. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE AND STRUCTURE TABLE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
SECTION B - B'
LOG
HEADER LOG TOP OF BANK
(INVERT ELEVATION)
rvv i'ER LOG
-THALWEG/
STREAM BED
POOL WIDTH
BANKFULL
------ - - - - -- ---------------------
_;�_7 BASE FLOW _
POOL
D -Max 3'�
SECTION C - C'
�•''FNG I t4`
STONE BACKFILL
� � ;C0T ��
i DATE:
I
I
1 FT MAX,
o�o 0 0 °0000
Og�o °°
o� �0 0000
Michael 000 Regency ParkEay�S Engineering 600 Inc.
r— THALWEG
8000°00 °°
BERM. , OOQo �° BERM o
' b�CJJ
- i
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
0 — _
1
�I 1 I �0
0, . 1 ' D0000
6 INCHES THICK OF o o° I "00.
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
\
3.
3
_
° CLASS B STONE (TYP.) moo
°U 1 3
INTERNATIONAL License #: F -1084
A'
-I
°0° ° oo
0° ° 3.
NCEEP ID No. 96074
o
0 000 °00000° 0 0 °OO 0 00�0 °
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
1/2 TO 2/3 NOTES:
BANKFULL 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 NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL
BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A 3:1 SLOPE. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO
SIDE SLOPES.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER
EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF STONE BACKFILL, 6 INCHES THICK, LINED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC.
SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
8. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE
CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT
UTILIZED.
�OegsEF RIFFLE D -max
° —off/
TOP OF BAP "'
POOL
D -max
BOULDER
POOL TO POOL SPACING VARIES.
SEE STRUCTURE TABLE, LONG PRO
AND PLAN VIEW FOR APPROXIMATE
STATION LOCATION / ELEVATION
- - -_ �`- - -__ - STONE BACKFILL
7 _
- -
GETOTEXTILE FABRIC (TYP.)
SECTION A - A'
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD,
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED /STAPLED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE 3' X 2'X 2' AND PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
5. LOGS SHOULD BE ANGLED 600 - 70° FROM THE STREAM BANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD NOT EXCEED 2 %.
6. STEP HEIGHTS /DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.4 FT AND POOL DEPTHS NOT TO EXCEED 1.8 FT.
7. THE NUMBER LOG STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGIN AND END STATIONING DEPENDING ON
LOG DIAMETER SIZE. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE AND STRUCTURE TABLE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
SECTION B - B'
LOG
HEADER LOG TOP OF BANK
(INVERT ELEVATION)
rvv i'ER LOG
-THALWEG/
STREAM BED
POOL WIDTH
BANKFULL
------ - - - - -- ---------------------
_;�_7 BASE FLOW _
POOL
D -Max 3'�
SECTION C - C'

Cq
N
CV
c
(V
z
c�
C
LD
i
C
CL
�r
L
is
co
0
i
0
v
a�
L
L)
cn
ro
E
0
C_
Ln6'
_r__
NLC-)
\(2
Ln,,
\ .o
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
A TOE COIR FIBER
TOP OF BANK MATTING
O
B
16" MIN. THICKNESS
STONE BACKFILL
PLAN VIEW
B'
NOTES:
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR THE STONE BACKFILL.
2. FILL TRENCH WITH STONE BACKFILL.
L(
BELOW S'
LEAVE GAPS (OPTIONAL) PER DIREC
OF ENGINEER BETWEEN HEADER RC
NO GAPS BETWEEN FOOTER RC
HEADER RO
FOOTER R
16" MIN. THICKNESS STONE BACKFILL
HEAD OF RIFFLE
TOE
SECTION B - B'
BANKFULL
COIR FIBER MATTING SHOULD BE
PLACED BENEATH STONE BACKFILL
16" MIN. THICKNESS STONE BACKFILL
PROFILE A - A'
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK VANE
PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
BACKFILL WITH ON -SITE STREAM ALLUVIUM
(IF AVAILABLE), OTHERWISE USE A WELL GRADED
MIX OF CLASS A, CLASS B, AND #57 STONE
OTEXTILE FABRIC
097 ION
"W%_1 vUR1ED IN
STREAMBANK AT LEAST 5'
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LO
SECTION A - Al
TOP OF STREAMBANK
m
r
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
ROOTWAD
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
NOTES:
1. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE THE SAME SPECIES AS THE LIVE STAKES
AND SHALL BE INSTALLED DURING VEGETATION DORMANCY.
2. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A DENSITY OF 20 -30 CUTTINGS
PER LINEAR FOOT AND A MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 2.5 INCHES,
3 TOP OF BANK OR BANKFULL VARY IN GENERAL LIFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE
4. GEOLIFTS TO BE INSTALLED IN CHANNEL SECTIONS ALONG SIDE SLOPES STEEPER
THAN 2:1 AND /OR ADJACENT TO HILL SLOPES.
STAKE TOP LAYER
OF MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE MATTING DETAIL)
4' (TYPJ
TOP OF BANK / BANKFULL STAGE
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANCHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
ENCOMPASSES LIFT
LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 1 2 -D
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
I
C A R
SEAL�9� �. i PROVED BY:
22967
DATE:
I
I
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
,,•� �, �1'
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 6
„� _ Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
0
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L L ce se #4 F31084
NCEEP ID No. 96074
WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B
AND CLASS A STONE CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR BRUSH MATERIAL
BASEFLOW
FINISHED BED
ELEVATION
NOTES:
1. WHEN GEOLIFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER, USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
DITCH PLUG
rL/HIV VICvv
BRUSH TOE APPROX. 1 FT
BELOW FINISHED
BED ELEVATION
NOTE:
COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON -SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT
IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
FLOW
-
STREAMBED J
l UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
a -mss
� - -- /
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1.5' MINIMUM
j-
� ice'•- -
�/
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
PROFILE VIEW
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ACHORING.
5. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
6. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.

