20181275 Ver 1_UT to Magness Creek_100081_MY0_2023_20230620

As-built Baseline Monitoring Report FINAL
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project

Cleveland County, North Carolina
Broad River Basin: 03050105
DMS Project ID No. 100081
RFP# 16-007400 (Issued: December 7, 2017)
DEQ Contract No. 7604
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01759
DWR# 20181275
Baseline Data Collection Period: January 2023
to March 2023

Submitted to/Prepared for:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652

Submission Date: June 2023
This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.

797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201| Asheville, NC 28806
Office: 828-412-6101| Mobile: [phone] MBAKERINTL.COM
June 15, 2023

Paul Wiesner, PM
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

Subject:
Response to DMS Comments (June 1, 2023) for DRAFT MY0/ As-Built Baseline Report and Record
Drawing Review
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project, Cleveland County
Broad River Basin: 03050105
DMS Project #100081

Dear Mr. Wiesner,
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments
dated June 1, 2023, in reference to the UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project’s DRAFT MY0/As-
Built Baseline Report. We have revised the Draft document in response to review comments as
outlined below.

· General/ Report Text; Table 1; Table 1.2; Figure 2: The total project mitigation credits in
the MY0 report should correspond with the credits established in the IRT approved
mitigation plan. Total project credit amounts can only be updated if a mitigation plan
addendum is submitted to and approved by the IRT. Please update the report text, tables,
and figures to reflect the project credits from the IRT approved mitigation plan (3,391.287
SMUs (warm) & 1.879 WMUs (riparian)).
RESPONSE: The credit amounts have been adjusted in the report text, tables, and figures
to reflect project credit quantities from the approved IRT mitigation plan.

· General: Please confirm that vegetation planting was completed prior to March 15, 2023.
Please note that vegetation must be planted, and plots established at least 180 days prior
to the initiation of the first year of monitoring (Year 1). Please make sure to schedule the
MY1 (2023) vegetation monitoring accordingly.
RESPONSE: All bare root stems were planted by the first week of February 2023 and live
stakes installation as completed the first week of March 2023, details added in Section 1.5
Project Timeline. Vegetation monitoring for Year 1 will not occur prior to September 15,
2023.

· Section 1.1 Project Description: The project’s reported total linear stream footage and
wetland acreage should be consistent with Table 1 (3,200.750 LF restored; 289.340

enhanced & 1.852 acres restored-by reestablishment or restored-by-rehabilitation).
Please review and update the report text and/or table accordingly.
RESPONSE: The reported total linear stream footage is consistent with our As-Built footage
and acreage. The wetland acreage reported has been revised and changed due to a small
loss in wetland acres associated with removing one meander due to bedrock on Reach 1A
near station 18+00.

· Section 1.5 Project Timeline & Table 2: This section notes that the Mitigation Plan was
approved by the IRT in August of 2021. The IRT approval letter is dated July 30, 2021. Please
update this section and the table accordingly.
RESPONSE: Changes have been made as requested.
· Section 1.6 Design Change Deviations: In the report text, please note that the partial
conservation easement release of 0.028-acre was recorded in Cleveland County on May
15, 2023, and include the final recorded document in Appendix E.
RESPONSE: This language has been added as requested and the final recorded document
is included in Appendix E.

· Section 1.6 Design Change Deviations & Table 1: Although minor, please explain the
differences between the designed reach lengths (mitigation plan) and as-built reach
lengths. Please also explain the differences between the designed wetland acreages
(mitigation plan) and as-built wetland acreages. Wetland acreage typically remains the
same between the design and as-built stage.
RESPONSE: The discrepancy between reach lengths exists because the design is based on
stream centerline whereas the As-Built survey data represents the thalweg which is not
necessarily the centerline of the channel. As-built stream length may also change
depending on where the survey data begins and if the end station of the survey is
measured to the top of the near bank at a confluence or if the stationing ends in the center
of the channel. Wetland acreage was slightly reduced near Station 18+00 on Reach 1A due
to the presence of bedrock which eliminated a meander from the original design thereby
cutting off a portion of wetland which would have existed on the right floodplain on the
inside bend of the design meander.

· Section 1.6 Design Change Deviations: In this section, please also note and discuss any
monitoring device location changes from the IRT approved mitigation plan.
RESPONSE: These changes have been noted as requested.

· CCPV Figures/ Figure 3B: Please update the conservation easement shown on the CCPV
maps to reflect the 0.028-acre partial conservation easement release recorded on
5/15/23. Figure 3B shows fencing located within the conservation easement.
RESPONSE: All figures have been updated as requested.

· General/ Section 1.5; Project Crest Gauge: As discussed on other Baker projects in
monitoring, please confirm that the project’s crest gauge has been installed so the
corresponding monitoring graph will show the thalweg, water/ pressure line, and
established bankfull elevation data to accurately show when flow events reach the bankfull
stage elevation.
RESPONSE: Installation of the crest gauge occurred prior to the discussion of the change in
methodology mentioned above; however, the crest gauge will be relocated during MY1 to
an in-stream location such that the monitoring graph will show the thalweg, water pressure
line and the established bankfull elevation to accurately show when flow events reach the
bankfull stage elevation. This discussion is included in Section 1.6 Design Change Deviations.

· Appendix E: Please review the Appendix and remove any duplicate IRT emails or
communication. IRT approval of the crossing change/ bridge replacement is included for
use in the Appendix. DMS also recommends updating the Appendix and providing the
communication documents in chronological order to avoid confusion.
RESPONSE: These changes have been made as requested.

· Appendix F_Record Drawings: This Appendix cover sheet should be labeled “Record
Drawing Plan Sheets”. The cover sheet on the plan set should also be labeled "Record
Drawings”.
RESPONSE: These changes have been made as requested.

· Appendix F_Record Drawings_Sheet 2F: The Record Drawing detail sheets provided include
a detail from a crossing that was eliminated from the project and does not include the
bridge crossing detail as installed on the site. Please include the final bridge crossing detail
in the revised Record Drawings.
RESPONSE: The Flat Bed Rail Car Bridge Application detail has been included on Sheet No.
2D.

· Appendix F_Record Drawings_Sheet 1A & Section 1.6 Design Change Deviations: Please
review the vegetation selection portion of sheet 1A and confirm that there were no
planting substitutions or changes from the IRT approved mitigation plan. Any project
planting substitutions or changes from the IRT approved mitigation plan should be shown
in “red” on the project’s final Record Drawings. Eliminated species should have a line
drawn through them and added and/or substituted species should be shown in “red” to
detail the change. Any planting substitutions or changes from the IRT approved mitigation
plan should also be detailed in the report text of Section 1.6 Design Change Deviations.
RESPONSE: This has been reviewed and substitutions and changes are noted on sheet 1A
and discussed in Section 1.6. Two species were eliminated (Halesia carolina and Magnolia
tripetala) due to unavailability. 125 additional Carpinus caroliniana were substituted from

the Magnolia tripetala and 125 additional Asimina triloba were substituted for the Halesia
carolina. Both substituted species are included on the original IRT approved species list.
· Appendix F_Record Drawings: Numerous instances of resolved fencing encroachment are
detailed in the project’s Record Drawings. Please confirm that there is currently no project
fencing installed within the project’s conservation easement.
RESPONSE: There is currently no fencing installed within the project’s conservation
easement, which was confirmed by DMS staff during the May 30, 2023 site visit.

· Appendix F_Record Drawings_Sheet 5: The sheet notes that “Rip rap was extended outside
of the conservation easement in agreement with the landowner.” While this does not
appear to be a major issue based on a May 30, 2023 DMS site visit, Baker should make
every effort to design and install all BMP infrastructure within the established conservation
easement of DMS projects.
RESPONSE: This consideration will be implemented when possible on future projects
containing BMP infrastructure.

DMS conducted a field visit on May 30, 2023. No additional comments were generated based on
the site visit. The DMS Boundary Inspection Report is attached for your review. The only action
item noted is:
· Continue to monitor the site boundary and maintain compliance throughout the
monitoring period.
RESPONSE: Site boundaries and compliance will be monitored throughout the life of the
project.
Digital Deliverable Comments:

· Please provide a .PDF of the standalone PLS sealed project as-built drawings in the revised
digital submittal.
RESPONSE: The PLS sealed project as-built drawings have been included as requested.

· Please provide a revised shapefile for the thalweg to include the reach_ segment names
and credit ratio applied in the attribute data for those features (attribute table submitted
pasted below for clarification of missing data).
RESPONSE: The revised shapefiles have been included and reach_segment names, and
credit ratios have been included in the attributes table for both thalweg and wetland
features.

· For all future submissions, the names of all assets (stream and wetland) submitted must
follow the same naming convention in the ESRI attribute tables as the segment name
displayed in the credits and quantities table, and all monitoring stations, to include random
vegetation plots, must have a name or station number in the attribute data to serve as a
unique identifier for that station.

