20140332 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20160224

Final
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 96313
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
USACE Action ID No: SAW -2014-01642
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
January 2016
This document was printed using 30% post -consumer. fiber paper.

Final
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 96313
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
USACE Action ID No: SAW -2014-01642
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
January 2016
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore 3,846 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional stream
and enhance 2,535 LF of stream (of which 559 is for stormwater BMPs) along an unnamed tributaries (UT) to
the Haw River and to restore 4.44 acres of wetland. The unnamed tributary (mainstem) has been renamed
Browns Summit Creek for this project. In addition, Baker proposes to construct two stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) within the conservation easement boundary. The Browns Summit Creek
Restoration Project (project) is located in Guilford County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 2.1) approximately
three miles northwest of the Community of Browns Summit. The project is located in the NC Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-01 and the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002-010020 (the Haw River Headwaters) of the Cape Fear River
Basin. The purpose of the project is to restore and/or enhance the degraded stream, wetland, and riparian
buffer functions within the site. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 20.2 acres (Figure 3.1) will
protect all stream reaches, wetlands, and riparian buffers in perpetuity. Examination of the available
hydrology and soil data indicate the project will potentially provide numerous water quality and ecological
benefits within the Haw River watershed, and the Cape Fear River Basin.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Browns Summit
Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Cape Fear
River Basin (2009 Cape Fear RBRP), but is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The
restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin targets specific projects, which focuses on developing
creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to the Haw River in order to reduce non -point source
(NPS) pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions and to manage nonpoint source loading to
the riparian system as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. These are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Address known and obvious water quality and habitat stressors present on site,
• Restore stream and floodplain connectivity, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable dimension and
connecting them to their relic floodplains,
• Re-establish and rehabilitate site wetlands that have been impacted by cattle, spoil pile disposal,
channelization, subsequent channel incision, and wetland vegetation loss,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent fencing
and thus reduce excessive stream bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by improving bedform diversity, riffle substrate, and in -stream cover,
creating natural scour pools, adding woody debris, and reducing sediment loading from accelerated
stream bank erosion,
• Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain stormwater run-
off from adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for
sediment to settle out of the water column,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

• Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse stormwater volumes and velocities by
allowing stormwater discharge from a low density residential development to spread across the
floodplain of Reach R4; thereby, diffusing energies and promoting nutrient uptake within the riparian
buffer,
• Plant native species within the riparian corridor to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity,
improve stream bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease
water temperature,
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments
during the monitoring period, and
• Establish a conservation easement to protect the project area in perpetuity.
Nutrients and temperature will not be measured; however, by providing improved conditions for
denitrification (more wetland area with aerobic/anaerobic boundaries) and shade (through increased riparian
buffer), nutrient inputs and stream temperature are reasonably expected to decline.
The proposed project aligns with overall NCDMS goals, which focus on restoring streams and riparian area
values such as maintaining and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of floodwaters, and improving
fish and wildlife habitat, as well as specific NCDMS RBRP goals including, but not limited to, nutrient and
other non -point source pollutant management. The proposed natural channel design approach will result in a
stable riparian stream system that will reduce excess sediment and nutrient inputs to the Haw River
Headwaters subwatershed, while improving water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic
species, including priority species identified in the Cape Fear River Basin.
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 Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Table ES.1 Project Overview (Streams)
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Existing
Design
Design
Reach
Reach
C edit
Potential
Stationing
Approach
Length
Length
Ratio
SMus
Reach
(LF)
(LF)
Comment
Stream Reaches (Reaches Rl, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, Tl,
T2, T3, and T4)
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level I approach. A new single thread
51+77 to
meandering channel will be constructed off -
R1
R
1,217
1,233
1:1
1,233
64+10
line across the existing floodplain. The
remnant stream channel will be partially to
completely filled.
An Enhancement Level II approach will
R2
49+86 to
involve livestock exclusion, permanent
(downstream
E 11
167
191
2.5:1
76
51+77
fencing and invasive species vegetation
section)
removal.
R2
E I
701
614
1.5:1
406
43+72 to
An Enhancement Level I approach will
49+86
continue from Reach R3. Two meander
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

(upstream
bends will be realigned, spoil piles will be
section)
removed, and bank stabilization practices
will be implemented.
R3
Enhancement Level I will be implemented.
(downstream
E I
362
352
1.5:1
234
39+60to
Vertical banks will be laid back or benched,
section
43+72*
and invasive species will be removed.
Restoration will continue using a Rosgen
Priority Level I approach. A new single
thread meandering channel will be
R
1,224
1,102
1:1
1,196
289+60°
constructed off -line across the existing
(upstream
floodplain. The remnant stream channel will
section)
be partially to completely filled and the
existing downstream pond removed.
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level I approach. A new single thread
meandering channel will be constructed off-
R4
R
1,350
1,296
1:1
1,296
15+62to
line across the existing floodplain. The
28+58
remnant stream channel will be partially to
completely filled and the upstream pond at
the top of the Reach will be removed.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for this
reach. A riparian buffer will be planted and a
livestock exclusion fence will be installed on
R5
E 11
536
536
2.5:1
214
10+26 to
the conservation easement perimeter. A
15+62
gradient control structure will be installed
below the spring to stop a headcut. Isolated
eroding streambank will be repaired.
A water quality BMP will be installed as a
replacement for the existing farm pond. It
442
will function as a stormwater wetland
R6
BMP
501
(valley
1.5:1
294
10+00 to
feature. Riparian vegetation, livestock
length)
15+46
exclusion fencing, and a conservation
easement will be established around the
BMP feature.
Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority
Level I approach. A new single thread
10+00 to
meandering channel will be constructed off-
Tl
R
121
145
1:1
145
11+45
line across the existing floodplain. The
remnant stream channel will be partially to
completely filled.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for the
reach. Work will include minor stream bank
sloping and stabilization, limited use of in-
T2
Ell
283
283
2.5:1
113
10+00 to
stream structures to prevent headcut
12+83
migration, vegetation planting in disturbed
riparian buffer areas, and permanent cattle
exclusion fencing around the easement.
An active headcut will be stabilized and the
10+30 to
stream bed elevation will be raised to tie in
T3
R
83
70
1:1
70
11+00
to the Priority Level I restoration on the
mainstem.
A second BMP feature will be installed on
117
the newly graded floodplain to treat runoff
T4
BMP
47
(valley
1.5:1
78
10+50 to
discharge from a 30-inch culvert located
length)
11+78
beyond the existing right bank. A rock-lined
step-pool channel will be constructed to
convey the stormwater runoff from the outlet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE V 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table ES.2 Project Overview (Wetlands) - Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
L
y
�
U
Comments
to the floodplain and restored channel.
s�
Discharge below the step -pool sequence will
spread across the floodplain, diffusing
Wetland rehabilitation will include site grading, wetland vegetation
R
1.53
1.53
3:1
0.51
planting, and cattle exclusion to restore wetland hydrology and
energy and promoting nutrient uptake within
function. Credit reduced because minimal effort required and
wetlands)
the buffer.
functional uplift limited.
R
*Crossing length (60 LF) subtracted from R3
Total
6,592
6,381
-
5,264
downstream
Table ES.2 Project Overview (Wetlands) - Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
L
y
�
U
Comments
s�
Wetland rehabilitation will include site grading, wetland vegetation
R
1.53
1.53
3:1
0.51
planting, and cattle exclusion to restore wetland hydrology and
(1 -functioning
function. Credit reduced because minimal effort required and
wetlands)
functional uplift limited.
R
Wetland rehabilitation will include wetland vegetation planting, ditch
(2 - degraded
0.43
0.43
1.5:1
0.29
filling, and cattle exclusion to allow areas of hydric soils to become
wetlands)
fully functioning wetlands.
R
Wetland rehabilitation will include site grading, wetland vegetation
(3 - partially-
planting, and cattle exclusion to restore wetland hydrology and
functioning
1.76
1.76
1.5:1
1.17
function. Microtopography will be reintroduced and overbank
wetlands)
flooding regimes will be restored.
R
Wetland re-establishment will include spoil removal, site grading,
(4 - filled
0.45
0.45
1:1
0.45
wetland vegetation planting, and cattle exclusion to restore wetland
wetlands)
hydrology and function.
R
Another category of wetland restoration will include re-establishing
(5 — hydric
0.27
0.27
3.5:1
0.08*
wetland hydrology to an area with hydric soils. Wetland hydrology is
soils)*
currently absent due to adjacent channel incision.
TOTALS
4.44
4.44
-
2.50*
*Design approach for Wetland Type 5 was included to meet contracted WMUs for the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES......................................................................... 1-1
2.0 SITE SELECTION............................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1
DIRECTIONS TO SITE........................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2
SITE SELECTION...............................................................................................................................................
2-1
2.2.1
Historical Land Use and Development Trends......................................................................................
2-3
2.2.2
Successional Trends...............................................................................................................................
2-3
2.3
VICINITY MAP.................................................................................................................................................
2-5
2.4
WATERSHED MAP............................................................................................................................................
2-6
2.5
SOILS MAP.......................................................................................................................................................
2-7
2.6
CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP............................................................................................................................
2-8
2.7
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS MAPS....................................................................................................................
2-12
2.8
LIDAR MAP..................................................................................................................................................
2-14
2.9
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS.......................................................................................................................................
2-15
2.9.1
Reach RI..............................................................................................................................................
2-15
2.9.2
Reach R2..............................................................................................................................................
2-16
2.9.3
Reach R3..............................................................................................................................................
2-17
2.9.4
Reach R4..............................................................................................................................................
2-18
2.9. S
Reaches RS and R6......................................................................................................................................
2-1
2.9.6
Reaches T1, T2, T3, Haw River State Park reference reach........................................................................
2-2
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.......................................................................................................................... 4-4
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. LI Target Stream Types....................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types..................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities.............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS...................................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.3 DATA ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................................. 7-4
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
Flow Documentation..............................................................................................................................
9-2
9.1.3
Cross Sections........................................................................................................................................
9-2
9.1.4
Pattern....................................................................................................................................................9-3
9.1.5
Longitudinal Profile...............................................................................................................................
9-3
9.1.6
Bed Material Analyses............................................................................................................................
9-3
9.1.7
Visual Assessment...................................................................................................................................
9-3
9.2
VEGETATION MONITORING..............................................................................................................................
9-4
9.3
WETLAND MONITORING..................................................................................................................................
9-5
9.3.1
Groundwater Data Collection................................................................................................................
9-5
9.3.2
Hydrology...............................................................................................................................................9-5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VII 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

9.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING................................................................................................... 9-6
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................. 10-1
11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN....................................................................................................... 11-1
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN........................................................................................................... 12-1
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................................... 13-1
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION.............................................................................................................................. 14-1
14.1
DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................................
14-1
14.2
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................
14-3
15.0
APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT...............................................................................
15-1
16.0
APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA.................................................................................
16-1
16.1
USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS - PER REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT TO 1987 MANUAL.....
16-2
16.2
NCWAM FORMS - EXISTING WETLANDS.....................................................................................................
16-3
16.3
NCDWR STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS...................................................................................................
16-4
16.4
FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORM......................................................................................................
16-5
16.5
FEMA COMPLIANCE - NCDMS FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST ...................................................
16-6
16.6
BROWNS SUMMIT HYDRIC SOILS REPORT - CATENA GROUP........................................................................
16-7
17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES ................................................ 17-1
17.1 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY...............................................................................................................................
17-1
17.1.1
Existing Conditions..............................................................................................................................
17-1
17.1.2
Proposed Morphological Conditions.................................................................................................
17-15
17.1.3
Reference Reach Data Indicators.......................................................................................................
17-29
17.2 BANKFULL
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................
17-34
17.2.1
Bankfull Stage and Discharge............................................................................................................
17-34
17.2.2
Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves)........................................................
17-34
17.2.3
Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge....................................................................................
17-36
17.2.4
HEC RAS Modeling............................................................................................................................
17-37
17.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................
17-38
17.3.1
Background and Methodology...........................................................................................................
17-38
17.3.2
Sampling Data Results.......................................................................................................................
17-38
17.3.3
Predicted Channel Response..............................................................................................................
17-40
17.4 EXISTING
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................................
17-42
17.4.1
Maintained/Disturbed........................................................................................................................
17-42
17.4.2
Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas...............................................................................................
17-42
17.4.3
Piedmont Alluvial Forest....................................................................................................................
17-43
17.4.4
Invasive Species Vegetation...............................................................................................................
17-43
17.5 SITE
WETLANDS..........................................................................................................................................
17-43
17.5.1
Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment....................................................................................................
17-43
17.5.2
Wetland Impacts and Considerations.................................................................................................
17-44
17.5.3
Climatic Conditions............................................................................................................................
17-45
17.5.4
Hydrological Characterization..........................................................................................................
17-46
17.5.5
Soil Characterization.........................................................................................................................
17-46
17.5.0
Plant Community Characterization....................................................................................................
17-47
17.6 REFERENCE
WETLANDS.............................................................................................................................
17-47
17.6.1
Wetland Description...........................................................................................................................
17-47
17.6.2
Hydrological Characterization..........................................................................................................
17-47
17.6.3
Soil Characterization.........................................................................................................................
17-47
17.6.4
Plant Community Characterization....................................................................................................
17-48
17.7 RESTORATION
OF WETLAND HYDROLOGY...............................................................................................
17-48
17.7.1
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credit.................................................................................................
17-49
17.7.2
Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings...........................................................................................
17-50
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VIII 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

17.8 SITE CONSTRUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 17-53
17.8.1 Site Grading, In -stream Structures, and Other Construction Elements ............................................. 17-53
18.0 APPENDIX D — REGULATORY CORRESPONDENCE.......................................................................... 18-1
18.1 IRT MEETING MINUTES........................................................................................................................... 18-2
18.2 EMAIL DOCUMENTATION — PER MS. HUGHES AND MR. KING ....................................................... 18-3
19.0 APPENDIX E — DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR REACH R6................................................................ 19-1
20.0 APPENDIX F - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS................................................................................................. 20-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table
ES.1
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams)
Table
ES.2
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands)
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
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
Soil Mapping Units (MRCS Web Soil Survey, Guilford County, 2014 data revision)
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 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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
Figure
2.6
LiDAR Map
Figure
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Map
Figure
9.1
Proposed Monitoring Device Locations
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
HEC RAS Model Results for Lower Reach R4
Figure
17.6
Sediment Particle Size Distribution
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE X 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) develops River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRPs) to guide its mitigation activities within each of the state's 17 major river basins and 54
cataloging units. RBRPs designate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for
wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds, designated as Targeted Local
Watersheds (TLWs), receive priority for NCDMS planning and restoration project funds. The 2009 Cape
Fear River Basin RBRP identified hydrologic unit (HU) 03030002-010020 as a TLW (2009 Cape Fear
RBRP).
Browns Summit Creek is located in the Haw River Headwaters subwatershed, also identified as HU
03030002-010020. The subwatershed covers 83 square miles, including 198 miles of stream.
Approximately 22 percent of stream reaches within the subwatershed lack adequate riparian buffers. The
subwatershed is characterized by agricultural (39 percent), forested (53 percent), and impervious (1
percent) land uses. The designated land use of the remaining seven percent of the subwatershed remains
unclassified (NCDMS, 2009). In addition to inadequate riparian buffers, there are ten animal operations,
two of which are permitted dairy cattle operations, in the subwatershed. This leads to multiple
opportunities to restore, enhance, or preserve streams and riparian buffers throughout this area.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system (USACE,
2010 and Schafale, 2012) which has been degraded due to historic agricultural conversion and cattle
grazing. Due to the productivity and accessibility of these smaller stream systems, many have experienced
heavy human and cattle disturbance. Five ponds have been installed along the mainstem, two of which
have failed due to a head cut breaching the dam and two more are in jeopardy of failing. In general, the
system is vertically stable but has recently experienced active widening.
Restoration practices will involve raising the existing streambed to reconnect the stream to its relic
floodplain and restoring natural 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. Fencing will be provided around all proposed reaches
and riparian buffers to exclude cattle accessing the areas; however, fencing will not be implemented
where cattle lack access on Reach R4 along the Broad Ridge Court cul-de-sac. Vegetation buffers in
excess of 50 feet will be established along both sides of the reaches and a recorded conservation easement
consisting of 20.2 acres (AC) will protect the site in perpetuity.
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) discharge and runoff from agriculture and impervious surfaces
have contributed to poor biological health, which indicates impaired water quality, in the Haw River
Headwaters subwatershed. To improve watershed health and "due to the mix of ecological assets and
environmental stressors", the 2009 Cape Fear RBRP emphasized the need for a mix of restoration and
preservation measures in the Haw River Headwaters subwatershed. Nutrients, sedimentation, stream
bank erosion, livestock access to streams, channel modification and the loss of wetlands and riparian
buffers were observed stressors within the watershed.
Additionally, the 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan recommends protection
and restoration of streams in urbanizing and existing urban areas in subbasin 03-06-01. Additionally, all
land uses and discharges of stormwater in this area contribute nutrients to Jordan Reservoir. Jordan
Reservoir has a total maximum daily load (TMDL) that was developed in 2007 for nitrogen and
phosphorus to meet the chlorophyll a standard.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Browns
Summit Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within
the Cape Fear River Basin TLW (2009 Cape Fear RBRP), although it is not located in a Local Watershed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Planning (LWP) area. The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin targets specific projects that
focus on developing creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to the Haw River in order to
reduce NPS pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions and to manage nonpoint source
loading to the riparian system as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. These are identified
below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Address known and obvious water quality and habitat stressors present on site,
• Restore stream and floodplain connectivity, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable dimension and
connecting them to their relic floodplains,
• Re-establish and rehabilitate site wetlands that have been impacted by cattle, spoil pile disposal,
channelization, subsequent channel incision, and wetland vegetation loss,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent
fencing and thus reduce excessive stream bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by improving bedform diversity, riffle substrate, and in -stream
cover, creating natural scour pools, adding woody debris, and reducing sediment loading from
accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain stormwater
run-off from adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological removal of nutrient pollutant
loads and for sediment to settle out of the water column,
• Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse stormwater volumes and velocities by
allowing stormwater discharge from a low density residential development to spread across the
floodplain of Reach R4; thereby, diffusing energies and promoting nutrient uptake within the
riparian buffer,
• Plant native species within the riparian corridor to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity,
improve stream bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease
water temperature,
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments
during the monitoring period, and
• Establish a conservation easement to protect the project area in perpetuity.
The proposed project aligns with overall NCDMS goals, which focus on restoring streams and riparian
area values such as maintaining and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of floodwaters, and
improving fish and wildlife habitat, as well as specific NCDMS RBRP goals including, but not limited to,
nutrient and other non -point source pollutant management. The proposed natural channel design (NCD)
approach will result in a stable riparian stream system that will reduce excess sediment and nutrient inputs
to the Haw River Headwaters subwatershed, while improving water quality conditions that support
terrestrial and aquatic species, including priority species identified in the Cape Fear River Basin.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions to Site
The Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project site (site) is located in Guilford County, NC,
approximately three miles northwest of the Community of Browns Summit, as shown on the Project
Site Vicinity Map (Figure 2.1). To access the site from Raleigh, take Interstate 40 and head west on I-
40 towards Greensboro, for approximately 68 miles. Take the exit ramp to E. Lee St. (exit 224)
towards Greensboro and continue for 2 miles before turning onto U.S. Highway 29 North. Once on
U.S. Highway 29 North, travel north for approximately 10 miles before exiting and turning on to NC -
150 West. Continue west on NC -150 for 5 miles. The project site is located along and between NC -
150 and Spearman Rd., with access points through residences on Middleland Dr. and Broad Ridge Ct.
2.2 Site Selection
The site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-01 of the Cape
Fear River Basin. The site includes an unnamed tributary (UT) to the Haw River and several smaller
channels connecting to it. The primary unnamed tributary has been named Browns Summit Creek for
this project. Soils information (Figure 2.3) indicates that the area contains primarily Codorus loam,
Poplar Forest clay loam, and Clifford sandy loam. The Codorus mapping unit is classified as hydric
by the NRCS for Guilford County and contains inclusions of Hatboro loam in the floodplain.
Hatboro soils are also classified as hydric by the NRCS. The area proposed for wetland restoration is
along the floodplain of Reach R1 at the downstream end of the project. This area has been heavily
manipulated and degraded and is mapped primarily as hydric soils, including the Codorus and
Hatboro soils as described above.
The project site is located in the Charlotte Belt (Figure 2. 1), which is part of the Charlotte and Milton
Group. The project site includes rock from the Churchland Plutonic Suite (Western group) which is
intrustive, granitic igneous rock. Observations by field staff in the watershed indicate that the project
area has very few bedrock outcrops. It appears to weather to gravel because that is the coarsest
particle found in the stream substrate.
The geomorphic setting is at the headwaters of the Browns Summit Creek subwatershed. Many of the
project reaches are zero- and first -order. The zero -order streams include Reaches R5, R6, T1, T2, T3,
and T4. The first -order streams include Reaches R1, R2, R3 and R4. With the exception of Reaches
R1 and R2, which have wider available floodplains, the floodplains on the project site are generally
narrow.
Project Reaches R1, R2, R3, and R4 are shown as solid blue -line streams on the USGS topographic
quadrangle map (Figure 2.2). Project Reaches R5, R6, T1, T2 and T3 are not shown as blue -line
streams, dashed or solid. The presence of historic valleys for each of the project stream systems can
be seen from LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) imagery for the site (Figure 2.6), and are obvious
during field investigations.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in late September 2013. These
evaluations were based on NCDWR's Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and Their Origins, (v 4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment protocols.
Table 1 below presents the results of the field evaluations along with the assessed status of each
project reach. Copies of the supporting field forms may be found in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Project
Reach
Designation
Existing Project
Reach Length
(ft)
NCDWR Stream
Classification Form
Score
Watershed
Drainage Area
(acres)
Stream Status Based on
Field Analyses
RI
1,113
35.5
438
Perennial
R2
815
35.5
299
Perennial
R3
1,455
41.5
242
Perennial
R4
1,340
25/41.5
95/138
Intermittent/Perennial
R5
536
28.5
24
Intermittent
R6
442
18
61
Ephemeral (BMP)
TI
133
26.75
55
Intermittent
T2
283
27.25
47
Intermittent
T3
65
19
41
Intermittent
T4
117
-
10
Ephemeral (BMP)
Note 1: Watershed drainage areas were approximated based on USGS topographic and LiDAR
information at the downstream end of each reach.
Wetlands
A preliminary jurisdictional determination field walk with United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and NCDWR representatives was conducted in July of 2014 and found that a significant
portion of the lower easement along Reach R1 consists of existing wetlands in various states of
degradation. After discussions with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), it was
agreed that they would be divided into four categories for mitigation purposes: functioning, partially
functioning, degraded, and filled (see Figure 2.4b). Additionally, small areas of existing wetlands
were identified along Reaches R4 and R5. Appendix B includes the Jurisdictional Determination
information.
The different areas may be generally categorized as follows:
1. "Functioning" wetlands — forested areas with hydrology and hydric soils, such as along the right
bank of Reach R1. The hydrology and vegetation are present but in many areas cattle trampling
has impacted the soil structure and ability to percolate water.
2. Degraded wetlands — areas with no wetland vegetation and partial/limited hydrology such as
along the corrugated metal pipe at the beginning of Reach R1.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — saturated, cattle -trampled areas along the left bank of the middle
of Reach RI that lack wetland vegetation.
4. Filled wetlands — areas where spoil has been placed on top of delineated hydric soils, such as
upper Reach R2 and the downstream end of Reach R1.
Because credit ratio negotiations between Baker and the IRT yielded less credits than Baker's
contracted amount with NCDMS, Baker further investigated the site for additional areas with wetland
potential. During this investigation, another category of wetland mitigation was discovered and will
be sought only to provide the additional 0.08 WMUs needed to meet the contracted WMU amount of
2.5. The inclusion of this fifth category and its proposed credit allotment was confirmed by the
NCIRT on 8/6/2015 during a phone conversation and was subsequently documented in an email
summarization. A copy of the email is included in Appendix D. The fifth category is defined as
follows:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

5. Hydric soils — areas with hydric soils but lacking wetland hydrology due to adjacent, severe
stream channel incision, such as along lower Reach R4. This area is shown in Figure 2.4c and a
slightly smaller version of it proposed for wetland re-establishment are shown in Figure 2.4d.
2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The project area is situated in a developing section of northern Guilford County. Land use within
the project's drainage area of 438 acres is approximately 79 percent agricultural, 14 percent
forested, and 5 percent developed, with approximately 90 percent of stream reaches lacking
adequate riparian buffers. Recent land use of the project site includes active agricultural land
managed as pasture for cattle grazing, residential development, and unmanaged forests.
Figure 2.2 shows the topography of the project watershed for the project area. Soils data for the
project are shown in Figure 2.3. The project area (proposed conservation easement area)
encompasses 20.2 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 and upstream to the conservation easement is moderate, given the
newly developed suburban neighborhoods within the surrounding setting.
Over time, the project channels have become incised and disconnected from their historic
floodplain. Additionally, the riparian buffer has been cleared or narrowed in numerous locations to
increase pastureland. These processes and practices have contributed excessive sediment and
nutrient loading to the Browns Summit Creek and its receiving waters: the Haw River, and
eventually Jordan Reservoir and the Cape Fear River.
2.2.2 Successional Trends
To convert the land for agricultural use, landowners historically cleared portions of the mature
forest and manipulated site streams to increase land for grazing and agriculture. Over time, the
stream channels became incised and floodplain connectivity was further reduced. More recently,
landowners cleared portions of the remaining riparian buffer area within the site boundary to
provide additional land for pasture (Figure 2.4). Historical aerial photographs from 1937 and 1951
show a wider riparian buffer, particularly on Reaches R2, R3, R4, and R5, than what is present now
(Figures 2.5a and 2.5b).
A historical aerial photograph from 1937 (Figure 2.5a) shows that much of the buffer area in the
easement was forestland except for the lower sections along Reaches R1, Tl, and T2, which clearly
show a straightened stream and cleared buffer, presumably used for agriculture. Additionally,
portions of the buffer along R2, R4, and R6 appear cleared as well. However, a 1951 historical
aerial photograph (Figure 2.5b) shows much of the buffer area around Reaches Rl, R2, T1, and T2
in the process of reforestation, along with some of previously cleared areas along R4 and R6.
These include many of same areas that are presently open for grazing. Figure 2.4 uses a more
recent aerial photograph (20 10) and reveals significant clearing along Reaches R2, R3, R4, R6, T2,
and T3, resulting in very narrow buffers (-10 feet) along much of the project length.
A pond was formerly located on the downstream end of Rl . Within the remnant pond area, the
existing stream pattern is irregular and the floodplain is hummocky or lumpy. The stream pattern
upstream of the former pond is straight for such a wide valley, suggesting that channel straightening
may have taken place in the past. Channelization is clearly confirmed by the historical aerial photo
from 1937 (Figure 2.5a). This is further evidenced by the relic spoil piles present in several
locations along the reach. The Catena Group, in their hydric soil delineation of Reaches R1 and R2
(see Appendix 16.6), noted significant manipulation of the soils by human and livestock activity.
A failed dam situated along Reach 4 does not appear to have historical significance. The aerial
photograph from 1951 (Figure 2.5b) clearly does not show a dam and its associated pond. This
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-3 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

indicates that unless the dam was built prior to 1964, it should not hold any historical significance.
Furthermore, the dam is now located within the boundaries of a residential neighborhood.
Project reaches has been heavily impacted from historic land use practices, predominantly cattle
farming and forestry uses. Approximately 90 percent of the streambanks have inadequate (less than
50 feet wide) riparian buffers on both the right and the left floodplains. Hoof shear and/or shear
stress have severely impacted the streambanks along Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, and R6. 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-4 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.3 Vicinity Map
rr
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 0303002010020.
NCEEP TLW
Charlotte Belt
ROCKiNGHAM
Site Location
L-1VCH,.t;Zy
150
GUILFORD
Greensboro
f
Figure 2.1
SteLocatian Project Vicinity Map
Browns Summit Creek Site
150
29
r�
Greensboro r _
7 L,tiliaeii
Michael Baker
0,
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 3,000 6,000
Feet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-5 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

2.4 Watershed Map
Conservation Easement
Reach R1 -438 acres
i 11 Reach R2-299 acres
Reach R3-242 acres
- j J Reach R4 - 138 acres
4
Reach R5-24 ac res
err
Reach R6 - 61 acres
� I
Reach T1 - 55 acres
r _ —i Reach T2 -47 acres
r� Reach T3 -41 acres
Reach T4 - 10 acres
Reach Ri i _:K, _ -
r
t . r t Reach T1 r. I
j �d.
m Roach R2
\� r Reach T2
Reach R3
1..
r Reach Ra R R(-ach T3
-ty ReaahR6 � • ' � � �
ach T4
J.
1'r
L j1-9
bl.��_ l
0 1,000 2,000 Figure 2.2
Michael Watershed Map
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Cr. Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-6 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

2.5 Soils Map
I � , �GM1SP.N.i@ti]n f;7FPYffY1I
V y^ofl "Ping IJfftks
Q's. afford Sandy loam (2.6% slopes)
CkC = afford! wn ck loan (6.10% slopes}
— 082. Cnffordsandy clay barn (2.6% slopes)
OC2- Clifford sar* clay loam (0-10% sop")
Cn A- Codons lwem 10.2% slop -is)
— - HCS - Hhlrl!w-LI arrs cvrripla (0.6% slapsoi)
NaS - Ng N16 sandy low (3596 Mp s) CIB2
PoE - Poplar Form 5aM0r loam (15.35% slopes)
Fp B2 - Popta Forest sandy day loam (2-89b Ilgpes)
FIpC2 . Poplar Forest clay Ivam (6.10% stapes)
FpM • Poplar Forest clay loam (10.1.5% slopes)
PpE2 - Poplar Forest clay loan (15-25%stopas)
Ckc
C.6
P0D2
PpE2
Cn
CIC2
PoE
ekc
PpE2
II Pp82
Ppcp-
CkC
f•1• @ CkB
NaB
0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2.3
Soils Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Cr. Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-7 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL
Ck8
CkC
W
PpE2
II Pp82
Ppcp-
CkC
f•1• @ CkB
NaB
0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2.3
Soils Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Cr. Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-7 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.6 Current Conditions Map
Conser,,ation Easement
Parccl Boundary
ReichR2
A ;
1
V -y r
.,� Reach T2
Reach RS
r a�
INTERNATIONAL Feet Brown sSummilCr.Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-8 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL
Re a c Iti T3
Fi f'3t l•. �u r
+.
E
k
+. y.'•' _��
� ,P ,�, y �
+` ?C71l7vrth�lr�atdery
0 250
500 1,000
Figure 2:4
- :
Current Condition
Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Feet Brown sSummilCr.Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-8 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-9 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-10 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-11 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

2.7 Historical Conditions Maps
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-12 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Pi #
r1
Conservation Easement
r
r�
�► - Reach T1
Reach R;. �} _
4T 1 1 ;A (le,
C73
�cach Rr,
�
9d
Rra[h R5
1951 Orthdmager}+
Figure 2.5b
0 500 1,000 Historical Condition
-Michael Baker'
Feet Browns Summit
INTERMAT10NAL Creek Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-13 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.8 LiDAR Map
Elevation
Value {
High : 848 ft
Roach Ri
Low : 757 ft
C,on5£NBl on Ea5ernen1 Reach Tl
Reazl R2
React T^
Reach R3
Reaeh Ta
R
1
�'} Reack R4
r• f
Reach T4
Reach R6
0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2.6
Michael Baker'
' a LiDAR Map
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A I Feet Browns Summit Cr- Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-14 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.9 Site Photographs
2.9.1 Reach Rl
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-15
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL
1/13/2016

2.9.2 Reach R2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-16
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL
1/13/2016