m
CD
CV
c\
A
'-
i_ng'
or,-
CVO
\
r,-)cE oa
0
A J
LL
7 if
L
BEGIN INVERT ELEVATION
B'
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
STONE BACKFILL
A
HEADER LOG
PRIMARY LOGS
SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS
_ � o ,.
t �o H = 0.1 - 0.3'
LL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC no H = 0 - 0.
HEADER LOG .1 3'
IDW
_ HEADER LOG
�...� .' ::.�. H 0.1 0.3
SECONDARY a ® A'
LOGS = - O
5' MINIMUM O
...:
off: o R
ST FqM BED
PRIMARY LOGS
SPACE EVERY 5' -T SANDY SOIL BACKFILL a.
® o
SECTION A — A'
5' MINIMUM
- GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
HEADER LOG
BANKFULLW
A'
*.
END INVERT ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW
LOG POLE
(DRIVE POLE INTO GROUND
TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6')
NOTES:
1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" OR MORE IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
HARDWOOD PREFERRED, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.
2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1" IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10 ", AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 2 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
WOOD MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.
3. VERTICAL POSTS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER AND SHOULD BE DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND
A MINIMUM OF 6'.
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
5. ROOTWADS AND COIR FIBER MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
6. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH
MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON -SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS
BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
CHANNEL BLOCK
PLAN VIEW
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1.5' MINIMUM
ROOT WAD PLACEMENT AS
DIRECTED IN PLANS
COMPACTED BACKFILL
PROFILE VIEW
i— TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES
S MINIMUM
BURIED INTO
BANK
SECTION B — B'
5' MINIMUM
BURIED INTO
BANK
BANKFULL ELEVATION
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
135794
PROJECT EI ir' "CGD
I
I
I
I
C A R
FES S 10 * - -*
SEAL
22967
SHEET NO.
2 -E
�':'l •''FNGIN��� :'o `� I f �
COT
I
I
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
,,T, Ff1', :L1 � 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
1�9 i Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L L cense # F-1084
NCEEP ID No. 96074

m
N
N
C
�1
Ln
i
C
CL
C
(,
0
0
0
L
L)
E
0
Lng,
or-,
NLC-)
\m
Ln,,
\ o0
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. WILL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION
SEQUENCE SHALL BE USED DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN FOR
SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ITEMS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT CONDITIONS.
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 FENCE 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 EROSION AND
SEDIMENT 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 EROSION AND
SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PRACTICES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND APPROVED. IN GENERAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK FROM DOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM 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 OF REACH R1 TO BE USED TO FILL REACH R2. 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 STREAM REACH R1 AT STATION 44 +46 AND PROCEED IN AN UPSTREAM DIRECTION UNTIL THE CONFLUENCE OF REACHES
R2 AND R5. THIS SECTION OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ONLINE AND WILL EMPLOY A PUMP AROUND OPERATION.
13. AFTER COMPLETING REACH R1, WILL BEGIN WORK ON REACH R2 FOLLOWED BY REACH R5. WORK WILL CONTINUE IN AN UPSTREAM DIRECTION. THIS SECTION 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.
14.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.
15. 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.
16.THE NEW CHANNEL SECTIONS SHALL REMAIN OPEN ON THE DOWNSTREAM END TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE DURING RAIN EVENTS.
17.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.
18. ONCE A STREAM WORK PHASE IS COMPLETE, APPLY TEMPORARY SEEDING, PERMANENT SEEDING, AND MULCHING TO ANY AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
APPLY PERMANENT SEEDING MIXTURES, AS SHOWN ON THE 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.
19. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPROVE AND CONSTRUCT THE EXISTING FARM ROAD CROSSINGS (REACH R5 NEAR STATION 35 +00, REACH R2 NEAR STATION 27 +50, AND REACH
T1 NEAR STATION 10 +60) BY INSTALLING PERMANENT FORD CROSSINGS, STABILIZING SIDE SLOPES, AND MODIFYING THE FARM ROAD BED ELEVATIONS ACCORDING TO
THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE FARM ROAD CROSSINGS ON REACHES R3, R4, AND R6 MAY BE LEFT UNCHANGED.
20. 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.
21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TREAT AREAS OF INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AREA ACCORDING TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR
TO DEMOBILIZATION.
22. 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.
23. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS FREE OF TRASH AND LEFTOVER MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE.

cn
LD
(n
C
7
(n
CD
I I
V
u
(n
ro
E
0
"l-
LnC-
FD �
Lnj
NOTE:
REACH 3 STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 11 +30.00
INVASIVE/EXOTIC SPECIES VEGETATION REMOVAL AND PLANTING ONLY,
SEE REVEGETATION PLAN.
28' - - -----
GE
CE
CE
C
OT-WAD&-(.TI-)-­-'-------
-RO
STRU
--ON ---QTE-D­-
--- --- CE
-'CEF
YVE-TLAND jj\4PACT 1 - Q-0-1-5-AC. VE­RI`�AL--P0O--L--(TYP--
CE
+00
—�3
a 0 00"
t\ - ----- - ------
'ITH
------- GEOLIFTA/V
TO --.,/-BRUSFf
V
j/ &ElVC/l/fVG
01
6.;t
67
-C- ONTRO-L--- *AO'
BEGIN REACH 3 11- G -RADE 7 B&Nc
H/N!
UM/ UO
LOGJAM G
STA. 1G+00.-00;/--- -(TYP.)
z
17 lz
—LOQ ROLLER
c JTY P.) _ _ �` _ _
C
c
DO NOT 'DjSTU B
-
c
EXISTING WETLANDS �
E- ----- --
7-
— --- CE CE
i.
CE
-- ---- - CIE
CE CE
CE
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL

m
\
Q0
N
N
i
•
c
LD
01
r
Lo
ro
C
co
D
/
0
N
N
L
v
co
ro
E
0
Lng'
—r--
NLD
Lnj
\ o0
A%inln nIG'TI InQ A AIf'%C nc All
A A+5)
N E S� P 1
T G �'� N
ON EE s�
REMOVE EXISTING FE_N- C-E WITH I_N
.CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TYP.)
'TTIEJNTO EXISTING —FENCE (TYP.)---- - -- - --
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
DITCH PLUG / CHANNEL BLOCK
TIE INTO EXISTING
FENCE (TYP.)
--- I- NSTA -LL. WOVEN WIRE
FIELD FENCE (TYP.)
GRADE SLOPE ATA2:1
SEED, AND MAT

m
QC
N
N
E
cl
Q6
ED
CT
LD
i
CL
i
u�
0
i
0
a�
a�
L
v
E
0
Ln('
or--
c"JLD
�,m
Ln
� o0
MCC