RESPONSE: Future submissions will follow this convention and the submitted electronic
files have been updated as needed to match the tables and to identify monitoring
features.
Digital Deliverable Comments:

· None

As requested, Michael Baker has provided an electronic response letter addressing the DMS comments
received and two (2) hardcopies of the FINAL report, and the updated e-submission digital files will be
sent via secure ftp link. A full final electronic copy with electronic support files have been included on a
USB drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me ([e-mail] 828-412-6101) should you
have any questions regarding our response submittal.

Sincerely,

Jason York
Environmental Scientist

Enclosure: Final As-Built/MY0 Report UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................. 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
· Construct an appropriate channel morphology to all streams increasing the number and depth of
pools, increasing the amount of woody debris with structures including geo-lifts with brush toe,
woody riffles, log vanes/weirs, cross-vanes, and/or J-hooks.
· Establish riparian buffers at a 50-foot minimum width along all stream reaches, planted with native
tree and shrub species.
· Establish a permanent conservation easement restricting land use in perpetuity. This will prevent
site disturbance and allow the project to mature and stabilize.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
scattered throughout the buffer. Thus, given the level of degradation observed, all reaches rated as ‘Low’
in the NC-SAM assessment.

Additionally, the project involved a wetland mitigation component consisting of two separate approaches:
restoration by re-establishment and restoration by rehabilitation. The wetland re-establishment on site totals
1.817 acres and involved the restoration of appropriate wetland hydrology to hydric soils not previously
located within an existing jurisdictional wetland. This was accomplished by: connecting adjacent stream
channels to their relic floodplains through Priority I stream restoration, planting a native wetland vegetation
community, and removing invasive species.

Wetland rehabilitation consist of 0.035 acres in size and was accomplished by restoring most of the historic
natural functions to heavily degraded but still existing jurisdictional wetlands. The degradation consisted
of clear impacts to both hydrology and vegetation functions. The wetlands were adjacent to incised streams
and were heavily impacted by cattle. By correcting these impacts, the rehabilitation approach will result in
significant improvements to both the wetland hydrology and vegetation functions within the existing
wetland.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
excavate into the left bank and maintain the planned profile elevations. The channel was made relatively
straight through this section to the next meander. Bedrock outcroppings were incorporated into the channel
as drop type structures. The channel was also made a couple of feet wider in anticipation of the bedrock
causing this response. In the months since construction was completed in this area, a mid-channel bar has
developed were we made it wider. We will continue to monitor this and make adjustments as needed, using
hand tools to narrow the channel in this area, since the added width does not appear necessary. The
straightening of the channel cut off a small portion of wetland which was designed to exist on the right
floodplain inside a meander; however, due to this alteration the wetland area on the right floodplain was
reduced by 0.039 acres.
Continuous stage recorders were installed as flow/crest gauges on Reach 1A and UT2. The crest gauge on
Reach 1A was originally installed at bankfull elevation of the right floodplain; however, this gauge will be
relocated during MY1 to an in-stream location such that the monitoring graph will show the thalweg, water
pressure line and the established bankfull elevation to accurately show when flow events reach the bankfull
stage elevation.
Two proposed bare-root species were not available at the time of planting: Magnolia tripetala (Umbrella
Tree) and Halesia carolina (Carolina Silverbell). 125 additional stems of Carpinus caroliniana were
substituted for the Magnolia and 125 additional stems of Asimina triloba (Pawpaw). The additional planted
stems are both species on the approved IRT mitigation plan planting list.

APPENDIX A

Background Tables and Figures

Original
Mitigation Original Original Original
Plan As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio (X:1)Credits
Stream
Reach 1A
2249.60 2257.03 Warm R 1.0 2,249.600
Reach 1B
924.88 943.72 Warm R 1.0 924.880
Reach UT2 325.21 289.34 Warm E1 1.5 216.807
Total: 3,391.287
Wetland
Wetland Group W1 1.856 1.817 R REE 1.0 1.856
Wetland Group W2 0.035 0.035 R RH 1.5 0.023
Total:1.879
Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration 3,174.480 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Re-establishment 1.856 0.000 0.000
Rehabilitation 0.023 0.000 0.000
Enhancement 0.000 0.000 0.000
Enhancement I 216.807 0.000 0.000
Enhancement II 0.000 0.000 0.000
Creation 0.000 0.000 0.000
Preservation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Totals 3,391.287 0.000 0.000 1.879 0.000 0.000
Restoration Level
Stream
Table 1. Project Mitigation Assets and Components
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100081
As-Built Centerline Length and Area Summantions by Mitigation Category
Table 1.2 Project Credits
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
$8
$8 BMP Location
Conservation Easement
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
No Credit
Wetland: Reestablishment (1.817 ac)
Wetland: Rehabilitation (0.035 ac)
Figure 2. Project Asset MapUT to Magness Creek ProjectCleveland County
0 250 500125Feet
±
Stream Mitigation Credits
Reach Approach Length (ft) Ratio (X:1) Credits
Reach 1A R 2,249.60 1.0 2,249.600
Reach 1B R 924.88 1.0 924.880
Reach UT2 EI 325.21 1.5 216.807
Total Footage for Credit 3,499.69
Restoration 3,174.48 3,174.480
Enhancement I 325.21 216.807
Total Credits 3,391.287
Wetland Mitigation Credits
Approach Area (ac) Ratio (X:1) Credits
Restoration by
Reestablishment (W1)1.817 1.0 1.856
Restoration by
Rehabilitation (W2)0.035 1.5 0.023
1.879Total Credits
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100081
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:7 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:1.5 month
Number of Reporting Years1:0
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Project Instituted N/A Jun-18
Mitigation Plan N/A Jul-21
Final Design – Construction Plans2 N/A May-22
Construction Grading Completed N/A Aug-22
As-Built Survey Jan-23 Jan-23
Stream Survey Jan-23 Jan-23
Vegetation Monitoring Mar-23 Mar-23
Livestake and Bareroot Planting Completed Mar-23 Mar-23
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report (MY0) Apr-23 Jun-23
1 = The number of monitoring reports excluding the as-built/baseline report.
2 = date includes approved revisions.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Designer
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Cary, NC 27518
Contact: Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks, Inc.Julian, NC 27283
Contact: Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Survey Contractor
Kee Mapping and Surveying 88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Contact: Brad Kee, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
215 Moonridge Road
Ripple EcoSolutions Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Contact: George Morris, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks, Inc.Julian, NC 27283
Contact: Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Green Resources 5204 Highgreen Court
Colfax, NC 27235
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Strader Fencing, Inc.5434 Amick Rd. Julian, NC 28238
Native Forest Nursery 11306 US-441, Chatswort, GA 30705
Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Asheville, NC 28806
Stream Monitoring POC Jason York, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Jason York, Tel. [phone]

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100081
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Project Thermal Regime
UT2
320
289
Moderately
Confined
31
Perennial
WS-IV
F4
B4
III - Degrading
Supporting
PCN
PCN
Catergorical
Exclusion
Catergorical
Exclusion
N/A
N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland Group
W1 (REE)
Wetland Group
W2 (RH)
0.035
03-08-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)397 acres / 0.62 square miles
Warm
2.35% impervious area
48.1% pasture/hay, 25.7% forested, 9.2% open space,
8.9% cultivated crops, 4.9% developed, 2.6%
herbaceous, 0.6% scrub/shrub.
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach 1A Reach 1B
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Land Use Classification
Pre-project length (feet)
Post-project (feet)
330 397
Perennial Perennial
2,141
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
C4
IV - Degradation
and Widening
IV - Degradation
and Widening
35.406463 N, -81.528866 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Piedmont
River Basin Broad
03050105
DWR Sub-basin
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude decimal
Parameters
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined,
unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Dominant Stream Classification (existing)
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable
Chewacla loam
1.817 0.035
932
2,257 944
Moderately
Confined
Physiographic Province
WS-IV WS-IV
B4 B4
C4
Water of the United States - Section 404
Water of the United States - Section 401
Pre-project (acres)
Post-project (acres)
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian)
Mapped Soil Series
Soil Hydric Status
Riparian Riparian
Chewacla loam
Yes Yes
Regulatory Considerations
Applicable? Resolved?
Yes Yes
Moderately
Confined
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Attribute Table
Project Name UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
Cleveland
11.632
Yes Yes
No N/A
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX B

Visual Assessment Data

#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
"/
"6
!>
!>
!>!>
$8
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[

[

[

[

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
±
Overview Map: Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)UT to Magness Creek Mitigation ProjectCleveland County, NC
0 300 600150Feet
Figure 3A
Figure 3B
UT2
Reach 1A
Reach 1B
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[