2.9.3 Reach R3
I �!e►4; ti
r
View looking downstream from where Reach R3 begins. The Eroding outside bend on Reach R3. The restored channel will
farm pond in the background will be removed. (2/27/12) be moved away from this bank. (2/27/12)
Existing stream crossing on Reach R3. This culvert will be
replaced and the crossing will be widened. (2/27/12)
Reach R3 where tree roots are holding the grade. The design
will attempt to preserve this and other mature trees. (2/27/12)
Streambed sediment on Reach R3. Project mainstem has Unstable section of Reach R3 showing vertical banks and lack
mostly sand and gravel. (10/17/13) of floodplain access, mass wasting/failing streambank, and lack
of riparian buffer. (10/17/13)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-17 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.9.4 Reach R4
Lower end of pond on Reach R4. Headcut threatens pond dam.
Pond will be removed as part of restoration. (9/10/13)
I view along lower Reach R4. Reach T3 enters in
on right, marking the beginning of R3. (2/27/12)
Right bank along Reach R4 where stormwater inputs from
Broad Ridge Ct. have initiated a headcut. (10/17/13)
View looking downstream along Reach R4 along Broad
[Ridge Ct. Dam failure lead to deep incision. (9/10/13)
View looking downstream along lower Reach R4. Channel
widening has progressed. (2/27/12)
Pond along Reach R4 to be removed. High sediment and
nutrient loading is apparent in this photo. (10/10/13)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-18 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.9.5 Reaches R5 and R6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2.9.6 Reaches T1, T2, T3, Haw River State Park reference reach
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Easement
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Landowner
PIN
County
Area
Instrument
Page Numbers
Protected
CE -I
Sarah Elledge
7970842313
Guilford
Conservation
007007 / 01094
Easement
4.28
CE -2
Renee Matthews
7970940511
Guilford
Conservation
007370 / 00354
Easement
0.19
Latricia and
Conservation
CE -3
Arnold Irving
7970940634
Guilford
Easement
007536 / 00524
0.49
James and Erma
Conservation
0.21
CE -4
Marshall
7970940765
Guilford
Easement
007370 / 02398
Donna Carter
Conservation
CE -5
and Sarah
7970957284
Guilford
Easement
005106 / 01731
2'89
O'B ant
Steven and
Conservation
CE -6
Donna Carter
7970952956
Guilford
Easement
003890 / 00365
2.32
Deborah Stepp
Conservation
CE -7
and Sarah
7980061382
Guilford
Easement
005106 / 01734
2.95
O'Bryant
Conservation
CE -8
Janie Bowman
7970876658
Guilford
Easement
005439 / 01271
2.84
Conservation
CE -9
Janie Bowman
7970876658
Guilford
Easement
005439 / 01271
4.13
Baker has obtained signed option agreements for a conservation easement from the current landowners
for the entire project area. The conservation easement deed and survey plat draft versions will be
submitted to NCDMS and State Property Office (SPO) in 2016. After approval and recordation, it will be
held by the State of North Carolina. The secured conservation easement will allow 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. One existing farm crossing along
lower Reach R3 will be moved downstream approximately 100 feet and improved as part of this
project. No existing or proposed easements for power and telephone utilities are located within the
conservation easement. Riparian buffer widths will extend at least 50 feet from the top of stream banks
(100 foot minimum total buffer width) for the proposed stream reaches. There are two exceptions. One
is at the beginning of Reach R5 and the other is along the upstream property on Broad Ridge Ct. None
of the project reaches are located in a FEMA regulated floodplain (Figure 16.1); thus, FEMA permitting
or documentation are not required. Baker has notified the County floodplain administrator and applied
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

for the necessary land use permits. Additionally, hydrologic trespass will not result from the proposed
project. Other regulatory factors discussed in Section 16, Appendix B were also not determined to pose
potential site constraints. Construction access and staging areas have been identified and will be
determined during final design.
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
The conservation easement for the project area is shown in Figure 3.1 and a copy of the preliminary
survey plat is included in Section 15, Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Project
Information
Project Name
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
County
Guilford
Project Area (acres)
20.2
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.237 N, -79.749 W
Project Watershed
Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03030002 / 03030002010020
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
438
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (53%) Agriculture (39%) Impervious Cover (1%)
Unclassified (7%)
Reach Sum ary Information
Parameters
Reach R1
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,233
805
1,454
1,296
536
Valley Classification (Ros en)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
438
299
242
138/95
24
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.5
35.5
41.5
41.5/25
28.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C• NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
E
Bc incised
Bc incised
Gc
Bc
Evolutionary Trend
Incised E4Gc4F
Bc4G4F
Bc4G4F
G417
Bc—>G
Underlying Mapped Soils
CnA
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA, CkC
CkC
Drainage Class
Somewhat Poorly
Drained
Somewhat
Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained and Well
Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained and Well
Drained
Well
Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Partially Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Sloe (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0068
0.0095
0.017
0.0230
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
25%
15%
5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters 41
Reach R6
Reach T1
Reach T2
Reach T3
Reach T4
Length of Reach (linear feet)
442
145
283
70
117
Valley Classification (Ros en)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
61
55
47
41
10
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
18
26.75
27.25
19
-
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
Ros en stream e)
Bc incised
E incised
F
E incised
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-4 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 4.1 Baseline Information
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Evolutionary Trend
Bc4G4F
E4G—>F
Bc4G4F
E4G4F
Underlying Mapped Soils
CkC
CnA
CnA, P E2
CnA
CkC
Drainage Class
g
Well Drained
Somewhat
Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained and Well
Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained
Well
Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Upland
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.014
0.024
0.022
0.02
-
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
5%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Regulatory
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 A endix B
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-5 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Mitigation Credits
Non -riparian
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Offset
Offset
Tye
R, E1, E2, BMP
R
E
Totals
5,264 SMU
2.50 WMU
0.0
Project Com onents
Project Component or
P
Stationing/
Existing
Restoration/
Restoration
Mitigation
Reach ID
Location
Footage/
Approach
Restoration
Footage or
Ratio
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
Reach Rl
51+77 to 64+10
1,217 LF
Restoration
1,233 SMU
1,233 LF
1:1
Reach R2 (downstream section)
49+86 to 51+77
167 LF
Enhancement
76 SMU
191 LF
2.5:1
Level II
Reach R2 (upstream section)
43+72 to 49+86
701 LF
Enhancement
409 SMU
614 LF
1.5:1
Level I
Reach R3 (downstream section)*
60' easement break subtracted
39+60 to 43+72
362 LF*
Enhancement
234 SMU
352 LF*
1.5:1
from stream lengths
Level I
Reach R3 (upstream section)
28+58 to 39+60
1,224 LF
Restoration
1,102 SMU
1,102 LF
1:1
Reach R4
15+62 to 28+58
1,350 LF
Restoration
1,296 SMU
1,296 LF
1:1
Reach R5
10+26 to 15+62
536 LF
Enhancement
214 SMU
536 LF
2.5:1
Level H
Reach R6
9+96 to 15+46
536 LF
Enhancement
294SW
442 LF
(valley
1.5:1
Level I/BMP
length)
Reach T1
10+00 to 11+45
121 LF
Restoration
145 SMU
145 LF
1:1
Reach T2
10+00 to 12+83
283 LF
Enhancement
113 SMU
283 LF
2.5:1
Level II
Reach T3
10+30 to 11+00
83 LF
Restoration
70 SMU
70 LF
1:1
Reach T4
10+50 to 11+78
47 LF
Enhancement
78 SMU
117 LF
(valley
1.5:1
LevelI/BMP
length)
Wetland Area - Type 1
See plan sheets
1.53 AC
Rehabilitation
0.52 WMU
1.57 AC
3:1
Wetland Area - Type 2
See plan sheets
0.43 AC
Rehabilitation
0.33 WMU
0.49 AC
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 3
See plan sheets
1.76 AC
Rehabilitation
1.37 WMU
2.06 AC
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 4
See plan sheets
0.45 AC
Re-establishment
0.49 WMU
0.49 AC
1:1
Wetland Area — Type 5
See plan sheet
0.27 AC
Re-establishment
0.08 WMU
0.27 AC
3.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
(AC)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
3,846
1 4.44
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Enhancement I/BMP 966/559
Enhancement II 1,010
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP
Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
Detain runoff to reduce
discharge velocities, allow for
SW
Reach R6
sediment to settle out of the
water column and to allow for
the uptake of nutrient loads
from biolo ical processes
Detain runoff to disperse
stormwater volumes into the
NI
Reach T4
floodplain of Reach R4,
reduce discharge velocities,
and promote nutrient uptake
within the riparian buffer
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Ship; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Forested Wetland Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
40%
are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
50%
are being met
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
60%
are being met
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
70%
are being met
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may
5
allow the NCDMS to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth
10%
80%
year, vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two years
after the fifth year for a total of seven years.
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
90%
are being met
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
o
10 /0
0
100/o
being met and project has received closeout approval.
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
40%
are being met
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10�� �
50%
are being met
(60%*)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
1011
60%
are being met
(70%*)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
5'Y
65%
are being met
75%*
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
l V
75%
are being met
(85%*)
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
5%
80%
are being met
(90%*)
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
90%
are being met and project has received closeout approval.
(100%*)
*See "Subsequent Credit Releases" paragraph below.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCDMS
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan.
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the
USACE covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCDMS 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 15%
of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate years,
provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. The reserve will be 10% for 7
year monitoring timeframes. 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 NCDMS 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 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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. This goal could be
accomplished where Priority Level I restoration is implemented. In other areas, the target is a current
day stable condition. Current assessment methods and data analyses were utilized for identifying lost or
degraded functions at the site and to determine overall mitigation potential. Among these are reviewing
existing hydrogeomorphic conditions, historical aerials and LiDAR 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 Haw River system. This
condition has changed with the construction of several dams, as well as channel straightening and
downcutting. For the most part, except where minimal enhancement is implemented, the project area
will be returned to a small tributary stream system.
Assigning an appropriate stream type for the corresponding valley that accommodates the existing and
future hydrologic conditions and sediment supply was considered prior to selecting the proposed design
approach. This decision was based primarily on the range of the reference reach data available and the
desired performance of the site.
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
The restoration approach for the riparian wetland areas targets species consistent with those of a
"Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest" (Typic subtype), as identified by Schafale (2012) and a
"Headwater Forest" as identified by the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM,
2010), due to a relatively narrow easement widths and true forest viability. Hydrology of this palustrine
system will be "intermittently inundated by surface water or seasonally saturated to semi -permanently
saturated". The goal of the wetland design component of the project is to restore functions in areas
where evidence of hydric soil conditions are present. The wetland restoration approach is based on a
detailed soil analyses by a licensed soil scientist, hydrologic monitoring using rainfall data and
groundwater level monitoring wells, as well as other assessment data collected at the site. Four main
activities will be employed to restore on-site wetlands:
• Minor grading, which is anticipated to be less than 6 inches in all proposed wetland restoration areas,
to remove overburden and spoil piles from buried hydric soil layers in limited areas,
• Planting native wetland species vegetation to establish buffer vegetation,
• Connecting channels to their relic floodplains, and
• Permanently excluding cattle from the buffer to restore soil structure and reduce compaction.
As a result of raising the streambeds and reconnecting the streams to their relic floodplains, significant
hydrologic lift will occur across the project area, raising the local water table and restoring wetland
hydrology to drained hydric soils adjacent to the steam and wetland system.
7.1.3 Target Plant Communities
Native species of riparian vegetation will be established in the riparian buffer throughout the site.
Schafale's (2012) 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

and adjacent wetland 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 target density of
400 stakes per 1,000 linear feet. Using triangular spacing along the stream banks, the live stakes will be
spaced two to three feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections between
the toe of the stream bank and bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.
Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus
altissima), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), will be removed
and 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 stream
bank 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 river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
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
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 USAGE.
Justification for the restoration and enhancement activities and structural elements are as follows:
1. Many of the stream sections are incised (bank height ratios greater than 1.5),
2. Cattle access has resulted in significant degradation throughout the site,
3. Past agricultural and silvicultural activities, such as timber production, channelization, and pond
construction/failure, have resulted in stream bank erosion, sedimentation and the loss of woody
vegetation within the riparian zone, and
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 twelve reaches labeled R1, R2 (lower), R2
(upper), R3 (lower), R3 (upper), R4, R5, R6, T1, T2, T3, and T4, 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
profiles 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 under the processes of flooding,
re -colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Reach
Proposed
Approach/Rationale
Stream Type
Restoration: Priority 1 Restoration will be implemented from the
confluence of Reaches R2 and T1. The restored channel will be
constructed off-line, mostly along the existing left bank, and will be
designed as a Rosgen E type channel. The existing, unstable channel will
be partially to completely filled along its length using a combination of
Reach RI
E
existing spoil piles that are located along the reach and fill material
excavated from construction of the restored channel. Riparian buffers in
excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both sides of Reach
R1. Invasive species control will be conducted. The culvert at the
downstream end of the project will be replaced with a reinforced concrete
pipe.
Enhancement: Continuing from Reach R3, Level I Enhancement will be
implemented in the upper 539 feet of Reach R2. A bench will be
constructed on the left bank initially, followed by realignment of the
channel to remove two stream bends that point up valley, as well as spoil
Bc
pile removal in just downstream of the realignment.
Reach R2
At the property line, the approach will change to Level II Enhancement. In
this case, the only measures proposed are cattle exclusion and invasive
species control. No work will be done to the channel per IRT
recommendation. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or
protected along both sides of Reach R2.
Restoration: Initially, Priority Level I Restoration will be implemented on
Reach R3 as it continues from Reach R4. The alignment will generally
follow the existing backwatered channel and farm pond, which will be
removed, then continue crossing back and forth over the existing channel
to make use of available floodplain. Cattle will be excluded and riparian
buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both sides of
Reach R3
E/Bc
the reach. A Rosgen E stream type with a width -to -depth ratio of 11 is
targeted for the restoration section of this reach.
Enhancement: Level I Enhancement will be implemented below an
improved stream crossing. Riffle structures will be incorporated to raise
the bed, vertical banks will be laid back and benched. Additionally, large
woody debris will be incorporated in the form of toe wood, log vanes
and/or weirs, and invasive species such as privet will be treated.
Restoration: With the exception of a 200 -foot stretch below the upper farm
pond, restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority Level I approach. A new single
thread meandering channel will be constructed off-line across the existing
floodplain. The remnant stream channel will be partially to completely filled
Reach R4
Bc/C
and the upper pond at the top of the reach will be removed. Below the upper
pond, restoration will be on-line and follow a Rosgen Priority Level lI
approach in order to maintain baseflow.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both
sides of Reach R4. Invasive species will be treated.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-3 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Reach
Proposed
Approach/Rationale
Stream Type
Enhancement: Enhancement Level II is proposed for this reach. A riparian
buffer will be planted and a livestock exclusion fence will be installed on the
conservation easement perimeter. A gradient control structure will be installed
below the spring to stop a headcut. Isolated eroding streambank will be
Reach R5
Bc
repaired.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both
sides of Reach R5, with the exception of the right bank in the first 50 feet.
Here, existing fencing must be maintained to allow cattle rotation and this
limits the easement width. Overall, the buffers for Reach R5 will average more
than 50 feet. Invasive species will be treated.
BMP: A constructed headwater wetland will be installed as a replacement for
the existing farm pond. It will function as a wetland -type feature with a
Bc
concrete weir outlet. Riparian vegetation, livestock exclusion fencing, and a
Reach R6
conservation easement will be established around the feature.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both
sides of Reach R6. Invasive species will be treated.
Restoration: Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority Level I approach. A
single thread meandering channel will be constructed off-line across the
C
existing floodplain. The remnant stream channel will be partially to completely
T 1
filled.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both
sides of Reach T1. Invasive species will be treated.
Enhancement: Enhancement Level II is proposed for this reach. A riparian
buffer will be planted and a livestock exclusion fence will be installed on the
F
conservation easement perimeter. A gradient control structure will be installed
T2
below close to Reach R3/R2 to stop a headcut.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both
sides of Reach T2. Invasive species will be treated.
Restoration: Restoration will follow a Rosgen Priority Level I approach. A
single thread meandering channel will be constructed to raise the elevation to
T3
C/E
match that of the adjacent mainstem.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along both
sides of Reach T3. Invasive species will be treated.
BMP: A rock lined step pool channel will be implemented below a 30 -inch
culvert outfall. The BMP will include a series of shallow riffles and pools
along the Reach R4 floodplain.
Bc
A riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet will be restored or protected along the
T4
left side of Reach T4. It is not possible to include a 50 -foot buffer on the right
right side because this reach is on a small residential parcel. However,
overland runoff is not a concern here since the drainage comes from a
stormwater culvert and will be contained in the easement area. Invasive species
will be treated.
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-4 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 Browns Summit Creek project includes two headwater reaches (Reaches R4 and R5) 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, for the most part, 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 prevent pattern adjustments commonly associated with C or E meander
geometry. This 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 ratio above that of the
nearby reference reach. Additionally, constructing higher width -to -depth ratios (e.g., 13-14) 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 and 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 16.5 square feet for the downstream terminus of Reach
Rl's 0.68 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. This was feasible in the
project area because several good indicators were present (top -of -bank on R1, benches on R3, and a
nearby reference reach).
The existing higher sections of the main stem (Reach R2, R3, & R4) classify as channelized B5c-G5c
stream types based on their calculated entrenchment ratios, channel slope, and channel substrate
(sand/gravel). Entrenchment ratios of greater than 1.4 but less than 2.2 put the channel in the Bc category
though the channel is clearly incised with bank height ratios of 2.1 to 6.8.
Bedform diversity and riffle/pool feature formation throughout the site is poor and habitat diversity is
minimal. The pools in the impacted 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.
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 through 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. Stabilizing
streambanks, revegetating riparian buffers, and removing cattle along project reaches will provide
ecological uplift by reducing nonpoint source loading to the receiving waters and promoting the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-5 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

restoration of diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats appropriate for the piedmont ecoregion and
landscape setting.
Additionally, by raising the streambed and connecting with active floodplains, the maximum degree of
potential uplift will be provided, restoring stream, buffer, and wetland functions wherever and 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. Approximately 20.2 acres of
riparian buffer will be restored and/or protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-6 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
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 stream bank failures and head -cutting until vegetation becomes established.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
matting and supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland. Areas of
concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the wetland may also require
maintenance to prevent scour.
Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will controlled by
mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an
as needed basis.
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.
Utility Right -of -Way
Utility rights-of-way within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement or existing easement(s), 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.
Stormwater
Stormwater Management Devices will be monitored semi-annually and maintenance
Management Device
measures will be implemented as needed during the monitoring period. Measure may include
replacing dead vegetative material and removing excess sedimentation from the forebay of
the constructed wetland and its permanent pool, as well as the plunge pools along T4 during
the monitoring period. Should the outlet of the constructed wetland become unstable during
the monitoring period, corrective measures will be implemented to rectify the instability issues
during the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and NCDMS 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 (USACE and NCDWR) and NCDMS'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 NCDMS 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 NCDMS 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 seven 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.
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 for channel stability will include all Restoration and
Enhancement I reaches. These 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 II 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 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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 a
manual crest gage and photographs. The crest gage will be installed within the floodplain of R3
approximately five to ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel. Installing the instruments on the
floodplain reduces the risk of damage by stormflow. The crest gage will record the highest watermark
between site visits, and the gage will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has
occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition
on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 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 Flow Documentation
Monitoring of flow will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream system classified as
intermittent exhibits base flow for some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall
conditions. In order to determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, the rainfall data
collected from the rain gage installed as part of the documentation for wetland hydrology (See Section
9.3.2) will be used to compare precipitation amounts from nearest from the NC A&T Research Farm
(MCAT) ECONET station. Data from the weather station can be obtained from the CRONOS Database
located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website. If a normal year of precipitation does
not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, flow conditions will continue to be monitored on
the site until it documents that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times
of the year.
The proposed monitoring of each restored intermittent reach will include the documentation of a
combination of photographic and baseflow monitoring data. A flow camera will be installed to collect
a regular and continuous series of remote photos over time. These photos will be used to subjectively
evaluate channel flow conditions throughout the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should
indicate the presence of flow within the channel in order to discern water levels within the pools and
riffles. The visual monitoring effort, including the photo locations with descriptions, will be included
with NCDMS's annual monitoring reports. Each pressure transducer will be installed towards the
downstream portion of restored intermittent reaches, R4, T1 and T3. The device will be inspected on a
quarterly/semi-annual basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating general
flow response to rainfall events and surface runoff during various water tables levels throughout the
monitoring period. Success criteria will include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring wells
installed in T1 and T3 during a normal rainfall year.
9.1.3 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 streams, 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 a consistent effort to
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
9.1.4 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders during baseline (year -0) only. Subsequent visual monitoring will be
conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
9.1.5 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey
will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle,
pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features
installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken
during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial
actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
9.1.6 Bed Material Analyses
After construction, there should be minimal change in the 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.
9.1.7 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice per
monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to 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 NCDMS's monitoring report guidance (vl .5, June
2012).
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period. A series of photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-3 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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-NCDMS 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 buffer areas
per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants will be established within the undisturbed
wooded areas of Reaches R3, R4, R5, and R6. The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will
be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days between March 1 st and
November 30th, species composition, stem density, height, 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 old, planted trees per acre. Additionally, the average height of the 7 -year old planted trees
will range from 7 feet to 10 feet tall. Certain native species, which are appropriate to plant on-site to
provide a diverse vegetation community, do not typically grow to these heights in 7 years and will be
excluded from the height performance standard. These excluded species composed primarily of
understory species are Persimmon, American Hornbeam, American Holly, Witchhazel, Strawberry Bush,
Black Gum, and Winterberry. If the performance standards are 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-4 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

9.3 Wetland Monitoring
9.3.1 Groundwater Data Collection
Five (5) groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in the wetland mitigation area to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland area. These wells will be used to evaluate wetland
hydrology during each growing season for seven years of hydrologic monitoring, or until success criteria
have been met, whichever occurs later. To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the monitoring gage data
must show that for each normal year within the monitoring period, the site has been inundated or
saturated for a certain hydroperiod. The targeted hydroperiod will be based on the range of wetness
conditions for the type of wetland system to be restored and will be compared to hydrology data collected
from the reference wetland site during the same monitoring period.
9.3.2 Hydrology
In order to determine if the hydrologic success criteria are achieved, automated groundwater -monitoring
stations will be installed across the restored site and monitored year-round. Groundwater monitoring
stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in the WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN -WRAP -
00 -02, (July 2000). In the event that there are years of normal precipitation during the monitoring period,
and the data for those years do not show that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate
hydroperiod during the normal precipitation year, the review agencies may require remedial action.
Baker will provide any required remedial action and continue to monitor hydrology on the site until it
displays that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod.
The objective is for the monitoring data to show the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding.
Groundwater levels will be compared to pre -restoration conditions and reference conditions. The success
criteria for wetland hydrology will follow a range from 9-12 percent, depending on the specific wetland
location and the mitigation activity proposed. The wetland areas along Reach R1 and the large bend of
Reach 2 will meet success criteria for wetland hydrology when the soils are saturated within 12 inches of
the soil surface for 12 percent of the growing season or twenty eight (28) or more consecutive days during
the growing season (229 days). The saturated conditions should occur during a period when antecedent
precipitation has been normal or drier than normal for a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (USACE,
2005 and 2010b).
The hydroperiod for success for the wetlands located along lower Reach R4 (Wetland Type 5) will be 9
percent of the growing season or twenty-one (2 1) or more consecutive days. Priority Level I restoration is
proposed along this area and a significant amount of earth will be needed to fill the existing channel. This
may delay re-establishment of wetland hydrology but the hydric soils indicate that the area once was
wetland.
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will be installed on the site
to compare precipitation amounts using tallied data obtained from the NC A&T Research Farm (MCAT)
ECONET station approximately 10 miles to the south. Data from this station can be obtained from the
CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website. If a normal year of
precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, Baker will continue to monitor
hydrology on the site until it documents that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate
hydroperiod.
If the rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring period are abnormal, it is possible that the
desired hydrology for the site may not meet specific success criteria. However, reference wetland data
will be assessed to determine if there is a positive correlation between the underperformance of the
project site and the natural hydrology of the reference site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-5 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

9.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
This project includes the implementation of two stormwater BMPs. A constructed wetland, which will
function as a headwater wetland, will be installed along Reach R6, and a rock lined step -pool channel
stormwater control measure will be installed along Reach T4. Both BMPs will be visually monitored
semi-annually for vegetative survival, outlet stability, and storage capacity using photo documentation
during the 7 -Year monitoring period. A vegetation plot will also be established along the planted portion
of Reach R6 and will be included as part of the vegetation monitoring outlined in Section 9.2.
Maintenance measures will be implemented during the monitoring period to replace dead vegetative
material and to remove excess sedimentation, as needed, from the forebay of the constructed wetland and
its permanent pool, as well as the plunge pools along Reach T4. Should the outlet of the constructed
wetland become unstable during the 7 -Year monitoring period, corrective measures will be implemented
to rectify the instability issues.
The Stormwater BMPs success criteria will include the following:
• step -pool channels (R6 outlet and T4) are considered successful if stability has been attained as
agreed upon by the IRT at closeout.
Constructed Wetland (R6) vegetation will be considered successful with a visual assessment of 70
percent native vegetation coverage as defined in the NCDWR BMP manual (page 9-21 of the
NCDWR BMP manual). Native volunteers can be included within the visual assessment. The
vegetation plot in the buffer area of the BMP with planted stems will have the same standard success
criteria as other veg plots. All yearly maintenance and repairs, photopoints, replantings, and invasive
treatments will be documented in the monitoring reports. Sediment buildup should be minimal and
not require repeated maintenance at closeout as agreed upon by the IRT for the constructed wetland to
be considered successful.
• NCDWR BMP field inspection - One field visit by NCDWR should be conducted between years 2-5
to inspect the BMPs. Baker will invite NCDWR staff to the site. Annual monitoring may be requested
by Baker instead of bi-annual monitoring for the BMPs after five years until closeout if the
stormwater control measure structures are stable and have not required maintenance in the past year.
Long-term management of the proposed BMP structures is not anticipated by USACE provided the
structures remain stable and functioning throughout the 7 -year monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-6 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 9.1 Proposed Monitoring Device Locations
1 o, SVwueuon LaSernonl
Crc !;i Section (F'Ii lRlo)
- Cress Section (Pod)
• iNaIland Monitoring) Wall
lrhStieam Flow Crwg®
[� Vagaisdl�r� I'la7
Wetland M9tlgatlan Types
9.'Fun[honcng 31 [rrMrM6
2- Dograded. 111 crura ria
3. Partim Functioning. 1.5.1 cretin retia
°t . FIRK 1 1 0add TOO
-, •
Hydra Ca pr RAosl bll>tim-Brei• 1 i C.rr',`om
:,t ► N
+`a
NIL
� rF r I+ � 'P '•a,���t
Reaeh Frz'
R6�t15 T3
A -
a
Ilr
4 ei IrAk
,
ROM 1+T5
Ream R4 �.
y t
'a e
20100rMoirnacgery
0 250 500 750 1,000 Figure 9.1
Michael Baker Proposed Monitoring
Feet Device Locations
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Browns Summit Cr. Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-7 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL

10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined within Table 10.1 below will be submitted to
NCDMS by November 30th of the each year during which the monitoring was conducted. The monitoring
report shall provide a project data chronology for NCDMS to document the project status and trends,
population of NCDMS 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
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan- NCDMS Project No. 96313
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)
X
Dimension
Guidelines and November
fears 1, 2, 3, 5
years and shall include assessment of bank height
2011 NCDMS Monitoring
and 7
ratio (BHR) and entrenchment ratio (ER).
Requirement
For Restoration or Enhancement I activities, a
baseline survey (Year 0) will be conducted for the
As per November 2011
As -built Year
entire length of the channel. Survey will only be
X
Profile
NCDMS Monitoring
andas needed
and
conducted in subsequent monitoring years if the
Requirements
channel is experiencing vertical instability, in
which case survey will be collected within the
area of concern.
As per April 2003 USACE
A substrate sample will be collected if constructed
Wilmington District
Stream Mitigation
Monitoring
riffles are installed as part of the project. One
X
Substrate
Guidelines
Guidelines and November
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
constructed riffle substrate sample will be
2011 Monitoring
and 7
compared to existing riffle substrate data collected
uirements
during the design phase.
As per April 2003 USACE
A Crest Gage and/or Pressure Transducer will be
X
Surface Water
Wilmington District
wally
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.
X
Vegetation
NCDMS-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
capture the state of the restored channel, the
Visual
As per November 2011
Semi -Annually
vegetated buffer conditions, and restored wetland
X
Assessment
NCDMS Monitoring
and as needed
conditions. Stream and wetland photos will be
Requirements
preferably taken in the same location when the
vegetation is minimal to document any areas of
concern or to identify trends.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 10.1 Monitoring Requirements
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Mitigation Plan- NCDMS Project No. 96313
X
Project
Semi -Annually
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
Boundary
boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped
Stormwater wetland BMPs located at Reaches R6
X
Stormwater
Semi -Annually
and T4 will be visually monitored for stability and
BMPs
vegetation survival during the 7 -year monitoring
period.
As appropriate to
Continuously
Cony
Ground Water
encompass the array of
throughout the
Ground water gage data will be collected in each
X
Hydrology
conditions across the
growing season
Wetland Type (1 — 5) to document wetland
different wetland types.
of Monitoring
hydrology within the area.
Years 1 — 7.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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 the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This parry shall
be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and
deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to Site transfer to the responsible party. The NCDENR Division of
Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently houses DMS stewardship
endowments within the non -reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment
Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statue GS
113A -232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship
Program intends to manage the account as a non -wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the
endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those
purposes will be re -invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, NCDMS 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, NCDMS 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
NCDMS will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary
and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
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 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Services'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 NCDMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented
by the program.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 13-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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:
(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 workplan. 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
needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be
included. (See § 332.6.)
(11) Long-term managementplan. 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

resource, including long-term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term
management. (See § 332.7(d).)
(12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site
conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties
responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide
decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both
foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See §
332.7(c).)
(13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are
sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be
successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (see § 332.3(n)).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2339/report.pdf
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal and
Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679-693.
Buck Engineering, a Unit of Michael Baker. 2007. Sediment Transport in Sand Bed Streams — a Report for
NCDMS. 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 Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2006. Kenneth and Parker Creeks/Harris Lake
Local Watershed Plan, Factsheet.. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14-3 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.NCDMS.net/services/lwps/Harris-Kenneth/NEW Harris%20Lake.pdf.
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.NCDMS.net/services/restplans/Upper_Cape Fear _RBRP_2009.pdf .
2009b. North River Wetland Restoration Research Final Report. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.nceep.net/pages/pdfs/NCSU NCEEP NR_ FinalReport081509.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: htt2://149.168.1.196/nhp .
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.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), NCDENR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113-116.
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14-4 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

2005. Technical standard for water -table monitoring of potential wetland sites. ERDC TN -WRAP -
05 -2, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wrap/pdf/tnwrap05-2.pdf
2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. ERDC/EL TR -10-9, Vicksburg, MS.
htt2://www.saw.usace.gM.mil/Wetlands/JDs/EMP PiedmonLpdf
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:
hgp:Hseamless.usgs. gov/.
Walker, A. 2011 NC BEHI/NBS rating curve. NRCS Soil Survey Division. Personal communication.
2012. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. Unpublished, NRCS. Personal
Communication.
Wilcock. P.R., S. T Kenworthy, and J.C. Crowe. 2001. Experimental Study of the Transport of Mixed
Sand and Gravel. Water Resources Research, 37(12), 3349-3358.
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 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

This page intentionally left blank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14-6 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 15-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

OWNERS) CERTIFICATE
PN: 7970842313 I
PN: 7970952956
PIN:7970940511 PN: 7980061382
PIN: 7970940634 PIN: 7970876658
PIN: 7970940765 PIN 7970876658
PIN: 7970957284
WE, RENEE M. MATTHEWS (UNMARRIED), ARNOLD IRVING, LATRICIA IRVING, JAMES E. MARSHALL
AND WIFE ERMA L. MARSHALL, SARAH B. ELLEDGE AND HUSBAND ARNOLD 0. ELLEDGE, DONNA
0. CARTER AND HUSBAND STEVEN D. CARTER, SARAH R. O'BYRANT (A WIDOW), DEBORAH 0.
STEPP AND HUSBAND WYMAN RAY STEPP AND JANIE M. BOWMAN BY HER ATTORNEY IN FACT,
SUE B. ROBBINS. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH WERE CONVEYED TO US BY DEEDS RECORDED IN DB 7370, PG 354,
DB 7536, PG 524, DS 7341, PG 2398, DB 7007, PG 1094, DB 5106, PG 1731, DB 3890, PG
365, DB 5106, PG 1734, DB 5439, PG 1271 AND DS 5043, PG 1485, OF THE GUILFORD
COUNTY REGISTRY, NORTH CAROLINA REGISTRY; AND THAT WE ADOPT THIS PLAN OF
SUBDIVISION AND GRANT AND CONVEY THE EASEMENTS HEREIN WITH FREE CONSENT. FURTHER,
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND AS SHOWN HEREON IS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION
REGULATION JURISDICTIONS OF GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
RENEE M. MATTEWS (UNMARRIED)
DATE
ARNOLD IRVING
DATE
LATRICIA IRVING
DATE
JAMES E. MARSHALL
DB 7370, PG 354 P.B. 101 PG. 62
ERMA MARSHALL
DATE
SARAH R. O'BYRANT (A WIDOW)
DATE
SARAH B. ELLEDGE
DATE
ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE
DATE
DONNA 0. CARTER
DATE
STEVEN D. CARTER
DATE
DEBORAH 0. STEPP
DATE
WYMAN RAY STEPP
DATE
JANIE M. BOWMAN, BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
SUE B.ROBBINS
DATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
COUNTY OF
I, THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC, CERTIFY THAT RENEE M.
MATTHEWS, UNMARRIED, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS DAY AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME
THAT SHE VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS nAY OF 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
COUNTY OF __________.
1, THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC, CERTIFY THAT ARNOLD
IRVING AND WIFE, LATRICIA IRVING, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS DAY AND
ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS nAY OF 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ----_---_—_
I, THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC, CERTIFY THAT JAMES E.
MARSHALL AND WIFE ERMA MARSHALL, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS DAY AND
ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS DAY OF 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ___-------_
I, THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC, CERTIFY THAT SARAH R.
O'BRYANT, A WIDOW, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS DAY AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME
THAT SHE VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS nAY OF 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
COUNTY OF ___________
I, THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC, CERTIFY THAT SARAH B.
ELLEDGE AND HUSBAND, ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS DAY AND
ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS nAY OF 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
COUNTY OF
I, THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC, CERTIFY THAT DONNA 0.
CARTER NAD HUSBAND, STEVEN D. CARTER, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS DAY AND
ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS DAY OF 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ----------_
I, THE UNDERSIGNED N9 ART` PUBLIC, CERT THAT DEBORAH
0. STEPP AND HUSBAND, WYMAN RAY STEPP. PERSONALLY/ J AR �EfDRE THIS DAY AND
ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGNErTHB O N(J'JNS UMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL 2015.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
STATE OF NORTH
COUNTY OF ___/
I, Ai NOTARY PUBUC OF THE COUNTY AND STATE AFORESAID,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY THA UEB. R INS, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR JANIE M. BOWMAN
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE THIS DAY, AND BEING BY ME DULY SWORN, SAYS THAT SHE
EXECUTED THE FORGOING AND NIXED INSTUMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF JANIE M. BOWMAN,
AND THAT HER AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AND ACKNOWLEDGED SAID INSTRUMENT IS CONTAINED IN AN
INSTRUMNENT DULY EXECUTED, ACKNOWLEDGE, AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ON THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008, IN BOOK
6947, PAGE 2931, AND THAT THIS INSTRUMENT WAS EXECUTED UNDER AND BY VIRTUE OF THE
AUTHORITY GIVEN BY SAID INSTUMENT GRANTING HER POWER OF ATTORNEY, THAT THE SAID SUE B.
ROBBINS ACKNOWLEDGED THE DUE EXECUTION OF THE FOREGOING AND ANNEXED INSTRUMENT FOR
THE PURPOSES THERIN EXPRESSED FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE SAID JANIE M. BOWMAN.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL STAMP OR SEAL THIS OAY OF 2015
NOTARY PUBLIC
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AREA SUMMARY
CE -1
4.24 Acres
PIN: 7970842313
CE -2
0.19 Acres
PIN: 7970940511
DB 7370, PG 354 P.B. 101 PG. 62
CE -3
0.49 Acres
PIN: 7970940634
DB 7341, PG 2398 P.B. 155 PG. 094
CE -4
0.21 Acres
PIN: 7970940765
DB 3890, PG 365 P.B. 138 PG. 144
CE -5
2,89 Acres
PIN: 7970957284
DB 5043, PG 1485 P.B. 150 PG. 024
CE -6
2.32 Acres
PIN: 7970952956
GUILFORD COUNTY CERTIFICATION
CE -7
2,95 Acres
PIN: 7980061382
I, PLANNING DIRECTOR AND REVIEW OFFICER OF
CE -8
2,84 Acres
PIN: 7970876658
SUBDIVISION AND THAT IT MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
CE -9
4.11 Acres
PIN: 7970876658
REVIEWED THIS PUT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOT STANDARDS
TOTAL ACRES: 20.24 Acres
VICINITY MAP
NTS
REFERENCES
DATE
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.
PLANNING DIRECTOR/NEVIEW OFFICER
MARSHALL WIGHT, PLS 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 DAY OF 2014.
MARSHALL WIGHT, PLS L-5034
I, MARSHALL WIGHT CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION
FROM AN ACTUAL GPS (OR GNSS) SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THE
FLOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS USED TO PERFORM THE SURVEY.
CLASS OF SURVEY: CLASS C
POSITIONAL ACCURACY: .15' (NETWORK RTK)
TYPE OF GPS (GNSS) FIELD PROCEDURE: VRS
DATE(S) OF SURVEY: 06/17/14
DATUM/EPOCH: NAD 83 (2011)(EPOCH:2010.000)
PUBLISHED FIXED CONTROL: N/A-VRS
GEOID MODEL* GEOID 12A
COMBINED GRID FACTOR: 0.99998806
UNITS: US FEET
HORIZONTAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAD83\NSiS (2011)
VERTICAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAVD88 USING (GEIODI2A)
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
EEP PROJECT NAME: 'BROWNS SUMMIT' Drawing No. BROWN S_SUMMIT_XXXXX_CE_Baker_DRAFT.dwg
BROWNS SUMMIT CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY SPO FILE No.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 FOR DMS Project No.:
Michael Baker 1 Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA—DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION—DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES BE Project No.: 140048
Phone: [phone] ON THE PROPERTY OF
Fax: [phone] Date: FEBUARY 27, 2015
IN TER N A TIC N A L License #: F-1084 RENEE M. MATTEWS, ARNOLD IRVING, LATRICIA IRVING, JAMES E. MARSHALL, ERMA L MARSHALL, SARAH B. ELLEDGE, ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE, Scale: 1"=200'
SARAH R. O'BRYANT, DONNA 0. CARTER, STEVEN D. CARTER, DEBORAH 0. STEPP, WYMAN RAY STEPP AND JANIE M. BOWMAN
MONROE TOWNSHIP GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 1 Of 3
GUILFORD COUNTY REGISTRY
(SARAH B. ELLEDGE)
DB 7007, PG 01094 DB 5439, PG 1271-1274
(RENEE M. MATTEWS)
DB 7370, PG 354 P.B. 101 PG. 62
DB 7536, PG 524-525 P.B. 56 PG. 149
DB 7341, PG 2398 P.B. 155 PG. 094
(ARNOLD IRVING)
DB 5106, PG 1731 P.B. 144 PG. 004
DB 3890, PG 365 P.B. 138 PG. 144
(JAMES E. MARSHALL)
DB 5106, PG 1734 P.B. 176 PG. 136
P.B. 170 PG. 27
DB 5043, PG 1485 P.B. 150 PG. 024
(DONNA 0. CARTER)
GUILFORD COUNTY CERTIFICATION
(DONNA 0.. CARTER)
I, PLANNING DIRECTOR AND REVIEW OFFICER OF
GUILFORD COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THIS PUT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
(DEBORAH 0. STEPP)
SUBDIVISION AND THAT IT MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
RECORDING, BECAUSE OF ITS 'EXEMPT` STATUS, THE COUNTY HAS NOT
REVIEWED THIS PUT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOT STANDARDS
(JANIE M. BOWMAN)
AND OTHER SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (cg., road etaadwdc). PROSPECTIVE
PURCHASERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PUNS FOR BUILDING AND
DEVELOPMENT MAY BE DENIED FOR LOTS THAT DO NOT MEET APPLICABLE
(JANIE M. BOWMAN)
COUNTY STANDARDS
DATE
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.
PLANNING DIRECTOR/NEVIEW OFFICER
MARSHALL WIGHT, PLS 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 DAY OF 2014.
MARSHALL WIGHT, PLS L-5034
I, MARSHALL WIGHT CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION
FROM AN ACTUAL GPS (OR GNSS) SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THE
FLOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS USED TO PERFORM THE SURVEY.
CLASS OF SURVEY: CLASS C
POSITIONAL ACCURACY: .15' (NETWORK RTK)
TYPE OF GPS (GNSS) FIELD PROCEDURE: VRS
DATE(S) OF SURVEY: 06/17/14
DATUM/EPOCH: NAD 83 (2011)(EPOCH:2010.000)
PUBLISHED FIXED CONTROL: N/A-VRS
GEOID MODEL* GEOID 12A
COMBINED GRID FACTOR: 0.99998806
UNITS: US FEET
HORIZONTAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAD83\NSiS (2011)
VERTICAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAVD88 USING (GEIODI2A)
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
EEP PROJECT NAME: 'BROWNS SUMMIT' Drawing No. BROWN S_SUMMIT_XXXXX_CE_Baker_DRAFT.dwg
BROWNS SUMMIT CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY SPO FILE No.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 FOR DMS Project No.:
Michael Baker 1 Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA—DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION—DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES BE Project No.: 140048
Phone: [phone] ON THE PROPERTY OF
Fax: [phone] Date: FEBUARY 27, 2015
IN TER N A TIC N A L License #: F-1084 RENEE M. MATTEWS, ARNOLD IRVING, LATRICIA IRVING, JAMES E. MARSHALL, ERMA L MARSHALL, SARAH B. ELLEDGE, ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE, Scale: 1"=200'
SARAH R. O'BRYANT, DONNA 0. CARTER, STEVEN D. CARTER, DEBORAH 0. STEPP, WYMAN RAY STEPP AND JANIE M. BOWMAN
MONROE TOWNSHIP GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 1 Of 3