CTI
rl-
LD
S2
(n
C
ro
n
m
0
(r)
C:)
(D
L
L)
(n
(a
E
0
F
Lng'
Or,-
Ln/�
BAKER PROJECT REFER[
1,35794
PRO.
C A R di !�Pt
DO NOT DISTURB tsslo
EXISTING WETLANDS--­` SEAL
22967
BEGIN REACH T1 - --
PERMANENT FORD STREAM
STA. 10+00. 00 �1;4y4scoTl *�*.N
CRO-SSING(TYP-.-y_ S13
----- - - --- - --------
AE -FEi4dt-
ox IN "3 - TALL-BAkBW I
G -M f TYP.-)
AL6N STREA OR`08�8­1 4G­
Michael Bak
-D-0--N-OT DISTURB
IN T E R N A TI 0 N
V,
EXI G--WETLANDS-
NCEEP ID
0
t.
'v L
Nv
ROCK WEIR
x _x
E)_7 x X_x
!CE
1z CE x
(TYP.) CL
CE. ....... .......... 'x
�x
X_
x
+
INSTALL 20 GATE AT // (_�� � � 0, .
EASEMENT CROSSING (TYP.)
ETLAND
IMP ACT 3
0.05 AC.-,,
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE--(TYP.)
LOG ROLLER,(TYP.)
IN
WETLAND IMPACT 2 v
0.025 AC PERMANENT o
0.04 AC TEMPORARY
Jr.
C9 00
34 W 12+00
(f) ul
X- x CE
r i
S)
ul
x
Z
Ul
Lu
r-7-L0_G__VANE (TYP.)
7
&
LOG WEIR (TYP.)
< .......
. . . . . . . . . . . .
REMOVE,
--4NVASIVES"(TY
/
Do
GRADE '/SLOPE AT A /2' .... ......
C
SEE/b', AND MAT
X
71 CE
0
X_
L x
NC
71
09
MATCH L
INE
'VERNAL.,'ROAQt\,,,(TYPj
TA.28+oo
SEE SHEET 6 --ra-mnir-ic-ir iAtrrLj--' C-K Un E C: A -r- ol 7 -A 01--el -Z
7TAJ INVASIVE8 FY P,-.,)
REMOVE
B RU SH T­OE �T_Y-R. ---3- T-14
0+9
2--S TA.
C,
INSTALL WOVEN WIRE
FIELD FENCE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL

m
0
C)
ce)
uJ
i
ull
UJ
uj
Co
LD
CD
y
(D
(D
L
u
cn
ro
E
0
—C
LnG-
_r__
0
C,J�
Ln/�
DO NOT DISTURB
E:V1C-r1K1f-_% 1AIC=11 " "inc
INSTALL WOVEN WIRE
FIELD FENCE (TYP
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
mDITCH PLUG / CHANNEL BLOCK
Z
- 50
SEAL'':
D N DISTURB 67
laa NOT DI 229
EXISTIN -. WETLANDS
1`414 SCOT I
Michael Ba'
I N T E R N A T I O
INSTALL 10"4 -.,,,
.,WALK GATE (T, Y
P.)
J, is wall I
O
0)
C c
Az qj

(V
CV
C
cry
_
Ln
Ell
co
0
i
0
V
L
v
cn
ro
E
O
Ln6'
—r--
C"Ln
\m
\oo
Mtz
t
i!
O
0
c
o
o c
Cb OF
[ CO
V � c
135794 9
PROJECT ENGINEER
1 I
NPO afi �•FESS/d' 9 i
LOG WEIR
SEAL APPROVED BY:
I
22967
p'1;, If SCOT1.���
DATE:
i
Michael Baker Engineering In
Michael 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
N T E R N A T 10 N A L License #: F -1084
INSTALL WOVEN WIRE. NCEEP ID NO. 96074
FIELD FENCE (TYP.)
�4
9C
—X CE
DO NOT DISTURB _
EXISTING WETLANDS -
CE
-- - X___-- -X-- -X GE X X GE TIE INTO EXISTING ,
- -_ FENCE (TYP.) - END REACH 1
X = ,-`�X ==X GE STA. 44 +46.83
£E
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 6
0.00 AC TEMPORARY
— — WLB _
_
LOG ROLLED / _ _ BEN
_i r — I /
- � CHI _
41
L
MI
r
•
�— //4
4
Jk
1J i
�t
c�
- - -
__ Q ,
F
;
- 1
- _ _ - - BEDROCK _
y
-
t ;
- r-
d - i
LOG VANE (TYP.
. r ,
J
—
-- - ----- v
6
- -- --
- r — - -- — CE X
01 X
X
,
r
t r �
0"V1,1 DIZIlk—of-11IN%D X " TIE INTO EXISTING
l
-- -
- - -
—
LOD
F EN P _- - - --
'
VERNAL POOL TYP.
f
t _
-- - INSTALL 10
—WALK GATE (TYP.)
J
\ f
,
/ — .—. / — -
REACH 2 BEGIN REACH 1
r /
STA.41 +80.54 -
�; END REACH 5 STA. 40 +09.48
GEOLIFT WITH
LINE STA. 37 +50 BRUSH/TOE� TYPO
MATCH f f
SEE SHEET 15
GP AOE CONTROL zi
LOG G JAM (,7�YP/)
,y;
i r
y /e /,
IZ
/ FILL EXISTING CHANNEL THOMAS CREEK
r PLAN VIEW
z DITCH PLUG / CHANNEL BLOCK REACH 2, I, & 5
/ // z 20 10 0 20 40
i
crAI r— If FT1

m
Q0
N
Ln
(n
c:
n
01
V
0
(D
co
ro
E
0
-c
Lng'
—
0 I,-
C"JLD
� M,
Ln,,,
INTO EXISTING
FENCE (TYP.)
\ I
BEGIN REA. I
ENHANCEIVIE�-N"
STA. 0+3t
St
REACH 4 STA. 0+35.01 TO STA. 9+70.00
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ONLY, SEE REVEGETATION PLAN.
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
DITCH PLUG CHANNEL BLOCK
Fi
xac
INSTALL WOVEN WIRE
FIELD FENCE (TYP.)
- 9l�
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE WITHIN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TYP.)
A,

m
c9
N
N
C
m
f1�
CL
6'
LD
C
n
/
L
CD
CD
LL
V
Q)
L
U
E
0
s
Lng'
OFl-
NLn
\M_
/
Ln
o0
M�
mDITCH PLUG / CHANNEL BLOCK