[
[
[
[
[
[

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[

[

[

[

[

[

[
[
[

[
[
[

[

[

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
$8
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
!>
!>
!>!>
"6
PP9
PP8
PP7
PP5
PP4
PP3
PP2
PP1
PP22
PP21
PP20
PP19
PP18
PP17
PP16
PP15
PP14
PP13
PP12
PP11
PP10
PP6
XS4
XS5
XS2
XS3
MCW2
MCW1
MCW4
MCW3
CG1
XS1
Figure 3A. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)UT to Magness Creek Mitigation ProjectCleveland County, NC
0 150 30075Feet
±
"/Flow Gauge
"6 Crest Gauge
!>Groundwater Well
#0 Photopoints
$8 BMP Location
[ [Fence Line
Cross-Sections
Stream Tops-of-Bank
Random Veg Plots
Veg Plots
Conservation Easement
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
No Credit
Wetlands: Reestablishment
Wetlands: Rehabilitation
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Veg Plot 1 F: 526 stems/ac
Veg Plot 2 F: 567 stems/ac
Reach 1A
Veg Plot 1 R:405 stems/ac
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [[[[[ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
"/
XS9
XS6
XS7
XS
1
1
XS12
X
S
8
X
S
1
0
XS
1
4
XS
1
3
PP48
PP47
PP46
PP45
PP44
PP43
PP42
PP41 PP40
PP39
PP38
PP37
PP36
PP35
PP34
PP33
PP32
PP31
PP30
PP29
PP28
PP27
PP25
PP24
PP23
PP26
FG1
Figure 3B: Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)UT to Magness Creek Mitigation ProjectCleveland County, NC
±Veg Plot 3 F:688 stems/acVeg Plot 4 F: 648 stems/ac
Veg Plot 5 F 567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 6 F:567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 2 R: 648 stems/ac
0 150 30075Feet
"/Flow Gauge
"6 Crest Gauge
!>Groundwater Well
#0 Photopoints
$1 BMP Location
[ [Fence Line
Cross-Sections
Stream Tops-of-Bank
Random Veg Plots
Veg Plots
Conservation Easement
Stream Centerline
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
No Credit
Wetlands: Reestablishment
Wetlands: Rehabilitation
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Reach 1B
UT2
UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-1: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 11+25- Begin Reach 1A
PP-2: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 12+50

PP-3: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 13+15
PP-4: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 13+80

PP-5: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 14+80
PP-6: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 15+70

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-7: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 16+30
PP-8: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 17+00

PP-9: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 17+70
PP-10: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 18+50

PP-11: Reach 1A, Facing Upstream,
Station 19+15
PP-12: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 20+20

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-13: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 21+00
PP-14: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 21+90

PP-15: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 22+90
PP-16: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 23+60

PP-17: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 24+60

PP-18: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 25+30

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-19: Right Floodplain BMP,
Reach 1A Station 25+40
PP-20: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 26+00

PP-21: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 26+60
PP-22: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 27+45

PP-23: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 28+20
PP-24: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 28+90

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-25: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 29+70
PP-26: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 30+60

PP-27: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 31+30
PP-28: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 32+30

PP-29: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 32+90
PP-30: Reach 1A, Facing
Upstream, Station 33+50

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-31: End of Reach 1A, Facing
Downstream, Station 33+55 at
Crossing
PP-32: Begin Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 33+90 at Crossing

PP-33: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 34+40
PP-34: Reach 1B, Facing Upstream,
Station 35+60

PP-35: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 36+50
PP-36: Reach 1B, Facing Upstream,
Station 37+70

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-37: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 38+50
PP-38: Begin UT2, Facing
Upstream, Station 10+90

PP-39: UT2, Facing Upstream,
Station 11+60
PP-40: UT2, Facing Upstream,
Station 12+25

PP-41: UT2, Facing Upstream,
Station 12+80- End UT2
PP-42: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Confluence with UT2,
Station 39+30

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100081 – Photos taken March 8, 2023

PP-43: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 40+00
PP-44: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 41+20

PP-45: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 42+00
PP-46: Reach 1B, Facing
Upstream, Station 42+90

PP-47: Reach 1B, Facing Upstream,
Station 43+05
PP-48: Reach 1B, Facing Downstream
at project terminus, Station 43+10

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Vegetation Plot Photographs
NCDMS Project No. 100081

Vegetation Plot #1. Taken
February 14, 2023
Vegetation Plot #2. Taken March
23, 2023

Vegetation Plot #3. Taken March
23, 2023
Vegetation Plot #4. Taken March
23, 2023

Vegetation Plot #5. Taken
February 14, 2023

Vegetation Plot #6. Taken
February 14, 2023

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Vegetation Plot Photographs
NCDMS Project No. 100081

Random Vegetation Plot - RVP1.
Taken March 23, 2023
Random Vegetation Plot - RVP2.
Taken February 14, 2023

UT to Magness Creek: As-Built Monitoring Device Photo Log

Groundwater Well MCW1. Photo
taken January 24, 2023
Groundwater Well MCW2: Photo
taken January 24, 2023

Groundwater Well MCW3: Photo
taken January 27, 2023
Groundwater Well MCW4: Photo
taken January 27, 2023

Crest Gauge CG1. Mainstem:
Photo taken January 27, 2023
Flow Gauge FG1. UT 2: Photo
taken January 27, 2023

APPENDIX C

Vegetation Plot Data

Table 5. Planted Stem Counts by Plot and Species
7.3
2023-03-01
NA
2023-03-23
2023-03-23
0.0247
Veg Plot 7 R Veg Plot 8 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total
Aronia arbutifolia red chokeberry Shrub FACW 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 3
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1 2 2
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree FACU 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 2 2 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 1 1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 2 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1
Quercus palustris pin oak Tree FACW 1 1 2
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
Quercus sp.1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 4
Sum Performance Standard 13 13 14 14 17 17 16 16 14 14 14 14 10 16
13 14 17 16 14 14 10 16
526 567 688 648 567 567 405 648
7 9 10 8 8 7 8 9
31 29 24 25 21 43 20 25
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 14 17 16 14 14 10 16
526 567 688 648 567 567 405 648
7 9 10 8 8 7 8 9
31 29 24 25 21 43 20 25
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species
%
Invasive
s
526 7 0 567 9 0 688 10 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species
%
Invasive
s
648 8 0 567 8 0 567 7 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
405 8 0 648 9 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.
Indicator Status Veg Plot 1 F
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Species Included in Approved
Mitigation Plan
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/Shrub
Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Mitigation Plan Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Post Mitigation Plan
Performance Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current
monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 1
Veg Plot Group 2 R
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Veg Plot Group 1 R
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX D

Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Reach 1A - Restoration
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft)-----11.32-29.0 ----- ----- 9.4 ----- 11.9 14.4 -----12.5 ----- ----- 10.3 11.5 11.3 13.2
Floodprone Width (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 53.9 59.6 59.7 65.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)--------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----0.9 ----- ----- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
BF Max Depth (ft)-----0.90-0.44 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 1.0 1.2 -----0.9 ----- ----- 1.4 1.7 1.6 2.4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----10.2-12.6 ----- ----- 10.5 ----- 12.1 13.7 -----11.0 ----- ----- 11.8 12.5 12.3 13.5
Width/Depth Ratio -----12.58-65.9 ----- ----- 8.1 ----- 11.7 15.2 -----14.2 ----- ----- 8.3 9.8 9.2 12.6
Entrenchment Ratio -----1.96-1.07 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2.5 3.2 -----3.2 ----- ----- 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.4
Bank Height Ratio -----3.09-6.25 ----- ----- 1.0 -----2.1 3.3 -----1.0 ---------- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 31.8 39.0 40.9 49.7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)-----.0124-.0076 ----- ----- ----- 0.0110 ----- ----- -----0.0110 ----- ----- 0.0032 0.0080 0.0077 0.0137
Pool Length (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 20.7 35.0 38.3 59.5
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----52.7 84.3 81.8 101.5
Pool Max Depth (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----2.5 1.6 2.2 2.4 3.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM) ----- 0.392-0.458 ----- ----- 0.4 ----- 0.7 1.0 0.4 -----0.4 0.5 ---- 0.392-0.458 ---- ----
Impervious cover estimate (%) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Rosgen Classification -----B4c ----- ----- ----- B4/C4 ----- ----- -----C4 ----- ----- ---- C4 ---- ----
BF Velocity (fps) ----- 2.7-2.9 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- 2.6 2.7 -----2.5 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 26.9-36.0 ----- ----- 26.9 ----- 32.0 37.0 -----27.0 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Valley Length ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Length (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Sinuosity ----- 1.14-1.23 ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- -----1.2 ----- ----- ---- 1.2 ---- ----
Pre-Existing Condition
Table 6. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100081
Reference Reach(es) Data
Composite Design As-built
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Table 6. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100081
Reach 1B - Restoration
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft)-----11.32-29.0 ----- ----- 9.4 ----- 11.9 14.4 -----14.5 ----- ----- 12.4 13.3 13.3 14.2
Floodprone Width (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 60.2 63.9 63.9 67.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
BF Max Depth (ft)-----.90-.44 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 1.0 1.2 -----1.0 ----- ----- 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----10.2-12.6 ----- ----- 10.5 ----- 12.1 13.7 -----13.8 ----- ----- 12.6 13.3 13.3 14.0
Width/Depth Ratio -----12.58-65.9 ----- ----- 8.1 -----11.7 15.2 -----15.2 ---------- 12.2 13.2 13.2 14.3
Entrenchment Ratio -----1.96-1.07 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2.5 3.2 -----2.8 ----- ----- 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9
Bank Height Ratio -----3.09-6.25 ----- ----- 1.0 -----2.1 3.3 -----1.0 ---------- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 41.2 46.7 47.0 50.6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0124 ----- 0.0100 0.0076 ----- 0.0110 ----- ----- ----- 0.0110 ----- ----- 0.0000 0.0191 0.0156 0.0305
Pool Length (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 29.4 36.0 39.4 52.5
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 37.9 79.6 76.2 117.3
Pool Max Depth (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----3.0 ----- ----- 2.9 3.6 3.6 4.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM) -----0.6 ----- ----- 0.4 ----- 0.7 1.0 0.6 -----0.6 0.6 ---- 0.6 ---- ----
Impervious cover estimate (%) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Rosgen Classification -----C4 ----- ----- ----- B4/C4 ----- ----- -----C4 ----- ----- ---- C4 ---- ----
BF Velocity (fps) ----- 2.7-2.9 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- 2.6 2.7 -----2.7 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 26.9-36.0 ----- ----- 26.9 ----- 32.0 37.0 -----37.0 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Valley Length ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Length (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Sinuosity ----- 1.14-1.23 ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- -----1.2 ----- ----- ---- 1.2 ---- ----
Design As-builtCompositePre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Table 6. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT To Magness Creek Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100081
Reach UT2 - Enhancement
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft)-----5.1 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- 7.6 9.4 -----8.0 ----- ----- ---- 8.3 ---- ----
Floodprone Width (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- 42.7 ---- ----
BF Mean Depth (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- 0.5 ---- ----
BF Max Depth (ft)-----0.3 ----- ----- 0.5 ----- 0.8 1.2 -----0.5 ----- ----- ---- 0.8 ---- ----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----1.6 ----- ----- 2.7 ----- 6.8 10.9 -----2.7 ----- ----- ---- 3.8 ---- ----
Width/Depth Ratio -----15.8 ----- ----- 8.1 ----- 10.2 12.3 -----12.3 ----- ----- ---- 18.5 ---- ----
Entrenchment Ratio -----1.3 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2.0 2.2 -----2.2 ----- ----- ---- 0.0 ---- ----
Bank Height Ratio -----7.6 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 2.1 3.2 -----1.0 ----- ----- ---- 1.0 ---- ----
d50 (mm)-----2.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----2.4 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Profile ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Riffle Length (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 9.9 15.2 18.2 30.8
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- 0.0206 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0100 ----- ----- 0.0000 0.0115 0.0103 0.0234
Pool Length (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 8.6 12.2 14.0 21.3
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- 19.8 33.2 32.0 44.1
Pool Max Depth (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----1.3 -----1.1 1.4 1.4 1.7
Additional Reach Parameters ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Drainage Area (SM) -----0.0 ----- ----- 31.0 ----- 153.0 275.0 -----31.0 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Impervious cover estimate (%) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Rosgen Classification -----F4 ----- ----- ----- B4/B4 ----- ----- -----B4 ----- ----- ---- B4 ---- ----
BF Velocity (fps) -----3.2 ----- ----- 1.9 ----- 2.3 2.6 -----1.9 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Discharge (cfs) -----5.2 ----- ----- 5.2 ----- 16.8 28.5 -----5.2 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Valley Length ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Length (ft) ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Sinuosity -----1.2 ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- -----1.2 ----- ----- ---- 1.2 ---- ----
Pre-Existing Condition Design As-builtReference Reach(es) Data Composite
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Table 7. Cross-Section Morphology Data Summary
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 882.63 880.76 877.33 875.10
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 --1.00 --
Thalweg Elevation 880.21 878.35 877.33 872.23
LTOB2 Elevation 882.63 880.76 877.33 875.10
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.42 2.41 1.40 2.87
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)12.75 20.41 11.86 21.05
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 871.86 869.61 865.67 863.58
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 ----1.00
Thalweg Elevation 870.41 866.23 862.29 861.92
LTOB2 Elevation 871.86 869.61 865.67 863.58
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.45 3.38 3.38 1.66
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.46 24.61 28.66 11.76
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 857.17 856.56 854.31 851.25
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area --1.00 --1.00
Thalweg Elevation 853.76 854.93 854.93 849.77
LTOB2 Elevation 857.17 856.56 854.31 851.25
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)3.41 1.63 2.69 1.48
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)30.50 12.63 20.93 14.00
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 855.36 856.97
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 --
Thalweg Elevation 854.69 854.69
LTOB2 Elevation 855.36 856.97
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.67 1.43
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.08 7.07
Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)Cross-section X-11 (Pool)Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-14 (Pool)
UT to Magness Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100081
Reach 1A
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)Cross-section X-2 (Pool)Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)Cross-section X-4 (Pool)
Reach 1A
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)Cross-section X-6 (Pool)Cross-section X-7 (Pool)Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Reach 1B
UT2
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel
change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The
BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each
successive year.
2 -LTOB Area and Max depth -These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as
in the BHR calculation) will be recorded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Figure 4. Longitudinal Profiles
850
855
860
865
870
875
880
885
890
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
Reach 1A Profile
R1a TWG
R1a LB
R1a RB
R1a WS
XS 1
XS 2
XS 3
XS 4
XS 5
XS 6
XS 7
XS 8
XS 1
XS 2 XS 3
XS 4
XS 5 XS 6 XS 7 XS 8
830
835
840
845
850
855
860
865
870
875
880
3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
Reach 1B Profile
R1b TWG
R1b LB
R1b RB
R1b WS
XS 9
XS 10
XS 11
XS 12
XS 9 XS 10
XS 11 XS 12
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Figure 4. Longitudinal Profiles
850
852
854
856
858
860
862
864
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
Reach UT2 Profile
UT2 TWG
UT2 LB
UT2 RB
UT2 WS
XS 13
XS 14
XS 14 XS 13
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100081
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevRiffle C4 12.75 10.30 1.24 2.42 8.31 1.0 5.36 882.63 882.63
Looking at the Right Bank Looking at the Left Bank
Restoration(As-built Survey Data Collected: January 27, 2023 )Permanent Cross-Section 1
878879880881882883884885886887888889890
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A , Cross-Section 1
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 880.21'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevPool C4 20.41 16.55 1.23 2.41 13.46 -- -- 880.76 880.76
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 2(As-built Survey Data Collected: January 27, 2023 )
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A, Cross-Section 2
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 875.35'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevRiffle C4 11.86 12.19 0.97 1.40 12.57 1.0 5.27 877.33 877.33
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 3(As-built Survey Data Collected: January 27, 2023 )
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A, Cross-Section 3
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 877.33'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevPool C4 21.05 15.05 1.4 2.87 10.75 -- -- 875.1 875.1
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 4(As-built Survey Data Collected: January 27, 2023 )
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone871872873874875876877878879880881882883
0 1020304050607080
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A, Cross-Section 4
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 872.23'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C4 13.46 13.24 1.02 1.45 9.13 1.0 4.9 871.86 871.86
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 5
(As-built Survey Data Collected: March 23, 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A, Cross-Section 5
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 870.41'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)
AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevPool C4 24.61 15.0 1.64 3.38 9.15 -- -- 869.61 869.61
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 6(As-built Survey Data Collected: March 23, 2023)
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A, Cross-Section 6
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 866.23'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevPool C4 28.66 15.67 1.83 3.38 8.56 -- -- 865.67 865.67
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 7(As-built Survey Data Collected: March 23, 2023)
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A, Cross-Section 7
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 862.29'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevRiffle C4 11.76 10.40 1.13 1.66 9.20 1.0 5.18 863.58 863.58
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 8(As-built Survey Data Collected: March 23, 2023)
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1A, Cross-Section 8
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 861.92'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevPool C4 30.5 19.4 1.57 3.41 12.36 -- -- 857.17 857.17
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-Section 9(As-built Survey Data Collected: February 14, 2023)Restoration
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
0 1020304050607080
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1B, Cross-Section 9
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 853.76'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevRiffle C4 12.63 12.41 1.02 1.63 12.17 1.0 4.9 856.56 856.56
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 10(As-built Survey Data Collected: February 14, 2023)
854
855
856
857
858
859
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1B, Cross-Section 10
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 854.93'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevPool C4 20.93 15.02 1.14 2.69 16.11 -- -- 854.31 854.31
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 11(As-built Survey Data Collected: February 14, 2023)
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1B, Cross-Section 11
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 854.93'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevRiffle C4 14.00 14.17 0.99 1.48 14.31 1.0 4.77 851.25 851.25
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Restoration
Permanent Cross-Section 12(As-built Survey Data Collected: February 14, 2023)
849
850
851
852
853
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1B, Cross-Section 12
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 849.77'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevRiffle B4 3.08 6.92 0.44 0.67 15.73 1.0 5.7 855.36 855.36
Permanent Cross-Section 13(As-built Survey Data Collected: February 14, 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Enhancement I
854
855
856
857
858
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
UT2, Cross-Section 13
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 854.69'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 5. MY0 CROSS SECTIONS
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB ElevPool B4 7.07 9.03 0.78 1.43 11.58 -- -- 856.97 856.97
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Enhancement I
Permanent Cross-Section 14(As-built Survey Data Collected: February 14, 2023)
854
855
856
857
858
859
0 10203040
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 2, Cross-Section 14
As-built
Bankfull
FloodproneThalweg Elevation = 854.69'
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT to MAGNESS CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100081)AS-BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX E