AREA: 4.24 Acres
PIN: 7970842313
X11
�F7
•89C
C4 4
Pegwaetl fence eppmx2wbitl, CE
- x - x
= X - X - X - X -
AREA: 2.95 Acres
PIN: 7980061382
SPEARMAN ROAD (60' PUBLIC R/W)
-I
UNE
L62
L63
CE -2
\
POINT No.1
I
L64
L65
L66
L67
L68
L78
L77
N 01'02'55" E 359.44'
N 06-10`37" E7
N 26'4616 E 1870.80'
NOT 11'12" E 215.87
5 66'29'10" E 33.79'
S 03'26'24" E 143.06"
S 0258 56 W 1113.33
LINE
BEARING DISTANCE
CE -5
,287.53 (X)
LINE
BEARING DISTANCE
ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE I
S 0'18'27' W 135.34'
4'06" E 113.50'
N 4T17'09' E 143.24'
&
L26
L27
N 0730'01' E 185.47'
N 03'4914 E 225.08
K11,
6'45" W 123.12'0'02" W 23.42'
�H,21R.
m No CE -3
YPONOL
L29
S 87'46 25 E 176.97'
DB 7007, PG 01094
AREA: 0.19 Acres I
PIN: 7970940511
p Un I NE BEARING DISTANCE
LC d 10 L15 N 0719'31 E 39.14'
Q n
LZO N 0719'31 E 140.72'
LINE
CE -6
BEARING
DISTANCE
ZONING AG
L32
L33
O
3 N^ I L21 5 52'50'13 E 188.50'
L35
N 25'59'59" E
158.81'
59'08'16" E
L23
O d'
0 ^ L22 N 25'43'42" E 134.04'
L38
L37
N 02'26'35' E
N E
212.74'
169.27'
\
S 06'48'46" W 22.69'
L17 N fii'o4'06" W 113.50'
L3B
23'51'57"
N 41'12'26" E
65.01'
\ I
= o a I AREA: 0.49 Acres
L39
N 07'45'46" E
93.54'
AREA: 4.13 Acres
A- PIN: 7970940634
L40
S 82'44'15" E
142.97'
\
W I
L41
L42
S 06'48 29 W
S 2654'33" W
74.65
107.01'
CE -4
L43
S 2535'02" W
157.13'
FARM ROAD BCCESS
GE _\
\ LINE BEARING DISTANCE
L44
L45
S 09'50'41" E
S 1756'22" W
138.70'
204.23'
(SHEE71 of i)
L23 S 83'49'51" E 184.23'
L29
N 87'46'25" W
176.97
1 L24 N 19'17'57" E 99.87
121 N 52'5013 W 168.80'
AREA: 2.32 Acres
I AREA: 0.21 Acres
PIN: 7970952956
= X - X - X - X -
AREA: 2.95 Acres
PIN: 7980061382
SPEARMAN ROAD (60' PUBLIC R/W)
-I
UNE
L62
L63
CE-8IT
BEARING I DISTANCE
N 11 47 05 E 241.24
N 29'30'41" W 133.89'
PIN:7970940765
POINT No.1
I
L64
L65
L66
L67
L68
L78
L77
N 01'02'55" E 359.44'
N 06-10`37" E7
N 26'4616 E 1870.80'
NOT 11'12" E 215.87
5 66'29'10" E 33.79'
S 03'26'24" E 143.06"
S 0258 56 W 1113.33
90.02 (Y)
l
_ J
CE -5
,287.53 (X)
LINE
BEARING DISTANCE
ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE I
L25
N 4T17'09' E 143.24'
&
L26
L27
N 0730'01' E 185.47'
N 03'4914 E 225.08
SARAH B. ELLEDGE I
L28
N 21'0322' E 304.30'
YPONOL
L29
S 87'46 25 E 176.97'
DB 7007, PG 01094
L30
S 1756.22" W 75.99'
PIN: 7970842313
L31
S 31'20'15" W 202.77'
ZONING AG
L32
L33
S 06'29'14" W 317.88'
5 03'03'57" E 127.62'
TIE LINE
L34
S 32'30'04" W
59'08'16" E
L23
N 83'49'51' W26.35'
S 83'11'14" E 15.00'
AREA: 2.89 Acres
I
S 06'48'46" W 22.69'
PIN: 7970957284
= X - X - X - X -
AREA: 2.95 Acres
PIN: 7980061382
SPEARMAN ROAD (60' PUBLIC R/W)
-I
UNE
L62
L63
CE-8IT
BEARING I DISTANCE
N 11 47 05 E 241.24
N 29'30'41" W 133.89'
____F
I
- T
l
L64
L65
L66
L67
L68
L78
L77
N 01'02'55" E 359.44'
N 06-10`37" E7
N 26'4616 E 1870.80'
NOT 11'12" E 215.87
5 66'29'10" E 33.79'
S 03'26'24" E 143.06"
S 0258 56 W 1113.33
I
l
_ J
L52
N 88'10'18" W 49.32'
LOT
7a
CE -J
D
AREA: 2.84 Cree
LINE
BEARING DIS ANCE
ELAW
PIN�79708766I8
I L
N 88'13'43" W 48.47'
F
ENM L MP0,IR91�
PIN:79)09N07 5
L5353
N 88'08'04" W 85.60'
L
JJ
177
S 02058149" W 1113.30'
-
L78
S 03'26'24" E 143.06'
L -
L
- L7071
L71
S 73'17'03" E 184.77'
S 04'11'117" W 682.27
S 06'48'46" W 254.40'
L72
S 83'11'14" E 15.00'
L73
S 06'48'46" W 22.69'
11
1 S 03'57'02" W 161.21'
L75
LS 03'32'33" W 86.38'
AREA: 4.13 Acres
P
IN: 7970876658
DAVID K. TUCKER
ANN B. TUCKER
DB 7631, PG 454
l
PIN: 7970851765
GPS CONTROL POINT No.2 635.Bz
`CJ N=904,711.32 (Y) IP 750.84•
LOT 1 E=1,778,825 (X)
PaAPa„6 II01
2 4 TIE LINE P„ PN� a ��. l STEVEN D. CARTER I
S 16'39'40" E rn & I
wns S
zos.14' ' `��-°';� DONNA 0. CARTER
L78 L75 N ozro9.58 E GPS CONTROL POINT No.3 I DB 3890, PG 365 I
- 1 15 IP 19 T36.7o• EIP PIN: 7970952956
L71 s t1TIE LIN N=905,248.78 (Y) I
C p�'`�'`���". C� E=1,778,985.24 (X) I ZONING AG
55 �' E
B LOT 3 _ .E gX8.29• W
e �ia Pc P.a 17PD. n _ 22
e z L2 1 TIE LINE CONTROL POINT No.4 I
S 0722'09" w N=905,947.53 (Y)
RIDGE CO / 329.50'
D UqT LOT _ N 75.1g• E=1,779,176.68 (X)
E P.I.OT CE -5 25 7?4518,.
o
prp IPR7 F a 3 TIE LINt�
LOT a CE -4 6 N 21'49'29 E
� \ L36 415.92'
- m9wn ren meeremo-ea \ 7 ) I
sp EIP EIP �P \ CE -6 60.00'
�are"�,Pwo.z"N1�mNCE 37
3 C L3 0 41 48
�\ \
I l 34 < I
SARAH R. O'BYRANT L/T
.\ & /� I
I DONNA 0. CARTER _ J
DB 5106, PG 1731
PIN: 7970957284 /
A
HUGH H. SMITH
�" 6°zG
:" P"zees
:7,107M
awl
V.ELLS FARGO BANK
B
DB 760; PG 3535
PIN: M>0649167
C
ACY F. GA 111
TRACY
75
%N
N79108 _
LOT
7a
R��EE M. YAITEYI9
D
-
sPENCERs� ueo�nsloN
ELAW
DB535
N:79>09Ice04
MA1E9 E MARMWL
F
ENM L MP0,IR91�
PIN:79)09N07 5
T1.\ ZONING AG
MIDDLELAND DR
I 1 I
I
PROPERTY LINE SURVEYED ....................
PROPERTY LINER/W) NOT SURVEYED........
CONSERVATION EASEMENT .....................
OTHER EASEMENTS ............................... _.-.-.
EXISTING FENCE .................................... _
PROPOSED FENCE ................................. x x x -
EXISTING IRON PIPE/ROD(EIP)................................
EASEMENT MONUMENT SET ................................... •
CONTROL POINT SET .............................................. D
PIN ............... PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
L 60.00'
I
pFL
/ P
�J FARM ROAD ACCESS q,Q
/
(SHEET IOF3) / �A
H
\ GP CONTROL POIN
�qN \ N=906,568.33 (Y)
\ / E=1,779,529.28 (X)
Rs 9,R7
2931 Op / G
q /
\ y!
/
\ / SARAH R. 'BRYANT L/T
GRAPHIC SCALE / DEBORAH 0 STEPP
N 0248'17' E
TIE LINE
N 75'22'40' E
98.11'
_ X - X
CONTROL POINT No.7
E=1,779,421.22
EIP
NC NAD 83 (2011)- CF 0.99998806
EASEMENT CORNER \
JANIE M. BOWMAN FARM ROAD ACCESS
DB 5043, PG 1485 ISEE NBENOTE Fa)
PIN: 7970876658
y ZONING AG
m G
GPS CONTROL POINT No.9
PS CONTROL POINT NO.B
N=907,869.57 (Y)
N=907,253.72(YT_E=1,779,154.06 (X) /
E=1,779,217.65 (X)
N 0553'43" w /
619.13
,6 1817'A5P 49 e4 0 Le PmPeeetl Na«,PPm.roNHa. cE /
7 S 6236"1 04
CE -8 a 52 S
.. L67 53 L68
7 78 5
z'..:L76::%i!:'::'ea
R
s -1 , L L73
776.az• P. 1 23
EIP /
G
l80TH 24 �O�
0 200 400 600 DB 5106, PG 1734PIN: 7980061382
\ � ZONING AG
1-200'
t.)
(u Pt.) / � � l � l l K
�\
L
LL -1 M
/ EEP PROJECT NAME: 'BROWNS SUMMIT rowl
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
MichaelBaker Phone: [phone]
Fa x: 919.46 3.5490
INTERN ATION A L License #: F-1084
BROWNS SUMMIT CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION -DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ON THE PROPERTY OF
RENEE M. MATiEWS, ARNOLD IRVING, LATRICIA IRVING, JAMES E. MARSHALL, ERMA L. MARSHALL, SARAH B. ELLEDGE, ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE,
SARAH R. O'BRYANT, DONNA 0. CARTER, STEVEN D. CARTER, DEBORAH 0. STEPP, WYMAN RAY STEPP AND JANIE M. BOWMAN
MONROE TOWNSHIP GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
NS-SUMMITAXXXXX-CE-Bol er-DRAFT.1
SPO FILE No.
DMS Project No.:
BE Project No.: 140048
Date: FEBUARY 27, 2015
Scale: 1"=200'
SHEET 2 of
EIPI ,.
.. . rr;55
awl
0a'S1'07
LOaT� Pc20 709.97•
-
EIP
vu2
LOT
7a
Q
l l.eOTP18 .Pc
LOT G11P.. K a9wP��6
lP., JP l P.. I M � 1 P N /
l
��
PsLO.T, 16 \ LOT 84
0 � \
sPENCERs� ueo�nsloN
II
LOTP 83
.
r- B USICKW000 DRIVE
T�
0 200 400 600 DB 5106, PG 1734PIN: 7980061382
\ � ZONING AG
1-200'
t.)
(u Pt.) / � � l � l l K
�\
L
LL -1 M
/ EEP PROJECT NAME: 'BROWNS SUMMIT rowl
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
MichaelBaker Phone: [phone]
Fa x: 919.46 3.5490
INTERN ATION A L License #: F-1084
BROWNS SUMMIT CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION -DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ON THE PROPERTY OF
RENEE M. MATiEWS, ARNOLD IRVING, LATRICIA IRVING, JAMES E. MARSHALL, ERMA L. MARSHALL, SARAH B. ELLEDGE, ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE,
SARAH R. O'BRYANT, DONNA 0. CARTER, STEVEN D. CARTER, DEBORAH 0. STEPP, WYMAN RAY STEPP AND JANIE M. BOWMAN
MONROE TOWNSHIP GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
NS-SUMMITAXXXXX-CE-Bol er-DRAFT.1
SPO FILE No.
DMS Project No.:
BE Project No.: 140048
Date: FEBUARY 27, 2015
Scale: 1"=200'
SHEET 2 of

Conservation Easement
Access from 60" R/W
0
Access from 60" R/W
BRo�RD
COO
Conservation Easement
Broard ridge at
MIDDLELAND DR
20' ACCESS EASEMENT
SPEARMAN RD
Farm path
Conservation
Access from
Easement
Farm Paths
BUSICKWOOD DR
NC NAD 83 (2011)- CF 0.99998806
OTES
101
z
w
Conservation Easement
Access from Farm Path
1.THE PURPOSE THIS P AT IS TO ENTIFY THE LOCATION OF
CONSERVATI ASEMF�N�TS' DEPIC AS CE -1, CE -2, CE -3, CE -4, CE -5,
CE -6, CE- Cg -8,=9, AS OWN HEREIN.
2. BOU RZ irv�A��fi� 15 DERIVED FROM FIELD SURVEY, DEEDS, PLATS, GIS DATA, AND
TAX �6'�Ty-H�Q G ORD COUNTY REGISTRY AS SHOWN HEREON. SURVEYED
I��\I
B O W M A' DALE RD
B�N�AkID� �"" OWN AS SOLID LINES.
FOR P
M TS WERE
OL
H`WB ICH EOL BAKERNATES
ENGINEERING, NC.ERIVED (COMB NEDTFACTOR =0.99 98806)
Q K- c _DISTAACES ARE GROUND DISTANCE UNLESS OTHERMSE NOTED.
SHEET NOT TO SCALE
'
v Q)
STH EARING BASIS FOR THIS PLAT IS NAD 83 (2011) NC GRID.
Z6
0�
L 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 HATH SURVEY.
O
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 AND 3 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. PROPOSED FENCE
COINCIDES WITH EASEMENT AT STREAM CROSSING. THE CURRENT ZONING IS RS -30 FOR
PROPERTIES IN THE BROAD RIDGE AND SPENCERSGROVE SUBDIVISION, ALL OTHER ARE
ZONED AG.
THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING FARM ROADS FOR NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS SHOWN ON
SHEET 2 AND OF THIS PLAT WERE DERIVED FROM GIS BASED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND
VERIFIED BY FIELD SURVEY.
FAIR GROVE CHURCH RD
BROWNS SUMMIT CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY SPO FILE No.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 FOR DMS Project No.:
Michael Baker Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA—DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION—DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES BE Project No.: 140048
Phone: [phone] ON THE PROPERTY OF
Fax: [phone] Date: FEBUARY 27, 2015
IN TERN A T O N A L License #: F-1084 RENEE M. MATTEWS, ARNOLD IRVING. LATRICIA IRVING, JAMES E. MARSHALL, ERMA L MARSHALL, SARAH B. ELLEDGE, ARNOLD D. ELLEDGE, Scale: 1"=200'
SARAH R. O'BRYANT, DONNA 0. CARTER, STEVEN D. CARTER, DEBORAH 0. STEPP, WYMAN RAY STEPP AND JANIE M. BOWMAN
MONROE TOWNSHIP GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 3 Of 3

16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

16.1 USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms — per regional
supplement to 1987 Manual
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -201401642 County: Guilford U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -LAKE BRANDT
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Agent: Baker Eneineerm
Attn: Scott Kine
Address: 8000 Reeencv Perkway. Suite 600
Cary, NC, 27518
Size (,acres) 19 Nearest Town Brown Summit
Nearest Waterway Haw River River Basin Haw. North Ca
USGS HUC 3030002 Coordinates 36.237525 N,-7
Indicate Which of the Followine Analy:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there maybe wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Array (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Progmm Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). Ifyou wisb, you tray request
an approved JD (which maybe appealed), by contacting the Carps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide
new information for further consideration by the Carps to reevaluate the JD.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United Stales within the above described property, subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this detemanation may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
nofification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the data of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered fuel, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters ofthe U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWAjurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The waters of lho U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and we accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
parent requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years train the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Page 1 of 2

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 6 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David Bailey at 910-251-4469 or
David.E.Bailev2Qusace army mil
C. Basis For Determination: The site exhibits features with Ordinary High Water and wetlands as defined in the
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineationddetermination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
Particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your teimnt are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approvedjurisdictional determination for the above described site. Ifyou object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will rind a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) Net sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
AM: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 303034801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corp, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP_
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received At the above address by November 14.2014.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
coriespondence."
Corps Regulatory Official: 9�-
Date: September 15.2014 Expiration Date: September 15, 201
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at http://regulatorv.usacesurvey.coM.
Copy famished:
Sue Homewood, NCDENR-D WR, 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Sarah B. Elledge, 4025 NC Hwy 150, Browns Surmnit, NC 27214
Renee Maria Matthews, 8109 Broad Ridge Court, Browns Summit, NC 27214
James and Enna Marshall, 8113 Broad Ridge Court, Browns Summit, NC 27214
Arnold and Lairicia Irving, 8111 Broad Ridge Court, Browns Summit NC 27214
Donna Carter and Sarah O'Brym0, 8401 Middleland Drive, Browns Sunuait, NC 27214
Steven and Donna Caner, 8401 Broad Ridge Court, Browns Summit, NC 27214
Deborah Stepp, 8241 Fairgrove Church Road, Browns Summit, NC 27214
Janie M. Bowman, 8151 Spearman Road, Browns Smmnit, NC 27214

AG"2'
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
July 23, 2014
Mr. Scott King
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
8000 Regnecy Parkway, Suite 600
Cary NC 28518
Subject Property: Browns Summit Creek Restoration Site, Guilford County
On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500)
On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Jordan Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0267)
Dear Mr. King:
On July 15, 2014, at your request and in your attendance, Sue Homewood conducted an on-site
determination to review features located on the subject project for stream determinations with regards to
the above noted state regulations. David Bailey with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was also
present at the site visit.
The Division acknowledges the areas and boundaries identified as jurisdictional wetlands by the USACE. The
attached map accurately depicts all stream determinations conducted during the site visit.
Please note that at the time of this letter, all intermittent and perennial stream channels and jurisdictional
wetlands found on the property are subject to the mitigation rules cited above. These regulations are subject
to change in the future.
The owner (or future owners) should notify the Division (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any
future correspondences concerning this property. This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from
the date of this letter.
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Location: 585 Waughtown St. Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
;Vatllmllff

Scott King
Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Site
July 23, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the Division or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by
the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o
Wetlands and Buffers Permitting and Compliance Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650.
Individuals that dispute a determination by the Division or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" surface
water from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60 -day statutory appeal time does not start
until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. The
Division recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party
appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing
within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and the buffer rules and does not approve
any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State or their associated buffers. If you have
any additional questions or require additional information please contact me at 336-771-4964 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Enclosures: Baker provided Topo Map
Baker Stream Map
Baker Wetland Maps
cc: David Bailey, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (via email)
DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office

0.
r.talr,
40*
�r3 � - � �' . � I p ��� •'fit, f
k 5
O IC l i z
9
O
Wetland Area A ,
6.65 acres+
4
2
O:
O'
IF*
P5,
a
Michael Baker Engin—Ing. 1n<. 0 125 250 500 Browns Summit Creek
i $OM RpImf Pak..,
Such G04
Cy, North C.�o 27518 Restoration Site
919"8 48
'58 Wetland Areas (lower)
FarPftgt$ 463 5490 Feet
16 July 2014
Legend:`
N
O Wetland Data Points
a
`t
`
Jurisdictonal Ponds
O
1 «
Jurisdictional Streams
Wetland Areas'
Conservation Easement
y• PSM
0.
r.talr,
40*
�r3 � - � �' . � I p ��� •'fit, f
k 5
O IC l i z
9
O
Wetland Area A ,
6.65 acres+
4
2
O:
O'
IF*
P5,
a
Michael Baker Engin—Ing. 1n<. 0 125 250 500 Browns Summit Creek
i $OM RpImf Pak..,
Such G04
Cy, North C.�o 27518 Restoration Site
919"8 48
'58 Wetland Areas (lower)
FarPftgt$ 463 5490 Feet
16 July 2014

Legend
9 t. w
Wetland Areas h '
wl,
Non-Jurisdictional Ponds
Jurisdictonal Ponds
Non-Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional Streams
Conservation Easement
Ow
V,
P4 Wetic
and Area E
0.002 acres.
P3
Wetland Area B
0.11 acres
y
r
. T ,
_ R
P1 P2 r
Wetland Area C
0.01 acres
Wetland Area D
0.14 acres
Mkhaef Baker Engihaarlmg, Ion. O 125 250 500 Browns Summit Creek
aeuw{trvyrncy Fxkway
i � 104M ��a ,5,$ Restoration Site
Nr:, 9fB.A63. 5486
F.K 5i-46354M Feet Wetland Areas (upper)
16July 2014

p WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pr¢I6
olile: Q/d�,,,r �., 1. w'� wCoumy: 61;tclR Sampling Date:$/?/�Y
ApplowelDarer: IZa IW ka4d.Wc.inn Stale: A/L Sampling Pare: /
Investgalw(s): � Stttlon. TowrtlAp. Range:
Iardfonn MllMepe, aRam,MU: %+"+ Laal relief(mmave. mine., none):`pAI4 Slope(%) 100
Subregion ILRRa MLRAL P- (36 Lat 36.23854 tug: Durner N4093
Sul Map UnANares 4041terue (,ow,. RWl dassif fun: ^m.c
Are damaticl hyadpgic cordinmrs on the site ryplcel for Nis Lore of year? Yes �A No _ (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Sol � or Hydrology_ slgllcantly dNWrred? Are'Nwmel LVcurslences'preseM] Yes ✓ No_
Are VegMMan� Sol � a Hydrology_ naturally prMlemauc] (if needed explain any reveres in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
HydropM1yllC Vegetation present? Yes( NO IS Me Semple l Area
Hydrae Shc We5m1? Yee t( No within Weland? Yee. No_
Welend Hydrology Presetsl, Yel ND_
Remains: 1� �n /�
Nit6 row3 IWer Acres ie -9:t Si.(¢ def poei4ie^fly Ark2P Aafe.
HYDROLOGY
wmm Hydrology Inaction:
se"oneery Meretas Intinimum m Iw reawrml
k I
_ Surface SOA Crttks (66)
K surface Water (All
_ Tine AOubllc Plants UL 4)
Vageoned Concave Surface (M)
%: High Wales Table (A2)
_ Hydragen Sulfide Door (CI)
`_/Spersely
�} Drainage Paa9ns (610)
_ SalurASn (A3)
_ OXUIZW RMzospMres on LMtg Rants 1631
_ Mass Than Lines (616)
_ Water Marks fall
_ Flesexpe of Reduced 1fa1(C4)
_ DrySeasm Wear Table (C2)
_ Sca lment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron mounted in TiNM Sells (Cal
_ Cayhsh Burow (CB)
_ one Depends (03)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C?)
_ Saturation Vislde on Aerial lmagery(Cad
Algal Mat or Crust DW)
_ father (Expire a Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants Ul)
_ Iron Dcpwlts (BSI
_ Geomaplk position (D2)
_ Interisland Viable an Aerial lmagery(0])
_ Shallm Aquiard(D3)
_ WadenSlalned Leaves Rge
_MKnexcepApA Relief (D4)
_ Aquaft Fauna dada)
_ FPC-N¢Wal Test (DS)
FMd Observations:
yr
Su18ae Water Preeea] Yes —�No_
Depth (In[Ms): 2 -
Water Tade present? Yes--!t'1—No_DepN
Satiation Rosend? Yes_ No_DepN
(Itcdres):
WeMHydroagy
Preetn'l Yes No
preludes orientally kinvere
Dewabe Recorded Data (stream gauge, mtMMing "I. acted plwdos. Savants inspeaare. If avati ue:
REMBMs:
US Army Cords of Ergorears eastern Mountains am Pledmend- Verson 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling
Tree SyayN(Not size: 5!eoet233eu§ Number d Cement Species
1. I4n,e Thal Are OBL FACW, IX FAC: (A)
2' Trial NemMr 010ominenl
3 Species Across All Sinla:
Percent of Dominant Speclee
6. TMt Are CML FACW. a FAC: w/ zw (AIB)
I.
.._._._......... ----
Tom %Cover or, Maddy Ee
OBL species XI.—
FACW species x2-
lSteven(Plan
FAC spede x3=
FACU mottles x9=
UPL mp¢Clem x5-
C Ijmn Terms(A) (a)
R¢valerc'¢ IMex = &A =
=Tonal CW
50%dtdelcover 20%orMi
Steven (Planshe
Lir:oh,,V . {.(:c 0 Io y u
�Fp��[�
2, Tu..ipnaJ ur(.ewi ( IV FAIU
3 i��..v inMU .K r _ V FMu
4
5.
6'n
0enrcrionVesselof Four Vesse5b'ata:
Tree -Worry Plams, exclWllg vines, 3 in. 17.6 cm)or
In all at beam health 0131-0.hsar61e550
height.
Sapangt3hrub- WoMy plants, excluding vanes, lees
Man 3In. BBH am greater then or equal to 328 h(1
M) tail
Herb -All haUM¢Ws (nonnvoby) Wants Rgande is
of sm am rwndy plans less Man 3.28 it W,
Woody wow -AIIem ulnas greater than 3.20 h In
aegis.
fflnl In uewmxnn bwrarryc
— — — — _ 1- Rapti Tem Far Hydrophl is V yelal'un
-- 2- Lomironce Testi Is >50%
11 •ver —3- Prevalence IMex is 53.0'
TIXalCow
20%dl TwIt;er 2—a-Molpl4agkal Atlaptatbns'(Rovlae mWooHMg
dam in Ramses a on a schemes more)
Hrdroph F
Vegefterflon
Term Cover Reseda Yeses` No_
5o%0 Mal mver I
�Ykfy,� veatkAkor . P"v,,4 "
US Almy Caps of Etgawers Eam n MouMans am Piedmont- Version 2.0
6>6L
—Prodemalk Hyd'Cobyh VegebIWn'(Explab)
vlMkaSxsdhydrk sell am weaaM merchant mugrl
be present Mass resulted car parents tic.
2. Tin<aJ e sul / fAcilay
3. ra l•r)�GLm lug I.r
Y —
1. 2
��"^
C� ��
0enrcrionVesselof Four Vesse5b'ata:
Tree -Worry Plams, exclWllg vines, 3 in. 17.6 cm)or
In all at beam health 0131-0.hsar61e550
height.
Sapangt3hrub- WoMy plants, excluding vanes, lees
Man 3In. BBH am greater then or equal to 328 h(1
M) tail
Herb -All haUM¢Ws (nonnvoby) Wants Rgande is
of sm am rwndy plans less Man 3.28 it W,
Woody wow -AIIem ulnas greater than 3.20 h In
aegis.
r, c
5 IIJr
-/o —
.21J
6. Tm!,r4t 4uFar L
3—(• Irfmore
T _f]L FAC
a. w .,1r. I of. Al FrV U
8.�/ ]-} a�bu. it Yrr. t -f• AL CA`
la, -
11.
W VI
1SQyy $triallam
C
50060110Mltova: T' 20%ataalwver:
p/PIIXSIza: I.� )
Phar 2 r/
•Total Cover
NA
C
2.
Hrdroph F
Vegefterflon
Term Cover Reseda Yeses` No_
5o%0 Mal mver I
�Ykfy,� veatkAkor . P"v,,4 "
US Almy Caps of Etgawers Eam n MouMans am Piedmont- Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:, I
Profile DesMpkn: (Oe_wi0elP Ne Eeptll rieetlM to tlacutMM Ure lntllCalOr MCOMIrM 11188baNk'RdIMkaWR.)
peFIJ1 Manlx
lhMesl �_
a_K 7. 00
Aa,
bo
fobr Lln'MI �§_ rareTanana Remarks
Y 6 4 U rn
f`
'T : C-COorRMakbn D=De elbn. W-Rapaced Matrix. MS=MaAW Sant Graite. 2Incdbn: PL -Pare Lln . M-Matrlx.
HydHc Sul IMicMOrS:
Intlkatara br Rabkm6Uc Hytldc Soils
_HERMI(At)
_ Dark Surface (Sri _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 14))
_ Hlsllc EpipMan (A2)
_ Pdynalue DNnw Suface (561(MLRA 147,14M _ Coast Prakie RMox (A16)
_&SN HiAC(A3)
_ Mn Dark Surface (59) IMllU 142.146) (MCRA 14],146)
_ Hydrogen SuMde 04)
_ Laamy GMyM Mark (F21 _ PiepngM FbWFAain Soils(Fiat
_ Sparked Laya's (AD
,K Departed Mi (F3) (MLRA 136,143)
_ 2 cm Muck (AID)(LRR N)
_ Redix Dark Surface (To) _ Very Sainlary Dark Surface RF12)
Depleted 6ekw Dark Surface (At 11
_ morainal Dark 5unate nd _ CVW(Explain In Rernarlun
_ Thick 0ark Sudace(A1M
_ RMat Depressions (FM
_ Sandy Mucky Minaral(51)(LRR N.
_Iron -Manganese Masses(F12)(ERR N.
MLRA 113. 14M
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gland Mauix(S4)
_ UmMk Surface (F13) NLRA 136, 123) 3MJCkws Or ftYdMpnyllC VMJN2uon and
_ Sandy RCHox (55)
_ RedmaM FICWl6aln Shcs (F 19) WERA 148) wetland hydrdPTy musk M present,
_ SBIpIcd Mai(56)
_ Red Parent Manaal(F21) WMA 12],141) wkss EistrLd cr problematic.
ResbkUve Laytt (If observed):
p:
DEpin (MC11e51:
MyMic Soil PreaaMi Yea No_
Remaks:
j44
US A" Coepsd EJinees Easrem Mowkms MM Plednnnk- Varstrn 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Problawsite: LO Y✓
Dy/Cwnty: if rbiilw� (-,,-6, Sampliy NaleyLyy,
AppleanlrownW: RRaw
rsamging Fact 2
Invesagatd(s):
5ecaon. Tutorship, Rather
lenditm(hllhbpe, len ace, mc.E
i Skil%1:
Swrcgion(LRaor MLRA)!!: Pe -MP 1a:
36, 2VIC? long: -3R. X4816 nawm: NA -L&
Soil Mat�xra/✓S
Miss Unit Name:
fi
NWS dasslkaflun ai
Are clhmal / hyd,Goyic customers on are site typical kir
alis lima MywO Yes No_ (If m, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vepetaem X� Shc_.v HydmWgy_spftaMydWw
H? Are 'Normal Circumstances ptesami Yes -)r—No_
Are Vegaitlm X561_, w Hydrology_
naturally WWlemaac? (11 nee0ec, explain any answers in RemaMs.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach she map showing sampling point meations, bansecla, important Nobel abC.
Hydroa Ae Vege=On Presort? Yes NiIs the sampleO Area
Hydro sell Present?. Yeah Nn_ W hlna Wmand? Yeses_ xo
WOION Hyarobgy Prows? Ynl - Ab
Rem ,
DA:r� r0r-d 6v muss - 3;�c Avs q,k� f.r< �,,,pParty.
HYDROLOGY
weaN Hydrology lNicalare
secdMgryachmas [minimum d two redlreem
Primary Irmicalthars brenimurn of one q ranked
check either now_
Shot Solt GMks(B6)
_ Surface Water (All
_ T1ce A9uaW Planar all 4)
_ SpwRly Assured! Coneve SNface 1681
K High Water Table Ai
_ Hydrogen Sults@ Calor (CU
K Drainage Powers (810)
_ SaluraYon (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizasphmos on Who Rods (C37
_ Moss Trim Llnes (616)
_ Water Mads (81)
_ Presence of RoducN eon (Cal
_ Dy Season Water Table (Ct)
_ Scamenl Bep'Aits(B3)
_ Recent Iron Reduction N Tlost SO%(Cat
_ Claymn Blmows(DU
_ Uaift Galatians (53)
_ Txn Muck Surface (27)
_ SaWation Visile on ANal lmagery(C9)
_ Algal Mal AT Dust U14)
_ Other(Ex;Aain'n Fermi
_ Stunted o, Strnsed Plans (DU
_ Iron Deposits (BS)
_ (:eamdp is Po ntasm (Di
_ Inundation Viable on Ae ial ImageryUU)
_ Shallow Aquhard(D3)
(� Water Stahed leaves (Be)
_ MV olumographic Relief mi
_ Aqui Fauna (613)
_ FAGNedral Test (DS)
Flmd OMmry m:
Surface Water PreseN? Yes_ No-
-- na:
Wmer Tade Present? Yes_Li No_
OepltaRlaa):�
utmwn Presem? Yes_ No_
Deplbmathia:
Wea
a_
Hydrology Present? Yin_)( MA--
rt as <a rd
rt
cesc N RecordN DaM (mream gauge, montalig Neo, aerial Antos. Pevbus inspcaons). 0 avaaade:
N/n
Remalile:
ly,/tl�w,D �y��a� Prrv..7f"
US Army Corps 0 Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Vmsbn 1.0