cr
F--
rc
n
't
Ln0-
or,-
C"L(-)
\S2
Ln,,
NOTE:
REACH 6 STA. 12+10.00 TO STA. 28+08.08
INVASIVE/EXOTIC SPECIES VEGETATION REMOVAL AND PLANTING ONLY,
SEE REVEGETATION PLAN.
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
9
lb
c'J
Cj
0i

m
c9
N
N
co _
V
AV
c
cr
Lo
cn
c
m
a)
0
0
L
v
cn
ro
E
O
Lng'
Or--
N�
Ln,,
M�
FARM ROAD MAY BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS.
PLANT AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CLEAR NEW SIMILAR
PATH OUTSIDE EASMENT AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
REACH 6 STA. 12 +10.00 TO STA. 28 +08.08
INVASIVE /EXOTIC SPECIES VEGETATION REMOVAL AND PLANTING ONLY,
SEE REVEGETATION PLAN.
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL

m
N
N
C
�l
c�
Lo
i
C
C
0
0
i
0
L
L)
E
0
Lng'
Or,-
NLD
\M,
M,
Ln
135794
PROJECT FNS
i
,p�nurrgri �
CF ���•,��N C A R
FSSjd. by
SEAL ! =
F \ _ -
22967
c
.
. .. • o`
i
i
O CF
WOV
XO Mi
n
Michael soy
V Bakes Ca
Ph
o
Fa
Fa:
�Q.•�nj CF �� INTERNAT10NAL���
AN
CE
CE NCEEP ID NC
CE
CE
C� �v CE
CE
CE
-'�­00 + p p CF
24
v AC
DO NOT DISTURB
EXISTING WETLANDS
\�
Cvv �,
F
i a
V
F\
CE `.
— FARM ROAD MAY B 'USED FOR CONSTRUCTION A\CCES'= - -- L -
k
PLANT AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CLEAR NEW , I�M�ILAR --- O
PATH OUTSIDE EASMEN -T AFTER— CONST'RUCT[ON,
Ir
1
4
/
l
r
l
i
�1
t /
}
ti.
a
l t
9
V'
V- Z
a.— ■ V
i
■ \ a.— / \ V ■ ■ V
I V I_ V ■ ■ 'm ■ \ \.— / \ V ■ ■ V
"
8 +6
_
�j
END
REACH 7
STA. 16 +46.16
\ ,� fir
r i
r
NOTE:
ri,
REACH 6 STA. 12 +10.00 TO STA.
REACH 5 STA. 28 +08.08 TO STA.
28 +08.08
29 +45.00
J
CE
U,
REACH 7 STA. 13+60.16 TO STA.
16+46.16
>` '
INVASIVE /EXOTIC SPECIES VEGETATION REMOVAL AND PLANTING ONLY,
;
SEE REVEGETATION PLAN.
-
\, Zz
r
r
lf'
'
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
THOMAS CREJ

m
mcn �_
do
A-
T,,)
Cn
c-
�2
Lnu-
C\JLD
\m
Ln
/7 y
I m I W 1. / \1V I 1 1 -4 \..o I L- 1 -4 L— I I I
\1 N,
"
ALON EAM �CR, "\S\T OSS[NG
NOTE:
REACH 5 STA. 28+08.08 TO STA. 29+45.00
INVASIVE/EXOTIC SPECIES VEGETATION REMOVAL AND PLANTING ONLY,
SEE REVEGETATION PLAN.
ZZ
INSTALL 20' GATE AT
EASEMENT CROSSING (TYP.)
ryp.) ix
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
9 m DITCH PLUG / CHANNEL BLOCK

0
A
c-
cp
C-0
Lo
cn
r-
ro
CD
Q)
Q)
(n
cc
E
'T
Lnc-,
or,-
Lc
BEGIN
uj
MAINTAIN EXISTING FARM ROAD
C
0 C,
V "c
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
NOTE:
REACH 7 STA. 13+60.16 TO STA. 16+46.16
INVASIVE/EXOTIC SPECIES VEGETATION REMOVAL AND PLANTING ONLY,
SEE REVEGETATION PLAN.
N N Wl wN IN 1000=
1
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
F S-LOPE BANK S----AT 2.-1

c
c
Z
6
i
L
a
Z
U
a
6
r
LC
cY
u
c
R
a
c
c
v
a
C
C
L�
a
a
i
L
U
Q
E
c
s
Or"
N�
t-nj

r
r
c�
C
u
N
J
LL_
n
Z
UJ
LD
C
C
6
O
O
O
LL
N
L
L)
E
O
F
Or-
N�
LCD j
\ o=
�Q'

m
c0
N
N
c
N
N
W
6'
LCD
cn
C
ro
n
C
N
O
0
LL
L
ro
E
0
LnG-
Or--
cvn
\S2
Ln�
\ .o
� g3
NI
MATCH LINE STA.9 +50
SEF gHFI=r 0c
�8= RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING = APPROX. 14.0 ACRES
NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
2. EXISTING WOODED AREAS SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOT BE PLANTED.

m
cn
T)
(n
C
CL
cn
(D
LL
Z
L)
(n
ro
E
0
-c
Ln(T
C,jn
"m
Ln
Cr,
IT
R
RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING = APPROX. 14.0 ACRES
NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
2. EXISTING WOODED AREAS SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOT BE PLANTED.

Cl)
Qo
N
1-1
N
c-
Li
C)')
71-
Ln
CD
Z
0
N
L)
(n
ro
E
0
--I-
LnO-
or,-
C'n
k k

Q0
N
LO
(-D
LLJ
CIS
LD
n
C:
7
cn
(D
O
O
LL
L
L)
(n
ra
E
0
-C
Lng'
C , 'LD
'm
Ln
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 25
PROJECT IENGINEER
CAR�,,
O
��'w . ..........
S
rj % *.
'Z�v -
SEAL APPROVED BY:
22967
�COTI
"Isis h 111104v DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Bakel
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R NATIONAL License #: F-1084
NCEEP ID NO. 96074
L.
XX—x —)<—X E X—x
N,
%
c
*1100
0-
s
c
X
y-
Vv
01
v
8
00
Q
Q?
N,
-N�
ga
19
O -
0 4�
C6
t
'k
RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING = APPROX. 14.0 ACRES
THOMAS CREEK
NOTES:
REVEGETATION PLAN
1. SEE SHEET 1-A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
2. EXISTING WOODED AREAS SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOT BE PLANTED.
40 20 0 40 80
3. NO INVASIVES REMOVAL IN THIS AREA.
SCALE (FT)

m
c�
N
N
C
�1
N
W
S
S
Lc-)
C'7
C
ro
CL
C
�1
N
S
S
LL
L
ra
E
0
Lng'
or-
NLD
\�2
Ln,,,
\.o
�8= RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING = APPROX. 14.0 ACRES
NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
2. EXISTING WOODED AREAS SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOT BE PLANTED.

m
ED
Q0
N
N
C
Z51
N
W
S
Cry
6'
LD
c2
C
C
LL
0
L
v
0
Lng'
Or--
CVLo
Ln,,
\ .e
RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING = APPROX. 14.0 ACRES
NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
2. EXISTING WOODED AREAS SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOT BE PLANTED.