Communication on Design Changes and
Recorded Easement

MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201, Asheville NC 28806
Office: 828.412.6100 | Fax: [phone]
October 21, 2021

Paul Wiesner, W. Region Sup.
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: Modification to the planned stream crossing at Station 33+52 of the UT to
Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project, Cleveland County, NC.
DEQ Contract # 7604; DMS #100081; M. Baker Project #167680

Dear Paul,
As you know we have prepared stream restoration plans for the UT to Magness Creek Stream
Mitigation Project in Cleveland County. We submitted a Mitigation Plan along with design plan
sheets, for DMS and IRT approval. These plans were approved by the IRT in a letter from the
USACE dated July 30, 2021. While coordinating and planning construction of this site with our
restoration contractor, it became apparent that we had an opportunity to use a bridge crossing at
Station 33+52 rather than the culverted crossing that was proposed and approved. I have
included a copy of the modified sheet 2D that includes a new detail called “Flat Bed Rail Car
Bridge Application” and sheet 8 which shows the planview of the crossing modification. I have
also attached a couple of photos that show a similar installation at our Russell Gap Restoration
Project.
We believe that a bridged crossing of the UT to Magness Creek is a preferred stream crossing
method. It is not typically utilized due to the high cost; however, in this case the ability to use an
old flat bed, rail car to produce a crossing that will only need to allow livestock access across the
stream, was comparable in cost to the proposed culvert crossing. A bridged crossing will allow
the stream channel to be continuous, maintaining stable cross-sectional dimensions and the
floodplain through the crossing. This type crossing involves less maintenance due to debris
collecting at the crossing and provides no problems for aquatic species passage. For these
reasons we believe this is a better plan and are glad that we could make improvements to our
plans even after they were approved by DMS and the IRT. I am asking for DMS and IRT
concurrence on this modification to our plans for this restoration site.
Thank you,
Micky Clemmons,
Project Manager
Michael Baker Eng.
Attached: Plan sheet 2D, 8 and 2 photos
C,
n
co
co
a�
r6
O
+-1
ED
03
CD
CD
STAKE TOP LAYER OF COIR
FIBER MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE COIR FIBER MATTING DETAIL)
GEOLIFT WITH LIVE BRUSH, LOGS AND ROOT WADS
LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
4' DEEP (TYP) COIR FIBER MATTING
o ENCOMPASSES LIFT
FLOODPLAIN TOP OF BANK BANKFULL STAGE
UNDISTURBED
EARTH
1.0' LIFT OF COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL (TYP)
ADD BOULDERS OR COUNTERWEIGHT
TO PREVENT WOOD FROM FLOATING
COVER LOGS AND/OR ROOT WADSS
INSTALED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON
PLANS AND PER RESPECTIVE DETAILS
ROOT WAD
EXTEND BRUSH MATERIAL
TO 1/3 BANKFULL WIDTH
THICK TOE WOOD LAYER:
USE EXCESS WOOD GENERATED
FROM CLEARING, 3"-10" VARIOUS
SIZES IN DIAMETER
BASEFLOW
y �/ FINISHED BED
ELEVATION
FOUNDATION LOG
ROOT WAD
■
SECTION VIEW
A'
PLAN VIEW
POINT BAR OF CHANNEL
(SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)
AR\ES
FOUNDATION LOGS TO BE INSTALLED
AT ANGLES SHOWN BETWEEN 15-25'
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. NUMBER OF SOIL LIFTS MAY VARY, IN GENERAL LIFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE
TOP OF BANK OR BANKFULL STAGE.
STAKE TOP LAYER
OF MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE MATTING DETAIL)
FLOODPLAIN
UNDISTURBED
EARTH
1.0' LIFT OF
COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL (TYP)
4' DEEP (TYP)
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANCHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
FLAT BED RAIL CAR BRIDGE APPLICATION
METAL POST HOLDER THE APPROACH SHALL BE FILLED WITH AVAILABLE SOIL
AND HAVE GEO-TEXTILE SURROUNDING THE SOIL. THIS FILL
SHOULD BE FACED ON EACH SIDE WITH STONE (RIP -RAP TO
��B BOULDER SIZE STONE DEPENDING ON POTENTIAL FLOWS).
4"x4" WOODEN FENCE POST
WELD
NOTES
Y
z
Q
0o
2i
Q
LU
ry
J)
RE -PURPOSED FLAT BED RAIL CAR
AS BRIDGE DECK
t
FLOW
PLAN VIEW
BOLT HOLES BRIDGE DECK
Y
z
Q
� B'
15
Q
LLI
co
METAL BRACKET (4"x4"x12" INSIDE DIMENSION), OPEN AT THE TOP AND
WELDED TO THE SIDE OF THE BRIDGE DECK, LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCEPT
A 4"x4" WOODEN FENCE POST. THE BRACKETS SHOULD HAVE 2 HOLES ON
THE THREE EXPOSED SIDES SO THAT THE POST CAN BE BOLTED IN PLACE.
1. GENERALLY, CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE FROM THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL OUT TO THE BRIDGE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE AND APPROACHES.
2. THE STREAM CHANNEL THROUGH THE BRIDGE OPENING SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE BANKS MATTED BEFORE THE STONE IS PLACED FOR
STABILIZING THE CROSSING OR BLOCKS/BOULDERS ARE PLACED TO SUPPORT THE BRIDGE DECK.
3. ABUTMENTS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED FROM THE CONCRETE BIN BLOCKS OR LARGE BOULDERS (ENGINEER APPROVED).
4. BLOCKS OR BOULDERS SHOULD EXTEND BELOW SCOUR DEPTH, FOOTERS SHALL BE AT LEAST Z BELOW THE EXISTING BED.
5. GEO-TEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN SURFACE STONE AND SOIL USED IN THE BRIDGE APPROACHES.
6. BOULDERS AND OTHER STONE SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED. VOID SPACE BETWEEN FABRIC AND STONE SURFACE MATERIAL
SHALL BE MINIMIZED.
7. GEO-TEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND BOULDERS/STONE, BURIED BELOW STONE DEPTH AND EXTENDED INTO THE BANK.
8. THE CUBE FENCE POST HOLDERS SHOULD BE ATTACHED BY WELDING PRIOR TO PLACING THE DECK IN PLACE.
A'
TOP OF BANK / BANKFULL STAGE
COIR FIBER MATTING
ENCOMPASSES LIFT
LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
BASEFLOW
FINISHED BED
ELEVATION
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
167680
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
i
i
,�"11n ► n►►q1�
,� ...0 A ... AA
�.''FESSIp'.•,q�i�
SHEET NO.
2D
• O ti : i
:• �� 9l APPROVED BY:
SEAL
028432
FNG I N���'�
i
i
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
rr� all M-90, M 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Ph one: 919.463.5488
Fax:[phone]
N T E R N A T 10 N A L License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID NO. 100081
FOUNDATION APPROX. 1 FT
BELOW FINISHED BED ELEVATION
NOTES:
1. WHEN GEOLIFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOT WAD CLUSTER, USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND
ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
2. CLASS I STONE MAY BE USED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER TO BUILD THE FOUNDATION
IN LIEU OF BRUSH MATERIAL.
RE -PURPOSED FLAT BED
RAIL CAR AS BRIDGE DECK
O 0 O FLOODPLAIN UNDER BRIDGE HAS A
BASE OF RIP -RAP COVERED WITH STREAM
000 0 00 00 ALLUVIUM OUT TO STREAM TOP OF BANK
DO0 O O( �O �O ' 00 00 O
00 0000 o Do0a0o �o000 0
0CDOOO 0 CD07(Do'- 0000Pbo
0 CDo
TOP OF BANK O Pb-C)DoPbo00 C)0000
90)QO0) 00000000000000D_ 00 o 0 0
BANK MATTED WITH COIR MATTING
r FLOW
TOE OF BANK
SECTION B - B'
RE -PURPOSED FLAT BED
RAIL CAR AS BRIDGE DECK
BRIDGE ABUTMENT /
BOULDERS OR CONCRETE BIN
BLOCKS WILL BE USED STREAM ALLUVIUM
PROPOSED STREAM BED
SECTION A - A'
RIP -RAP
EXISTING GROUND

1
Clemmons, Micky
From:Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, October 22, 2021 5:06 PM
To:Davis, Erin B; Kim Browning; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US)
Cc:Clemmons, Micky; McKeithan, Katie; King, Scott
Subject:EXTERNAL: Minor Construction Plan Modification Request: UT to Magness Creek
Mitigation Project (DMS#100081) - (SAW-2018-01759) (DWR#20181275) - Broad
03050105_Cleveland County
Attachments:UT Magness_100081_Crossing Update Request (Baker)_Oct. 2021.pdf
Casey, Erin, Kim, and Todd;

The UT to Magness Creek project in Cleveland County is scheduled to begin construction in mid-November/ early
December 2021.