VEGETATION (Four Swam) — Use scientific names o/ plants. Sampling Poim: Z
Absoute oominaa Indicator
7rea.Sgattim(Notium 30r I as Color Socclesi subs.
I. A6 raeirj . 101, Y AC
oomrwnce Teawark hw:
Number a Cominad Spedes
That Are 051 FACW. or FACt � (A)
Towl Number M OpMnam
Spei Across All Straw: (81
Percent M Opmtlnanl Specieso
pp
TNMAfe08LFACW. ar FAC: �Q� aV81
2
3,
4.
5.
6.
T.
_
Preho ercn[an" workshew
TMalweo.erd Mulndvbv:
oet speues a1-
FACW species x2•
FAC species x3•
FACU species x411-
4•3. UPL species XS --
5-
Wlunn Taaln wl (a)
Prevalence Index • WA
qD .To�Wvc
50%dtaal covin: `t>_zo%armal aver.
SatliMSM1M3trabm(end
L A(n+t sere.(. �. $y �[
2 /:..1406., a:u. n.se trLY ACU
3
4
4.
5'
6•
Hydmpbym VegetatonlMicatars:
_ 1- Rao HytlrcpM1ylK VegMetim
2-Oenini Test is 50%
—3-PN/al&¢¢Index is 93 01
4�Xbrpinbgkal Adap1Mki(R'oade supporting
Jena n Rel of m a Separate sheell
— Prdrl¢matic HytlropM1ytic Veg¢talgn' IExp'sin)
epreSrs ofnyss 5ol andturbod WMland trrml moll
unlessrVagetation OF k.
B.
9.
)� =TaMl Cove
50%oftIXatmver:
Hem Sodium (Plat size: ID' )
t. 'a6
L .. { '. 29+ �/ FA
2. 3 24 a5I ua uw 14lV
am y FAcW
3. V.+ ¢�>�.�e�. �n FA
a- �'s�3ei��"rc'2�-�
F4rC
Delxesent
trach:
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strada:
Tree-Wareterat unionWingvinee.3ln landissor
NMoreigh In diameter al ueazt M1eigM (oep, tegardlessa!
naigM.
Sapling/Shrub Woody pants. exclWlrg Anes. less
Nan 3 in. OBH and greater then a equal b 3T8 n 0
Of bll.
fyb _ All herbaceaua (inn waaJy) plains. regardless
a Sue, and vmdy plants less Nan 3.28 a on"
Woody vim- At vmdy vines gems Nan 3.20 It in
M.
5. Cwdn r. _� F L
�/
6. a e('6 X11 FAC
jA,0l:a
1. Cerht Wi D/0 G
��
6 . t
8 5 a —4k— /iZ
9. TAYa� �..., ui(rw.. f Z �jl FAC
10
11.
•TMMCover
sa%dmrel mush �$,zo%ataal rover: 1.4
(anal ze
501 -� FAC
Hydmphwc
Veg¢tlYoh
PmsGIIY Y0¢ --Y- Nd_
2.
_
3.
4.
5
Taal Cover
5dIsormalarh i2j_20%atotalcM1✓H: )
Rearwdls: gr lode brand numbers here o' an a Separate shen.l
11vj'df .t- (a3tVPin, rv'
US A" Cards of Elglreers Easlem Mountains and Piedmont- Verni 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Poird:
Profile DescHPHon: (OesMbe to Hae depth needed to docrnrent Hae indicator or confirm HN absence Mindicators.)
Depth Malnx Redox Features
fI00reslq�— �_ �@' c_ 1g� Tnvurtg_ Reddens
0-2
2-S l0 4 2 15
5yo 5 25 M M S; (.cam 2kV e..Jn.i..a:.,.
8- IZ l0 )2 4111 60
2 G f 40 M M � s;,
nT . C -Concentration D-Dallmidn. RM -Reduced Made, MS-Maskecl Send Grairz 2L cadon: PL -Pae lint . M -Marx,
Hydric SOO Ind")
Indimstars for PrUAerrratle Hydric Scale':
_Heksd(All
_ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 Cm Muck (Al 0) OALRA 147)
_ kasac Epipedm (A2)
_ %ly✓aWe 80" SVIeCO (SO) (ALFA 147.140) _ Caae1 Prairie Redox (Al 61
_ Black Hired (A3)
_ TMn Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 14],140) (MLRA 147,1401
_ Hpingen Sulflele(A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Wells Ora) _ Pledwnt Flocdplaln Solls(F19)
_ Smeared "yers (m)
,� Deplete! MCVlx(F3) (IALRA 106, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)(LNR N)
_ RMox Dark Surface ITO) _ Very Shalkw Dark Sufadd UF12)
_ Depkled Bealmv Dark SWM (All l)
_ Doodled! Dark Surface IF7) ONer(Explain In Remarks)
_ Thkk Dark Sudece (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions IFO)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral lSt)(LRR N,
_ Irak Manganese Messes (F12)(LRR N,
MLRA 147,1481
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Mabix(Sal
_ UmOHc Surface (F13)(MLRA IN. 122) )WIcatas M hydrophric vocerarion and
_ Sandy Ranks (SS)
_Rearmed Flcoplain Spite OF19)(FALRA 10) wellan0 hydro"y must Le Ixecenr.
_SMpµtl Masx (SS)
_Red Parent Material lF21) OMLRA 127, 147) uMess drdtd Ea prodemark.
Rntrlclive Layer LH observed):
Type:
DeP(InCICsk
Hydric Soll Wasenl7 Yes-z—Np_
RemMkS
py kitc spit P"K*
US Nmy fvpsM Engineers Eastern Mountains add Piedmm- Version 20

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
PmjeWshn La 51m...;i chyl unlySampling Dale
Allp9candOvmer�.I /G�. //E.a'„ —: a Sumer sampling Prose
Invesllgalw(e): R 1i Store. TOwMM1Ip, Range:
Lantl101m (nill9vye, Ienace. etc.): De Local relief (Concave, farmers. nurse): V"'
lit Seek l96);y
SuIXeglon(LRR or MLRA): nn0 Let: 36. 23438 Lear _IR, 1y 81 =inki D3
$dl MatrUm Name. 4/tlyrl lot NWI da451FPA1b11: M1Tr4
Are damsel; l hydr\d\/oogk contrast an are she typical far alk Hone d year? Yes No N m. explain In Awnwis.)
Ar¢V¢g¢latlon y.SMl�wHydrol�y_mgnl6Cmdfy 015W10etl? Are 'Normal CheumYdrlL¢5'resent? Yes X No
Are Vegarmon� See � M Hyarallgy_ naturally proatemark? (Tlne¢aea. exporter any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —AMon SM map aDOWIng Sampling point locations, Mamase3s, Important features, elC
HydropnyBc Vegeuam Present? Yes K Na_ Isaasemplea Area
Hydfic soil Presml? Yeses No_ time a Weeand? Yes No
Welland Hydrdogy Resent? Yell No
Remalks: I
OI,I.y [.m„S Adw 4rar3 {. sill, &J bmic- k" tole�[6y.
HYDROLOGY
Wefm HydWM Indicators:
Incubators Imlnimam Of mn remained)
Frarroury 1
I
_ Surface Soil Cracks (M)
_ Surface Walw (Al)
_ True Aquino ROM (814)
_ Sparsely Vegdalec! Concave Surface (58)
_AC High WMH Table A2)
_ Hydrogen Scarfs Wor(Ct)
X Drainage Pahace; al 0)
_ Saturation (AS)
oxpliaed RimuspM1ere on Uvhg Assets (CT)_
Was Trim Lines lot 6)
_Water Marks(01)
_ Presence Of Ferment Iran (C4)
_ Dry Season Water Table (CZ)
_ Sediment resume (w)
_ Rerenl Iran RMltlkm in Tiled Soft (C6)
_ Daylish ounces (CS)
_ Crih Deposits (1121
_ TM1M Muck Wace(C?)
_ SanluadM visile on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mal w Crust (M)
— Olher(Ex0ain in Remarks)
_ shims.) a stressed mom (M)
_ if" Debeetf (65)
_ Gemmel Position (D2)
_ Invaman WA01e cn Aefl Imagery (B?)
_ Sflmu Aquhald (W)
Ir Water annual Leaves (Be)
_ MlawrjegralYlk Relief (De)
_ Aquino: Fauna (813)
_ FAGN¢Wal Test IDS)
Field OblzamBoa:
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No�L— tenser twhes)',_
Water Table ReSMA? YeS­X_ No_
cepm Oesho l:y
Sanuafn Preum? Yes_ Na_Demhgmi
l:_
Wmmnd
Hydrulogy NeSerA? Yell No_
iMIWesW Ilia hi e
Oescdf Recorded Dale (sueem gelge, muMtwlrg xNl, ettlsl pndos, prevbus inaDe¢donsl, if available
Remarks
US Army Comps of Erginars Easlem Mountains and Piedmont - Verson 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Sum) — Use scientific names o/ plants. Sampling Fichm 3
US Petry COTA P Ertshoss s faders Mmunnins and Placement - Version 2.0
Aosolule Dntvmant IMlcald
mwdlwn Te wdssllem:
I'da17so
1
tt r✓Int r. w.
%Cuvc. .511ffiIg5i status
(aGy FAC
Number Of Ddnlnoel SPI
That N0 OCL, FAM.. Or FAC: j (A)
Total Number d Dmmoan
2
3.
species Across As seats: S (9)
a'
P Mm d Dominant Species
5.
That AQP 06L FACW, Or FAC: )OV 0 (NO)
fi.
T_
Rwalena IMev worksllxl:
Tdxl%Cover It Metal
G� •TowlGover
50%dtmic :
3^ 20%dlgeICOVH:,12
OR spenes al•
1Sia¢ 30'
FACW SpK'�es •2•
11
=shlob
FAc
FAC gall • 3
FACOspecks x<=
x5=
COIVm Toll (A) OR
sternal Index =WA -
2. i tAfu... xl%,yFAC
3UPI-specos
5
6'
HYdrophyllc vegebWn inch les:
T'
_1 Rap'd Test For HydMphyUC Vegmaa0n
a'
? - pamimrte Tesl is.60%
a'
_ 3- Proesdame Mill IS 93.0'
50%dbtel cover:
�%-Tont Cwm
a.,S 20%dldalmver:
_4 - Mwplwlogeal Adaplasons(Provide supporters
Hub jpaylQ(Model 10' )
dela In Remarks Or on a separate small
1.
/M ilia Sfialry� vI motto..
501 FA
—PrOblu C HY&OPlydc Vegetal (Explain)
heAkatpsdness toll and W together.gy mum
aQFfograns.itiom unless I5W000ion&Mematic.
ll c SW N FAC
9 �_ FAelr
2•/
a
_III! CAG
Delnilians M Fw V¢geUliOn aVaW:
Tree- WaMy pleats, sg l In. (].ficm) w
mnemdiameter mOrral lMigM1t Oei. regardless
6.
6
T
y
M1eljM1l.
e
0- Woody ards,than or cluding ss
San 3lin.
a
equal to 3 28 It
Nanlln.OBH and g(emINlha00l equal to J.2J 1111
DO er (I
ml All.
hill - All hwbaceeus Momwosild Pants, r%aldless
Ofsee. and weedy Pians less Nan 3.20 It tall,
10.
l 1.
6V -Taal Cover
5(esoftotzlrower:
'i O'
32 20%dword carer li.e
—�/
Ywin- AIIxWTeener eeter Nan 326 hIn
h, ¢
YlmdvV
1.
5ra m(PKKs/lzyp
SMIM mZnAib�
)
2 0/ Y 1L
he
H)yroph)yc
3.
<
5
Vegmatbn
Present? yeal Al
2 •Total Cdver
'/. '/
sa%mlaulcmnv:J
20%dlmal cower: .4
Remarks: (Include Prom moment here a on a separate Aug.)
//
g yjoop(V1iL VaeeA�t n
le p/f:�j
US Petry COTA P Ertshoss s faders Mmunnins and Placement - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Paint: 3
Pronle Oeacnlnlon: (Uascrine to Rn Eeptn r1eeM0 to Ooclment the IMIUW ptannrm In¢ ab3¢rl[e of IMlcators.l
Dean Matrix
finaves) ColorY_
R999N I'Miltiou
Colo lmoi511 �8— TVTe
Remark%
D_1 Wo 3 3
C?o Iv I Jv C M
_
S.. lwP
I_'.S wa 61f
75 m 20 G L
sm. lc... S„f4 Hussar
_
_ lv 4 I 1
_+5 112 413 S G M
85 ll 612 _5 D M
I1
si. d. f,. I F
to yfz 41& to L L
TTral C.CorceMramn. D.Deplefiren,
RM=RCIws4 MCNx MS.Maskmj Sam Gree,
'ICcWm: PL -i Linker. M-MWdx.
Hyhic Sall IMICWCra:
IMicabrs fa PralflerdaBC HyddC Soils:
_ Hlalasd (All
_ Deh Surface (57)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
_ HIWC ElapWon 1143)
_FaiWalue Below Surface Dan WLRA 141,148)
_ Coca plane Redox (Al 6)
_ &ark Hism; (143)
_ Tnin Dark Surface (S9) WH.RA 147,148)
WLRA 14],148)
_ Hydrogen SUMde (A4)
_ Loamy Guyeat MaMx (F2)
_ Pladmonl Floodplain SWIS (F19)
_ Stratlfed Layers (AS)
Depleted MaMx(F3)
ML" 138,147)
_ 2 CIb Muck (AID)(LRR N)
_ RNox Dear SURece(FB)
_ V" Snallcw Dark Surface(TF12)
— Daml Ulm Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Deileled Dark Wake IFI)
_ make (Explain In Remarks)
_ TM1Kk Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Cepreaers(Fe)
_ SaMy Mucky Mineral (S¶ (LRR
N, _ Iran Manganese Mases (R 2) (LRR N,
MLR/1147,143)
MLRA 1561
_ Sandy Gil Mallx(54)
_ Umdrlc Surface (F1 3) R3LRA 136,122)
3lumnalas of nydmpnytiC vepanumn am
_ Sandy Real (Sal
_ Piedmont Flaadplain SOAs(F19)IMLRA 148) waiwel nydrolrgy must W present,
_ So1pINd MaVix(Set
_Red Parent lateral W21)(MLRA 127,147)
unless planned a dvodematic
Re W W sae Layer Rf obaereeW:
Type:
om l Decker):
Hydric Boll Present? yes All
Remarks:F.
('1Y/ric
US Petry Caps W Emanxirs Eairem Mountains ant Piedmont- Version 20

gg�� WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmonit Region
Prolewshe: Oa. • Srmw cdpc¢mq: Gc,: ( ki.i? Sampling one: ?
AppncardrOvmer:_U�LLLL/h yyyyF ,�( u:,,., Sor: NC Sampling Pral
Inv¢sUgaia(5): .f46� S¢COM, Tmr1WJp. Rerg¢: s!
LaMfvm (M1Rlslope, krtace, elc.l: / Local mllef(rnn¢ave. convex.rvnel: °+&c slope (x):J_
Subscron(LRROr MI -A l: (NO Lar: Lmg:13 Datum: eP,4 s.?s.?
Soh Map Unit Name: / S ta/ NWl classification:
Arecllm0k/ hydrologic�/COMhWna On the Sire rypkalV MIS timed W80 Yes X Na Ofm.explaeln R9narks.)
Are Vegetation Set Sop_J Or Hydromgy_ slgnif ndy disturbed? Ans-NormalCircumstances' plesem? Yes V No
Are vegetation$011� M HyINObgy_ naturally prounma4C? (IF manou. explain any acefors N Rema l
aummANY OF PINDINLSs - AttaDn site map snowing sampling poem loeanons, transacts, important features, ale
HyEropM1ybc Vegeraron Presets? Yes No Is We Sampled Nee
Hydric soil Pcesem? Yes_ No --.Y— wMina WnY Yea_ ND�4r
Wetter Hydrobgy Presem? Yes No—k--
Remal
Cairo Le+.r3 `ale_ AeMSZ 16 41� 5212 aO-Q pa, 004 WJSI AAI,
HYDROLOGY
WaB Hydrology IMICal
SxrnMly
IMkamr%(minimum of Mn remJrM)
Prinnearl Indhatom Mnlm m of one is reewrorl
check at h
_ surface Sol l Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (All
TWO AqunR Plans (814)
_ Sparsely Vegelam i Concave Surface em
_ HlgM1 water Faso (M
_ Hydrogen SuNde TOM( Cl)
_ Drainage Teacher (BID)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized RhorepM1pe on LOT Rome (0)
— Mass Trim Lines (1316)
_Water me" (111)
_ Presence of Reduced lmn(G)
_ Dry -Season Wale- Tade(C2)
_ Sediment Deposhs(82)
_ ReceM Iran Redumpn In THIMI sets (CIS
_ Crayon summer (CR)
_We Deposks(93)
_ Thin Muck Surface( C71
_Saturalam Visibleon AMiallmagoy(Clo
_ Akpl Mal Or Crust IRS)
_ Other (Explain in Remaris)
_ Sumand Or SVeasel Planes (DI)
_ Iron (across (e5)
_ Geminnol Posldon (02)
Im mdalion VisOk On Able Imagery (61)
_ Shallow Aqulmd (031
_ Water Stained Leaves Ural
_ MkMopographlc Relief (O<)
_ Aquf is Fauna (613)
_ FAC Nemal Test (DS)
FINd 0b3ervadom:
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No_
MIMI(Irdeni)
Water Table PRs¢m? Yes_ NO_
Separation Present? Yes_ No_
USPIAGnhora:
Crepth(N[hes):
W¢daM Hydrology Presents Yes_ N0
NclWes< ilia Rin
-x—
DasnlOe Recalled Mae (snare gauge, nwrmori g"I aerial promo. previous inspeNOn3), If me rible:
Remarks:
`
US Army Corps M Engineers Eastern Mounmins all Pladmom- Version 20

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of planes. Sampling Part :---1L—
US Army Carpis of Engineers Eastern Mountains all PIRIMMO l- Version 20
30
Absolute Wmmanl mocaW
DomindnceTeatworMS :
Tire
1.
5ltaNm Plat size: )
M
%Cover Spape52 Save
I&%�_ LAC 4)
Number a DaTbwnt Specie9
Trat Are 013L.FACW. d FAC: S (A)
Total Number of Dominate
Species Across All Street (B)
2. K�/ FAC
3, ii euii...l r{ �L—� PA(
e
a Dominam Shelter
83 /
—Percent
That Are DBL. FACW.VFAC'. (NN
—
6.
]
PrevaencelMexwaksM1ea:
Total %Cover of : Mullbly by;
Ld =Tame CovxlA
5096 of btal Wver:
SO 2o%arolaltam' fe
CML Species xl=
SaDgualSbmb
Svaum(Plot ane: 30� (
FACW specks x2.—
I
3-
FAC species x3-
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5--
Column Totals: (A) ®)
Prevaercnu (Mex =BIA=
2
2
5
4.
B'
HydropbyUC VegetalionlMkalars:
_ t .Raga Test IM HytlropllyllC Vegetationa'
—
2- nomination Tey is >51Y%
9.
_
3-Prevalew¢Index is 53.0'
—4-
=Taal Cover
Mwp'mlogicol Am"Iffians(Provide supporting
50%a ideal cove:
20% of lam cover:
Caaln Remarks oronaseparM¢sM1ee)
Heabso-awm (Plot Lze. isr I
i. /h'-. ....U,r..v,
3p•/ FAC
— RObkmalic Hydrepnylk Vegetation' (Explain)
ralpsa bessdsalaM thardprobe bmatic ymust
2 L _ 5'_ IV FAL
2O 1�
3_
+
FAC
de a problematic
bepzesem
5'
J—AAC1
ofFesrVegetaa
ne8nnbmaFav Vegetation Slrota:
The -WwaypaMS.east heiht(081), In.
re Q.6red err
alamelIN aMeasl belglll (DOH(, regardless of
5 Y_ S
C����
0' [- --- %�" 2 ,� r.a-
].
IekjM.
height
S.
6.
aally pin, demandingvines,e
3in
ManDSH and greaer Man or equal 328t(1
to
ml tall.
Herb nmbxews (nor -woody) plants. regaMleeS
tt
/91 =Tera Cover
of and. and xvcay plums less (ban 3.28 it hall.
so%atolal cora: 31.5 20%alalalcowr
w
VI (P tsze: ISr )
woody vire - All woody vines yealre than 3.26flin
I,late._s
zaG _LFes/L
hatiold
2.
3.
5
VmbPaw
Rev ? yM No
Z . Tall Cover
50%ollWl rover:
-
� 20%a Wel cora'
Remahs: (Imlum pleb numbwz M1er i Or a separate Wall
/on
14J,rY14 Vtj,4�+Inn
QNYS✓�y
US Army Carpis of Engineers Eastern Mountains all PIRIMMO l- Version 20

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe on dW dep4b newlM to dwumem meIMi"tw w warm into absence of kxfi M s.)
DepN Was RgdgxF
(Inclusl t Rxrni
'12-2 3 _ -----�
f
2 L— — lao�
rT C-Concewa n. D- cion. RM -Reduced Mavix, MS -Masked Sanxi Grai m. rLacallon: PL -Pore Ming. M-Mauix.
Hyd0c Soll InMCMors: IMicMors Re Problematic Hydric SPIIV;
_Histosol(A1) _Darx SWaw 15]) _ 2 cm Muck(Al 0) WLRA 14])
_HW Epipsion IQ) _PxAtnnW0 R¢Iow SWatt(SO) WLRA 14],148) _ Coast Fralrie Reaox(A16)
_ Mttk Hlslk (A3O _ Thin Dant Sutlece (59) (MCRA 10,1431 (MLRA 10,140)
_ Hydrogen Sunni (A4) _ Loamy GieyW Maoix(F2) _ Ple0nwnl Flooc Paln SeiI5(F19)
_ Sushi I yors (AS) _ DepIHM WWx (F2) (MCRA 186,141)
_ 2 cm Murk WO1(LRR NO _ RMox Dark SURace(FB) _ Very SWIM Dmk Suffice (TTI 2)
_ WiRtMecl Delm Dark SWace(All) _ O Oetetl Dark Ounce (F7) Mor (Explain In Remarks)
_ Tack Dark Surface (Al2) _ Rwox Depressions (FB)
_ SaWy Mucky Mutt (SI)(LRR N, _ Oon.Manganese Masses(F12) ILRR N,
1111O. 14M MLRA 186)
_ 58My G1oyM WON (Off _ Umbric SWass(FI e)WI-RA 136,122) 'Intlkalws of hydropnytic vegetation ant
_ SaNy RMox (SS) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils IF 19) (MLRA 148) vvebaN ntplmltgy must be pr s t.
_ Sbipw MaOIx (SO) _ Re! Parent Matwial (F21) (MLRA 12],141) unless Elsoube i or prohhur ti .
Resdiclive Layx (if oMbKtl):
Typo'.
Depth llncNes): Hydric Shc%eseni: Yes_ No_X_
Remerk5:
uyk SOJ P�
US"crops d Engineers Eastern Mountains ant Piewwnt- Verson 2.0

pp WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
PrcieNSXe: Uxawa S.Yasarlf ChylCowty: Cw(1Q Sampling Uate: 3 2 !Y
AppllwnuQmtt: R.� F stale: /Or Sampling Form 5
ImrestlgaKK(s)', C ,, Stal Township. Range:
Lantlrdm(nnislope, ler Si er) F_Lrcd reran (mrcave. mrwex, rcrel: �G slope(%I: '•
SUbm"M(LRR Or MLRA):I00'-ML lel: 3G.?YGYt ling:-'�4. �Y�-e(3 Damen: 41.4083
SUIT Map Unit Name: �Juu I Ici NWIGa5aR4ati0n:
Are climdk I hydroeglc computers on the see typical for or tlme r!
d year?
NNo_(X rR, explain In Remarks.)
e VeXetNm
Jy so rsy,w H}Hnobgy_sgnlhcarmytllsWnbWT wo—
ke Vegeta4on� Soil . or Hydrology _ naturally pnodenfil (il nom W. explain any measure in RemeMs.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, importers feaWres, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No_ Is Ne samPleO Anna
Hydhc Soil Pressen? Yes No wilhina Weband? Yes No_
WNIeM Hydri Present? Yes _ Ho_
Marna : p�„��rr((�� cet.s hnK/ wcuea in �f a ct t^ Ai p�Q 6.:tc 14w 0�-• In
w4c'4Jtasx., I..,.0 So:l 5'Qiac j... -c A,,%e /WK. .
HYDROLOGY
weNeM RylCology ltMledtors:
Secorlaary Indicators minimum d l+o reouirch
Ri In mumd 4
llffivi
_Sol Sol Gai(66)
Surface Warer(Al)
_ Two Aquatic P13M(814)
_Sparsely VegNaled Concave 5urfece(08)
High Water Table (i
_ Hydrogen Suede Color (01)
_ Ralne,le Parnme(61U)
_Sheraton Vial
OxdlzW RblzoslMenes on Living Roots 103)
_ Mosslbm LMee(m6)
_Water Mi tell
_ ProSouto M Reamed Iron (C4)
_ DrySeasM Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits m2)
_ Recent Iran RMlYlpn In Thine Sols ICY)
_ Crayfish summers (CM
_ PIX Deposits U33)
_ Thin Muds SudiJCel
_ SMuramon Visible on Aerial lmagery(CM
_ Algal Mal or Crust (84)
_ War (Explain in Remm4s)
_ Stunted or Stresece Plants (Dtl
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic PmWm (D2)
_ InuMadon Vi9hle on Aerial lmagmy UP)
_ Shallow kimpeM(03)
WaterStairled Leaves (Be)
_ MipgoygrafAK Rellef(Di
_ Agralk Fauna (61;)
_ FAGNeabal ll" (D5)
Field DaserveBans:
sari Water Present? Yes )e
1
(intoes):
Water Table Present? Yes
Depor inches!:.
-)�-No
_
Sahudbn Present? Yes_ Ni
Delpffifinchei
We1Nrp Hydrdagy Present? Yes Na_
(Includes cafl fiffinfirel
Describe RecadeG Data Weam gauge, mordlomg wrap, aerial photos, previous inspaztong.a available'.
Remain
IV,V,J
US"Corps of Engineers Easluen Mountains and Pietlmmt-Version 20

3V(
Absolute Cominanl Indkamr
OantlnanceTMtwaksbesU
8
Tree Samoa(Fld sire: )
%ty$�1�
Norther of oomtnam Spades
MubOv oe
1.
�Yl
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
IAI
2. LYiir/ �... %. 0:
12 FAC
(Pat 4ffi' 3Ur 1
FACWspee@s
3. LV /&lar^
Al FA<
TINartumbmd Wmirent
FAC species
mu3
2
Spedei AGO55 All StraW
(8)
a
3. )1+$A
P¢mml dNmired Speci¢s
y
� 3
5_
4. L
nanx L_ _pL
CoIlmn Teals:
Thzl Are OBL. FACW, a FAC:
0 (aO)
VydmpOonO
-Trial Cover snippet? Yes No
5B% Of total cover:
BS Army Carps 0 Etyneens ESAItt Mountains and PaamOm-Verson 20
_ 1 Rand Test for Hytlmphyllc Vegelalpn
8
Cover
Toal%Covin Of,
MubOv oe
_ 3 N¢vHlerce IMG Is 53.0
Vn e��•Total
5mofltleloaver:_ 2O%dmialcOvee li
OBLsi les
x1=
SadI1WSMub Saalum
(Pat 4ffi' 3Ur 1
FACWspee@s
x2=
1.
[",1�
2 O Y FA
FAC species
as.
2
FA
FACU Species
x4=
3. )1+$A
(4: m 20 6/1(_U
�t
UPLspede5
x5=
4. L
nanx L_ _pL
CoIlmn Teals:
(A) (B)
5. � iivn
SFA �C-
i��-, zr't r �'T`
Man 31n. OBH and greater than M "vat to 3.20 it (1
in)[all,
Herb - All herbaceous (Mrvwaady) plains, regemless
1O.
11.
Prevaleae Index =
BOA .
VydmpOonO
-Trial Cover snippet? Yes No
5B% Of total cover:
BS Army Carps 0 Etyneens ESAItt Mountains and PaamOm-Verson 20
_ 1 Rand Test for Hytlmphyllc Vegelalpn
8
392 -parameter Test is v3O%
_ 3 N¢vHlerce IMG Is 53.0
TddI COUB!
50%dmWlcove: 2��2O%dleal cover: 11.4
— 4+ MoryhdOgical AdalxdfpMl(provide supfo n]
HerbSaalum(PId
�i 1
data In Remands orona s¢parel¢shcetl
1.
N
Axa Mr.(A4,L 3VU _ FACU
(A 4,
— PmblemaM Hy6-ophytic Vagatahwi (Explain)
4ndicatds lic of hysat and webano hytlrdw]y must
be present. unless tlrstured or problm
eatic.
�nlliona of Foe Vegetation Shale:
Tres- Venal plants, excluding vines, 31n. p.6 cm) or
more In dlamMtt at breast hegM(OBH), regamlessd
FA x:
J.�d..'�'I'S.S Gf)<..r:1 _FACU
4' Li 5 2e FAC
.w.�N.. t'
5. L1o•a n.2 rc� (0 FAC
6
—
).
nnght.
B'
SapIIngtSMub- Woody Hants, exctudiM vines. l¢SS
9.
Man 31n. OBH and greater than M "vat to 3.20 it (1
in)[all,
Herb - All herbaceous (Mrvwaady) plains, regemless
1O.
11.
QV
-TGeICWer
of safe. and wigtly plants less than 3 N R hill.
5M d W WI cmw: 'Ai N1%d trial [ovM:A
W
VI t m (Plot size: I$ )
Woody land -Nl Woody vires greater Man 3.28flin
1
�` :I
M
ximI
_
u I /L
z. snis��� � .V
VydmpOonO
-Trial Cover snippet? Yes No
5B% Of total cover:
BS Army Carps 0 Etyneens ESAItt Mountains and PaamOm-Verson 20

r
Depth Matrix 89926 [pall
1�rc11M1 �_ fnW (frp1511 �- Jyplp 1grTereus Remarks
4&l?6
I, C AA S:ILvlv&n
_ Hisseed(Al)
_ HINIc EPIpeclon (A2)
_ BIBCk HISM M3)
_ Hyq'IXJm SuIFEa M4)
_ St arrew Layers (AS)
_ 2 can Muck (A10) (RR N)
_ Depteled Wake Dark Surfaes 011)
_ Ilk" Dark Swfa:e M12)
_ Sandy Musky Mineral (S1)(LRR N,
MLRA 14].146)
_ Sandy Gleyee Maulx(S4)
_ Sandy Radius (55)
Smored Matrix (56)
Type:
_ Dark Surface W)
_ Polyvalua Blow Surface (50) (MLRA 141,146)
_ lNn Dark Surface (Sera MLRA 14].146)
Loamy Gleyed MWIX (F2)
,— Deperee Movlx (F3)
_ Index Dark Surface (F6)
_ BegeMO Bark Surface (F2)
_ Radek Depres9ms (Fal
_ Iren-Manganese Maws (F12) (RR N,
MLRA 116)
_ Dream Solace (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
Reamer Froodplam Sons (F19) VALRA H6)
Ren Parent Ma@tlal 0F2111MLRA 12],143)
41IL-� soil rs$'j
_ 2 cm Muck (AID) MLRA 141)
_ Coad Rattle Redox (Alfie
(MLRA 147.14W
_ Remark Flro]plam Sons D`19)
(MLRA 136,14))
_ Very Snalem Dark Surface (TF1 2)
o0er (Exgaln In Remarks)
'adiMaM d hydmphyac vegame nand
wetland by Me9y must M present.
NO_
US Army Carys of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 20

d WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pmfetisae: 119 SWnwI�T Cilylfaunly: ercil4"Q Sampling Date: S2 /
ApprcanVDwne.vw Foma..1� AMe:� Samplirg Poinl:�
Imeallgalwlsl: I' S¢C6on. Township, Race e:
u4Lwrwfam tM1asbpe, terrace, e�k.l—: 1 } / "� Local teller (wmave. convex. tree): ' ' (! slope C»): --LZ
Suipegkin(IRRarral P—Isv� lar 3L. 2411 '33 Long: .-44-�L3
$Oil MaPUMINaM 401 Illl000 � NWl ebssifKaion: NMS
Ara chimeric l M1}tlroM
Ic cohip4 on the site typical for nils Manor da(l yeYes Na Of w. eelIn RemaMJ
s \/
Ara Vegam`hon 3< SW_ra HydMlIXJy_sgNll nUy0151 d? Wo 'Notional CawmSlanoW present? Yes ^ No
Me Vegetation. SO—, d HYalell_n rally POOlemal (Il needed, explain any answds in Rearl
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Aral SIM map SNOWIng Sampling point IOCaDOns, tram eells, Important fiNm wSS, MC
Hytlmphyd: Vegettllon PfesWP
Hands Soil Present7
Yes_
Yes_
No
NO
Is the Sampled Mea
check all
_ SUNece Soil cess (96)
_ sullace Water (All
wIIXIna WeuaM? Yes_ No—y—
Wetiand Hydrology Present?
Yes_
No
_ Draknow Paitans (BID)
Remi N,qqq(((1r�r�` 42N se eMi
t<a,S2
�(
4p ry Anf4
'lsl
FnF 6414 IDD �.
(I O
_ presence Or Reduced Iran (C4)
_ Dy Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Dred SRI (('b)
HYDROLOGY
Wwdand Hydrology lndkalors:
$xuYlxV
lmlkaarc lminlmum Oltwn renrdrtdl
Priall Indicates krinothurn of one Is reartuareal
check all
_ SUNece Soil cess (96)
_ sullace Water (All
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vaetated Concave Sudece(881
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen SuIfW¢ Oft (Ci)
_ Draknow Paitans (BID)
_ Saturation (M)
_ Oxidized RNmspM1aes an pving Rods (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
_Water Marks On)
_ presence Or Reduced Iran (C4)
_ Dy Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Dred SRI (('b)
_ Cral P naves (18)
_ Drift Depoors(83)
_ Thin Muck surface (C7)
_ Sawraln Vislde On AMlal lmdgery(Cal
_ All Mat Or Oust 184)
_ Other (Explain n Remarks)
_ Senator or Stressed Plants(D1)
_ lion Dep yeas (85)
_ GewmpM1k Pos don (D2)
_ InvgaWn Visible on Aerial Imagery (W)
_ Stlalbw Aquila d (D3)
_ Water Srskwd Leaves (89)
_ MlcMopographr: Rei (Dal
_ Aquatk Feame On 3)
_ FACMHNeI That (DS)
Fred Oblsarvalbns:
Series Water Presual Yes_
No_ Wgh(arlws):_
Water Table Present? Yes_
NO_ Depth hnaltes):_
Severance Present? Yes_
Me_Degn (xr[ICs):
wdlartl HydrolOyy PreB¢nl? Van Nei
iMlad¢S l hi ¢
OescdM Recorded Data (sVeem getge, monXglrg well, serial pMtOs, pevpus InspectiMa). If aversion:
Remarks:
NO IN^l/�Y�.,S ai
yaYAvb pNK,.n W1,Q
US Mmy6mpsd Englneam EaMem Mountains mer Pledmore—Varslon ZD