Soo
w
U
•
O�
F- i�
! Li
0 0
U
W
TEMPORARY
ENTRANCE L
OFF SHEARO
I
I
s
H
CONSTRUCTION
DCATED
VV,, HARRIS RD.
NORTH
ECOSYSTEM
CAROLINA
LOCATION. 1.5 MILES SOUTHWEST OF THE
COMMUNITY OF NEW HILL
TYPE OF WORK:
yk
,zz
REACH 6 /BEGIN REACH 5
�. 28 +08.08 =
REACH 7 STA. 16 +46.16
EAC H 7
0.00
STREAM RESTORATION
STA. 40 +09.48
STA. 44 +46.83
STATE
BASER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL `
SHEETS
NC
135794
1
9
NCEEP ID No. 96074
ENHANCEMENT
DESCRIPTION
TREEPROTECTION ................................... ...............................
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCFAMT .......
AREASEEDING ......................... ...............................
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP .................. ...............................
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE .......................... ...............................
H Hi-
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM ........................... ...............................
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING ............. ...............................
GRAPHIC SCALES T
PROJECT STANDARDS
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
mIc
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
PROJECT ENGINEER
GIL �(EER
Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael 000 • Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE "NC EROSION & SEDIMENTATION
Phone: [phone]
CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL" AND ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT AND
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License* F -1084
THIS PROJECT CONTAINS
BY REFERENCE HEREBY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PLANS.
EROSION & SEDIrvIENTATION CONTROL
6.05
R��iti9'
PLANS FOR ALL PHASES OF
TREE PROTECTION
.�`'��N�SS -.
40 20 0 40 gp
CONSTRUCTION.
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
WILLIAM SCOTT HUNT, III, PE
,'
_ SEAL
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
'. 2967p
PROJECT ENGINEER
PLANS
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
•N�......
. !i ��•`
,,,
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 26.4 Acres
LETTING DATE:
6.62 SILT FENCE
CHRIS ROESSLER
4SCoTA
PROJECT MANAGER
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
P.E.
SIGNATURE: -
J

m
t�
N
N
N
W
_
0_
LO
i
n
i
a�
0
i
0
L_
a�
a�
U
r6
E
0
Lng'
0�
N�
Ln j
\ o0
�(z
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /EXIT
PUBLIC ROAD
WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES WITH
-------------------- - - - - -- A MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH
OF 50 LB SHALL BE USED TO
CONSTRUCT THE FENCE
PUBLIC ROAD
SPECIFICATION NO. 6.06 - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS "N.C. EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL MARCH 2009"
STREAMBE
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
CI nlAr
EXISTING CHANNEL
PLAN VIEW
z'
1'
rl ^In1
1T../I V 1 VIYL 1 ILI LI\ 1 ­-
CROSS SECTION
6" MINIMUM THICKNESS OF
WASHED CLASS A STONE
1 -1 LI\1 - \IC
#57 STONE
FILTER FABRIC
CLASS 2 STONE
1
2/3 BANKFULL
MAXIMUM DEPTH
LASS 2 STONE
CLEAN OUT STILLING BASIN OF TRAPPED SEDIMENT PRIOR TO REMOVAL.
MESH CONSISTING OF
14 GAGE WIRE AT MAX
SPACING OF 6 "x6"
NOTES:
1. AVOID JOINTS, UNAVOIDABLE JOINTS MUST HAVE 4' OF CLOTH
OVERLAP AND SHOULD TIE INTO THE NEXT ADJACENT POST.
2. PLACE ON CONTOUR EXCEPT ENDS WHICH SHOULD BE 1' ABOVE
GRADE TO PREVENT CUT AROUND.
3. WRAP APPROX. 6" OF FABRIC AROUND END POSTS AND SECURE
WITH TIES.
4. REMOVE ONCE AREA IS STABLE.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL SIDE CAST SPOIL MATERIAL FROM TRENCHING
FOR SILT FENCE ONTO HIGH GROUND OR ONTO THE PERMITTED
WETLAND IMPACT SIDE TO AVOID UNPERMITTED WETLAND IMPACTS.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
8' MAX. WITH WIRE
(U MAX. WITHOUT WIRE,
REQUIRES USE OF EXTRA
STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC)
(4' MAX. WITHOUT WIRE,
NORMALSTRENGTH
FILTER FABRIC)
T -POSTS SHALL BE 1.33 LB /LF STEEL WITH A MINIMUM
LENGTH OF 5 FEET AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO
AS TO ALLOW FOR FASTENING OF THE FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STANDARD OR EXTRA
STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FIBER CERTIFIED BY THE
MANUFACTURER TO COMPLY WITH MATERIAL
REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM STANDARDS D 6461, 4632, 4491,
4751, AND 4355.
WIRE MESH
FILTER FABRIC
MECHANICALLY COMPACTED FILL
2 PASSES OF A COMPACTION DEVICE
EXERTING AT LEAST 60 LB /IN2 ON
BOTH SIDES OF FENCE
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING - WOOD MAT
CROSS SECTION
NOTES:
WOOD MAT
TYPE 2; NOWWOVEN.
. FILTERfABRIC
CLASS B STONE
RUNOFF
DIRECTION
�II I I� 811
FILTER FABRIC
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 1 EC -2
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
.� �;�pFFSS10'•.9'� I
SEAL I APPROVED BY:
22967
j
i DATE:
i
I
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T1 0 N A L cese #:F -1084
4"
NCEEP ID No. 96074
FENCE HEIGHT
MAX 24"
ABOVEGROUND
III E-1
POST DEPTH
24" MINIMUM
SILT FENCE
nl noo 0 o-rnKlc onnnn
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 NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
4. LINE STREAMBANK AND ACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
5. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
6. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES FOR LATER USE.
7. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL
BY INSTALLING SILT FENCE ON ALL FOUR CORNERS ADJACENT TO THE STREAM. SEE SILT FENCE DETAIL.
8. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUD MAT.
9. THE WOOD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING
THE CHANNEL.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED,
RECOMMENDED AT A 5:1 SLOPE.
PLAN VIEW *j I I11LPlIV1