DMS and Baker are requesting that the IRT review a modification that Baker is planning for the originally proposed,
culverted, stream crossing on UT to Magness Creek. Baker is now planning to use a bridge crossing. The proposed
bridge crossing modification is located outside of the conservation easement and will not have an effect on the project
credits. Fence posts and fencing will be attached to the bridge to limit livestock access to the bridge when crossing so
they will not have access the creek.

Attached is a letter from Baker making the request, a copy of the modified plan sheet pages (2E & 8) and a couple of
photos of this type crossing from the Russell Gap Mitigation Project (DMS#100003).

Please review the attached information and let us know if you foresee any issue with this proposed project crossing
modification. If acceptable, Baker will capture this update in the post construction MY0 Record Drawings which will be
forwarded to the IRT for review once project construction and planting are complete.

Project information is as follows:
UT to Magness Creek
DMS Project # 100081
Institution Date: 6/19/2018
RFP # 16-007400 (Issued: 12/7/2017)
Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03050105
Cleveland County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-01759
DWR# 20181275

IRT Approved Mitigation Plan Credits:
3,391.287 SMU (warm)
1.879 WMU (riparian)

Full Delivery Provider: Michael Baker International – Contact: Scott King, LSS, PWS, [e-mail] (919)
481-5731 & Micky Clemmons, [e-mail] [phone]

NCDEQ - DMS Project Manager: Paul Wiesner, [e-mail], [phone]

MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201, Asheville NC 28806
Office: 828.412.6100 | Fax: [phone]
To: Kim Isenhour (for IRT)
From: Micky Clemmons, Project Manager, Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
CC: Paul Wiesner, DMS; Melonie Allen, DMS; Jeff Horton, DMS
Date: December 13, 2022
Re: We are requesting that the Interagency Review Team review Michael Baker International’s
need for a partial release (.028 Acres) to the Deed of Conservation Easement established
pursuit to the UT to Magness Creek Stream Restoration Project and shown on a
Conservation Easement Plat recorded in Cleveland County, NC on 12/11/20, (Book 43, Page
180 – 182). UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project (DMS#100081) - (SAW-2018-01759)
(DWR#20181275) - Broad 03050105_Cleveland County

Ms. Isenhour,
I am writing to request that the Inter-Agency Review Team (IRT) review and approve a
modification that became necessary during construction of the bridged crossing and fencing at
our UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project. We had to make an unforeseen
modification that will result in a needed partial release of a small area of the conservation
easement (CE). When we were installing the crossing, and while we had the conservation
easement line staked out, it became obvious that the crossing was going to open into a steep
hill side that would limit its utilization and create an unsafe situation. The landowner felt he
would not be able to use the crossing because the steep hill created a risk that a wheeled
vehicle could turn over while trying to use it. The stream crossing does not allow turning
upstream or downstream to avoid the hill because the opening, as planned, opened where it
started sloping. The total straight-line width of the stream crossing at this point is
approximately 184’ and this was the limit of our surveyed width. Because of this we did not
recognize the increase in slope at the crossing opening during planning and certainly not at the
time the conservation easement area was established.
To address this concern and ensure that we did not effectively landlock a part of the Yarboro
property, we had to make a modification to the CE alignment on the downstream side of the
crossing, along the left bank. By moving the CE line toward the stream in this area we were
able to create space for a farm vehicle to turn left out of the crossing and access a flat path that
is just on the outside of the easement fence. The movement of the line and new alignment still
maintains an easement width that on average is greater than 50 feet over the 135 feet of the
altered CE line, but there is a small length (~60’) of the altered easement line that is slightly
less. On average the width along this 60’ length is 48.5 feet, primarily along a meander in the
stream. The average buffer width along the remaining ~75’ that was altered, is 62 feet. The
area that will need to be released from the conservation easement is 0.028 Acres. That is 0.2%
of the total 11.66 Acre CE area that was established for this project.

If the partial release is approved there will be less than 1% of the stream length with buffers
less than the 50-foot minimum. In the IRT approved mitigation plan, additional credit was not
generated by utilizing wider buffer widths. For these reasons, we do not believe that this
release should have any negative consequences on the expected credits from this project. This
CE modification and the need for a release will be completely documented in the MY0 as-built
report, as well as any communication with the Division of Mitigation Services and the IRT.
The modification of the line and the area that needs to be released are shown in the figures
that are attached. There is a map (Figure 1) that shows the crossing opening and the CE area to
be released, in grey hatching. The original CE line is shown on the outside of the area and the
New Line is pointed out on the inside of the area. The fence along the downstream side of the
crossing is shown as new because the length of this line changed; however, it continues to have
the same bearing as the original line. There are also multiple photos (Figure 2) of the crossing,
the CE fence (indicating where the CE line is), and the area that will need to be released.
Individual photo captions indicate what is being shown.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this request or if you need any additional
information. We will pursue this partial release upon the IRT’s review and approval.

Thank You,
Micky Clemmons, Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

Attachments: Figure 1. Conservation Easement Area to be released
Figure 2. Photos of CE Release Area

1
Clemmons, Micky
From:Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 3:41 PM
To:Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Munzer, Olivia;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:[Non-DoD Source] RE: Modification Request: UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project
(SAW-2018-01759) Cleveland County
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kim,

I have no concerns with the conservation easement modification request at the UT to Magness Creek site. I agree that
the original CE boundary would have created an unsafe or too steep approach to the crossing and that the new line
provides a much better slope and angle to approach the crossing. I also concur with the request that credit adjustment is
not necessary at this time.

Best Regards,
Todd B.

Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
919.523.2637 cell/telework
404.562.9225 office
[e-mail]

“Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you.”
? Wendell Berry

-----Original Message-----
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 2:14 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Modification Request: UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project (SAW-2018-01759) Cleveland County

Team,
DMS and Baker are requesting approval of a minor conservation easement modification for the UT to Magness Creek
site. If you recall, they adjusted this crossing to a bridge during construction, which the IRT agreed with, but the
alignment appears to have caused some concerns for the landowner due to steep surrounding areas. Baker had to
remove a small portion of the buffer (0.028 ac) to allow for a turn lane for the landowner. This will only impact 60 linear
2
feet of the buffer, which will have 48.5 ft buffer width. There is still an average buffer width greater than 50 ft over the
135 ' of altered easement line. Please let me know if you have any concerns with this easement modification by Dec 28,
2022. The attachment has a full explanation and photos.
Thanks
Kim

SAW-2018-01759/ (DMS#100081) (DWR#20181275) - Broad 03050105

Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107

-----Original Message-----
From: Clemmons, Micky <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:35 AM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Paul Wiesner <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Jeff Horton <[e-mail]>;
McKeithan, Katie <[e-mail]>; Clemmons, Micky <[e-mail]>; York, Jason
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Request for review of partial CE release at the UT to Magness Stream
Restoration Project_100081

Kim,

I have attached a letter requesting that the IRT review and approve a CE modification that we had to do at the bridged
crossing of our UT to Magness Creek Stream Restoration Project. The letter explains the circumstances of this
modification, the results, and how it will have a minimal impact to project crediting, while at the same time having
significant results for safe utilization of the crossing. We are asking that the IRT review this information and approve of
this action; we will pursue the partial release upon the IRT’s review and notification of approval.