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names o/ plants. Sampling Paint:—Jk--
�
Absolute D imnt lwomor
D mnwTe waYB :
Tree
1.
J (pas size: )
%
u Lfr M� n•u
SrrI,L�SLL'S
?V � �
NumbermDanired Speaes
Thal Are OR, FACW, or FAG: ` (A)
TMI NumMY or OontlneM
Speox Acrou All5Vel9: (a)
Peroinf Dommard p
2 Clue 1L;
15- -Ac
3. _S _aL 3FAC
4. J— FAC
5_
lba1 NP 08L FACW.or FAG: ]3 (NB)
Iran Oft. or Ffi
6.
2.
_
PrevNentt IllOex wakSMd:
TOW %Cover Of Ithe v:
5� Twocover
50%WWRICIA r.
T 20%oftowcover: 10
OR socias xt-
Sadlml5Mub5haWm
(Put slte: '30r 1
WW sperceS x3•
1.
Sv ILvu 1 Ul rarnitrp
,,/
(O L _ FA(4)
FAC specie X3-
3 -
FACU speres x4.
UPI -species x5•
Column Totals: (A) (W
Prevalence Index • WA -
2
2CuLcT G� 46.rP _� 1V EAC
3
4
5'
6
Hydrophydceget n
V IMlcelws:
3'
_ 1 - Roper Test as HydropbyM Vegardson
2. Dominance Text is 50%
e'
PrevalemeIndex Is QnW
sms oHasl cover: 7.Z
IZ_=TMICover
zossdtaalmvee 7
_3
4 MotphobgiralMntaWns'(PForidew ning
Herb
Soanun (pI0151se: Lir )
data In RemeIXSumaseparate 51ee)
pa
fg_
_Problenwfc Hydrephytk VAMMWWr(Explalm
'IMIGatMS
~
2.l L r —� is c
3
f1 e (��� " L
,1,
M hark sall am wetland hydrology Mat
—f�=a-'-.=
—/_—�
M pRseM unless 0is11Y0e00r problematic.
4'
C^^rc
—N rA=
Definitions of Four Veeeb4on SUMb
Tree - WOWyer at(I)iln.(J6an)a
tbeast room
In diameter at breast nNgM (OBH), regardless of
5. z icon J_ FA«
6, (/ so rr
e Al i y
). I/iity/ob... {a lam rrnG�L
L/Li��
Al 67 (
W
Manl33in. D ll and 9greaterlMan or Nor 3^28110115
10.
no on.
Poeb -AII hMecews mon-mawdy) plants, regardless
ofsore. and woody plants less Nan 3.28 R tall.
t1
2b =inial Cove(
50'MMldelcover:)_((L 2n'MMldelcaver:_y_
I S
Woody AM- All tAxAy Amus greats Stan 338 If 1n
Wadv
VlM KK
Stratum (Pdze:
1.
2.
_
3.
4.
HydmPbynic
5.
VegN n
Present? YM_ No -K-
_•Team Cover
50% of total cover:
20%d raal coves
Reawhs: (IMude pbom numbers bare or on a saloons
sleet.
US Army Caps of EngYlw¢ Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: I ?
ProRlacesalglon: (De¢o1MwIMOeI%I: rreaEeEw Eolwn¢n1 NelMicalororcoMlmr Ne abserrce ollMkatorsJ
Depth MnVix
RMox Flail
ancient Cotf (rndst) %
=ta Remalk5
�-S
Jrry
8_12zta 1_/A:1S 1�a]�A
'T : C=CorcerdAbn. D=De W-Pulcuced Matrix. MS-Maske6 Sand Grains 'tocarkn: PI. -Pore lining. M=Mat::.
Hydric Seat lcalars:
IMkMors for ProMemaHc Maine Scale':
HeRsol(All
_DarkSWacef57) _ 2 cm Muck (AIM(MLRA 147)
_ HISUC EpPflYoo (A2)
_ Vgyualue Below Surface (S0) NLRA 147,10) _ Coast Bailie Redox (A16)
_ Black Hia1K (A3)
_ Train Dark Surface (59) (ALBA 147,14M VALRA 147.148)
_ Hydrogen Suede (A4)
_ Loamy Gleye0 M3tx(F2) _ Plearnont Flm]plain Sph(Flat
_ MmUl d Layers (A5)
_ DepIMM Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136,147)
_ 2 on MUCK (AIM (ERR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (FM _ Very SMllmv Dark Surface IT `12)
_Ell Belov, Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ DeplHed Dark Surface (F7) _ OMer(ExplMn In Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Re lox Depressions (FM
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) (ERR N,
_ ImirManganese Masses (F1 2) (ERR N,
MLRA 147, 1KI
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gkyed Mavlx(Sal
_ Umdic Sunkist) (F13)(MLRA 136, 113) 'IrMkalms d byCrophyLc vagewBon and
_Sandy ReNx(SM
_ RetlmaM FlWlplaln SsIS(F1M(MLRA 148) wellan:l hydrology must be present.
_ 5bippeol Mall (SM
_ RW Parent Material (F21)(MENA 127.147) unless alswrbsl or Problematic.
R¢ebILYiV¢Layef (If a65¢fsEtll:
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydne Sell Present? Yes— No
Remarks:/
'
eJ
US Army Caps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Pieamonl- Version 20

{{�� WETLANDC DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
NgeNSile: L1mA.. SrnM.s^ I Citydcwnry: G i 1 b -p sampling Dale: /Z
AppllcartowmiF. Bd fk_ State: re Sampling Prier
Invesagator(sl: su,u* SBMw Towtrsnp Fargo:
Landorm (hgslWe, bemace. INC.): xrr ` taavellerlwncdve. wrwex. wnel:� . ✓a( supe(%):
Subregion p -RR or MI-RA):p.
RA): PN - I3� La036.21127Le
041 g: '3 t'i BI Datum: N/1og]
Shc Map Unit Name: dro NWl dassileeaon: —
AredlmakClbydMk91CCOMNOaWNa Wetypiwl(MMISU edYNr YesX No Him, "plain In liemarks.)
Are Vegadaw Soil[.eMydrobgy_sgrkgwmly OlsturoM? Are Normal Chwmstances' present? YesNo
Are VegebponSoil_. or Hydrobgy_ nawrally pdNemate? Ill newee. explain any answers in Remains.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects. Important features, el
HyEropllytic Implement Presents
Hytlnc Sol Resent?
WeLLSM Hydrology Presets?
Yea_ m� No n (Y✓'wd
Yes y ab
YaI'b
IS VI¢Sein Ise Area
WUdr: Watson? Yes Na_
Re�.myarks:
-Ail Aro h1�
d.]h�.W. ,arll'tF+,.a' (e'ss�.tR✓A.yir
_ Tee Aqual[PlamslBlQ
IA</J(l. a/r/LY,
UU✓�'6rk
Iabk.v.Th+�
r^""_!^y'P'1°6vl000a� ra.�,
o{' sPo.,x� 6,� n.r'%'.,.(4 .'{
r...r,GQ
/Q ,,
c.,:.l� 4.e(w.(�
r wr,g NJ in 4
a aauXY .ani i�
iJ ZIYn; n
M k .dale d
^ar
HYDROLOGY
_ Rayfdn Famines (CB)
_Pia Deparel(83)
_ Thin Muck Surface (M)
_ Saturation Viable on Aerial lmag (CA)
wNbM Hydrology IntllWlars:
Seemly IMIC. IMnirmrm of No reouirMl
Frim
_ Swrace Soil Cracks (86)
�66 Surface Waler(AH
_ Tee Aqual[PlamslBlQ
_ Sparsely Vepowed Concave Senate UM)
y High Water Table(A2)
_ Hydrogen SuMltle Ww lCH
_ Drai age Panems(B10)
Saturation M)
_ Oxidized RHzoNmeres on living posts (C3)
_ Moss Ton Loos (1316)
_ Wale Marks (B)
_ Presence of RMucM low (GI
_ Dry Season Wood Table (C2)
_ Sediment De slurs (B2)
_ Focht lion Reduction In Tilled Shcs (raid
_ Rayfdn Famines (CB)
_Pia Deparel(83)
_ Thin Muck Surface (M)
_ Saturation Viable on Aerial lmag (CA)
_Mail Mat or Nt UIH)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stumed or Stressed Plants tell
_ Iron Deposits (115)
�5 Geumaglk Poseen (D2)
_ Inundation Viable on Aerial
Imagery (BH
_ Shadow Aptull (W)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (Be)
_ Mlcmrolog aphlc Roller (Dat)
Aquatic Fauna(613)
_ FAC�NeWal Tab D51
Field observations
surlacewaterRaem?
j
Yes No_ Depth(inChroo y
Water Table Resent?
Yes No_ Depth pnChEs): 8r'
Saturation Nater?!
Ya_ No_ Depth (inches):
WedmrO
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillart Nobel
DaGlce Ratomed Data (modem S3age. ngRlIXingwill, aerlal Names. pevbus Inspecdand, if avaiddic
Mora :
arlx
m.✓[`{y�[ $Vs �b �: ffzMn[Jsi"'Wit
Nerror-ph2 O�a�J 0� 3
ILM'rW5
/
zot fzcja 3
0-c tiy� G� PAe.
DS Army Corps IX ElgmMus Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0
I AA

VEGEfA7tON (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Poim:
_ 1 . Repb Test Nov HydWOpnYX Vaginalbn
_ 2. 1%mirst Tag Is .50%
3- Provalencelorexil
_4. Morphological Paapial'ams'(Provbe suppmllrg
data In Remart or m a separale sMel)
Yj Problematic Hydropny4a Vaiena n(Explain)
'lintatMs of hydric soil and warrant frailmust
be prasenlr ands resumed Or Exponent
8"
Re.S.Vdalm (MM Mze 3J2 )
Absolute Dominant lndenalar
%Cover soeNesa surLi
oomYmu TCAWak :
rvl.nlrera oominan spades
O
f�n—� �
AlJF ^G
T Jx ^
Thal Are Ol FACW. or FAC:
(A)
2'
Towl Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Suala:
I
(BI
of DDminam Star
TM1dI Ar¢OBL FACW, FA Or FAC:
mat Are
Q�J
(P/B)
5
6.
T
Presidential Index wakalc¢I:
Total %CoverW fall
by:
_-Tont CaVM
Sm6 of MMI Covet
26%a Wal wvec
DBL spades Mle
SaraindSM1rub Suamm (Plot are 3Ur 1
FACWsp s x2.�
I JKnl
FAC species x3-
FACD speaks x4--
4-3 UPL spaces x5-
Cdumn Totes: (A)
(B)
2
3
4
I Prevalence Index - WA -
a
—
_ 1 . Repb Test Nov HydWOpnYX Vaginalbn
_ 2. 1%mirst Tag Is .50%
3- Provalencelorexil
_4. Morphological Paapial'ams'(Provbe suppmllrg
data In Remart or m a separale sMel)
Yj Problematic Hydropny4a Vaiena n(Explain)
'lintatMs of hydric soil and warrant frailmust
be prasenlr ands resumed Or Exponent
8"
_-Told Cover
smaboic r:_ 20% Of Mal draw
IPbt ivAlim A, Iva 7 /J i YJWU
z. ' ' S �1L CU
3. r.5 2S �
w/ !l
4�rm�ti3 v.i�.. Sul
'Sy
f�n—� �
AlJF ^G
De0talbns a Four VegNaron strap:
/' � -Tort Cover
50%Of IgaICOVH: 20 Od lawn'' 26
WOpay VMO$"win (PM side: IS r 1
2.
4.
matmil :
Ai3 Area- 1 t V AS
A/42'�'P% 1�//3�� tann
Thal Cove
20?6dlMalcover
Tree- Woody plants, anal vll 3 in. (3.6 an) m
more In diameter at Mal nelgft (O6H1, "unlessd
haght
Saging6brYo- Woody plants, extloal" vines, less
Nan 3 in. DBH dna greater Man Or equal to 3.2811(1
ml tall.
tkrb- All bcbaceous prion—will pants, rtgardless
of sloe, and lwody plans less than 3.208 tall.
Monday Nrp-AII Whey vines greater Ilan 3.20 If In
SPL Ri✓ 1, U,
Hydrae ytb
VegMa0on
Present? yes_ all
P�ysull� AI �� Ih a�. .14 La s
�.,QJtr✓,.!P 4 �' IY. � a1T�a�`21` , y'*I
Us Army Call Engineers Eastern Mountains am Pledmonl- Version 20

(j)
SOIL
sampling Point: 7
Prpnm cescripuon: (Desaicew medepq needeawaonmem melmluwraunnrm uN ebserxrlMlumrs.)
Depth Manx Redox Eaai
frecides) Cdw lmdctl �p^_ �_ Tvarl Lir Remarks
?5" D 32 &,= 5 G CM
3-2LU 6( '4,, 6 204/. C ,A l
65 faL
0_2'2 a 9 2 46 2 _
2-(Zy4 r/l 9Q :Fit, 60 (Uf 0 Ll cc (ol4..i.
A.� SYp .s �L 20U' CJS
'T : C•CorcCrmajor. D• RM.RMuCM Mery MS.MaskM San Gralre. ko ation: PLArce Unind, M.Mawx.
Hydric SOII IndlcalIXS: Reheated; her ProMsswum: Hydric Sails':
_ Hl9osd (An _ Dark Surtace (S]) _ 2 can Muck (A10) (MLRR 10)
_ Hotic EPipedan (A2) _ PMyvalue BeWx Sudaed (SB) (61LRA 142,148) _ Cowl Route RctlOM (At 6)
_Black hold (A3) _Thin Dmk Surface ISO)(MLRA 142,148) (MLRA 147,14B)
_ Hydrogen Senate (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Who (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Flat
_ Sneaked Layers (A5) Depklnd Mark (F3) (MLRA IN, 142)
_ 2 am Muck (And (LRR Fly _ Retlok Dark Surface (F6) _ Very SbaIIOW Dark Surfaced (TFl2)
_ Deleted Below Dark Succeed (At l) _ Deluded Dark Surface( F2) _ ONer(Exlpaln In Remarks)
_ Thick Dad Suatace (Al 2) _ Rocket Depressions (FB)
_ Sandy Mucky Mlneral(S1)(MR N, _ Inn Manganese Masses;(F12) 0.RR N.
MLRA 142,148) BORA 136)
_ Sandy GleyV Morris (S4) _ WrBdc Sumner F43) D.1LRA 138, 122) 'IMkabrs at bytlmphylk vegentm and
_ Sandy Redox M) _ Piedmont Floodplain Sets (F19)OMMA 149) wcdand hydrology must be present.
stow Matim(so) Red Parent Manuel (F21) RILRA 122,142) unless dieurEw m pwblacki
neablaNve (syer Oramerkee):
Type:
Depth ancrods):
Hydric Soll Presser? yes NR
Remarks:
"yW'4� Soi� �N.Gr+r.4 Yom,
p
r/`sn./JJ.;2(1)n e•� So/(�
/4C
�[� ( ll.Srl/Od✓(y.�7 Vr'I�. �j �B✓�K�IR (Z BY�rt
o�/` 1/+tJ
r-8 r�-odew aVd�lurn�� Ua aUI
1y_ o�.��'(/(+%s
Ari �4r�� v%Xn q�n.� Gl Ctc/v�nt/�.r, .v7`( tf) �/
/ex.
n
-Ie � L. 3 (c-k1•rrd////DBJ[ / Sohnr Zif ((eF1 Otnce.N fLS G,t�J'
aS V -r• +/i k,`i 4%A44 iW'pacT/ AidVy�e�(tI
US Army Carps of Engineers
Easlem Mountains ant Piedmom- Versed 2.0

jA INETLANDCcDETERMINATION DATA FORM - Easte n/Mour/d1ain^s and Piedmont Region
powe�511e: ty/D A Jwnvn:� C'dAouny: 6..;Qje Samplllgnale: .3/2 /
Applicanu6mlel:®a�L'. F�. Sure: NC Sormi Plnl: 8
Invesdomar(six S lv Secllm, Township. Reopen
Landerm(nlllslope. tenant, ei V 4" 4uvi Local relkf(mrceve, borer, mm): ^ slope(%/)�:�
5rtlreglon(LRR a Mito - 136 LeLee7G. Q'(1$D$ Long: -iT. IY B�r}'Z Datum: N,4n93
Sou Marc Una Nome: Co/J yi toe... NWldassincation:
me climaticI hyerchi Gxgagm an the she weal for me time d yeso Yes No_(if no. explain M Remgks.)
AneVe9elalbn )x- Sol 3k- WHyamlpJy_slgMmantlydrItuNLd? Are-NOmHIClrcueememes'yeses? Yes X NO_
Are Vegetation. Shc � or Hydralepy_ peri problems? (If nei creep ehy pri in ReMy S-)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach see map shoving sampling point locations, transects, ImpoNem features, etc
Hytlmphytk Vegetation Present( Yes Ni is Ne sampler] Area
leak Soil Presets? Yes opi within a Warfare? Yasi Ni
Wmam Hydrology Pmaenn Yes -Ir Ni
Rmnalks:
�'qw Aausx 6 oven As4v, Vrr f;" OE'd sa;t
#0
VVµ. qct 2 ttyl.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
ndFwmrs(remember W two revuirM
PrImi Indicators (improve of one 15 ramune_
Surface soil Cracks(e6)
X SWare Water(At)
_Tme Ali planes (814)
_ Sparsely Vegetatetl Concave Surface(66)
High Water Table Ai
_ HyJm]e15ulA0e Wor (C1)
_ Drainage Patlems (6101
y� Sorrell (A3)
_ Orid em R zospheres on Ui Ross (C3)
_ New The Lines (816)
_Water MaAs(81)
_ Preserve of R0i Iron (C4)
_ Dry-Serson Wafer Table(G0)
_ Sediment Depovts(52)
_Recent Ii Fxxdtbonin Tlllal Solls(C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows DO)
_ Drift Deposits all
_ Thin Muck Sulface(C7)
_ Salvation Vi4ble on Aerial lmagey(Call
Ai Mal or Crust (Bd)
_ Other (Explam in Remarks)
_ Slurred or SVessed Plants (m)
_ Iron Deposits 0051
_ Geomorphic Position (D0)
_ muneatlon Visible on Aerial prepay (W)
_ Shallow AqulmN (03)
_ Wader Soared Leaves pee
_ Mlcraupaglaphk Relief (Di
_ Aquatic Fauns (BI 3)
_ FAC -Neoral Test ms)
Field Observations:
1�2a
Sudece Water Present? Yes W_Degh(h
mm
`�"
Water Table Present? Yes No_Oapth(M
xxo
Satlraon Present" Yes �'_ N0_13epih(lmhes):
Qlr
Weiland Hydrdogy Presets? Yes Nal
McNees Caliallary ori
Desaibe RAssone Data (S1re0m gatge. prom sing wall, form pMNS peavioas inspections). If avallabw
Remands: ���
We�`Y
n'�+w�
�
US Army Corys of Ergineas Eastern Mountains and Pledrtpm- Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four SVata)- Use scientific names of playas. Sampling Patna 8
1.
2.
IPIa e: Sot )
um
, 3t,
Ansel comment Monomer
%eme_r Sn€sic2 Stowe
c(!JA )yFA
FAC
nelwa
consomme Ted wal:
Founder of Dominant Spades
Thai &a OR, FACW to FAC: (A)
Total NumEN Nnlam
or On
species Across at seam: (e)
Pointed of R, FACv sp¢d¢s /� A/
Thai Ne
Th31Me DBL. FACW,a FAC: (P/B)
J. Uw.✓c tb6eA �_ N rnC
4. 1�i� Aor F&
5--&1i
fi.
T.
_
Nevalellp IMev waksMN:
M:
1- -T•ddl CcvN
Total %Cover M: mmiav
sD%dldalwver.
Yb 20%dwidoneer. Iu.Y
09L sWies at-
1.
li n m(Pb ske: $Oy
1 /^ J
�y I� ()�
FACW species x2-
FAC sposes; X3
2
K15As'�>
_� V Fg(j
FALU seveles x<.
UPL species x5.
Cal Tdab: (A) (e)
Prevaleme Index • arA =
3. IV FAC
A
5
6.
J"
—
XYOloplrytic VegeeWnlMlcalws:
_ 1 -good Test For Hydmpaym Vegaa9m
�[ 2.Oaminance Test Is 60%
— —
a'
9.
—3- PorpholNalM x is dapati0'
— a"Maphobgiral AtlaPmtb^s'(Prwitle supwnlrg
data In Remaks or ante shoo
agepaa
—�oelemanc Hytlrapnrib Vegetational' (Explain)
tosd0Will methanol hydrologymuss
Wpretunless distorted or natic.
i0 -Taal CavaL�
Sa%Mlgel cgvm _(� 2a%Nel9lmenar:�l_
H�jf1 j(tg�f (Pot size: LS )
$O lo� A4
LIC
3 fffAc
a((!
Tr
L
Definitions WI'vowlegalaon Strae:
5.
k
ttee- Woody Wants, oexdWlightvines, 3 OR).In.
reg].5c11U or
more M OIBmNer 91 N¢aN height OR). Irya101ess of
6. .St ty —U
T
hdgnt.
9.
Mapll3In. DMH and gptly slams.W NMIga,28 A (1
N)hall. DMH and grealN Nan WfV'WItO 12a f111
9
10.
ml tall.
Herb - An nerOacems Mon-wNy) AWK regalmess
of Ane and woocy plants have Nan 320 X oil.
11.
. Taal Cover
so%d Nml covN:3� m%dNml cover. I�-2
Woody
Von Sheldon (Pan size: IS' I
ho_ptly Nne-All vKMYVNM 4eMN Nm J2enln
llill-
1.
2.
3.
A.
Hydron
5.
vegetation
Pr¢5¢nt? Ye; -X- NO
-TdBi CAVA
50%Oltaaionven
2MOnotalcover:
a separate sh)
Remarks: (Ir21u0e photo numbers here osheet
)A
A I4,p4L Vold /rJL Vol,
I -
PAej
US Army Caps 0 EegNeers Eamem Mountains and Pletlman- Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Pointe E
ProRle cescripEon: (DescrbetoNedepda neeaed to document BtelndicalorawnflmlUM absenw dlMira[as.l
MMM1 Mauix R i F I
IMCMs) %ms% Tvce
v S R S, 0,/C M
Remarks00=3'
rM,4 .F.,
Iayacll
1,ieA T& jaf c PL v14- �i„
�—YI 20 C M
s, 14 iii..,
Y : GCmcmeatern. D-Dt kwdn,
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS -Masked Sand Grains.
'Location: 131 -=Pore lining. M=Maaix.
Hydric Sent IrWutws:
Indicators for EmboldMed Mystic 5d15:
Insured! (All
_ Dark Surface(ST1
_ 2 cm Muck (AID)PLEA 147)
_ Hislk EpfEtlan (A2)
_ Polyualu s ReWw Strube (SI) R LRA 167,118)
_ Coast Praire Re]ox (At 6)
_Rack HisR IA31
_ Thin Dark Suraze(SE) IMLRA IIT. IbI
WLRA 147.168)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (M)
_ Loamy Retest Marx m2)
_Piedm2M FIOWpIaln Sollz (F19)
_ Retailed Layers (A51
2i Depleted Matrix IF3)
(MLRA 13%147)
_ 2 cm Muck (AID)(MR NI
_ Redox Dark Surae IES
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_ Depleted Eelam Derk Surface(All)
_ Departed Dark Surface (F7)
_ OMIN(Explain In Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Suface(At 2)
_ Redox Delxessions(FII
_ Randy Mucky Mineral (SI) (LRR N.
_ Irm Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N.
MLRA 16],168)
MLRA 136)
_ Randy Gleyed heads (Sl)
_ Dmbrk Surface (PI 3)(MLRA 130, 122)
'IMlcarors of nydmphy% veleMmn and
_Sandy Redox(S5)
_ Pledmwtt FlcMfYaln Sells (F19)WLRA 168) xMlaM tiydmlo3y must be present.
_ SdippN Mattik(S8)
_ Red Parent Mat&NI('211 MLRA 127.11])
unless dSWM-0 or moblematk.
Res1Y Lice layer (IlaMervM):
Type:
Depth brakes):
o _
Hydric StAI msemT yes No—
RemarkIs:
Remarks;
I {�,�
111Ar Soi,
,p
rSW�
us Army Caps afEtgmears
Eastern Naunlums and PieOmaa- Verson 2A

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
P JeNsde: ON Jrowl r� CIIYICouny, `� i(�•^�J Samplin90are: 'Sf?/
/IY
Appl'xsN/Ovmer' 1c f'Ir�t�CPn'.t� Slater samging PoidCC
Inves11ya1IX(5): (/ SIXtiOe, Township, Rage.
Landonn lninMope.lenaw. dc.): 4Z%ofP k.4,.. Lowleayq lwmave.cwvex,nwel: 4uma l stoke (x):
Su0regon(LRRd MLRA/:-t f- �jL Lek: 3G 240282 Logy: —11.'448329 U Dauer: NA�93
SdIM0p Un0N0lM: L0M/Jm[ lar w NOR classOcadOrc AP"�
Are climatic; hyOdoJK creditors on the Site Ip%al for Nrs lime of year? Yes �_ Nn_ (If W. explain In Remarks.)
ArevegefattonSalorHydrRlciy_synPxadlydistuhed? Are 'Normal Circumstances -present? Ye$-�- No_
Are Vermaten� Soles or Hyrim"_ naturally prelemnO (itneaded. explain any answers in Remarks)
HydopayM Vagelaron Presets Yes_ No k Isue setgled Aru
Hydric Soil Parent? Yes_ No leldrina Wetland? Yes_ No�
Wedand Hydrabgy Present? Yes_ No
ResnmOMs: /I� �p nn J v
DA' Jilu,, /Ivll's 444]1 'fol 4:1 R/laL Fv-�c �?xfr.Y- II^'pr art'". �x�La�rN S+'
L,I� Aa/ri P�"f c Festa !%Ales^ �: Is+ya 13 -IK I fNb'� Aper a;Z Cir,,A
M+ia T,4* Y AS yet G_'sro�•
HYDROLOGY
Weekend Hyd"M Indicates,
Secondary Indicators (minimum d two mnared
Fool norcushers finninkrurn of one Is restaract
COMall that WOWA
_ Surface soil Cracks RU)
_SWace Water(A11
_ nue Aquatic Rants (Bt al
_ sparsely Vegetable Concave Surface (M)
_ NVgN wow Table(A2)
_Hyd en SUIBde Odr(CU
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidised Ri imspMeshe UrvLy Reds (C3) _ Moss Trim Linn (B16)
_Wabe MOM (Irl)
_ Presence of Reduced rw(C4)
_ Xy -Season Wand Talks (C2)
_ Sediment Oeposts(52)
_ Recent lmn ReOutim N Tried Soils (CN _ Crayfish Burrows (CO)
_ Dd11Caretaker (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (CT)
_ Salvation Visible on Aerial lmag (C9)
Pkpl Mat IX Crust Ral)
_ either(ExpMm M Remarks)
_ SWded or Stressed Rams(m)
_ Iron reports; IBS)
_ Geomwpme Posltkn (D2)
_ InONation Visme on War rmagBry (113)
_ Shallow Aqumol (D3)
_ Wates-Sti fined Leaves (89)
_ Microtopographic Relief (Dal
_ Aquvco Fauas RR 3)
_ FAC-NeuIXdl Treat (a`)
FWW Observaauns:
Surface wow Present? Yes_ NO_Depll
(1r1Ca05):
WMn Tate Present? Ye_M-L:
.(I .MS):_
Swanson Prasem? Yes_ I b_
Oephoncha ):_
Welland NyIXdogy PresanlT Yea_ No�
Ma II M
DescnWriedRMIXtl61' o01B (sae0m Q0ug0, r110MWMg Wdl. d%nal pa0145. pRN0u51rI5p0WM5),IlavaII0M0:
Remarks:
US Army Cams 0 Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

VEGETATION (FODr Strata) - Use Scientific names of plants. Sampling Polm \
Us Amry Cords Engineers
30Y
AbsoluteMmininl IMiANr
DpnYNnCe Teat workSM1[d:
II�_$IFWti (Prot slier )
$Coyer Sperix`i Status
Nledwof(ominartspedes /rte
y
1.
Than Am OBL FACW. or FAC:(A)
2'
Trial Number WMnant
I
3.
Stories Acmes All Strad: (B)
e.
of ONndn S
pv0/
5.
Tlsat A2OBL W.o FACof FAC: (NB)
TIOA
2.
PrevaleMelMax WorbM1eta:
Taal%Coveral: Ni or,
=Trial Cover
5016 of Mal cover:
20% of Mal convai
OBL Species xl-
-_-___ m (PKK Size: 301 1
FACW spades x2--
'axl..o_
FAC steles x3.
FACU specks xd.
UPL spedd x5-
Colum Trials (A) (B)
p — — —
3.
4
5'
Prevalence Index = BtA -
6.
—
NyUroPOYpc Vegetation lMi[aaws:
_ 1 -Rape Tag 1a MytlropM1ytic Vegetation
a.
2 -Dominance Tea i:>50%
15530
=Total Cover
Mot
_3-PIQVdkMQI(IpQX
4- graphological Adeptandual(Proviide Supporting
5B%d 1=1toaster :_
Mal cover:_
Farb
Spotum(Plol yxe: (sr )
data in Remaropli e5eparad SMd)
1
ni
^a.
Q,sy (Y Ac
_RablMNic Hytlropbytic VegHatznl lExlNaln)
wl and avoiding ant
auness
3'
�L
beShoInstaals.rs �ym
o151uMtl or POblenlalkdnc
Al1GS=U
IMlnitions of Four Vegetation Shamir
S.
Trce - Wisely plant, excWtling vines. 3In. (].0 and of
Mae In dameter at MElsl height (Di tagardleasd
6,
1
height.
e.
53 htub- Wbesy e%lualtlt W0 less
g
Nanin. Call and greater than all equalb 3.20fl(I
M) tall,
tD,
11,
Rxb- Aft II¢bacamrs(rim-woody) Planes. ragardles5
-Tmel[wer
d5ire, ane wady plants less than 3.28 it hill.
so%artaaicover �_ 20%mtaal arer: 23.2
W[MvVIM
SpaNm (PKKSIEC I.r3 )
woody WM-Nl waesy vines Beater Man] 2811 in
he' ht
1.
2.
3.
a.
Hydrophytic
— —
5.
Vegetation
%esetrt' yes— No
_.Taal Cover
50%d Mdlcwx:
20%dlodlcwmr:
Remarks: photo twnbers here a on a separate shi�I
//ageless
IY�h`OP�y+IL JM
T fa
Us Amry Cords Engineers

Depth MCMV RaMV Feaueec
(iycheg %_ fNor Irroiul �' _ Twet 1g` re Remarks
O-1 0 2 K— s ilv tov. .
2_12" sYR 413 __aw
_ Higosol Q 1)
_ HI91c EpWon (A2(
_ Muck HISUC (A3)
_ H)dro9m Space (A )
_ SuaMlee Layer (As)
_ 2 an Muck (ATO) (LRR M
_ Detailed Below DOM Surface (All)
_ 1Mck DOM Surface (At 2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mimral (S1) (LRR N,
MI -RA 141,140)
_ Sandy Greyed Maalx(Sg
_ Sandy Redox (55)
Type:
_ Duck Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Su fma (SB) (MLRA 141,140)
_ Mn Dark Surface (59) (MLRA 10,148)
_ Loamy Gleyed MAIN (F2)
_ Deouled MCWk (F3)
_ ReEox DOM Surface (FB)
_ Depleted DOM Surface (F1)
_ Redox Depressors (F6)
_ Iro1MerlBenes¢ Masses (F12) (-RR M
MLRA 136)
_ DmMk Surface (F13) (MLRA 126,122)
_ Retlmanl HoWplain SONS (F19) (MLRA 140)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 121.141)
gyk soil ,164 FAe^
r_,
_ 2 cm Muck (AIO) RALRA 14))
_ COa51 Prove Rebs (At 6)
MORA 141, N6)
_ Rechnonl Flocx1plaln Stills (F19)
IMLRA 196,141)
_ Very Shelkw Dark Surface f1F12)
O ar(Explain in Remarks)
31Miotor5 of hydrophy1lc vegetation am
werlew hymolo3y mug be Fewne-
unless disturbed! Or Problematic.
xo-�C
USArmy CppSd Frgirleers Easrem Mountains a8) Piedmont - Verson 2.0

O Stream Form Locations _� N
Conservation Easement
Reach R1: 1,172 ft
Jurisdictional Streams Jurisdictional
Non -Jurisdictional Streams
Reach T1: 133 ft
Jurisdictional
Reach R2: 792 ft T1
Jurisdictional
Reach T2: 269 ft
T2� Jurisdictional
z_
k Reach R3: 1,461 ft
Jurisdictional
'r
Reach T3: 276 ft
Jurisdictional
M2
Reach R4: 1,182 ft
Reach R6: 633 ft Jurisdictional
Non -Jurisdictional
- Reach D1: 52 ft (stormwater drainage) �p
T6 Down M3 lower 10 ft Jurisdictional
T6 Up upper 42 ft Non -Jurisdictional
r`
15 „ Reach D2: 78 ft (stormwater drainage)
'L Non -Jurisdictional
Reach R5: 680 ft
Jurisdictional
h 9O °gByP E"°`"°"I"®' "` 0 250 500 1,000 Browns Summit Creek
i kv',4o Rpgw^cT Pmkwat
i }uAo {f94
■� , c.r,Na Cw.4�275113 Restoration Site
Pm—.. 919463. sash
`— 99a� Feet Stream Resources
16July 2014

USACE AID# DWQ# Site (indicate on attached map)
Stream: .:f- /14
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Odt P6t.4
Provide me following iinformation for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 'onl F 2. Evaluator's name: S Ef l`t
3. Date of evaluation'�4 IY 0. Time of evaluation: 2 pm
5.Name of stream: Qmo.ot Sumwa'4 "k GRivm basin -Cape FPTar
7.Appmximatedminagearei: 1204,5 (,Iqm;° &Stream order :nn /'L�
9. Length of reach evaluated: $!J f to. County: V..il/
Om
11. Site coordinates(iflmawn): prchrin decimal degree. 12. Subdivision name (if my)
: —
Unrnaelas.3e.e?2312): 36. 2343 8 1.anehudr¢x.-nsw6ill:-'�4-444a8f(
Method location detnmined(cimle): GPS Topo Sheet BELTJenol PhomlGt Other GIS Other
13. Location ofmach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying annuals) location):
14. Proposed channel work(if any): 3i red dwwR p..no .tea( (1 /
15. Recent weather mnddions: W4ic,M fry!' los /Os.. 4ir r zY 2 tort
16. Site conditions at time at visit n.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications nown: _Section 10 _Tidal Wagon _Essential Fisheries Habiml
_Trout Waten _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream ofthe evaluation point?(�NO if yes, estimate the water surface area: 254c.e {aowjoew
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (U35 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?,T %Residential ___% Commercial _%Industrial 6E01, Agricultural
_L0_% Foraged % Cleared /Logged oOther ( 1
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to tap of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of mum: Flat (0 m 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Modemtc (4 m 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _Stmight _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
Insurer, temsin, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic most he scored using the same ecnegion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ceoregion. 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 much under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scaring 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 scare of 100 representing a stream of the
highmi quality.
Total Score (from revere): 12's Comments
Evaluator's Signature AY' / _ Date JI Y
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used nvtronmenonly as a guide to sense landowners and etsl 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
festivals r mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441x26.
aker

TIP:
Stream:{ Rq2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �(A 2 W4 Na,a{
/
T iese characteristics are not aeses<ed in coastal streams.
Baker
ECOREGION
POINT
RA
A
CHARACTERISTICS -
-
Coastal
Piedmont
1401
I
Presence of flow / peesutent pools in strum
0-5
0-4
0-5
`I
_I
noflowormmrmion=Pshon Flow=max ints
2
Evidence of Part human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
te
exnsiveahemm
tion=0:no alteration=ux oinet
-
3
Riparian une
0-6
0-4
0-5 ' {
no buffer= 0; contiguous. wide buffer= maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemicoldiscbaeges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(�
exteosivedischares=O;no disch es -max ints)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
'z
no discharge =0' surrings. sees, wetlands, etc. =goespoints)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(nO flWd Ia10=0: extensive flWdPlain =n0x into
3
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-s
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched=0; fie uent floodin =max ing
g
Presence ofadjaceot wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
Q
(no wetlands =0;1 a adjacent wetluds=maxunions)
9
Channel Annually
0-5
0-4
0-3
executive charmeliration= 0' natural mundcr-max points)
to
Sediment input
o -s
o-4
0-4
2
(extensive de mayO; line or no sediment m
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine% homoenous=0:Inc. inverse sins =max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
0
(deeply incised -0; stable hed&banks =max ing
^.
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
G
(severe erosion= 0' no erosion, Subic banks =maxmints)
k1
14
Root depth and nearly on Make
0-3
0-4
0-5
F
novisiblemole=O:dmsemotsthmu ora-maxpoint)
'
m
IS
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber produdtoo
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantielim act-0;noevidence=max ince
16
Presence of dffle-p"Viripplepoolromplaa
0-3
0-5
0-6
'L
no rittleyriles or pouts=0: well-dr1a =max ins
F•
Q
17
Rabimt complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
Iinteorrmhabitm^0; finement.varted habitats =max ins)
18
Canopy coverage over strumbed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shadingemtion=0'cominuous rano =max poini
19
SubstrateembeddWncasNA•
0-4
0-4
'z
(deeply embedded= 0; loose simcture=miss)
20
Preunm afstraam mverieb cumene page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
D
w evidence= 0, common, numerous s=max ints
21
Presenceafamphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence= 0' common numerous types=miss ins
t7
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
noevidence=O'common,numerous =max points)o-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence= 0; abundant evidence =max points)
Total Points Possible
loo
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also great on fust page)
'Z S
T iese characteristics are not aeses<ed in coastal streams.
Baker