m
N
N
C
Q
N
U
W
tZ
J-
LD
cn
C
ra
CL
i
c
a�
0
i
0
W
W
L
L)
ra
E
0
s
Lng,
N�
Lnj
� oe
�rz
TEMI
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
STABILIZED OUTLET -
CONSTRUCT WITH A MIX OF
BOULDERS AND CLASS B STI
TO STABILIZE STREAM AT
PUMP - AROUND OUTLET
TYPICAL PUMP - AROUND OPERATION
EXISTING GROUND
FILTER FABRIC
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP - AROUND
1. INSTALL STABILIZED OUTLET AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED
PROJECT WORKING AREA.
2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP - AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE HOSE THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK
SITE TO THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN OR STABILIZED OUTLET.
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.
6. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE
REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
7. THE CONTRACTOR WILL COMPLETE ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION IN ONE DAY
WITHIN THE PUMP - AROUND AREA BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES.
8. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
AND STABILIZED OUTLET AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.
OCK DAM
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
INSTALL 2 INCH PAD OF
#57 STONE BETWEEN
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
AND FILTER FABRIC
15 - 20 FT
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 STABILIZED
IN ONE WORKING DAY.
4. THE PUMP - AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY CONVEY BASEFLOW
CONDITIONS OF THE STREAM.
TEMPORARY DIVERSION CHANNEL
91
6 INCH DEEP
TRENCH AND FILL
BASEFLOW
6 INCH DEEP
TRENCH AND FILL
TYPE 2, NON -WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS OF DIVERSION CHANNEL MAY BE ALTERED TO FIT SLOPE CONDITIONS.
2. ALIGN SEAMS OF FILTER FABRIC TO OVERLAP IN THE DIRECTION OF FLOW.
3. MAX SIDE SLOPE 2:1.
4. SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL.
LARGE STAKES
TRENCH
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 6 INCH DEEP
TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT
T
TOP OF STREAMBANK
TOE OF SLOPE
NOTES
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 1 EC -2A
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
C A R
I
SEAL I APPROVED BY:
22967
filmll DATE:
I
I
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Ice se * F -1084
1. BANKS SHOULD BE SEEDED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF MATTING.
2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING PER SPECIFICATIONS ALONG STREAM
BANKS OR IN OTHERS LOCATIONS SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER.
3. LARGE STAKES SHOULD NOT BE SPACED FURTHER THAN 36" APART.
4. PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL SEAMS, IN THE CENTER OF BANK,
AND TOE OF SLOPE.
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
PLACE.COIR:FIBER MATTING AT TOE OF SLOPE. .
SECURE MATTING WITH. LARGE MATTING STAKE ,
CROSS SECTION VIEW
TOP OF - - - - - -' - -- -- - -� - -- - -- - -- - -- - - -• • •
STREAMBANK
---------------------------------------------------
LARGE
STAKES • '
• • • • •
TRENCH
TOP OF STREAMBANK
NCEEP ID No. 96074
2.5 INCH -
ROOFING
NAIL
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
THE WOOD STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
LEG LENGTH
17.00 IN 43.18 CM
TAPERED TO POINT)
WIDTH
1.5 IN
3.81 CM
THICKNESS
1.5 IN
3.81 CM
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
• • • $//-- STAKES THE WOOD STAKE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
COIR FIBER MATTING LEG LENGTH 11.00 IN 27.94 CM
TO BE EXTENDED TO HEAD WIDTH 1.25 IN 3.18 CM
• • • • • • • • • • • TOE OF SLOPE HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 IN 1.02 CM
LEG WIDTH 0.60 IN 1.52 CM TAPERED TO POINT)
LEG THICKNESS 0.40 IN 1.02 CM
TOTAL LENGTH 12.00 IN 30.48 CM
PLAN VIEW LARGE
STAKES