Thank you for your consideration,

Micky

Micky Clemmons | Project Manager - Ecosystem Restoration
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 | Asheville, NC 28806 | [O] 828-412-6100 | [M] [phone]
[e-mail] |
Blockedhttps://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbakerintl.com%2F&amp;data=05%
7C01%7Cbowers.todd%40epa.gov%7Caa0f61d5bd024add899f08dadd3f0fd1%7C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6a7
%7C0%7C0%7C638065560190514402%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=yob4HT8CBdghdAHX%2Boc3gS1ymA%2BWKwQ9U1fRt
TnemDY%3D&amp;reserved=0
<Blockedhttps://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbakerintl.com%2F&amp;data=0
5%7C01%7Cbowers.todd%40epa.gov%7Caa0f61d5bd024add899f08dadd3f0fd1%7C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6
a7%7C0%7C0%7C638065560190514402%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB
TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=FbRtIlkCNRAcrIw4Gy%2FYf%2F7gMSB3qmeIGvzUpTj
UTBw%3D&amp;reserved=0>
<Blockedhttps://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmbakerintl.com%2Fmedia%2F5024%2Fs
21_f_061907_icons.jpg&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cbowers.todd%40epa.gov%7Caa0f61d5bd024add899f08dadd3f0fd1%7
C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6a7%7C0%7C0%7C638065560190514402%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi
Figure 2. Photos of CE release area at UT to Magness stream crossing
NCDMS Project No. #100081
Photo from the hilltop on the right bank, above the crossing,
showing the steep drop to the crossing.
Photo view upstream along fence to the crossing, shows flatter
travel area next to fence verses steeper hill if the fence had
continued along the original CE line, shown in red.
_ -
iz
i l t �•._
Photo view upstream along fence to the new crossing, shows
flatter area that allows access to the crossing and room for a
vehicle to turn back downstream outside of the easement.
Photo down stream of the crossing on the right bank showing
the flatter area outside of the fence, that allows for movement
by landowner along the hill slope outside of the easement.
Photo view downstream along the original CE line past the
crossing, shows the steep hill at the original opening had that
line (shown in red) been followed.
..M.
Photo view from the opening of the stream crossing. The post
on the far -right edge of the photo shows where the opening on
the left would have been had the left side not been moved off
the hill slope.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

Figure 2. Photos of CE release area at UT to Magness stream crossing
Photo shows the bridge stream crossing and the hill slope that the crossing would have opened into had we not made an adjustment
to the CE line going downstream from the crossing. The redline indicates approximately where the original CE line was
established. The original line was almost 80 feet from the stream top of bank now it is approximately 50 feet from top of bank.
Photo down the hill to the stream crossing.
Right bank within the easement, downstream of the crossing.
This area narrowed from the original CE to allow access to the
bridged crossing. Buffer width is still approximately 50 feet.
Photo across the bridge stream crossing toward the left bank.
SLY. J
UT to Magness Creek restored downstream of the new bridged
stream crossing.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

Figure 2. Photos of CE release area at UT to Magness stream crossing
NCDMS Project No. #100081
i
Photo is from the end of the bridge toward the opening of the crossing on the right bank. The area on the left side of
the photo shows the riparian area remaining after the CE line was moved, necessitating the release of a small area
(028 A) from the established conservation easement area.
Panoramic Photo view upstream along fence to the crossing, shows flatter travel area outside of the fence and the
riparian area between the new CE alignment and the restored stream channel.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

2

From: Rice, Blane <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:09 AM
To: Clemmons, Micky <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Horton, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie
<[e-mail]>; McKeithan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: EXTERNAL: 100081 UT to Magness Stream Restoration Project Partial Release

Hello Micky,
It checks out. I have received the necessary approvals and we are moving forward.
No need to worry, I got this from here and should have it done within the next week.
I hope your surgery goes well. This is one less thing to be concerned about.
Thanks,

CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY.
I, _HAMPTON JAMES LARK CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN
UNDER MY SUPERVISION MGM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY
SUPERVISION FROM DEED DESCRIPTION(S) RECORDED IN OB: 1969
PG: 4" 08: 16-0. PG: 143_, DB:110_ PG_242t US: 111I0-
PG 2076 DB: 1928 PG: 1292 AND PB: 43 PGS:14�?�2:
THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE INDICATED AS DRAWN FROM
INFORMATION AS REFERENCED; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS
CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN THAT THIS PLAT WAS
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH C.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED.
I ALSO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT IS OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
CS 47-30 F(11) D; THAT THE SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH
AS THE RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING PARCELS, A COURT -ORDERED
SURVEY, OR OTHER EXEMPTION OR EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF
SUBDIVISION.
'M�fE55 MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, &
SEAL]T115 DAY SIGNATURE,
__M6$Cb___, 2D21.
� 10111111",
C66ARo ' K4i
����?�•o�`Y�BA01
:n EAL �
Sr: =
L-29�
fir, � '•"' HAMP N JAME LARK PLS L-2885
ON
WYWWIH IIII\1\\\ `
CIa
III 11111111121010 0 8 508I8
Dac No006223
Reco t. 21.00 02312 M
ae Amt $21.0G 0 f
I, VsMcarryNa9 GerMU
Betsy s. HArrMpe, ReglNer M
BK 47 PG 99-99(1) ^
lO
+\
ROBERT E. YARBORO & WAFE. \, `
KAY DIXON YARBORO
PIN 2641-41-SB02
DR: 16-0 PG' 143& INS 1069P
PER 7 PG'. 48 (TRACT 11)
\
\
'o \
t
\
\ \ DUKE ENEEx
\ \
\
\ k�
x-*y.
\
\
/ 5'xTCMP '
FORMER LOCATION OF
CENTERLINE OF R t8m
PER o8: 1105 P.72421
SR 1685199WjBiT SR 1803)
(SEE
THE
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THIS PLAT DOES NOT CREATE A SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY IN
CLEVELAND COUNTY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO
IDENTIFY THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS ONLY. NO
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IS TAKING PLACE.
I,_DLLP_• MLCLUI-'_t__. REVIEW OFFICER FOR
CLEVELAND COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP OR PLAT TO WHICH
THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED, MEETS ALL STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
I ro i4cl �,�t��i�.:'4r(_ _ 3 1 123
HI UIIICDR DATE
('FRTIFlCATE DF OWNFRSHHIP AND OEDICATIONA��D OEOICA�O�
I (WE) CERTIFY THAT I AM (WE ARE) ALL OF THE OWNER(S) OF
THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE JURISDICTION OF CLEVELAND
COUNTY AND THAT I/WE HEREBY ADOPT THIS PLAN WITH MY/OUR
FR CONNS,NENT. j
F`A
GRID TIE INFORMATION PER PB: 43 PGS: 180-182
CONTROL POINT
CONTROL POINT
RBCC'KEE"(503)
RBCC-KEE'(502)
STATEPIJINECOORDINATES
STATE PLANE COORpINATES
N: 612M 16'
N: 613826.20
E: 1245413A8'
E', 1248311.21'
CF: 0.99963850
CF. 0.99983115
'CONTROL POINT1503BEING
/
LOCATED S 27*%'43' W
A GIRD DISTANCE OF 1916.51-
FROM CONTROL PUNT/ I.
l
PORTION OF
CONSERVATION
W-
EASEMENT AREA D
TO BE RELEASED
_ Po
OB: 1828 PG: 1292
PB: 43 PGS: 180-182
wR - N 'S
P
G1
0.03ACRE
GRID NORTH
LINE1
BEARING
NAD83(m11)
DISTANCE PER PD. 43
L1
N 48°44'10" E
41.73' PGS 180.182
8" RBC (36) POB
ELEASE AREA
612051.65'
246316.70'
/
DCATED S 64'4311' E 901
ti
TOM CONTROL POINT#503)
CE AREA /
PS: 43 PG: 102 S
t
/
OB T E. YARBORO
J 4 S �S
KA N YARBORO
ROBERT E. YARBORO & WIFE,
KAY DIXON YARBORO
PIN:2641.52-9135
(FORMERLY PIN: 264141-9802)
DB: 16-D PG: 143 & DS'. 1069 PG: 439 9.
PB: 7 PG. 46 (TRACT 11)
y , „ + ° s ° •. / CmARLAKEFARM,LLC
REMAINING PORTION PIN:2 11-72-1337
OB:1567 PG: 1352ff 4)
` - OF CONSERVATION /
EASEMENT AREA D
DB: 182B PG: 12M
.,H1.81') ° ° PB. 2.56 ACRE805-18229)
4 fS29.34'20^E T3B.42'
30)
�As�xA
" 4- ° , ° ✓
CE AREAE°1
y ROY P. SHARPE & WIFE.
Y 'PIN'2841-it-0009
cp
CONSERVATO EASEMENT
CORNER -NC DAP (TYPICAL)
CONSERVATION EA
IT DORMER
4
NORTHING
SING
22
611469.85
76/.79
23
011596424
5,81
24
611697.21
25
26
61194467
612078.15
12 03
1246 i
27
.11-1.
1248
28
29
6111314LI
611693.59
1246112.22
124 15,9
30
31
611668.!A
611M3.M
1246382.01
1246312.M
%
36
6179N 6]
612D51.85
1246237.03
1248918.]0
ROBERTE.YARDORO&Vr1FE,
KAY DIXON YARBORO 14" PINE STUMP I.
N: 2.1-001YJ79 TERMWUfi0F5THCAUL
OB: 1'WIG.2421& DB:,sDPG 143RIIACTN0. 1)
OB\� A \
: IBI0PG:- TFAMINUs8F2 1- V'
---
LEGEND G'.
LEGEND: \
UNMARKED POINT
GRAVEL
NWOT CONCRETE RIGHT OF WAY
ASPHALT
MONUMENT
CE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
O
SET 5/8" BY 30" REBAR W/ 3-1/4"
BOUNDARY LINE
DIAMETER ALUMINUM CE CAP _
_ _
BOUNDARY UNE NOT SURVEYED
SET 5/8" BY 30" REBAR W/ 3-1/4"
........... .
INTERIOR DEED UNE
3-1/4" DIAMETER ALUMINUM CE CAP _
_ _ _ -
ADJOINING DEED LINES
PER PB:43 PGA82 -..-..
-..-
UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY (R/'W) TYPICAL
O
SET 5/8" REBAR W/ -KEE- CAP -
WHA
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
PER B:43 PG 182
FENCE
®
MAC NAIL SET PER PB: 43 PG: 182
OW-
OVERHEAO WIRE
TREE (AS NOTED) --
- ---
TIE UNE ONLY
©
TREE STUMP
PB
PLAT BOOK
®
WATER METER
DB
DEED BOOK
H
WATER VALVE
RBR
B
PAGE
REBAR
0
UTILITY POLE
RED
REBAR NTH ID CAP
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
RBCC
REBAR NTH ID CAP SET IN CONCRETE
A
CORNER NUMBER
POB
POINT OF BEGINNING
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (CE)
IF
IRON PIPE
EXISTING CE AREA TO BE RELEASED
NAD
SPC
NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983
STATE PLANE COORDINATES
V_LL4
GAP AREA
CF
CMP
COMBINED FACTOR
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
STREAM/WATER
G
RIP RAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
SITE
APPARENT GAP BETVVEEN THE
ROBERT & MY YARBORO PROPERTIES
B THE PROPERTY OF CEDAR W(E FARM,
LLC AS DESCRIBED IN
Ga. 1587 PG: I (TRACT 4)
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
1. ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES ARE GROUND
MEASUREMENTS IN US SURVEY FEET UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. AREAS CALCULATED BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
3. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF
WAYS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE RECORDED,
UNRECORDED, WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN.
4. CLEVELAND COUNTY GIS WEBSITS. USED..TO IDENTIFY
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
5. THE PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR HAS MADE NO
INVESTIGATION OR INDEPENDENT SEARCH FOR
EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, ENCUMBRANCES,
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, CORRECT OWNERSHIP
OR ANY OTHER FACTS THAT AN ACCURATE AND
CURRENT TILE SEARCH MAY DISCLOSE. A NC
LICENSED ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED.
B. THE TYPICAI RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH RFOUIRFD
FOR OVERHEAD DISTRIBUTION POWER LINES OF
ANY VOLTAGE IS NORMALLY A 30 FOOT WADE
CORRIDOR (15 FEET ON EACH SIDE) PER DUKE
ENERGY. REFERENCE IS MADE TO DB: 6-J PG:
472 AND OB: 6-0 PG: 137. IN WHICH NO WIDTH
IS GVEN.
7. ALTHOUGH NO DEED WAS FOUND GRANTING A
RIGHT OF WAY FOR SELKIRK DRIVE, SR 1885
(FORMERLY SR 1803). TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MONUMENTATION
WAS FOUND INDICATING THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS
CLAIMING A 60 FOOT WDE RIGHT OF WAY. IT IS
ADVISABLE, THEREFORE, TO PLAN FOR NO
IMPROVEMENTS CLOSER THAN THIRTY FEET FROM
THE PRESENT ROAD CENTERLINE.
8. UTILITIES WERE LOCATED BASED ON VISIBLE ABOVE
GROUND STRUCTURES, TIEREFORE THE LOCATION
OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE OR
MAY BE PRESENT AND NOT SHOWN HEREON. CALL
1-800-632-4949 BEFORE DIGGING.
e FIELD WORK FOR THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
RELEASE WAS CONDUCTED ON 10/05/22.
10. BY GRAPHIC DETERMINATION, A PORTION OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY APPEARS TO UE WITHIN A
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA) AS
DETERMINED BY THE FIRM MAP# 3710264100J
DATED 02/20/2008.
11, PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL (R) AS DEFINED
BY THE CLEVELAND COUNTY. NC UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SURVEY OF PARTIAL RELEASE OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR:
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
"UT TO MAGNESS CREEK"
SPO FILE NO. 23- DMS SIRE IO NO. 100081
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION #: 2641-52-9135
CURRENT OWNERS LISTED AS:
ROBERT E. YARRORO & WIFE. KAY DIXON YARBORO
DB: 1828 PG: 1292
0' 80' 120' 1w
ONE INCH = SIXTY FEET
SHEET SIZE: 18X24" SCALE: 1"-80'
Box 2566
ItLeP.O.
(828) 57 9 28802
(828f 575-9021
www.kee7wp.corn
License # C-3039

APPENDIX F
Record Drawing Plan Sheets
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
Betula nigra River Birch 15% FACW
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 15% FACW
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 15% FACW
Quercus palustris Pin Oak 10% FACW
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 10% FAC
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 5% FAC
Acer negundo Box Elder 5% FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5% FACW
Ulmus americana American Elm 5% FACW
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 5%OBL
Ilex verticillata Winterberry 2.5% FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 2.5% OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 2.5% FACW
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry 2.5% FACW
Salix sericea Silky Willow 25% OBL
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 20% FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 10% OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 20% FACW
Salix nigra Black Willow 25% OBL
Wetland Zone – Understory/Shrub Species
Streambank Live Stake Plantings
Wetland Zone – Overstory/Canopy Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Agrostis perennans Autumn Bentgrass 10% 1.5 FACW
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wildrye 15% 2.25 FACW
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 15% 2.25 FAC
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern Gamma Grass 5% 0.75 FACW
Polygonum pennsylvanicum Pennsylvania Smartweed 5% 0.75 FACW
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Blue Stem 5% 0.75 FACU
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 5% 0.75 FACW
Bidens frondosa (or
aristosa)Beggars Tick 5% 0.75 FACW
Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-Leaved Tick Seed 10% 1.5 FACU
Dichanthelium clandestinum Tioga Deer Tongue 10% 1.5 FAC
Andropogon gerardii Big Blue Stem 5% 0.75 FAC
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass 5% 0.75 FACU
Monarda punctata Spotted Beebalm 5% 0.75 FACU
100% 15
Total
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement of site conditions or to availability at the time of
planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker
for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project – NCDMS Project No. 100081
Botanical Name Common Name % Planted
by Species
Density
(lbs/ac)
Botanical Name Common Name
% Planted
by Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 15% FACU
Betula nigra River Birch 15% FACW
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 15% FACW
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 10% FAC
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 10% FACW
Quercus nigra Water Oak 5% FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5% FACW
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 5% FAC
Ulmus americana American Elm 5% FACW
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam 5%
7.5%FAC
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 2.5% FAC
Asimina triloba Pawpaw 2.5%
5%FAC
Magnolia tripetala Umbrella Tree 2.5% FACU
Halesia carolina Carolina Silverbell 2.5% FAC
Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100081
All Buffer Plantings at 680 stems/acre using 8’ X 8’ spacing
General Riparian Zone – Overstory/Canopy Species
General Riparian Zone – Understory/Shrub Species
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf) 12.5 18.0 14.5 20.0 6.3 8.0
AVERAGE  DEPTH 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.8 0.5 0.9
MAXIMUM DETPH (Dmax)1.22.51.33.00.61.3
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (bkf  W/D) 14.2 13.1 15.2 11.3 12.5 9.1
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf) 11.0 24.7 13.8 35.3 2.7 7.0
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb) 8.3 1.8 10.0 3.5 4.2 2.8
RIFFLE SIDE SLOPE (X:1) 2.0 N/A 2.0 N/A 2.0 N/A
INSIDE POOL SIDE SLOPE N/A 4.0 N/A 4.0 N/A 2.0
OUTSIDE POOL SIDE SLOPE N/A 1.5 N/A 1.5 N/A 2.0
UT to MAGNESS 
REACH 1A 
UT to  MAGNESS 
REACH 1B UT2
11+02.17 to 33+53.65 33+79.06 to  43+06.86
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: FBEB41F4-DB95-4079-B935-1BBACAF5B788
6/12/2023