USACE AID# DWQN She (indicatectia ached map)
Method loce�ion denrmined fc'vcle7: GPS Topa Sheet GoanlAena FPh WG11S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby mads and landmarks and mach map identifying streams) location)
14. Proposed channel work
15. Recent weather conditir
16. Site conditions at time s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Ee mial Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed ].IV)
18.
18. Is there u pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (!5 NO lfyn, estimate Ne water tartare aro: 2.5 wc,as yf
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (a NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ©E NO /P'•'4
21. Estimated watershed land use: _L0% Residential ---% Commercial _%Industrial Fe� %AgricuWnl
L%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _/o Other( )
33. Bankfull width: 33. Bank height (from bed to cop of bank): ({ �
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 ro 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 1(M%) _Steep (>IO%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -k-Simight _Occasional bends _Frequent maunder _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, means 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 revimv the
characteristics identified in the worksluxt 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 chameter of a stream under review (e.g., the stream Bows from a paste
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 foal scare 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 mom): Q0? Commands:
i a. tee. .tt:0
Evaluator's Signature A A Date 5/(?//L(
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the dam required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of Strom
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 919-836-8441 x 26.
Faker
Stream: R Z /4f A 1
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET aPrla 1 a 4'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
I. Applicant's name: I L ea.i
( J
3. Evaluator's name: .1 k /<i
3. Date of evaluation:/
4. Time of evaluation: I ( AM
S. Name of stream: {?nr...,.+ .sans lk{L
6. River basin: Cape Fepr
7. Approximate drainage arta: 3?OAL 65rs't�
S. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: SUr
10. County: 6�i(-Cd
I1. Site coordinates (ifknown): prekrindccimaldegrees.
12. Subdivision name(ifay): —
Latitude lea. la 9723121: 3G. ?'3et4ol,
^
Longimde(ox.-n s5e6n7: -".74 r`o �r�
Method loce�ion denrmined fc'vcle7: GPS Topa Sheet GoanlAena FPh WG11S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby mads and landmarks and mach map identifying streams) location)
14. Proposed channel work
15. Recent weather conditir
16. Site conditions at time s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Ee mial Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed ].IV)
18.
18. Is there u pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (!5 NO lfyn, estimate Ne water tartare aro: 2.5 wc,as yf
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (a NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ©E NO /P'•'4
21. Estimated watershed land use: _L0% Residential ---% Commercial _%Industrial Fe� %AgricuWnl
L%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _/o Other( )
33. Bankfull width: 33. Bank height (from bed to cop of bank): ({ �
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 ro 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 1(M%) _Steep (>IO%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -k-Simight _Occasional bends _Frequent maunder _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, means 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 revimv the
characteristics identified in the worksluxt 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 chameter of a stream under review (e.g., the stream Bows from a paste
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 foal scare 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 mom): Q0? Commands:
i a. tee. .tt:0
Evaluator's Signature A A Date 5/(?//L(
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the dam required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of Strom
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 919-836-8441 x 26.
Faker

TIP:
stream: $R M I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 16, P „{
There maraocnsua are not astesaed In coastal streams.
aker
CHARA
Presence of flow / persistent posts In stream
o -s
0-4 o -s
#
(no Flow or saturation =0; wrong flaw=mix pome)
2
Evidence or put human sitendoo
0-6
0-5
0-5
ten
(exsive alteration -0; no altmation-max inn)
3
aliparim rune
0-4
0-5
no buffer -0; contiguous,wide buffer =mixpoints)0-6
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical checking
0-5
0-4
0-4
D
extensive discharges - 0; wdischarges =max ines
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
m diuh a=0's nn ,ere s, wetland etc.=mix inu
I
H
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(_(
y
(no flood Iain= 0i extensive flood Iain=max points)
1
3
Entrenchment/ floodplain eecna
0-4
0-2
(dee 1 entrenched=0;fte uen ll din =max inis)0-5
8
Presence of adjacent wetlanN
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands =0; lame adjacent wetlands=max inn
I
9
Channel sinuoahy
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive chmmeliration=0; normal mender =most inti
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
'
(exmnsivedeposition- 0; lisle or no sediment =max ints)
II
Size& diversity of channel bed smbmnte
NA*
0-4
0-5
T
(]
fine hams en crus . 09are, diverse sins =max inn
12
ENdeore0 c asset incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
I
(cleciply incised =O'stable ted & banks =treat rots
13
Pressure of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
,l
(severe erosion=0; no erosion, sable banks =max preintri
CWq
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
F
no visible roots= 0; dense roots throughout = min 'nes
W
15
Import by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact -0; no evidence =mor inn)
16
presence of ritlle-pooVripple-pont complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
no dfiles/ri les or proolit=O well-developed - her inn
E+
d
17
Rabibut complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
I
lime or an habitue =0; fie uent varied habitus=max inn
f�
Canopy coverage over atreambed
.i}
I8
(no sharingvegetation=0: continuous cano =mix Dints
0-5
0-5
0-5
e
J
19
Substrate eadeddednese
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded =0; loom snucmu=mar)
20
Presence of stream inveZbntes (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence= 0' common, numerous =max inti
V
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
'z
O
no evidence =P common, numerous types=mix inti
"1
zz
Presence of fuM1
0-4
0-4
o -a
p
_O
(re evidence= 0; common, namemus 4ws=must inn)
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
noevidence=0;abundantevidencc=max inn
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
�9
There maraocnsua are not astesaed In coastal streams.
aker

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 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

16.3 NCDWR Stream Classification Forms
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16-4 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

O Stream Form Locations _� N
Conservation Easement
Reach R1: 1,172 ft
Jurisdictional Streams Jurisdictional
Non -Jurisdictional Streams
Reach T1: 133 ft
Jurisdictional
Reach R2: 792 ft T1
Jurisdictional
Reach T2: 269 ft
T2� Jurisdictional
z_
k Reach R3: 1,461 ft
Jurisdictional
'r
Reach T3: 276 ft
Jurisdictional
M2
Reach R4: 1,182 ft
Reach R6: 633 ft Jurisdictional
Non -Jurisdictional
- Reach D1: 52 ft (stormwater drainage) �p
T6 Down M3 lower 10 ft Jurisdictional
T6 Up upper 42 ft Non -Jurisdictional
r`
15 „ Reach D2: 78 ft (stormwater drainage)
'L Non -Jurisdictional
Reach R5: 680 ft
Jurisdictional
h 9O °gByP E"°`"°"I"®' "` 0 250 500 1,000 Browns Summit Creek
i kv',4o Rpgw^cT Pmkwat
i }uAo {f94
■� , c.r,Na Cw.4�275113 Restoration Site
Pm—.. 919463. sash
`— 99a� Feet Stream Resources
16July 2014

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Veraiou 4.11 9rGW1,a' (frk
Dote: Aj Z 1 20
prolamIte:
M.I
LeMNde: 56r.1ssya4jI'1
Ewluetar. R � Vs.a cV
county:
IB I Absent Weak Moderate
Long]Wde:- tt.7t{*D
Total Points:Stream
5heunfxetl fkfre:W ass
Hx 10a xk 30'
w
Determination (of
Ephememl lnlermitten mnalI
Other ISror" Ser...-,
Mg..D Ihwne:
A- Geomo hot Sublolal=
0 1
2
CytJ'
13.ImnnxldwnpeacIn&
1
IB I Absent Weak Moderate
strop
1a Gonlwufly of chsnnelbad and bo&
0
1
2
3
2. Swuosay M chemml Mang thatwe9
D
1S
2
0.6
3. in -channel slmcwre: sx. rilflepool, alepeool,
tfepl�d sacuence
0
1
Na=O
3
4. Particle size of stream subsbsle
0
1
Cg7
3
S. AcSaar kt floodplain -
0
bl.Amphlblens
2
3
3. Dspssl5mml bam or benches
0
i
0
if
i. Repent slk Mal deposts
0
1
3
3. Heedcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Gmde control
0
Nblea:
1
1.5
10. Newml Valley
0
0.6
1
1
11. SemMor9materwdsrchennel
No=0
Y -
ertlkkl slides arena rewd:se•akvusbmMwe 2.5 8 �•s
B. Hydrology Su tal=
12. Presence of Bsse0my
0 1
2
CytJ'
13.ImnnxldwnpeacIn&
1
2
3
14. feMlltter
1
0.6
0
15. Sediment on plants ordebde
0 OS
1 9
1S
16.Or9ento debris lInesapiNa
0.6
1
iS
17. Solt -basad aMenca a huh water table?
Na=O
0.5
Y -3
16. Fibrous roots N slreambad
2
1 1
1 0
1& Roued upland plants M slmombed
/ 3
2
I 1
1 0
20.Ma<robenlaos (rime B.aely.�a e6uMmce
_
2
1 9
21.AquaticMollusks
1
1
2
3
M Rsh
CD 1
0.5
1
1.6
23.p ytsh
0
1
1b
bl.Amphlblens
0
Ob
1S
0. Akw
0
1
1.6
26. Wamnd planw in s0eembed
FA0W=D.75:
DBL a 1.5
rpemmlalepxmmysbbe ea uswpa
nwtlwds.8epp. DB 01
Nblea:
(x.
Sketch: - 2,.3, K,Ji
��>zr

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 rscmr r.S J(3 nJ,14 C t
Data: q Zv �aeo t3
pmlecush:
Letla4n:3L.13'/(8$
Evaluator. V.
�'
n�'ej
County: bo.� ('U
Lo0glade: _'�Q, 7yR l
Total p0lnta: / /
8t �^^"ro"r q(.J
Strom Datorminown(a
mar L+ke- CiAa�
St 1Bd &tlt e
Ephsmaml lntennaentperenlel
e.0.0vedNeme:
A. Geonnorphology GeomorphologySubtotal= Z7, -VI
Absent
Weak
Moderato
Strong
I''Connlnufty of channel bed and holt
0
1
2
a
2. Mounity of channal along MaMev
0
1
0
1
3. In nnal structure: ex. dmapoot sap -pool,
ripple -pool se uarm
0
1
2
3
4. paNcla sire of stream subibate
0
1
t
3
5.A WrollGflaodplain
0
1
1
1.5
5. Notational bars or benches
0
1
2
1.5
1. Femn'e al de hs
0
1
a
n. Naedcua
1
2
3
9. Drede conbl
as orm iaet
0.5
1
1A
10.11elmalvallay
0
0.5
1
I t_9emM or greater order Hanel
-
No=0
1 Y
lSuhfaml= la
12. �aca of Oaseffm
0 1
1 C3' % 1
3
13. Iron oxl& beclade
0 - 1
2
2
16. Lee/litler
1.6
0.6
0
15. Sedimard on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
15. Organic debris lines or plies
2
3
1T. Sall -basad evidence of high wear able?
No=O.
Y =
t
C. Bloloov (Subtotal = 9 )
18. Mrous mots In streambed
2
1 1 1
0
19. Roand upland plana In caeambed h�
2
1
0
_
20. McIXpbanthcs mole dlvggly and alpamace)L^I
0
2
3
21. uatic Mollusks
2
3
22.Fbh Z
0
t
f.5
23. Crayllsh
05
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
M. WatbM plants lnsbeambedv
F"=0.76;OBL=1b
Oae
•peremlal atesma mw Blau ba BoAffed mire mw oda.s«p.
as orm iaet
Noes:
"-
', Af
Sketch:
°t
LR'a
�.14

NC nWn Stream identification Form Velelon 4.11 Qrnw✓. f4 $urrn z C/4
Rate:
2 LC('1,B r5
ProledeRle: M
Ladlude: 3j.233nz:q
Evaluator:vnv
r.A/
Caunq:
0
Lon01lude:-r)�ja.7t�e8
2
3
2. BbuoaM of chamnl abrq Ihahleg
0
0 0.8
Total Point:
abeam Date role 0nal
other Lwk arr4 '1'
afra�m✓a�N � ZS'tj
EPhomoml rm Perennial
nO Duedfdernc:
aw
4. PaMcls ate oteream substrate
Yw a
A. Ce nnor holo Sublofal-
I
Absent
Weak
M
h Shm1S
I'l;onflnufty of ohanml bstl eM bank
0
1
2
3
2. BbuoaM of chamnl abrq Ihahleg
0
0 0.8
15
3
3. Irtchanrel slmclure: ox. MAeeod, atap 1.
rropleIsequence
0
11
2
3
4. PaMcls ate oteream substrate
Yw a
1
2
3
5. Achvelmlict flop$dain
0
1
3
0. Depositional ban or benches
0
1
2
1. Recent alluvial depusib
1
2
3
0. Heedmd
0
2
3
9. Grede control
ellp
D.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
05
1.5
I 1. Secant or greener oder channel
No
0
Yea=s
wllfitlel dllrMs ere rotveae: sea d cmaort to nenual
R LMlminnv fSihh l= Z.s'- 1
12. Presence of BaselloW
0
2
3
13. Iron oxldlxln0 Noodle
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter1
21. A0uaW MOflmlle
OS
0
15. Sarlmant on pier ortlebrla
0 0.8
15
1.5
18.GfgaNc tleprc 3resor lea
0.5
11
1.5
12.561 -based evidence of high wato leNe4
Na=O. I
Yw a
15
18. Flbmus room m slone mbed 2
1
0
10. Rooted upland plant In denuded 2
1
0
M. MeaobeM11108 naN dlvan and ebuift( JU00.5
2
3
21. A0uaW MOflmlle
2
3
M. F
1
15
M. Cm h
1
ib
24. AmphiNens
1
1S
2b, plpee
15
28. Wegend planes In slmem� FA =0.)e:
DBL=1.5ONm=
•pam�mWa4aemerm.YaYoWtlaNlAatl BdMmeticde.9x0. %ofmmusL
Sit":
rt✓ N<

NCDW Stream Identification Form V"on 4.11 NCOw OV $v mA� (usk
Dem: qLy zoo
Pretectl8ae: T
(
Lnm,w: 36. ySJF) f6
ErNuemr. P
2. lgnu tpaf channel along Ouhns
2
7
Longaude:—•)j.-74765
Total Polnts:
s0aemkarhertNlanNrerd
Btmem Oak Wrck oriel
011ier Srar.._a
�`.%,j
EPhemercl hrm PeranNN
ep cuaMems:
yz few tlx 30'
0
A. Geomo halo SubWMI L I
1''Cmtlnuiyofdrennel lied aW bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Modereta
Strong
3
2. lgnu tpaf channel along Ouhns
2
7
2
3
3. Imchannel aWclme: sx, dlAepcol, shpIxwl.
rippla,aaolsequence
0
1
2
3
4.P Wde abs of chasm sUmIrate
0
2
3
S. MANe/relict Awdplaln -
0
Vee
2
3
8. Depociaarel ban or benches
1
2
3
i. Recent a0wlel deposes
0
2
3
S. Headculs
s
sketch:
,1f N
\Cr. wk fix...a.-.t..-
2
3
O. Gentle mnbd
0
1
iS
10. Naturel veWy
0
0.
1
iS
11. Bemndor OreeleraNerdmnml
N
0I
Yee=3
' W kYI tlMCM1m am nol rektl; see NaanYma In mama
N_ Hvdrninnv fsahlnlal
12 Presence of Basellow
0 1
2
3
13. Inn axldWng bacloda
0 1
2
0 / 2
14. Lmfllller
1
0.5
0
15.3 Imentonplentsordebm;
0.5
1
1b
18. Omank debris llrwa or dies
U. AmphNans
0 0.5 i
1T.Ball-beeW evWence of high mWbble4
NC
Vee
C. Blol Subtotal= I 1 .ZS
18. Promus mots In elreembel
2 1
0
19. RaabW upland plants In stmembed
1
0
30. MewobmMm(role ®vaceyaMabunlrce)
0 / 2
3
21. Pquatic Mollusks
1 2
3
22. Fish
0.5 1
1b
23. CraAh�
0 115
U. AmphNans
0 0.5 i
Z. Alges
0 0.5 1
M. WstlaM planta In alreambW
FACW 'OBL=1b OOlm=O
•PalmmW heamameY aka Ee MenpW o0W
a. See P. M efmnuat
Notes: o f s' a
s
sketch:
,1f N
\Cr. wk fix...a.-.t..-

Form Version 4.11 GMOr+ So�f Crk
Oete: q y y 713
ProlesusMe: Z
I.atlWtle: 3L. 93a353
Evalaetorr (� I.(vn ]4GD -
cannty: 6U;1
40r
Longiwda:-79.'lY'7L 17
Total POInU:
abxmaafwbmnOr°N �IS
Stream oe aWWmb oriel
oiner�or.dns $�,rM�
MN
Tr�
.W
Ephem norm iO PerenNal
a0. pre .
ffklanrpp
3
3. In flannel structure: ex. Mtle-pool. et"cal.
ripple -pools u
A Geomo halo Subtotal= vi
Absent
Weak
Moclr
Strong
10 nufty of ahennal bod aM bank
0
1 FIP
2
3
2.9bumllywdernweb�M MaMep
0
15.WIrmMon laMeordsbta_
2
3
3. In flannel structure: ex. Mtle-pool. et"cal.
ripple -pools u
09
0
2
3
4. Padide see of 9veem euoebab
0
1
2
9
5. Advehelut floodplain
0
1
t
s
B. Oepmllioml ban w MnM a
o
1
2
].R ntallwlal dib
0
1
2
3
B. NeadNua
0
FAOW .]
2
3
9.0mdemmhol
0
S
1
15
10. Nehaal valley
0
OS
1
1.6
11. Seowal or greater oNerchannel
No
0
Yea=3
Skotch: c
I r
c � sA��
anlrNa malwe am ml read; dee alednNene m manual
R Nadminnv /suMneale 1 1
12. Presence of Baeallow
0 1
2
8
13. Imp oxidizing W=0
1
2
3
14. Leel lMer
1.5
OS
0
15.WIrmMon laMeordsbta_
2
3
21. Aquatic Molimb -'
16. Organic debns lrwe Or plies -
0
1
1.5
17. Sollbased s*]e of In
Inm blot/
M=V.
Yee 3
14
15. F3xou0 roots In streembatl
3
2
1
0
19. Roond upland plants In aaeambed
3
2
1
0
20. Meapbenllme (mbw mdebume�m
.1
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Molimb -'
1
2
9
22. Fish
0.5
1
14
23.1Sa d
0
Ob
t
1S
24. Am ibane
o
as
1
Z6. Abed
0
0.5
1.5
25. WelbM Mab elreNnbetl
FAOW .]
OBL=1.5 OMer=0
bemmleI elnnnn MY eYo to ItlantlBod elle roller mom. See D. 55 w mwm
NMas: b
e l
..
Skotch: c
I r
c � sA��
IlWe .

NC DWO Stream identification Form Version 4.11 [Trb,o^s S'.......Y rew,..4
Date:�l
z}�
Week
Pm)ecusib:
rs
Whole:
36-, :3 via
t aluamn
IIa'rJ13
(/, F Una
(�
per(/ -..
County.
0.5 0
Longthoo;.
jej.'IYS 4a
Term POIMS;
3. Inshanrel sMulum ex. rlMe-pad, sbplxxa,
erca
� rs Y,
Simon
(drde one)
other
"4
SewmbdbedhlflnNbd
No -0
2
l`� C/
Ephemeral lmm
Perennial
a.OQeeE Name:
ux faor
duasn
S. De nal baro or torches
0
20. Welland planta N ek0ambal ¢ .AM
2
3
2. Recent elluvlal dspoalls
A. Geomo hot Subtotal,6I
Abeenf
Week
maderab
throng
antinuit of channel bed end bank
t
1
2
3
. Inuoel d chsnnal ably Meleep
0.5 0
1
2
3
3. Inshanrel sMulum ex. rlMe-pad, sbplxxa,
erca
0
©
2
3
4. Pa do eke of steam suGstute
0
No -0
2
3
5. h[Wrelld gcadpWn
0
1
M. Algae0
3
S. De nal baro or torches
0
20. Welland planta N ek0ambal ¢ .AM
2
3
2. Recent elluvlal dspoalls
0
2
3
S. Headwk
2
3
9. Grade conlrcl
0
0
1
1.5
10. Natural vat
0
1
1.5
3emndorerealerorderchanno]
1
1 Ye3=3
-
%8. Hvdredmv (Submfei m==•�In u1111,•
12. Presmme of sooners
11
1
2 3
13. Iron oAdWnq bacteria
1
t
2 3
14.Leatg0er
i 1S
2
0.5 0
15.3edimdel
entonplennofxle
0
0.5
1.5
MOlganlcdebdslnesorpilm
0
O.fi
1.5
17. Shc-0aeetl evltlerlwd Ngh xaler Rhle4
0:
No -0
Yea 9
C. SIOIoav (Sublolsl= r] )
15. F'Igmis mole ktatraambed
2
1
0
18. Rootsd upland Pbnb Malreenlhed
2
t
0
20. MaorobenMos (nde tlNaiepyeMeWnden®)
1
2
3
21.Aquaduldollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
tS
M. Crayfish
0:
1
ib
24. Amphibians
1
15
M. Algae0
OS
1
1S
20. Welland planta N ek0ambal ¢ .AM
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.6
OMm 0
•p nlal elroun; my also EakrsMlAada& nMl,o] p. 35 or manual.
Notes: > —r7 0! 4
Sketch:
W Ozr,
• � i—,i r�Sa
S� cllarwp �a,�
W-

NCDW StremaIdeatiDcadonForm Vereton4.11
Vete: afZ�a Zd'�J
Pmlec119ito: 'r/r
La6lndo: 3(. ]3 ��cs
�y
Eveluamr: 0.1�V hC ✓(�
County: 6LLI 'Li
Lorgltuda:�'�Lrfp.751LpT'tS
Total Palate: -rpp
Shaam Vete c le one)
other 1,4c ffr Pp
s18'n'h&0e1f ^^�nl ZO,S
me law mewxx3m
Epheme ntermn Perennial
aµ Ouad Mee:
A. Ce Momholoqiy f8ulebobd= LD
Absent
W
Moderate
Strong
IaMrafinufty Duhamel bad and bank
0
1
2
3
291nuaN dchance along thahu"
3. Inchamel aWcem: ex. rife -pont. aoppoo.
d uanoa
0 _
0
1
1
0.6
3
3
4. P=dcle alae of stream autcbato
22. Rah 0
1
2
3
5.A oft lct6cadpeln
0
1
2
3
6. BBpoaitlonal6am or benches
0
1'
2
3
T. Recant a0wlal deposits
_
0
26, Wetand Pants In abeambed
2
3
6. WWMW
0
2
3
9. Grace wool
0
/
1.5
10. Naturd vailey
Sketch:
1.6
11. Second or greeter order charm
No
Ya =3
'vllMeld¢M ere mlrvkd: ieabc+7 Wish rmwa
B.H drol 6ubMlal= �
W. IJ 1
16. Flarous roots N ebeambetl
1 0
1
0
3
13. Iron oAdbing become
0-
2
3
1d. Leaf litter
1.61
21. Aquadc Mollueb 0
0.6
0
16. SwJimeld on Plants adabde
22. Rah 0
0.6
1
LS
16. Onjanio delaft Ines or plies
0
0.6
1
1.5
17.3oll-0eaed eAdenoe of high x Jeble9
No=0. I
YW 3
W. IJ 1
16. Flarous roots N ebeambetl
2
1 1 1
0
19. Naoetl upland plants M abeembatl
20. Wombenthouane 6lesRv and abu
21. Aquadc Mollueb 0
22. Rah 0
29. Crayfish 0
M�O
24. Amph�blans 0
zs.a a _ 0
26, Wetand Pants In abeambed
FACW
'P6-7"means Yah be MmaAW UM�gmhwmwhodn ew P.35Wmmuel.
Ng1e3: a ...�
Sketch:

MV nwn el ... M 1An'NC.enom Farm Venda" A 11
Date:A Z k)''i a 1
ProjeoV3lm:
5
. tABkMe: aC, z&2-
evalaater: D.
u�..ey..�'tf'
County: ✓/fig /�
Longitude' --6)n,"SZa1
Total Polyds:
I� Z j
B onomination (circle Dna)
OIM1ef a•� qC&r
smenaelaepale'^tllenl
an IntermlNant PamnNal
e9. Queo Pmm,
tlx Igor remltlbx3p•
3.If.channal sbuclwa: ea. rl6leeool.smppod.
d
0
A.Gegmo holo Subfofel=
Abeent
Week
Moderate
Strang
1a COntlnul of Hemel had and bank
0
T
2
3
2. Skinnefty of chemele BnNmg
0
16.Sedimenimpallm ofdebde
2
3
3.If.channal sbuclwa: ea. rl6leeool.smppod.
d
0
1
2
3
4. PaNale abs of ahem subebam
No=O
1
14
8
6.Adlvehellctfloodplaln
0
1
2
3
e. De nm:ml basm6mdlaa
g
1
2
3
].Remmallwleldepmfia
0
2
3
e. Neadcuts
1
2
3
9.0mdo om"I
0.6
1
14
70. h1atura"Iff
b
11. Secwd Or pr�mrwderchannal
Ye8=3
"ellXkbld11JN9eRMlela]: ceemanual
B.Hydrology Sublated=
12. Pmeenw of Baseaon W
0 1
2
3
13.Imn otldmn Letlede
0 i
T
3
i4. Leaf litter
i 1 1
0.5
0
16.Sedimenimpallm ofdebde
0.5
1
I.5
16.0 Matra of pass -
0.6
1
1.5
1T. Solhbased evldencaNNgM1 sratmmbmT
No=O
Y
14
�J.2 Sl
13. FWfoua room N atmambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland pmnm In stmembed FAC -Pi KC
2
1 1 1
0
20. Memobenthos(ndo clog lly and eamderm
1
2
3
21. lull fusk;
1
2
3
22. Fah
os
1
I4
23. eh
os
1
14
24. Amphlbmrq 0
.6
1
1b
25.Agw
1
14
W. WetlelM pinna in ahe®ltrml FA
.] OBL=1.6 Other -0
'pefennNeeemn mp ba Bentlflaa uxirq dMrmNLodc.5ee0.36 MmsmM.
Nome: OU v
.a ..
Arn
Sketch: ln'J/"- lA MYJ

h°O
MM60
NC DWO Seam Identification Form Vemlom 4.11 gf&r W6 Cr(k
Dam: q zL
7X-(33
Pmtec9Slte: b awwv
LwOksk: fib. Z&zel.
Evaluamr: D. �'�bne• a�'
County: L'I
rq
I Lonalb+de:-ipq.7516"
Total Points: p
slmsmkdkasr N(ermYNM `L�
mz is e, rearuaurz 3o•
Sties oetene Irde one'
Epmer ntermtt Pam nMal
Other L^kC Or5P4 0'
e.g. Oued NenM
A.Geomo holo Subtotal= It I
Abeen!
Week
me
Stm ng
i`CoMim otdmn:ml tied oral bank
0
1
-- -
3
2.SmoaYYdchennd abrg lbeMaO
0
1
0.5
- 3
3. lnrhmnel shuclum: us. nMa-pool. sup -pow,
Opplevolsequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Pedicle size otslream su1elmR
0
OS
2
3
5.A ftalld5oodplein
No 0
1
2
3
0. Nposinow bare or bem s
13
1
2
3
T. Recent alluvial d eae
0
3
S. NeMdwb
0
1
2
3
O.Grsdemdml
0
0.5
1S
10, NewrMI VBlFBY
1.5
ll.Secondor OmaleradsrcMnnel
0
Ye8=3
'eNMeldlmw emndmea:em�dspgdonfnmwel
12. Presence of Bese4ow
2
12
0
3
ldhl
11 Iron oxn Mclean
1
2
3
14. Learliaer
iS
21. mk Wiluaks 0
0.5
0
15. Sedknenl on denleordebrls0
22. Pkh
0.5
1
1.6
16.0 is debds llnesur Iles -
0
OS
1S
1.6
1Y. Sellbwed evltlanm dld9hwalw tede2
No 0
1b
m=9
ia. Rbrats reeks N aveamleed
2
1
0
19. Roofed upland planes lndreembetl
21
0
20. Memebenihw (ndedMnlya'H abmwm.l
1
2
3
21. mk Wiluaks 0
1
2
3
22. Pkh
0.5
1
1S
23. sh
Ob
1
1S
24. Pen ibiwm
1
1b
25. Alone
0.5
1
13
W.WetivkplanteNdmembed f+K a
WW=0.75', OBL=1.5 Cn=0
•premklabaamemrymwbeMmtleetl mNq oMiernreeiods.Ssep 36 dmenuN.
Notes: 1 a
c
Skelah:
1:1 rP.6•
P ,qtj lei e)-(3

16.4 FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16-5 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

August 27, 2014
Jeff Schaffer
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 Guilford County EEP# 96313.
Dear Mr. Schaffer,
Please find enclosed two hard copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the Browns
Summit Creek Restoration Project in Guilford County, North Carolina. The project site is
located approximately 3 miles northwest of the community of Browns Summit, within
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) sub -basin
03-06-01 and the targeted local watershed 03030002-010020 of the Cape Fear River Basin,
and the project reaches drain into the Haw River.
The proposed project is a full -delivery effort for the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) in response to RFP#: 16-005568. Project goals include the
restoration and enhancement of nearly 6,085 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 3,803 feet of Priority I Restoration, 464 feet of Enhancement I/WQ BMPs, and
1,818 feet of Enhancement 2, plus up to 2.5 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) on 4.63 acres
of wetlands.
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 Guilford 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; however, the USFWS
encouraged the incorporation of conservation measures for the Northern long-eared bat into
project plans (see hqp://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/
nlebinterimguidance6j an2014.pdf).
Table 1. Federallv Protected Species for Guilford Countv.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled Pogonia
T
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern long -cared bat
PE
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
Notes: E —Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a sign ificantportion of its range.

T— Threatened denotes a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a sign ifican tportion of its range.
PE —Proposed endangered denotes that a species has been proposed as Endangered.
BGPA — Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
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
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. A desktop -GIS assessment of the
project study area, as well as the area within a 2 -mile radius of the project limits, was
performed on May 2, 2014 using Google Earth color aerials. Brooks Lake is large enough
and sufficiently open to be considered a potential feeding source and is approximately I
mile east of the project study area. Lake Townsend is larger than Brooks Lake, and its
northern edge is approximately 1.5 miles south of the project. Since foraging habitat is
located within the review area, a survey of the project study area was conducted. No nests
were observed, although large pines were present. Due to the distance to the nearest large
body of water and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that
this project will not affect this species.
Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia)
Federal Status: Threatened
Animal Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1982
Small -whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a small, perennial member of the family
Orchidaceae. These plants arise from long, slender roots with hollow stems terminating in
a whorl of five or six, light green leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long,
with yellowish -green to white petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in
late spring from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this plant are reported to have
extended periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small, spring, ephemeral

orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in flower, young
plants of Indian cucumber -root (Medeola virginiana) also resemble small whorled pogonia.
However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus Medeola, which
has a solid, more slender stem.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. A survey of potential habitat for
the species was conducted on May 28, 2014 during the blooming window for the species.
Neither individuals nor the appropriate habitat were encountered during the survey. The
construction of this project is anticipated to have no effect on the species.
Myotis septen trion alis (Northern long-eared bat)
Federal Status: Proposed Endangered
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: TBD
During the summer, Myotis septentrionalis roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. The bat species will utilize tree species
which can retain bark or have suitable bark (i.e. Quercus velutina, Quercus rubra, Acer
saccharinum, Robinia pseudoacacia, Fagus grandifolia, Acer saccharum, Oxydendron
arboretum, and Pinus echinata) or can provide cavities or crevices on the tree. Myotis
septentrionalis tends to roost on upper and middle slopes (higher elevations) rather than
lower slopes possibly due to a preference for greater solar exposure. They may also use
abandoned buildings for roosting. In addition, males and reproductive females infrequently
utilize caves and mines for roosting in summer months as well. Primary foraging habitat for
Myotis septentrionalis includes forested hillsides and ridges, mature forests with less
foraging occurring along forest clearings, water, and roads.
The bat species overwinters in hibernacula such as caves and abandoned mines that have
large passages and entrances. However, individuals utilize small cracks and crevices within
these features for roosting. The preferred hibernacula conditions for this species are cool,
constant temperatures (32 to 48°F), high humidity, and no air currents.
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
The enclosed documentation also covers correspondence with the North Carolina Historic
Preservation Office (NC -HPO) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
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 919-481-5721 or via email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Em Simone
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

AP Pendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
e���wna+x-A�no..la-ter-o.-a..�..a
1 nmantal tl t �d-lalnng.via�-anrs�+PPorting
Pro aCt Name- Pieiw
Dunt Nama-
Number
ro sct s onsor-
ro aet ontact ama-
ro ac ontact Ad reser: o....,q. ®,
ro ect Contac[ -mai ; R..®•.n...n..u..A
EE Pro act Mana err; .. u•new,.n..®„m �vvary
vmym.wi....ne..uvm.�m...n.,,e tcvuWine wuaiowooxl. r
°e.e".`mas o1Oe-o': i�'n'"�.m "".. �a°�.e..a.".�w� mn.. •�v,..,��.r u:c ..:.iy"�riap".,.e°�.�`•:, i, arn'""•wa•a.�ro �. waue�.. m. Dears
- wa.a �.........i.. �.••w�...
a..m.u•u.xni �u...®�...u... a...n„...m.•v.m �uwe„.r.n.. m..m
R¢viawatl By;
3 /
�� E ect Msn a
Rondltlonal Approyad By;
�� For Ulvislon Adminbtrator
FHWA
� ChaeK tbb box M there are outstamm�g Issuos
Final APProval By.
� -- � t�
Data For Olylslon AAminiatrator
FHWA
Version t-4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Response
Coastal Zone Mana ement Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
■❑ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
■❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
■❑ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
■❑ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
■❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
■❑ No
❑ 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
■❑ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
■❑ 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?■❑
No
2.
Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
■❑ 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
■❑ 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
■❑ 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
■❑ 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?■❑
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 NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
■❑ N/A
Magnuson-Stevens FisherV Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
■❑ 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
■❑ 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

Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
June 19, 2013
Subject: EEP stream and wetland mitigation project in Guilford County
Dear Mr. Jordan,
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 Brown Summit 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 Guilford County from your web site
(http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/wake.html). The listed species are shown
below.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled Pogonia
Threatened
M otis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
Proposed 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
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. A desktop -GIS assessment of the
project study area, as well as the area within a 2 -mile radius of the project limits, was
performed on May 2, 2014 using Google Earth color aerials. Brooks Lake is large enough
and sufficiently open to be considered a potential feeding source and is approximately 1
mile east of the project study area. Lake Townsend is larger than Brooks Lake, and its
northern edge is approximately 1.5 miles south of the project. Since foraging habitat is
located within the review area, a survey of the project study area was conducted. No nests
were observed, although large pines were present. Due to the distance to the nearest large
body of water and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that
this project will not affect this species.
Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia)
Federal Status: Threatened
Animal Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1982
Small -whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a small, perennial member of the family
Orchidaceae. These plants arise from long, slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a
whorl of five or six, light green leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long,
with yellowish -green to white petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in
late spring from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this plant are reported to have
extended periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small, spring, ephemeral
orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in flower, young
plants of Indian cucumber -root (Medeola virginiana) also resemble small whorled pogonia.
However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus Medeola, which
has a solid, more slender stem.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. A survey of potential habitat for
the species was conducted on May 28, 2014 during the blooming window for the species.
Neither individuals nor the appropriate habitat were encountered during the survey. The
construction of this project is anticipated to have no effect on the species.
Myotis septen trion alis (Northern long-eared bat)
Federal Status: Proposed Endangered
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: TBD
During the summer, Myotis septentrionalis roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. The bat species will utilize tree species
which can retain bark or have suitable bark (i.e. Quercus velutina, Quercus rubra, Acer
saccharinum, Robinia pseudoacacia, Fagus grandifolia, Acer saccharum, Oxydendron

arboretum, and Pinus echinata) or can provide cavities or crevices on the tree. Myotis
septentrionalis tends to roost on upper and middle slopes (higher elevations) rather than
lower slopes possibly due to a preference for greater solar exposure. They may also use
abandoned buildings for roosting. In addition, males and reproductive females infrequently
utilize caves and mines for roosting in summer months as well. Primary foraging habitat for
Myotis septentrionalis includes forested hillsides and ridges, mature forests with less
foraging occurring along forest clearings, water, and roads.
The bat species overwinters in hibernacula such as caves and abandoned mines that have
large passages and entrances. However, individuals utilize small cracks and crevices within
these features for roosting. The preferred hibernacula conditions for this species are cool,
constant temperatures (32 to 48°F), high humidity, and no air currents.
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. The species is not currently listed
as endangered. No impacts to the species are anticipated during project construction.
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,
EaA
Simone
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

IOti l
ROCK1
------------------
Site Location
r
150
r`J h r
F 0 R-
iFeeilSI?p£0 29 n
II
ti —�
I_ - -_`-----
s' -
YY
_I Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030002010020
Figure 2.1
Site Location Project Vicinity Map
Browns Summit Creek Site
29
Greerisborr 7 n5� t
1 1f
,4t'L � - IMnN BMN'E��NIrF M.
o Im R Pip
r �NeT OrNrYI'J1°
Guilford County °'°""°'°°
0 0.5 1 2
Miles

Conservation Easement '
t tic
Reach R1 - 448 acres 2
Reach R2 - 316 acres
Reach R4 - 141 acres , iV
Reach R5 - 25 acres
Reach R6 - 62 acres
Reach T2 - 52 acres £.
Reach Tl
Reach R2 Reach T2 , e'
Reach R3
Reach T3
Reach R6�I y ��
Opp
Reach R5
ot ,.
ILx
..r
=� oil It-
•
It
R +�
S
: IE,u5, Bker E�1nnp,��®,� . - 0 250500 1,000 Figure 2.2
- p>l1p�keganey Pa�kwx,
1. WO
Watershed Map
� � c.,.. Nmn Cmohna 27518
P,ime. 919463.5166
F-9,9-0635890 '�'�+• Feet Browns Summit Cr. Site

,. United States Department of the Interior
a9`
- FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 15, 2014
Emaly Simone
Michael Baker Engineering. Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, suite 600
Cary. NC 27518
Subject: Browns Summit Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Guilford County
Dear Ms. Simone:
This letter is in response to your June 19, 2014 request for information concerning federally-
listed species at the Browns Summit Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, located near NC
Hwy 150. in Browns Summit, Guilford County, North Carolina. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) has reviewed the maps provided for the proposed project and various sources
of information concerning the area. According to the submitted information, the project site is
has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for stream and wetland
impacts. Currently, the site consists of sparsely wooded lands and agricultural fields.
Federally Protected Species
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within Rockingham County, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect
those species. The Service has reviewed its Geographic Information System (GIS) database for
recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to the
proposed project site. The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources.
The only current Federally-listed species that is known to be present in the county is small
whorled pogonia (Iso/ria medeoloides). The northern long-eared bat (Myolis seprentrionalis),
which is proposed to be listed as an endangered species, may also occur in Guilford County. The
bald eagle, protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) is also listed in the
county. Additional guidance concerning these species may be found on our website at
htt d/ .fws.gov/ralei+lVes fes html.