m
m
c9
N
N
C
W
W
i
(J7
i
LO
cam')
C
r6
W
C
0
CD
ED
W
Z
N
N
L
W
ro
E
O
LnOT'
Or__
CVO
LCD j
\ o=
V 13 a3
N
MATCH LINE STA.9 +50
SEE SHEET EC -6 '
1 ` Michael Baker Engineering
\ 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
cE \ Phone: [phone]
1 Fax: [phone]
CE - -- - I N T E R N A T I O NA L License #: F -1084
_ NCEEP ID NO. 96074
'
BEGIN REACH 4
STA.10 +00.00
z
EXISTING PERMANENT ,,'� <� 'v
CROSSING �` `'
tO
l
a _ _
F
Iti
IFE
�'
G; y —
� END PUMP - AROUND
BEGIN PUMP - AROUND
°
c i Ij \e
- a
,
jJ1
if
I
r
\v, ti is �` •\
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
—..— -- ._ -• —• -- — •• - -•-• — ..— . - - - -- .-T CE t - \
/ CE C C CE
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL
i J errs -J .
MATTING ALONG ALL CONSTRUCTED -- - � .;.._. o !.
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE _- �.__ - -- -- -- _ __ EXISTING PERMANENT '� - _
- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- — - - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- - -a _ - -- - <.
r _ .. _� --_ � - -- - --
_ - - -- - -- - - - - - -_ - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -,. ,STREAM- BANKS (TYP) ,• _ � � ; <
CE CE CE _ CE CE CE __ -- _CE ._ - CE. -_- - - — _ - _ -
__
;C
QSSING�
9. - --
- — — - -'
- i.^ —_ •• ©-
- .._._._.. ._.._. - -
1 NOT - -
DO NOT D�STUft6� _ E - \� y
. , -�- G __UM . OUND_ - -_ -
280.. -.._ ..�- ,. '� % � ---'- "-'� . a-,_._ v. � � /� -. ,. \ �` v �_� ,f
EXISTING WETLANDS - -- -- - -- - - _ - � - .�-- �.�- - �- � __ _ 5 - ,� ._ _ ,. ��, , "�� _ TEMPORARY
t,_
^w_
STREAM CROSSING
- -
0 _43400-
ilk-
7 _ _
5
i 5 >
_
x ` ,
s+-
.,,�
`HAUL ROAD,-
t
F
r
TEMPORARY SILT F E N - m
` .�; _. ; "-.._ ~� ►. , .,�.� , `may � 7 / � io , , i i - _ - G�.' :� �.� � 1.
wX l '� - /�` cE _
BEGIN REACH �� - - - ; -- -- v A _ - _ - I
_ _. -, - '� -- _ - �- - _ � . � �- _ rA -- - � ,TEMP RARY R-O -
STA. 10_ ±00.00 , _�._., - - - __ __ _ -y � - - - � ��, - -- - �` O CK
_
- _ DAM TYP —
_ _ _ fti
_....
.N
, - - --
•, E -- _ - .. -_ � _ - -- . - - -_ _, : - ' __- - - a.
END-REACH 3,_1-BEGIN REACH.2
- —_ - - - 20+7/3.74 _
- — - — - --
END�PUNIR AR�U�D � %;
E --- - -- - '_�.. _ ,, ,y, � �� , ~.•" STA.
_� __ �_ — us BEGIN PUIV(P— AROUND —
— -- -- -- -- -- — �<z- , , _ — �E — -' �., 4 STA. 13 +70.65
DO NO—T DIST�R. _ _ _ i
LA -DS
— -- — _-
v
- - - - ,
1
CE
CE ' LE
c
1
`1
_
f _
H
A
------------------------ - - - - -- UL ROAD' -- 1 - - -
_
t
LIMIT ;i= STAGING ,/STOCKPILE AREA + �'
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS, AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE
ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS.
5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 24 HOURS AND ALL SLOPES
STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7
CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED
WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND- DISTURBING ACTIVITY. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE
PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST) FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
6. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ESTABLISH TEMPORARY VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP - AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
8. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
Lv
�XD
tK
. x
C.
STAG 1N0 /STOCKPILE AREA ` '~
1
;
\
TEMPORARY MICHAEL— L_., %J _J L
V , s
,ROCK.
:-
G
DAM (TYP) �
� E� \
`- ? 89 5 P € 8 \ of
N 06 _
N CH;DEL L GOODVAN ,i
MARY FRANCES ODV 9N f' 3 /
.B 2653, PG 235
I N o0 6 19 2(3859 A

m
Q0
C
LD
n
C
m
(n
r-D
Lt
V
(n
ro
E
0
,I-
0
135794
PROJECT ENGINEER
k
CAR&,
tss/0'..
A P�V
SEAL
22967
Z
*G I St X
.. .........
�COTI
DAI
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS INC. Michael Baker Er
DB 15289, PG 2437 Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkwa
Gary, NORTH CAROL
PIN:0619147086 Phone: 919,463.5488
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License* F -1084
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE LOCATED
OFF SHEARON HARRIS RD. APPROXIMATELY 2,000
NE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
NCEEP ID NO. 960-4
BEGIN REACH T1 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
STA.10+00.00 P ERMAN ENT-FQRDSTREAM--C ROSS ING •
0
X
RBANCE
LIMITS OF DISTU ---------------------------------
J.
o
-- ---------
----------
HAUL R OAD--
<
DO NOT DISTURB
X
------ EXIS rING W ETLANDS
'C 1
k CE:
GE
+
O
z j i
z
A
STAGING/
TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AREA A
SILT FENCE
OF
1z) C
>1
'A
12+oo 1134+00
- -- ----- ----
GE
5
7
14
V
V,
to
A
rn
r + 711
00 --7
Ct)
rnm
a- 5D T1TA .
Act)
-.-30+9 .1
-K- 2-
R S -r A
BNDINU M P-aAROUND
E EG PUMP-AROUND
STABILIZE HILL SLOP
W 4N.
+
C) TEMPORARY ROCK
C) DAM (TYP)
J
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL
MATTING ALONG ALL CONSTRUCTED
4 STREAM BANKS (TYP)
J --EI40--RE-ACHt-2�,STA.'11-+�58.10
-STA. 26-4�94.
E REACH 2' ' H
-CE
7
CE
CE
r
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
/Z
END PUMP-AROUND
BEGIN PUMP AROUND
YY
j"
V
V
A V 11\
N /r'
IRVIN WOODROW GOOD WIN
&
MARY FRANCES GOODWIN
BEGIN REACH T2 DB 2653, PG 235
-06926859
STA.10+00.00 PIN. 1 ",
N
Mlk"HAEL L GOODWIN
IRVIN WOODROW GOODWFN
D B 8 9 5 9 P G
P U6A
N:
93 6 81 8 7 6
THOMAS CREEL
EROSION CONTROL
40 20 0 40
\.\
ErAl r- fr-TI

m
cD
N
N
C
01
LO
w
!
(n
!
6'
Lo
c�
i
C
ro
n
CDC
O�
O
w
U
to
E
O
F--
Lng'
—I,-
CVn
�j
\ o=
MCA
_ R3
DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING WETLANDS
_LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE:
- HAUL ROAD \ �••�, M��
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE IN '`TALL EROSION CONTROL
/
MATTING ALONG ALL CONSTRUCTED
DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING WETLANDS STREAM BANKS (TYP) _
CE
GE
-GE _ �' END REACH 1
" ST A 44+46.83
CF CE
lit
\ _
i
f y
OgO
=WLB—
J
t Y \ =
l �-
� f
i
— - '
PA
OO \ \
END PUMP - AROUND
O a¢
+0 4/11
�e — —
�` • —
V'
J "�
11
-
v-
� � ��� TEMPORAR ROCK ;
�r DAM ;
l
O �i - - - -- _ - - ,) _ -- --
3 v �� 'rte, `CE
— - - -- - - -- - — -
3 _
_ —_
Ot
\ _ -
s
\ Ll�j /r �;�E R ;° r ,- �� - -- 11 1�-�- l /' l �/ ,- -- END REACH 2 BEGIN REACH 1
S_
OF . ' � � +80.54
v - p /��. >:� - . —, e - r�r� %� +! / END REACH 5 STA. 40 +09.48 �`
)'� _ -� i /
s:
�k
N Y ROCK
-. E PU AR ND
� D P ND M,R OU
"-- TE117FP ' I�AR` � _ I j r i BEGIN RUMP,- AROUND °
�y STREAM-CRO SI G',, -- -- -- /� /% ; ,,� �' / ' ,' I§ F
1 _ ;
—END �PUMQ =AFRO ND,t J' f/g l p E\\ 1, ` f / l / /i` r i j ! E = � � %
BEGIN PUMP- I t, , X� I-, f l / ,� i ' r
.� �' _ t \\ v '� -'/ ' ✓-`". -we. r°� ems' �" �_
% 0. 4 S� e$ 5 d "il
1 !t �•It d / U
DB 2653 1 "D
36 +00 I I „DR { w
TI
STAGING /STOCKPILE AREA'
at(, EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:
� r
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
' ✓, / / \� \ j I I 1 ' / , THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
d
Ov
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY.
` ' CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS, AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
MATTING ALONG ALL CONSTRUCTED
STREAM BANKS TYP 3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE
COS C
) ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- N TRU TION CONDITION OR BETTER.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH z,
3 +00 - --
TEMPOR�iRY -,- ♦ THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING
- SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS.
SILT FENCE
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
- '
TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 24 HOURS AND ALL SLOPES ">g
STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7
CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED
WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND- DISTURBING ACTIVITY. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE
PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST) FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
6 . THE CONTRACTOR MUST ESTABLISH TEMPORARY VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP - AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
c'(9 ' `' _ 8. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING. 5
2

m
Q0
N
N
t
F
(D
U
W
i
(J�
W
6'
[S7
C2
u�
C
Q_
C
N
O
W
W
N
L
U
ro
E
0
W
Ln6'
Orl-
N�
Lnj
h
k�
1,
e
� g3
NI
MICHAEL L. GOODWIN
DB 9599 PG 11
N. 0619473680
=tea �' 3a a7 as HA , �,..� �«�b+ ���WIl"�N
Cd
N , a 5 p d 10 8
`s r f
N:
}
�4
,c
SL
Y�x
r.
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS, AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE
ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER.
4, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS.
5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 24 HOURS AND ALL SLOPES
STEEPER THAN 3 :1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7
CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED
WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND- DISTURBING ACTIVITY. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE
PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST) FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
6. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ESTABLISH TEMPORARY VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP - AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
8. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
l..
GOODWIN
1I V� 1 I WOODROW
GOODWIN
wrr
D 5 89559, lea G 1108
'r
P1 N -1 06) 19 936887L'I
�r
�u
=tea �' 3a a7 as HA , �,..� �«�b+ ���WIl"�N
Cd
N , a 5 p d 10 8
`s r f
N:
}
�4
,c
SL
Y�x
r.
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS, AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE
ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER.
4, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS.
5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 24 HOURS AND ALL SLOPES
STEEPER THAN 3 :1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7
CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED
WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND- DISTURBING ACTIVITY. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE
PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST) FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
6. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ESTABLISH TEMPORARY VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP - AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
8. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
l..
GOODWIN
1I V� 1 I WOODROW
GOODWIN
wrr
D 5 89559, lea G 1108
'r
P1 N -1 06) 19 936887L'I
�r

m
Q0
N
N
C
�1
C�
W
S
6'
rl-
LO
co
C
ro
CL
/
C
0�
In
N
O
O
L>—
Z
N
N
L
cn
ro
E
0
t
Ln6'
_
Or1_
N�
�j
� o0
i
i
LL
� 1
TEMPORARY SILT FENCES
STAGING /STOCKPILE AREA
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS, AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE
ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS.
5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 24 HOURS AND ALL SLOPES
STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7
CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED
WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND- DISTURBING ACTIVITY. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE
PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST) FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. SEE SHEET 1 -A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION.
6. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ESTABLISH TEMPORARY VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP - AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
8. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING WETLANDS
LIIVjITS
OF O1STURB
g
_ UE -- _ NCE
/�
E is
axIa a srte,EL L. �'�,.sO Lai �a sI� *�
r,
MARY FRANCES GOODWIN
DB 26521, PG '235
R�
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. I SHEET NO.
PROJECT IENGINEER
I
I
I
/ I
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax_ 919.463.5490
N T E R N A TI 0 N A L License #: F -1084
NCEEP ID NO. 96074
THOMAS CREEK
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
40 20 0 40 811;
SCALE (FT)
1 1

cq
co
cs;)
L)
Lo
(n
0
Z
0
0
C2
(n
ro
E
0
c-
J­_
L-ng'
_
0 r__
N/F
MIC"HAELL GOODWIN
&
MARY FRANCES GOODWIN
PDB 2653, PG 235
IN:0619268591
CE
CE -OF D/S7-UF
xBAIVCE
CE -- — ----
---
1- A L
c 1VII r- u r-%m ! . 1
SILT FENCE
00
44.P
77
-4.
Af
END REACH 6 BEGIN REACH 5
TA. 28+08.08
END REACH 7 STA. 16+46.16
ii Q Jt Ro
CE
-4
O
"Xk CE
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL OF DISTURB
MATTING ALONG ALL CONSTRUCTED ANC
STREAM BANKS (TYP)
4g.
STAGING/STOCKPILE AREA co L
z z
zz
44j
If
b ... ..... ........
P
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES: if ROA
DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING WETLANDS
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON
THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEE SHEET 3 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING BUFFER VEGETATION AND CONSTRUCTION END PUMP-AROUND
CORRIDOR TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE
MINIMAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR HAUL ROADS, CHANNEL RELOCATIONS, AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR FARM PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES SUCH AS HAUL ROADS AND SITE j
ACCESS SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER.
N/F
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MICHAEL L. GOODWIN
THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCES. EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. &
"ES GOODWIN
MARY 1:RANC,
5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PER THE PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. I(J4
p,
TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 24 HOURS AND ALL SLOPES t DB 265-3, PG 235
J C)
STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7 PIN:0619268591
CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED
WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE
PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST) FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. SEE SHEET 1-A FOR VEGETATION SELECTION
& /J1
6. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ESTABLISH TEMPORARY VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
co
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK IN THE DRY AND UTILIZE A PUMP-AROUND OPERATION OR FLOW DIVERSION 0
MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
8. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDCOVER STABILIZATION PRIOR TO
RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING.
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL
MATTING ALONG ALL CONSTRUCTED
STREAM BANKS (TYP)
BEGIN PUMP-AROUND