The Service agrees with your determination that the project should have no effect on the bald
eagle and the smalled whorled pogonia. We also recognize that no determination is required at
this time for the northern long-eared bat. However, due to the location of the site and the lack of
information concerning the project timing and construction methods, please be aware of potential
future requirements associated with the northern long-eared bat.
Northern long-eared bat
On lune 24, 2014, the Service extended its decision deadline for the final listing decision on the
northern long-eared bat as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service
will make a final determination on the listing of the bat by April 25, 2015.
The northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat about 3 to 3.7 inches but with a wingspan of 9
to 10 inches. Its fur color can be medium to dark brown on the back and tawny to pale-brown on
the underside. As its name suggests, this bat is distinguished by its long ears, particularly as
compared to other bats in its genus, Myoris. In the North Carolina mountains, northern long-
eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. They typically use large caves or mines
with large passages and entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no air currents.
Specific areas where they hibernate have very high humidity, so much so that droplets of water
are often seen on their for. Within hibemacula, surveyors find them in small crevices or cracks,
often with only the nose and ears visible. It is currently unclear if northern long-eared bats
hibernate or otherwise overwinter in the eastern piedmont and consul plain of North Carolina.
During spring and summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath bark,
in cavities. or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and non-reproductive females may
also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat seems opportunistic in selecting roasts,
using tree species based on suitability to retain bark or provide cavities or crevices. It has also
been found, rarely. roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Breeding begins in late summer
or early fall when males begin swarming near hibemacula. After copulation, females store sperm
during hibernation until spring, when they emerge from their hibernacula, ovulate, and the stored
sperm fertilizes an egg. Pregnant females migrate to summer areas where they most in small
colonies and give birth to a single pup. Maternity colonies, with young, generally have 30 to 60
bats, although larger maternity colonies have been observed. Most females within a maternity
colony give birth around the same time, which may occur from late May or early June to late
July, depending where the colony is located within the species' range. Young bats start flying by
18 to 21 days after birth. Adult northern long-eared bats can live up to 19 years.
Northern long-eared bats emerge at dusk to fly through the understory of forested hillsides and
ridges feeding on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles, which they catch while in

flight using echolocation. This bat also feeds by gleaning motionless insects from vegetation and
water surfaces.
Recommendations
The Service has acoustic evidence of northem long-eared bats in Guilford County, within two
miles of the project site. We are currently conducting further analysis on the acoustic data, and
we recognize that acoustic data is not as strong evidence as a physical capture of a specimen.
However, we encourage you to incorporate bat conservation measures into project planning. For
more information, please refer to the Northern Long -Eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning
Guidance (particularly Appendix D), found at
http'//www Hvs gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/ndf/NLEBinterimGuida tce6Jan2014 Q
df.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions concerning
these comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at (919) 8564520, Ext. 27, or by e-mail at
<[e-mail]>.
Sincerely, �"�,(�
LI
te�nin
Field Supervisor

Shari L. Bryant June 19, 2014
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: EEP stream and wetland mitigation project in Guilford County
Dear Ms. Bryant,
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 Brown Summit 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 Guilford County from your web site
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/nhp/database-search). The listed species are shown below.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled Pogonia
Threatened
H otis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
Proposed 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
r M163111
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. A desktop -GIS assessment of the
project study area, as well as the area within a 2 -mile radius of the project limits, was
performed on May 2, 2014 using Google Earth color aerials. Brooks Lake is large enough
and sufficiently open to be considered a potential feeding source and is approximately 1
mile east of the project study area. Lake Townsend is larger than Brooks Lake and is
location approximately 1.5 miles south of the project. Since foraging habitat is located
within the review area, a survey of the project study area was conducted. No nests were
observed, although large pines were present. Due to the distance to the nearest large body
of water and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this
project will not affect this species.
Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia)
Federal Status: Threatened
Animal Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1982
Small -whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a small, perennial member of the family
Orchidaceae. These plants arise from long, slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a
whorl of five or six, light green leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long,
with yellowish -green to white petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in
late spring from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this plant are reported to have
extended periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small, spring, ephemeral
orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in flower, young
plants of Indian cucumber -root (Medeola virginiana) also resemble small whorled pogonia.
However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus Medeola, which
has a solid, more slender stem.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. A survey of potential habitat for
the species was conducted on May 28, 2014 during the blooming window for the species.
Neither individuals nor the appropriate habitat were encountered during the survey. The
construction of this project is anticipated to have no effect on the species.
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat)
Federal Status: Proposed Endangered
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: TBD
During the summer, Myotis septentrionalis roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. The bat species will utilize tree species
which can retain bark or have suitable bark (i.e. Quercus velutina, Quercus rubra, Acer
saccharinum, Robinia pseudoacacia, Fagus grandifolia, Acer saccharum, Oxydendron
arboretum, and Pinus echinata) or can provide cavities or crevices on the tree. Myotis
septentrionalis tends to roost on upper and middle slopes (higher elevations) rather than
lower slopes possibly due to a preference for greater solar exposure. They may also use

abandoned buildings for roosting. In addition, males and reproductive females infrequently
utilize caves and mines for roosting in summer months as well.
Primary foraging habitat for Myotis septentrionalis includes forested hillsides and ridges,
mature forests with less foraging occurring along forest clearings, water, and roads.
The bat species overwinters in hibernacula such as caves and abandoned mines that have
large passages and entrances. However, individuals utilize small cracks and crevices within
these features for roosting. The preferred hibernacula conditions for this species are cool,
constant temperatures (32 to 48°F), high humidity, and no air currents.
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the
species are listed within 2 miles of the project study area. The species is not currently listed
as endangered. No impacts to the species are anticipated during project construction.
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,
Emaly Simone
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Phone: [phone]
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Email: [e-mail]
Cary, NC 27518

Roessler, Chris
From: King, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:26 AM
To: Roessler, Chris
Subject: FW: Browns Summit restoration site and the Northern Long -Eared Bat
Chris,
Browns Summit is clear for Northern Long -Eared Bat issues. All we stated was that we would hold off on any burning
until after the summer months.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott King, LSS, PWS I Environmental Specialist I Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway — Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518 1 [Office] 919-481-5731 1 [Fax] 919-463-5490
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
Michael Baker 101 tato
INTERNATIONAL 7 Iii Qaf eStICe
5'F rS RS
vivo
From: Bryant, Shari L. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:22 AM
To: King, Scott
Cc: Darling, Richard; Gilland, Ken; Simone, Emaly
Subject: RE: Browns Summit restoration site and the Northern Long -Eared Bat
Mr. King,
We are deferring to the USFWS regarding potential impacts and recommendations related to the Northern long-eared
bat.
Shari Bryant
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O. Box 129
Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
336.449.7625
[e-mail]
Get NC Wildlife Update -- news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more -- delivered to your
Inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
From: King, Scott [mai Ito: Scott. King(abmbakerintl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 4:16 PM
To: Bryant, Shari L.
Cc: Darling, Richard; Gilland, Ken; Simone, Emaly
Subject: RE: Browns Summit restoration site and the Northern Long -Eared Bat
Good afternoon Ms. Bryant,
I

Baker Engineering is nearing construction on a stream and wetland restoration project in Guilford County (the Browns
Summit site), for which we had previously coordinated with you as part of our Categorical Exclusion effort (see attached
letter). It has come to our attention that the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) will be listed as a
Threatened species effective this May and we have been asked by the Division of Mitigation Services or DMS (previously
the Ecosystem Enhancement Program or EEP) to contact both the FWS and NCWRC to obtain a simple email agreement
to our No Effect determination to include with our Categorical Exclusion for the project. This morning Ms. Kathryn
Matthews of the FWS emailed us back with her agreement (see her response below), and now we would request your
review as well. As such, please consider the following:
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat or NLEB)
Federal Status: Threatened
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: May 4, 2015
During the summer, Myotis septentrionalis roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both
live and dead trees. The bat species will utilize tree species which can retain bark or have suitable bark (i.e. Quercus
velutina, Quercus rubra, Acer saccharinum, Robinia pseudoacacia, Fagus grandifolia, Acer saccharum, Oxydendron
arboretum, and Pinus echinata) or can provide cavities or crevices on the tree. Myotis septentrionalis tends to roost on
upper and middle slopes (higher elevations) rather than lower slopes possibly due to a preference for greater solar
exposure. They may also use abandoned buildings for roosting. In addition, males and reproductive females infrequently
utilize caves and mines for roosting in summer months as well. Primary foraging habitat for Myotis septentrionalis
includes forested hillsides and ridges, mature forests with less foraging occurring along forest clearings, water, and
roads.
The bat species overwinters in hibernacula such as caves and abandoned mines that have large passages and entrances.
However, individuals utilize small cracks and crevices within these features for roosting. The preferred hibernacula
conditions for this species are cool, constant temperatures (32 to 487), high humidity, and no air currents.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the species are listed within two
miles of the project study area, though Baker was informed in a July 15, 2014 USFWS letter that the Service has acoustic
evidence of NLEB in Guilford County within two miles of the project site. Yet no impacts to the species are anticipated
during project construction due to the following:
-The project design has minimized tree clearing, with all larger trees having been surveyed to avoid impacts wherever
possible. There is only one small area behind the house on Broad Ridge Ct. where any significant clearing is planned,
and that consists of mostly smaller successional trees. The conservation easement being placed around the project
currently contains a significant amount of open land, which will be replanted with native species, ultimately increasing
the forested acreage along the creek.
-No stands of any of the identified preferred tree species listed above are located on the project site, and no individual
specimens have been noted in any of the previous vegetation surveys (though some number of individual specimens
may nevertheless be present on site undetected). Furthermore, no tree species with the preferred exfoliating or shaggy
bark such as white oak (Quercus alba), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), or shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) were
identified on site either.
-There are no abandoned buildings or man-made structures located on the project site that might be attractive to bats
as summer roosting habitat.
-To further help avoid impacts to any potentially roosting bats in the project area during construction, no burning will be
allowed during the summer months to avoid disturbance or death through smoke inhalation or scorching (as per the
USFWS Northern Long -Eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance —January 6, 2014, page 5).
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments about this issue.
Thank you very much for your time,

Scott
Scott King, LSS, PWS I Environmental Specialist I Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway — Suite 600, Cary, INC 27518 1 [Office] 919-481-5731 1 [Fax] 919-463-5490
scott.king@mbal<erintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com
4I& 7 P1, 9R
11 T IIE N RAT 10 INA L Ift M o Di f ereri[a:
�w.er.rdiue i 0 In IT
kod
From: Matthews, Kathryn [mailto:kathryn matthewsCo)fws.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:41 AM
To: King, Scott
Cc: Darling, Richard; Gilland, Ken
Subject: Re: Browns Summit restoration site and the Northern Long -Eared Bat
We concur.
Thanks,
Kathy
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:11 PM, King, Scott <Scott.King�a mbakerintl.com> wrote:
Good afternoon Kathy,
As we discussed in our conversation earlier today, Baker is nearing construction of a stream and wetland
restoration project for the NC Division of Mitigation Services or DMS (previously the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program or EEP) located in northern Guilford County (see attached maps). Recently, it has come to our
attention that the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) will be listed as a threatened species effective
this May. The DMS has requested that we contact the F&WS to obtain a simple email agreement to our No
Effect determination to include with our Categorical Exclusion for the project. As such, please consider the
following:
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat or NLEB)
Federal Status: Threatened
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: May 4, 2015
During the summer, Myotis septentrionalis roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in
crevices of both live and dead trees. The bat species will utilize tree species which can retain bark or have
suitable bark (i.e. Quercus velutina, Quercus rubra, Acer saccharinum, Robinia pseudoacacia, Fagus
grandifolia, Acer saccharum, Oxydendron arboretum, and Pinus echinata) or can provide cavities or crevices

on the tree. Myotis septentrionalis tends to roost on upper and middle slopes (higher elevations) rather than
lower slopes possibly due to a preference for greater solar exposure. They may also use abandoned buildings for
roosting. In addition, males and reproductive females infrequently utilize caves and mines for roosting in
summer months as well. Primary foraging habitat for Myotis septentrionalis includes forested hillsides and
ridges, mature forests with less foraging occurring along forest clearings, water, and roads.
The bat species overwinters in hibernacula such as caves and abandoned mines that have large passages and
entrances. However, individuals utilize small cracks and crevices within these features for roosting. The
preferred hibernacula conditions for this species are cool, constant temperatures (32 to 48°F), high humidity,
and no air currents.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on a search of the Natural Heritage database (May 6, 2014), no populations of the species are listed
within two miles of the project study area, though Baker was informed in a July 15, 2014 USFWS letter that the
Service has acoustic evidence of NLEB in Guilford County within two miles of the project site. Yet no impacts
to the species are anticipated during project construction due to the following:
The project design has minimized tree clearing, with all larger trees having been surveyed to avoid impacts
wherever possible. There is only one small area behind the house on Broad Ridge Ct. where any significant
clearing is planned, and that consists of mostly smaller successional trees. The conservation easement being
placed around the project currently contains a significant amount of open land, which will be replanted with
native species, ultimately increasing the forested acreage along the creek.
No stands of any of the identified preferred tree species listed above are located on the project site, and no
individual specimens have been noted in any of the previous vegetation surveys (though some number of
individual specimens may nevertheless be present on site undetected). Furthermore, no tree species with the
preferred exfoliating or shaggy bark such as white oak (Quercus alba), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), or shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) were identified on site either.
There are no abandoned buildings or man-made structures located on the project site that might be attractive to
bats as summer roosting habitat.
To further help avoid impacts to any potentially roosting bats in the project area during construction, no burning
will be allowed during the summer months to avoid disturbance or death through smoke inhalation or scorching
(as per the USFWS Northern Long -Eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance — January 6, 2014,
page 5).
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments about this issue.
Thank you very much for your time,
Scott

Scott King, LSS, PWS I Environmental Specialist I Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway — Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518 1 [Office] 919-481-57311 [Fax] 919-463-5490
scott.kinggrabakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com
I Michael Baker . +
INTERNATIONAL (75)
r
YEARS
Ca~rrrdhM W M M UCE 611, +•
Kathy Matthews
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Raleigh Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] x27
Email kathryn—matthewskfws.gov
We Make a Difference
FWS.GOV/RALEIGH Facebook YouTube Flickr
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
61

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission rQ
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
I July 2014
Emaly Simone
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary. North Carolina 27518
Subject: EEP Stream and Welland Mitigation Project, Guilford County
Dear Ms. Simone:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as amended; 16 U.S C. 661-667c) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The proposed project would provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream and/or wedged
impacts. Several sections of stream channel have been identified as significantly degraded due to past
channelimtion and agricultural practices. The project site includes an unnamed tributary to Haw River in
the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the state special concem four -toed salamander
(Hemidiwo,hum scumrum) and mole salamander (Ambystoma wipoidei m), and the slate significantly rare
Carolina ladle crayfish(Cambarus davidi) near the project site. The Significant Natural Heritage Area -
Troublesome Creek/Benaja Creek Wetlands and Slopes - is located downstream of the project area.
Scream 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 constructionlrestomtion activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in
significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Think you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If we can provide further
assistance, please contact our office at [phone] or shari.brvantiumewildlife ore.
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Renee Gledhill -Earley May 21, 2014
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: EEP stream mitigation project in Guilford 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 Brown Summit 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 maps
generated through HPOWEB, the nearest NRNP -listed site to the project area is the Parker-
Troxler House (1976) (GF 1594), which is approximately 1.6 miles to the southeast of the
project midpoint. 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,
Ema Simone
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

GF1787 House
ro
.c
C3
S
�GF1B7a Cardwag Richards Log House {Gone?}
Ie
Cripplegate Tr cc
4
Walbraok Ter -
13ev,li 0'�/,., #
4fifchell Wand )T
Ca
In
n
0
�r
NC -150
Spen cer's Was
0
cr
5
X
r
F
13ev,li 0'�/,., #
4fifchell Wand )T
Ca
In
n
0
�r
NC -150
Spen cer's Was

%
�
ƒ
House (a
M tch�
CWa
�
�
�
Brooks
Lake J
_
-j
GF1594PaAer- 2_ier House 1978
��.
0 &
& J150
�
Q
7
\
\
�
EL
&
GF1594PaAer- 2_ier House 1978
��.
0 &
& J150
�
Q

d� STAT�a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
May 29, 2014
Emaly Simone
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Re: Brown Summit Creek Stream Mitigation, Guilford County, ER 14-1080
Dear Ms. Simone:
Thank you for your letter of May 21, 2014, 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,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Ms. Kristin May
Resource Soil Scientist
530 West Innes Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
May 21,2014
Subject: Prime and Important Farmland Soils RE: NCEEP Project, Brown Summit
Creek Stream Restoration Site, Guilford, NC
Dear Ms. May:
Enclosed please find a draft copy of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (AD -
1006) and associated mapping for the subject site. The site is located in Guilford County
between Spearman Road and Fairgrove Church Road, northwest of the Community of
Browns Summit, as shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. This stream restoration site proposes to
restore Brown Summit Creek, which is an unnamed tributary to the Haw River. Figure
2.3 is a map of the soils encountered at the project site. Additional information about
these soils is provided in the table below.
Soil
Code
Soil Description
Acres
Soil Designation
CcC
Cecil sandy loam, 670% slopes
3.8
Farmland of statewide importance
Ch
Chewacla sandy loam
13.0
Prime
HhB
Helena -Sedgefield sandy loam
0.1
Prime
MaE
Madison sandy loam, 10-35% slopes
0.4
McE2
Madison clay loam, 15-25% slopes, eroded
2.0
Total Acreage
19.3
Total Prime Farmland Acreage
13.1
Prime
Total Acreage of Farmland of Statewide
Importance
3.8
Farmland of statewide importance
We appreciate your assistance with the project. 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 emaly.simonekmbakerintl.com or by phone at [phone].
Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely
Em Simone
Baker Engineering, NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518

Conservation Easement
ApB, Appling sandy loam - 2-6% slopes
CcB - Cecil sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
CcC - Cecil sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
Ce62 - Cecil sandy clay, 2-6%, eroded
L CeC2 - Cecil sandy clay, 6-10%, eroded
llllllllWll Ch - Chewacla sandy loam
Co - Congaree loam
HhB - Helena -Sedgefield sandy loam
MaE - Madison sandy loam, 10-35% slopes
McB2 - Madison clay loam, 2-6%, eroded
McC2 - Madison clay loam, 6-10%, eroded
McD2 - Madison clay loam, 10-15%, eroded
McE2 - Madison clay loam, 15-25%, eroded
W - water
Mh"91 SOW Enpineerft 1n
WW Ppency Pwkw
Siete WD
Cory, N Cel 27518
Pnane. 918A89.5
F-: 919 M3 UO
Reach R6
Reach R2 --• ~—
Reach T2
Reach R3 t
Reach T3
Ch
Reach R4
Reach R5
.Source. sri. Bi,ait
0 500 1,000
Feet
S al
Figure 2.3
Soils Map
Browns Summit Cr. Site

UJO
United States Denartment of Aaricultun
Natural Resources Conservation Service Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist
4407 Bland Road, Suite 117 Telephone No.: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Fax No.: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
August 20, 2014
Emaly N. Simone
Baker Engineering, NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Ms. Simone;
The following information is in response to your review request in the Prime and Important Farmland Soils
RE: NCEEP Project, Brown Summit Creek Stream Restoration Site, and Guilford, NC
Projects are subject to Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland
(directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a Federal agency or with assistance from a Federal
agency.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local
importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be forest
land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up land.
Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section 1540(c)(1) of the Act or farmland that is determined
by the appropriate state or unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary to be
farmland of statewide of local importance.
"Farmland" does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage. Farmland "already
in" urban development or water storage includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40 -acre area.
Farmland already in urban development also includes lands identified as "urbanized area" (UA) on the Census Bureau
Map, or as urban area mapped with a "tint overprint" on the USGS topographical maps, or as "urban -built-up" on the
USDA Important Farmland Maps. See over for more information.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland. Farmland area will be affected or
converted. Enclosed is the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form AD 1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation, according to the Code of Federal Regulation
7CFR 658, Farmland Protection Policy Act.
If you have any questions, please contact me at number above.
Sincer ly,
7
Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
cc. Tim Beard. State Conservationist, USDA NRCS, NC
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, USDA NRCS, NC
Helping People Help the Land
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Projects and Activities Subject to FPPA
Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to
nonagricultural use and are completed by a Federal agency or with assistance from a Federal agency.
Assistance from a Federal agency includes:
• Acquiring or disposing of land.
• Providing financing or loans.
• Managing property.
• Providing technical assistance
Activities that may be subject to FPPA include:
• State highway construction projects, (through the Federal Highway Administration)
• Airport expansions
• Electric cooperative construction projects
• Railroad construction projects
• Telephone company construction projects
• Reservoir and hydroelectric projects
• Federal agency projects that convert farmland
• Other projects completed with Federal assistance.
Activities not subject to FPPA include:
• Federal permitting and licensing
• Projects planned and completed without the assistance of a Federal agency
• Projects on land already in urban development or used for water storage
• Construction within an existing right-of-way purchased on or before August 4, 1984
• Construction for national defense purposes
• Construction of on-farm structures needed for farm operations
• Surface mining, where restoration to agricultural use is planned
• Construction of new minor secondary structures such as a garage or storage shed.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 5/21/14
Name Of Project Brown Summit Creek Restoration Project
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration
County And State Guilford, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By NRCS
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
100 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 331,434 acres % 79
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 331.434 acres %79
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Guilford Co., NC LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
none
Date Land E etu e y C
08/20/2014
PART III T b I t d b F d I A
Alternative Sjte Rin ° \
t a comp e e y e era gency) Site A Site B
Site C
D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 19.3
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 19.3 0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 13.1
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 3.8
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.0051
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 48.5
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 76 0
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
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
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On -Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160 0 0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100 76 0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160 74 0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260 150 0
0
0
Site Selected:
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Date Of Selection 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 I Lei

rete��� Ile ,ebfeis
1921 VANCRrSTREET P.O. BOX 2157 RBIDSVB.LEr NC 27320 336349-4331
ice Of An Opportunity For An Informational Public
Dn The Use Of Property For The Restoration Of Streams
OF PUBLICATION
Guilford County
�FFIDAVIT
mr Engineering, hu., proposes to acquire a preservation easement one
NORM CAROLINA
ct of land in Guilford County, NC, northwest of the BmWns Summit con-
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
e purpose of using this property is to provide mitigation for unavoidable
reams that will result from atoning or future development in Nis area.The
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Said
restore Brown Summit Creek an unnamed mbutary to the Haw River.
County and State, tlWy commissioned, qualified, and
ring Nat an informational public meeting be held for this proposed action
euthodad by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared Pam Durham, who being Iket duly swom,
uch a request by registered tear to Welu el Baker Engineering, Inc., at
sy Parkway. Suite (AO Cary. NC 27518. Requests must be made by Augustdeposes
and says. Thant she Is an offmal of Media
additional information is required. please contact Brusly Simone at 919-
Comes! of Reidsville. Inc. engaged! to IM publkallon
of a newspaper known as The Raldevige Review,
published, Issued and entered an second class mall
em Eohmcemem Program reserves the right in determine if a public meet-
In the City of nodules, In sold County end$WW; Nat
field.
she Is authorized b make this ofgdevIt and swmn
atslentee. Met the nonce a other lapel advertisement,
--
a sue copy of which Is attached hereb, was published
bTye= Review N' fou�g�pkbg .. yy
and Nat pros sold newspaper In which ouch ounce,
paper document, or legal adveNsemenl wee published
was, W Ne tlme of each and every such publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and
qualifications of Section I-Sg7 of the General Statutes
of North Carolina and was qualified newspaper within
Ne mooning of Section 1-597 of Ne General Statutes
of Nunn Carolina.
T—day�j-�r(�f CXJ�y
I n/1 T,p
Swomfoan aubaerbee ekreme, /rj
eqy w
i Notary Public
My commisabn eapsu the -,�f_dsyo 1-I
SARAH D. GENTRY
Iat Nunnery Public
Commnweelth of Vrylnia
t+yar'-f Reg. 43206]3
My cmm ern Evplm l:.ai-�

Brown Summit Creek
8401 Middleland Drive
Browns Summit, NC 27214
Inquiry Number: 3935116.2s
May 06, 2014
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
www.edrnet.comt.com Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDR'5Environmental Data Resources Inc Toll Free: 2.0050
FORM -LBF -CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary
ES1
Overview Map-----------------------------------------------------------
2
DetailMap--------------------------------------------------------------
3
Map Findings Summary
4
MapFindings------------------------------------------------------------
8
Orphan Summary
9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - GR -1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
GeoCheck - Not Requested
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2014 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC3935116.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
8401 MIDDLELAND DRIVE
BROWNS SUMMIT, NC 27214
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
36.2371000 - 36° 14' 13.56"
79.7485000 - 79° 44'54.60"
Zone 17
612461.5
4010771.8
792 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:
North Map:
Most Recent Revision:
West Map:
Most Recent Revision:
Northwest Map:
Most Recent Revision:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
36079-B6 BROWNS SUMMIT, NC
1994
36079-C6 REIDSVILLE, NC
1994
36079-B7 LAKE BRANDT, NC
1994
36079-C7 BETHANY, NC
1997
Photo Year: 2012
Source: USDA
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
TC3935116.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL__________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL_________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
CERC-NFRAP---------------- CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls /engineering controls registries
US ENG CONTROLS --------- Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
Federal ERNS list
ERNS________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
TC3935116.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS-----------------------. Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST------------------------. Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST---------------- Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
UST Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST-----------------. Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
State and tribal institutional control/ engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP-------------------------- Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS---------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid Waste Disposal Sites
DEBRIS REGION 9
Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI
Open Dump Inventory
SWRCY----------------------
Recycling Center Listing
HIST LF
Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI
Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Local Lists of Hazardous waste/ Contaminated Sites
US CDL---------------------- Clandestine Drug Labs
TC3935116.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US HIST CDL---------------- National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
IMD--------------------------
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 80
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 90
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR--------.
RCRA - Non Generators
DOT OPS
Incident and Accident Data
DOD
Department of Defense Sites
FUDS------------------------
Formerly Used Defense Sites
CONSENT
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD
Records Of Decision
UMTRA----------------------
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
US MINES
Mines Master Index File
TRIS
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA------------------------
Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
HIST FTTS-------------------
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
SSTS
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS------------------------
PCB Activity Database System
MLTS
Material Licensing Tracking System
RADINFO
Radiation Information Database
FINDS-----------------------.
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RMP
Risk Management Plans
UIC--------------------------.
Underground Injection Wells Listing
DRYCLEANERS
Drycleaning Sites
NPDES
NPDES Facility Location Listing
INDIAN RESERV-------------
Indian Reservations
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
2020 COR ACTION
2020 Corrective Action Program List
LEAD SMELTERS ------------
Lead Smelter Sites
PRP
Potentially Responsible Parties
US AIRS
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US FIN ASSUR--------------.
Financial Assurance Information
Financial Assurance
Financial Assurance Information Listing
PCB TRANSFORMER
PCB Transformer Registration Database
COAL ASH EPA--------------
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
COAL ASH
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
COAL ASH DOE
Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
EPA WATCH LIST-----------.
EPA WATCH LIST
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
TC3935116.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EDR US Hist Auto Stat- ------- EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR US Hist Cleaners EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
RGA LF_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC3935116.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 27 records.
Site Name
FINISH LINE TRANSPORT
TRIANGLE RESOURCE INDUSTRIES
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS - BROWN SUMMIT
COMER PROPERTY, PATRICIA
BROWN PROPERTY, JOE
J & E MARKET
CORNELL PROPERTY
BROWN SUMMIT GROCERY
ANDY'S GROCERY
ADKINS GROCERY
MIDWAY GROC.
RUTH T. CARTER
J.W. MORRICK EXXON
REX COUNTRY STORE
WILSON GROCERY
SSC REIDSVILLE SERVICE
COLLINS GROCERY
PEP -CO SERVICE STATION
COUNCIL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
731ST MAI NIT. CO (NC NAT'L GUARD)
DB&J'S
MIDWAY MARKET
G B GREEN & SON INC
WILSON TRUCKING CORP.
G. W. WALKER'S STORE
COMB'S GULF
SMITH CAROLINA CORP
Database(s)
LAST
CERC-NFRAP, MANIFEST
LUST
LUST, LUST TRUST
LUST
LUST
LUST TRUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
RCRA NonGen / NLR
TC3935116.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

OVERVIEW MAP - 3935116.2s
0 1/4 1/2 1 Miles
D
Target Property
N
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Sites at elevations lower than
0
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
El
National Priority List Sites
0
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4 1/2 1 Miles
D
Indian Reservations BIA
N
County Boundary
Power transmission lines
Oil & Gas pipelines from USGS
0
100 -year flood zone
0
500 -year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
0
State Wetlands
Hazardous Substance
Disposal Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Brown Summit Creek CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: 8401 Middleland Drive CONTACT: Emily
Browns Summit NC 27214 INQUIRY #: 3935116.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.2371 / 79.7485 DATE: May 06, 2014 11:11 am
Copyright ro 2014 EDR, Inc. (o 2010 Tale Atlas Rel. 07/2009.

DETAIL MAP - 3935116.2s
0 1/16 1/e 1/4 Miles
Target Property
%
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
0
Sites at elevations lower than
0
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
r
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/16 1/e 1/4 Miles
Hazardous Substance
Disposal Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Brown Summit Creek CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: 8401 Middleland Drive CONTACT: Emily
Browns Summit NC 27214 INQUIRY #: 3935116.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.2371 / 79.7485 DATE: May 06, 2014 11:13 am
Copyright ro 2014 EDR, Inc. (o 2010 Tale Atlas Rel. 07/2009.
Indian Reservations BIA
%
Power transmission lines
Oil & Gas pipelines from USGS
0
100 -year flood zone
0
500 -year flood zone
©
National Wetland Inventory
0
State Wetlands
Hazardous Substance
Disposal Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Brown Summit Creek CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: 8401 Middleland Drive CONTACT: Emily
Browns Summit NC 27214 INQUIRY #: 3935116.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.2371 / 79.7485 DATE: May 06, 2014 11:13 am
Copyright ro 2014 EDR, Inc. (o 2010 Tale Atlas Rel. 07/2009.

16.5 FEMA Compliance - NCDMS Floodplain Requirements
Checklist
A review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for
Guilford County indicates Project site is currently not located within a FEMA -identified flood zone
(NCFMP, 2008) and will not require a "No-Rise/No-Impact" certification. The topography of the site
supports the design without creating the threat of hydrological trespass and any rise in floodplain
elevation will be contained within the Project site, and should not pose any threat to adjacent landowners
or roadways. The NCDMS Floodplain Checklist has been provided to the Guilford County Floodplain
Manager along with this report. Baker is in the process of obtaining floodplain permits.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16-6 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Osmst '
Ei gal emcYlt
PROURAM
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:
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
Browns Summit Creek (UT to Haw River)
County:
Guilford
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Guilford County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
3710797000J (7970J)
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 BrownsSummit. Figures included.docx Page 1 of 11

Design Information
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. proposes to restore 3,785 linear feet (LF) of stream, and
enhance 2,646 LF of stream along Browns Summit Creek (UT to Haw River) and several
of its tributaries. The project site is located approximately three miles northwest Browns
Summit, NC (see Figure 1). The project site is located in the NC Division of Water
Quality subbasin 03-06-01 and the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Targeted
Local Watershed 03030002-010020 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 20.35 acres will protect all stream reaches and
riparian buffers in perpetuity.
Reach
Length
Priority
Reach RI
1,221 LF
Restoration
Reach R2
550 LF (upstream) and
242 LF downstream
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Reach R3
1,399 LF (upstream) and
296 LF downstream
Restoration
Enhancement I
Reach R4
1,296LF
Restoration
Reach R5
142 LF
Enhancement II
Reach R6
431 LF
Enhancement I BMP
Reach TI
145 LF
Enhancement II
Reach T2
283 LF
Restoration
Reach T3
190LF
Enhancement II
Reach T4
1145 LF
Enhancement I BMP
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
0 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 BrownsSummit. Figures_included.docx Page 2 of 11

❑ 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: Frank Park
Phone Number: 336-641-3753
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
F_ No Action
F_ No Rise
F_ Letter of Map Revision
F- Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Z! - .lel \
F_ Other Requirements
List other requirements:
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist_BrownsSummit. Figures included.docx Page 3 of 1 1

Comments:
Name: Chris Roessler Signature: y
Title: Technical Manager Date: 3/19/2015
FEMA Floodplain_ Checklist BrownsSummit. Figures_included.docx Page 4 of 11

FEMA—Floodplain Checklist_BrownsSummit. Figures_included.docx Page 6 of 11

16.6 Browns Summit Hydric Soils Report — Catena Group
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16-7 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Brown Summit Mitigation Site
Guilford County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Prepared by:
The
Catena
Group
4106 Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
October 18, 2013

INTRODUCTION
Baker Engineering, Inc. is investigating the feasibility of constructing a mitigation site along Middleland
Drive in Brown Summit, Guilford County, NC. The Catena Group (Catena) has been retained to perform
a soil and site evaluation that describes and classifies the soil throughout the study area and to make a
determination as to its hydric status. The site is primarily used for livestock, with wooded and open
areas. There is a small, separate 0.7 -acre additional parcel that is primarily agriculture.
METHODOLOGY
Prior to performing the evaluation, NRCS soils maps and USGS topographic maps were reviewed. The
field investigation was performed on October 15, 2013. Eighteen (18) hand -turned soil auger borings
were advanced throughout the study area (Figure 1). Soil boring locations were located with a GPS Unit
with sub -meter accuracy. Hydric soil status is based upon the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
Unities States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0, 2010).
RESULTS
There is clear evidence of substantial human manipulation throughout the study area. The original soil
has been cut/eroded to the deeper subsoil horizons and replaced with fill material from various sources
at various times. Much of the deposition appears to have happened fairly recently, likely within the last
50 years, as the fill material in many spots doesn't reflect the physical characteristics that would be
expected given the landscape positions. Further compromising the evaluation was the effect of the
livestock. In most all of the "wet" areas, the top 12-15 inches have been continually mixed and churned
by the livestock passing.
Nevertheless, certain soil characteristics were apparent in the wetter areas, including lower chroma soils
and varying redoximorphic features. These features, combined with vegetation and visual saturation,
were used to delineate two Soil Units:
Soil Unit 1- Hydric Soil. Soils in this area were visually saturated, had similar vegetation, lower
chromas, and redoximorphic features. Two relatively intact soil borings were recorded, B3 and B7.
These borings meet hydric soil indicator F3, depleted matrix:
F3 Depleted Matrix. A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less
and that has a minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
However, the majority of these soils had been well mixed to a depth of 12-15 inches by livestock,
effectively removing the redoximorphic features along with structure. As such, these soils generally do
not meet any hydric soil indicator, as reflected in boring B5. They do, however, have some general
patterns that can be used to identify them:
Brown Summit Hydric Soil Investigation October 18, 2013
Catena Job #4167 2

• Structureless surface horizon
• Low chroma surface horizon
• Subsurface horizons (beginning between 12 and 15 inches) with low chromas and distinct to
prominent redoximorphic concentrations
Soil Unit 1 would likely be considered a jurisdictional wetland that has been severely degraded by a
combination of human and livestock. As such, it is prime candidate for rehabilitation. This soil unit
totals 4.73 acres.
Soil Unit 2. While Soil Unit 2 had also been manipulated, there was generally less re -deposition of
material from when the original soil was truncated. These soils had higher chromas, less redoximorphic
features, and were "drier" when compared to Soil Unit 1, and therefore were not prone to the churning
from livestock. If the soil did not the criteria for Soil Unit 1, then it was placed in Soil Unit 2. Three
example profiles (borings B1, 68 and 615) are appended. There is no evidence that these areas do, or
ever did, support wetlands. This soil unit totals 4.83 acres.
CONCLUSION
Soil Unit 1 is a prime candidate for wetland restoration through rehabilitation. It is anticipated that
through Priority 1 stream restoration, removal of the livestock, and revegetation, the hydrology will be
restored and the soils will eventually form structure, which will allow the wetland to regain its normal
functions. Soil Unit 2 does not appear adequate to support wetlands.
The findings presented herein represent Catena's professional opinion based on our Hydric Soil
Investigation and knowledge of the current regulations regarding wetland mitigation in North Carolina
and national criteria for determining hydric soil.
Brown Summit Hydric Soil Investigation October 18, 2013
Catena Job #4167 3

a
r B8
Ci
B4 ..
1
w E3
B13 -
618 B2
B1fi B1
. `
� k
Survey Site
Soil Boring Classification
Soil Unit 1 4
Soil Unit 2
Soil Units
Soil Unit 1 (4.73 Acres)
Soil Unit 2 (4.83 Acres)
B17 B10 B11i
The
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Dale: October 2013
Figure
Catena
Browns Summit
Scale
0 Iso Sao Feet
Gr'ou't]
l l
Job No.:
Guilford County, North Carolina
4167

The Catena Group, Inc
410-8 Millstone drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919.732.1300
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
Catena Job: q l G 7
county: C"4WJ
Date; v- 115--l-3
Sheet: 1 of '27-
�
oTexture
d
Structure)
Consistence/
Mineralogy
Matrix
Color
Mottle Colors
(Quantity, Size, Contrast, Color)
.�sk /C�lz,sYV/,
.,z r.s � ... o 7-=,
A)5 41
+ f
t , 40-4
{
�f
-Z
10 oylz
31 1*7
5/
i r s�3� i°�'
Y!�/
r. �. (0
/ f
%�
%1
7,afl�%
2 4j
f r.
j
1�n� G ft
•} J S
I
•J
rY tl ,� i -r .�
' +4 1 � �
gW
�� l � � �
p
� � - f,�. � J � i.�. �, ,..,.� i y �Il� '� t� ,
1 (n i [L +'
s` ss
Y
4'
fi
Evaluated by:

SOIL EVALUATION FORM
The Catena Group, Inc Catena Job: q/�6+7 J/1S te,rxti
410-B Millstone Drive County:�,'!+r'
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Date:
919.732.1300 Sheet: ,r of �
ro
°
o
3� a
Structure /
Texture
Consistence/
Mineralogy
Matrix
Color
Mottle Colors
(Quantity, Size, Contrast, Color)
i
1, ;c-i�(
ix&TT
`�fi 4/2_
1 f J
l(�
iy�s
,5,( 712
n`
^2
Evaluated by: tl'C F, /m W

17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND
ANALYSES
17.1 Channel Morphology
17. 1.1 Existing Conditions
17.1.1.1 Reach Classifications
The project focuses on Browns Summit Creek, which is technically an unnamed tributary
to the Haw River. The mainstem begins at the confluence of Reaches R5 and R6 with a
drainage area of 85 acres. It continues downstream adding three tributaries and one
sizeable stormwater outlet en route (Figure 2.2). Reach R3 has a drainage area of 242
acres, Reach R2 has a drainage area of 299 acres. The combined, total watershed area at
the bottom of Reach R1 is 438 acres. Historically, the project streams have been
negatively impacted due to agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. The mainstem of
Browns Summit Creek (Reaches R1, R2, R3, and R4) is sparsely vegetated, and some
sections have become noticeably unstable and are actively incising and widening.
For analysis purposes, Baker labeled the existing unnamed tributaries Reach R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5, R6, T1, T2, T3, and T4. 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 mainstem begins toward the southern end of the
project as Reach R4 and flows east then north towards the project terminus.
During field verification with the USACE of intermittent or perennial status and
subsequent site visits with NCDMS, Reaches R1, R2, R3, and lower R4 were determined
to be a perennial 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 R4, R5,
T1, T2, and T3) were similarly determined to be intermittent. Reaches R6 and T4 were
considered - non jurisdictional and will be treated as stormwater control reaches.
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
Reach RI
Reach Rl extends from the downstream extent of the project at the property line
upstream to the confluence between Reach R2 and Reach T1. Reach R1 has an existing
length of 1,217 feet and a drainage area of 438 acres. Cattle have direct access to the
entire reach. Reach R1 has a low valley gradient and has noticeable floodplain wetting.
The bank height ratios range from 1.0 to 1.3 and erosion is present on approximately 10
to 30 percent of the streambanks. The observed erosion is typically in the form of
surficial scour though cattle hoof shear is causing mass wasting in some locations.
A pond was formerly located on the downstream end of R1. The remnants of the pond are
a sinuous channel and a lumpy floodplain. The stream pattern upstream from the former
pond is surprisingly straight for such a wide valley, suggesting that channel straightening
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

may have taken place in the past. Channelization is clearly confirmed by the historical
aerial photo from 1937 (Figure 8). This is further evidenced by the relic spoil piles
present in several locations along the reach. The Catena Group, in their hydric soil
delineation of Reaches RI and R2 (see Appendix 16.6), noted significant manipulation of
the soils by human and livestock activity.
Reach RI has very few mature trees along the streambank; as such, these should be saved
as part of the restoration design. Invasive species vegetation such as Chinese privet
clusters are common along the streambanks. Approximately 60 percent of the length of
Reach R1 has no trees, including both of the streambanks. Based on existing conditions,
Reach R1 is classified as an incised "E" Rosgen stream type. The lack of a natural
stream pattern is one of the primary drivers for Restoration of Reach Rl.
Cattle have access to all of Reach R1. The bed material in Reach R1 is composed of 70
percent sand, 29 percent gravel, and 1 percent silt/clay.
Reach R2
Reach R2 begins at the confluence of Reaches T2 and R3 and flows northward through
lightly grazed pasture to its confluence with Reach Tl. The existing length of Reach R2
is approximately 868 feet. Reach R2 has a drainage area of 299 acres. Bank erosion on
Reach R2 is most severe at the downstream section of the reach (40 percent), best in the
middle (10 percent), and moderate on the upstream section (30 percent). This erosion is
in the form of surficial scour, with no mass wasting. Reach R2 has been degraded
through the removal of the riparian buffer vegetaion and through cattle access.
The degree of incision along Reach R2 is variable, but the bank height ratio is frequently
greater than 1.5. Streambank cover is mostly limited to fescue and other typical pasture
grasses and forbs; however, the buffer in the top half of the reach has a few trees
scattered along the streambank. The bottom half of the reach is comprised mostly of
Chinese privet on the left bank and grass on the right bank. As such, more than 60
percent of the length of left and right banks of Reach R2 have longitudinal breaks or
interruptions of the existing tree line greater than 20 feet in length. The Reach R2
floodplain is apparently unaltered in the upper 60 percent but has been formerly
straightened in the lower section (see Figure 8). 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 `Be",
with bank height ratios greater than 2.0. The existing conditions cross-sectional survey of
the middle portion of Reach R2 in the vicinity of the spoil piles shows a bank height ratio
of 2.3 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.2. Another cross section along Reach R2 had bank
height ratio of 2.1. Erosion is not widespread but many of the streambanks on the outside
bends are vertical and eroding.
Cattle have access to all of Reach R2. The bed material in Reach RI is composed of 78
percent sand, 21 percent gravel, and 1 percent silt/clay.
Reach R3
Reach R3 originates at the confluence of Reaches R4 and T3. The drainage area for
Reach R3 is estimated to be 242 acres and the existing length is 1,586 feet. Reach R3 is
backwatered initially because of an in-line pond along its upper section. The riparian
buffer is less than 50 feet wide along the entire length of both streambanks, and often less
than 10 feet. However, mature trees or understory species are present along much of the
reach. Invasive species vegetation are present though not abundant. The entire length of
Reach R3 is consistently incised with bank height ratios above 1.5. Active channel scour
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

is low to moderate, typically 20 to 30 percent, because tree roots along the streambanks
are providing protection from excessive erosion. Bedform diversity is lacking due to a
low percentage of riffles. Below the pond; however, 50 percent of the streambanks are
severely eroding for several hundred feet before the bank erosion becomes less acute in
the lower section of the reach. The floodplain along Reach R3 does not appear to have
been altered.
Based on existing conditions, Reach R3 has a Rosgen stream type classification of `Bc",
with a bank height ratio of 2.1 and entrenchment ratio of 2.0 in the measured cross
section. Another cross section was measured in the lower end of the reach with a bank
height ratio of 1.8.
Cattle have direct access to all of Reach R3.
Reach R4
Reach R4 begins at the confluence of Reaches R5 and R6 near the southern extent of the
project area and runs 1,350 feet to the confluence with Reach T3. The drainage area is
estimated to be 138 acres at the downstream extent. Reach R4 flows 100 feet before
entering an in-line farm pond for another 100 feet. The pond dam is very close to failing
as result of an active headcut (see photo on cover and in Section 2.9.4). Cattle commonly
wallow in this pond and abundant algae visible on water surface indicate that nutrient
loading to the pond is high. Below the farm pond, Reach R4 flows for another 130 feet
before it leaves the cow pasture and enters a forested section adjacent to a small
residential development. An active headcut marks the boundary between the upstream
pasture and downstream forested area. The channel is more than 10 feet deep through this
forested section as result of a pond dam failure and subsequent channel incision (photos
in Section 2.9.4). Stormwater runoff from the residential development is causing an
additional headcut on the channel bank back towards the stormwater outlet. The incised
channel continues to flow through a forested area, below the residential development, to
which livestock have access.
Bank erosion along Reach R4 is severe, with 70-90 percent of its length containing at
least one eroding bank. Incision is pronounced, with a bank height ratio on excess of 6.8
and entrenchment of 1.2 in the measured cross section. The riparian buffer is limited to
grass in the upper 300 feet and then mostly forested for the next 750 feet. In the bottom
400 feet, the understory is limited due to cattle grazing. The floodplain has been altered in
the upper half of the reach because of two ponds (one existing and close to failing, and
one already failed). Based on existing conditions, Reach R4 has a Rosgen stream type
classification of "Gc", with bank height ratios typically greater than 3.0.
The bed material in Reach R4 is composed of 93 percent sand, 4 percent gravel, and 3 percent
silt/clay. Cattle have access to all but the middle 260 feet of the reach.
Reach R5
Reach R5 begins at the upstream project extent at a spring. The drainage area is estimated
to be 24 acres and the existing length is approximately 536 feet. The channel is an incised
"Be" with a measured bank height ratio of 5.8. The riparian buffer has scattered single
trees along the streambank but is mostly grass. Cattle have direct access to this entire
reach. The floodplain does not appear to have been altered.
Reach R6
Reach R6 also begins at the upstream extent of the project as an existing farm pond.
Below the dam, the channel is very eroded and has been filled with concrete slabs. The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-3 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

drainage area for Reach R6 is estimated to be 61 acres and it has been classified as a non -
jurisdictional channel. The valley length of the reach is approximately 442 feet with 180
feet in the pond. The riparian buffer is limited to grass with minimal to no mature woody
vegetation. The measured cross section indicates the channel is an incised `Bc" with a
bank height ratio of 5.2. Cattle have access to the entire reach and use the pond to
wallow.
Reach TI
Reach T1 is a tributary that enters Browns Summit Creek between Reaches R and R2. It
has a drainage area of approximately 55 acres, draining through a neighborhood
development. The existing length of Reach T1 is 121 feet. It is located in active pasture
and has no trees along its banks. Buffer vegetation is largely limited to fescue and other
typical pasture grasses. Approximately 30 percent of the channel length has bank scour.
It appears that the floodplain has been altered because the channel does not follow the
bottom of the valley. A cross section was surveyed and indicates a Rosgen stream
classification of `B" with a bank height ratio of 1.6. It is not entrenched, however. Cattle
have access to the entire reach.
Reach T2
Reach T2 is a tributary that emanates below a pond and enters Browns Summit Creek
between Reaches R2 and R3. It has a drainage area of 47 acres. A channel length of 283
feet of Reach T2 is included in the project. The project section starts more than 100 feet
below the pond dam. Cattle have access to the reach though they do not appear to use it,
at present. A headcut is present approximately 100 feet from Browns Summit Creek. The
upper section is stable but the buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation. Bank scour is
not present on the upper half of the reach and estimated at 20 percent on the lower half. A
cross section was surveyed and indicates a Rosgen stream classification of "F" with a
bank height ratio of 3.0.
Reach T3
Reach T3 is a tributary that enters Browns Summit Creek between Reaches R3 and R4. It
has a drainage area of approximately 41 acres, draining through mostly cropland and a
large pond. Sixty-five linear feet of Reach T3 are included in the project. This section is
located on the floodplain of Browns Summit Creek and a headcut has migrated through it.
There are little to no trees along the banks. Buffer vegetation is largely limited to
herbaceous grasses. Approximately 50 percent of the channel length has bank scour.
The floodplain appears to not have been altered, but the lower T3 channel is backwatered
by the farm pond in Reach R3. A cross section was surveyed and indicates a Rosgen
stream classification of `B" with a bank height ratio of 1.7.
Reach T4
Reach T4 is a small runoff source entering Browns Summit Creek from a 30 -inch culvert
that discharges runoff from much of Broad Ridge Court, a newly developed subdivision.
It has a drainage area of approximately 10 acres. A second BMP feature will be created
on the new floodplain to treat runoff discharge from a 30 -inch culvert located just above
and beyond the right bank.
The valley length of this BMP is estimated to be 170 feet, though only 117 feet will be
included in the project because of easement area restrictions by the landowner. The outlet
is currently causing a major headcut that will continue to migrate. This is a non -
jurisdictional channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-4 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for Project
Reaches:
Stream Channel Classification Level II
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Reach R1
Reach R2
Reach R3
Parameter
XSR1
XSR2
XSR3
Existing Reach Length (ft)
1,217
868
1,586
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.68
0.47
0.38
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf
58
43
34.5
(cfs)*
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
E
Be
Be
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
12.32
10.06
8.5
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf)
1.32
1.11
1.15
(ft)
Width to Depth Ratio
9.33
9.1
7.15
Wbkf/dbkf
Cross -Sectional Area, Abkf (sq
16.3
11.1
9.7
ft
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf)
2,10
2.0
1.82
ft
Floodprone Width (Wfpa) (ft)
>100
22.1
17.8
Entrenchment Ratio
8.7
2.2
2.0
(W a/Wbkf) ft
Bank Height Ratio**
1
2.3
2.1
Longitudinal Stationing of
Cross -Section Along Existing
58+67
47+46
35+50
Thalweg ft
Bankfull Mean Velocity,
3.56
3.87
3.56
Vbkf= Qbkf/Abkf ft/S
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d50)***
d16 / d35 / d50/ d84/ d95 (mm)
0.3/0.5/0.8/5.8/10.2
0.2/0.4/0.6/2.9/6.9
0.1/0.2/0.4/10.4/22.4
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0068
0.0095
Average Water Surface Slope
0.0058
0.0054
0.0082
(S)
Average Channel Sinuosity
1.12
1.35
1.10
(K)****
*Bankfull discharge estimated in Table 17.7 (Section 17.2.3) for Reaches RI -R4, and
by using published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999) for others.
**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 straightened/channelized, and/or is classified as a step -pool channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-5 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.1 continued Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for
Project Reaches:
Stream Channel Classification Level II
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Reach R4
Reach R5
Reach R6
Parameter
XSR4
XSR5
XSR6
Existing Reach Length (ft)
1,350
536
501
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.22
0.04
0.10
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfS)*
24
12.7
16.5
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
Gc
Be
Be
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
7.60
7.38
9.09
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.86
0.44
0.48
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)
8.8
16.77
18.94
Cross -Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
6.5
3.2
4.4
Bankf ill Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.39
0.67
0.85
Floodprone Width (Wfpa) (ft)
9.1
11.8
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)
1.2
1.6
1.4
ft
Bank Height Ratio**
6.8
5.8
5.2
Longitudinal Stationing of
Cross -Section Along Existing
22+33
13+49
14+73
Thalweg ft
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf=
3.69
3.97
3.75
(Qbkf/Abkf ft/S
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d50)***
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 (mm)
0.2 / 0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
-
-
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.020
0.015
Average Water Surface Slope
0.016
0.017
0.014
(S)
Average Channel Sinuosity
1.15
1.14
1.07
(K)****
*Bankf ill discharge estimated in Table 17.7 (Section 17.2.3) for Reaches R1 -R4, and
by using published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999) for others.
**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 straightened/channelized, and/or is classified as a step -pool channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-6 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.1 continued Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for
Project Reaches:
Stream Channel Classification Level II
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Reach T1
Reach T2
Reach T3
Parameter
Existing Reach Length (ft)
121
283
47
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.09
0.07
0.06
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfS)*
16.9
14.4
11.7
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Rosgen Stream Type
E
F
E
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
6.80
18.00
2.93
Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)
0.67
0.22
1.12
Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)
10.15
81.82
2.62
Cross -Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)
4.5
4.0
3.3
Bankf ill Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.53
0.78
1.76
Floodprone Width (Wfp,,) (ft)
89.1
23.4
66.5
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)
13.1
1.3
22.7
ft
Bank Height Ratio**
1.6
3.0
1.7
Longitudinal Stationing of
Cross -Section Along Existing
10+75
12+00
10+60
Thalweg ft
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkff
3.76
3.6
3.55
(Qbkf/Abkf ft/S
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - d50)***
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 (mm)
-
-
-
Average Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.025
0.024
0.029
Average Water Surface Slope
0.024
0.022
0.02
(S)
Average Channel Sinuosity
1.06
1.12
1.06
(K)****
*Bankf ill discharge estimated in Table 17.7 (Section 17.2.3) for Reaches R1 -R4, and
by using published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999) for others.
**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 straightened/channelized, and/or is classified as a step -pool channel.
17.1.1.2 Wetlands Proposed for Mitigation
As described in Section 2.2, the wetlands along Reaches R2 and RI are proposed for rehabilitation
and re-establishment.
The different types areas may be categorized as follows:
1. "Functioning" wetlands - forested areas with hydrology and hydric soils, such as along
the right bank of Reach R1. The hydrology and vegetation are present but in many areas
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-7 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

cattle trampling has impacted the soil structure and ability to percolate water. A 3:1 credit
ratio for this wetland type was agreed to by the IRT at the post contract field meetings.
2. Degraded wetlands — areas with no wetland vegetation and some hydrology such as along
the corrugated metal pipe at the beginning of Reach R1. A 1.5:1 credit ratio for this
wetland type was agreed to by the IRT at the post contract field meetings.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — saturated areas along the left bank of the middle of
Reach RI that lack wetland vegetation. A 1.5:1 credit ratio for this wetland type was
agreed to by the IRT at the post contract field meetings.
4. Filled wetlands — areas where spoil has been placed on top of delineated hydric soils,
such as upper Reach R2 and the downstream end of Reach R1. A 1:1 credit ratio for this
wetland type was agreed to by the IRT at the post contract field meetings.
5. Hydric soils — areas that have hydric soils but lack wetland hydrology, such as the right
bank along lower Reach R4. Priority Level I restoration will re-establish wetland
hydrology by replacing a 6-8 foot deep channel with one that is approximately 1 foot
deep. This area is proposed for wetland re-establishment, but will only seek a 3.5:1 credit
ratio, in order to meet Baker's contracted credit requirement.
The locations of these different types of wetlands are shown in Figure 2.4b, 2.4c, and 2.4d, as well
as in the plan sheets (Appendix F).
17.1.1.3 Valley Classification
The Browns Summit Creek Site is located in north central Guilford County within the Piedmont
hydrophysiographic region of North Carolina. Undisturbed Piedmont valleys in this region are
generally classified as Valley Type `VII' (Rosgen, 2006) and 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 the Paleozoic granitic rock (PPg) within
the Charlotte and Milton Belts 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 43.14 inches per year (USDA Climate Data for Guilford County,
WETS Station: Piedmont Triad Intl Airport in Greensboro, NC).
17.1.1.4 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 20.0, Appendix F). Nine representative cross sections and a
longitudinal profile survey were also surveyed to assess the current condition and overall
stability of the stream channels. The existing riffle cross-section data and locations are
shown in Figure 17.1 and compared with the Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
shown in Table 17.2.
Consistent bankfull indicators were not abundant in the field, though there was evidence
of them in Reach R1 and Reach R3. The indicators yielded bankfull cross-sectional areas
that were lower than the estimates from the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve by as
much as 20 percent; however, top -of -bank measurements on Reach R1 were just 2%
below the published regional curve. Thus, for the most part, Baker sized the channels so
that they were about 15 percent below the published regional curve. Coincidentally,
perhaps, these numbers are frequently about 15 percent above the revised Piedmont
regional curve.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-8 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

The representative riffle cross-sections have a typical Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 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.
The longitudinal profiles show the channel slopes vary from 0.005 to 0.016 ft/ft and have
average valley slopes of 0.007 to 0.017 ft/ft with several long riffle sections and
infrequently spaced pools. The sinuosity for the reaches is approximately 1. 1, a result of
prior straightening/channelization and valley morphology. Large sections of the project
reaches are moderately to severely entrenched and highly unstable as shown on the cross-
section data. This likely indicates a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
downcutting, stream bank erosion), especially in portions of the reach where numerous
active headcuts are present (vertical instability) or stream banks are actively eroding
(lateral instability).
Table 17.2 Rosgen Channel Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Stability Rating
Bank Height Ratio
BHR)
Stable low risk of degradation)
1.0-1.05
Moderately unstable
1.06-1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation)
1.3-1.5
Highly unstable
>1.5
Notes: Rosgen, D. L. (200 1) A stream channel stability assessment methodology.
Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-9 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.1 Existing Cross -Section Locations for Project Reaches
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-10 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Figure 17.2 Existing Cross Section Data for Project Reaches
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
16.3
L 12.32
1.32
2.1
9.33
1
8.7
760.1
760.13
Cross Section R1
762.5
762
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
BKF
Width
761.5
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
r- 761
ER
BKF Elev
.SF60.5
Riffle
Bc
a 760
-
1.1
Y59.5
9.13
2.3
ul 759
766.26
768.87
758.5
766
758
765
757.5
764
20 40 60 80 100
Station o-- Bankfull----o---- Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
11.1
L 10.06
1.1
2
9.13
2.3
1 2.2
766.26
768.87
Feature
Cross Section R2
770
BKF Area
769
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
0
768
--------
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
9.7
8.5
767
1.82
7.42
2.1
2
-----------m
774.84
w
766
765
764
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station o---- Bankfull o---- Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
9.7
8.5
1.15
1.82
7.42
2.1
2
772.8
774.84
Cross Section R3
780
779
778
777
c 776
775
774
uJ 773 ----------
772
771
770
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station o---- Bankfull----o---- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-11 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Gc
1 6.5
7.6
0.86
1.39
8.85
6.8
1 1.2
783.63
791.66
Feature
Cross Section R4
796
BKF Area
794
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
792
ER
BKF Elev
0
790
Bc
3.2
7.38
788
0.67
16.91
w
786
802.47
805.7
-----
784
782
780
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station --o---- Bankfull----o---- Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
3.2
7.38
0.44
0.67
16.91
5.8
1.6
802.47
805.7
Cross Section R5
811
810
809
808
c 807
806
805
ul 804
803
802
801
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station - o---- Bankfull - o---- Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
4.4
9.09
0.48
0.85
18.8
5.2
1.4
796.7
800.23
Cross Section R6
806
804
0
802
800
w 798
-----------
796
794
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station o---- Bankfull----o---- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-12 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Stream
Feature Type
BKF BKF
BKF Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E
4.5 6.8 0.67
1 1.53
10.2
1.6
13.1
764.95
765.94
767
766.5
766
65.5
765
j 64.5
764
763.5
763
20
Cross Section T1
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station o---- Bankfull ----e Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
F
4
18
0.22
1 0.78
82
3
1.3
770.68
772.27
776 -
775
774
.2 773
ca
m 772
U' 771
770
769
0
Cross Section T2
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station e Bankfull----o---- Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF Max BKF
Depth Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
3.3
2.93
1.12 1 1.76
2.62
1.7
22.7
783.5
784.7
786.5
786
785.5
a 785
]84.5
a 784
X783.5
LU 783
782.5
782
781.5
0
Cross Section T3
20 40 60 80 100 120
Station ----o---- Bankfull----o---- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-13 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

17.1.1.5 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 the area behind Broad
Ridge Court and immediately downstream (Reach R4) in the `high' to `very 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 will 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.
17.1.1.6 Channel Evolution
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
5. Aggradation and widening
6. Quasi -equilibrium.
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 R2, R3,
lower R4, and T3. Reaches that are in Stage 4 include upper R4, R6, and T1. Reach RI
has been channelized but due to the relatively flat valley slope, degradation is limited to
one head cut and it is mostly widening, which is most indicative of Stage 5. Reach R5 is
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-14 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

already in Stage 6, though a knick point at the upstream end is holding back further
degradation.
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, USACE-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
and floodplain wetlands, eventually flowing into the larger Haw River 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
impacted by channelization, current cattle impacts, active degradation, and other agricultural
land manipulations.
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, Tl, T2, T3, and T4 (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.
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 Browns Summit Creek site is warranted since
there are generally steeper valley slopes, particularly in the upper half of the project area,
combined with sand/gravel 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
high. Stability in the reference reaches has primarily been maintained through a
combination of appropriate/natural meander geometry, grade control structures, and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-15 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 natural 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 where
woody material is available (i.e., within a particular reach if clearing is needed to
implement restoration/enhancement). However, rock material will be incorporated to
build constructed riffles and step pools in intermittent streams and in locations where
trees are not abundant (upper Reach R4). These structures are necessary to maintain
grade control given the steeper channel/riffle slopes and sand/gravel bed material.
Reach RI Restoration
Reach RI ends at a culvert that is currently at existing grade; it is not sunk to prevent
overtopping since it passes beneath a farm access road. Therefore, Priority Level I
restoration is proposed for the entire reach since it will not be necessary to transition with
Priority Level II restoration. The main benefits of this restoration approach will allow for
a more natural channel pattern, with minimized earthwork required, as well as reducing
the bank height ratio to 1.0 throughout the reach and stabilizing isolated eroding banks.
The restoration approach in this area will promote more frequent over bank flooding into
the hydric soils area; thereby, creating increased opportunity for wetland rehabilitation.
The restored channel will be constructed off-line as much as possible throughout the
existing pasture, and will be designed as a Rosgen E type channel. This approach will
minimize the number of existing trees that will need to be removed to construct the
project. Design calculations indicate that a width -to -depth ratio of 11 will be stable. In -
stream structures such as log weirs and grade control log jams will be installed to control
grade, dissipate scour energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision.
Additionally, root wads/brush toe and log rollers will be incorporated for step -pool
formation, bank stability, and habitat diversity.
The existing, unstable channel will be partially to completely filled along its length using
suitable fill material excavated from construction of the restored channel. Vernal pools
will be strategically located along the filled abandoned channel to provide habitat
diversity and improved detention and treatment of concentrated stormwater runoff.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along all of Reach Rl .
In fact, because extra property was required to secure the easement, the riparian buffer
will average approximately 100 feet on each bank of Reach R1. No stream crossings or
other breaks in the easement are proposed along this reach and permanent fencing will be
installed to exclude cattle from the entire reach.
The riparian area along the entire length of Reach RI is proposed for wetland
rehabilitation as described below.
The culvert at the downstream end of Reach R1 will be replaced with a reinforced
concrete pipe. The dam will be fitted with a diaphragm filter around the pipe to prevent
piping and/or failure.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-16 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Reach R2 Enhancement
Due to its partially degraded nature, an Enhancement Level I approach will be
implemented to provide functional uplift to the upper 701 feet of Reach R2 at a 1.5:1
credit ratio. The 167 feet on the lower end downstream from the property line will be
limited to Enhancement Level II at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. In the lower segment,
improvements will be limited to cattle exclusion and invasive species control.
Supplemental buffer planting is not planned in the lower segment because the existing
vegetation is satisfactory.
In the upper segment of Reach R2 below the easement break/crossing, a floodplain bench
will be cut along the left bank to increase the entrenchment ratio to greater than 2.0 and
provide an area for flooding. This will remove vertical, eroding streambanks and allow
the stream to reach Stage 6 of Simons channel evolution, albeit without addressing stream
pattern. Additionally, two locations in the existing channel have riffles that are oriented
up valley; just upstream from this the flow vectors are pointed into vertical streambanks
and the stream has nowhere to go without causing significant erosion. The channel will
be realigned in these two areas to redirect the streamflow down valley and eliminate the
vertical eroding banks.
Additionally, the channel will be raised to encourage floodplain access. Spoil piles along
the right bank of middle Reach R2 will be removed, except where mature woody
vegetation would be impacted, to reconnect the channel with its floodplain and re-
establish wetlands in this area.
This reach section will be enhanced through the appropriate use of in -stream structures to
control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and the historic floodplain
connection will be reestablished in the vicinity of the spoil piles to further promote
stability and re-establishment of riparian vegetation.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along all of Reach R2.
As with Reach R1, the lower 300 feet will have riparian buffers that, on average, exceed
100 feet on each bank. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude cattle.
Invasive species, such as Chinese privet, will be treated.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the upper Reach R2 floodplain will be protected during
the construction process. Wetland re-establishment will be achieved in the area with
removal of spoil piles and reconnection of the floodplain. Additionally, wetland
vegetation will be improved.
Reach R3 Restoration and Enhancement
Work along Reach R3 will initially involve Priority Level I restoration continuing from
Reach R4 to provide floodplain reconnection and long-term channel stability. Below a
proposed easement break/stream crossing toward the downstream end of Reach R3, an
Enhancement Level I approach will be implemented, as described above for upper Reach
R2.
Reach R3 begins at the confluence Reaches R4 and T3 just above a farm pond. The farm
pond will be removed as part of the channel restoration. Below the existing pond, many
mature single trees are located intermittently along both sides of the stream channel. The
larger trees of significance have been identified during the field survey and the proposed
design pattern includes avoidance of these trees whenever feasible. This approach will
involve raising the existing bed elevation and an attempt to preserve and/or incorporate
trees that currently provide bank stability and are not undermined or likely threatened in
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-17 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

the future. Trees that are appropriately removed will be incorporated as materials for
proposed in -stream structures.
This reach will be designed as a Rosgen E type channel with a width -to -depth ratio of 11.
The employed techniques will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate
bedform diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic
habitat, active floodplain connection, restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats,
exclusion of cattle, and decreased erosion and sediment loss from bank erosion.
An easement break is proposed toward the downstream end of Reach R3 at an existing
culvert crossing that will be improved. The easement break will be 60 feet wide to allow
for future access to the land west of the stream project, but the proposed culvert crossing
will be initially limited to approximately 20 feet.
Below this crossing in the lower segment of Reach R3, a floodplain bench will be cut
along the left bank to increase the entrenchment ratio to greater than 2.0 and provide an
area for bankfull flooding. This will remove vertical, eroding streambanks and allow the
stream to reach Stage 6 of Simons channel evolution, albeit without addressing stream
pattern.
Since the primary source of impairment for Reach R3 is direct cattle access and channel
incision, wood structures will be incorporated into the channel, where appropriate, to
promote stable bedform sequences and habitat diversity. Riparian buffers in excess of 50
feet will be restored along all of Reach R3.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands limited to lower Reach R3 will be protected during the
construction process. Wetland vegetation will be improved in the jurisdictional areas.
Additionally, new wetlands may be created along upper Reach R3 by raising the stream
bed as part of Priority 1 restoration, thus increasing the hydro period, as well as the
wetted area.
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 culvert crossing will be
enhanced. Invasive species will be treated.
Reach R4 Restoration
Work proposed along Reach R4 will primarily involve a Priority Level I Restoration
approach. The channel begins just upstream from a farm pond at the confluence of
Reaches R5 and R6. This confluence will be moved upstream and to the southwest from
the existing confluence as part of the Reach R6 proposed mitigation (see above). The
farm pond along Reach R4 is proposed to be removed, and the channel bed elevation
downstream will be raised so that the bank height ratio is 1.0. A 180 -foot section of
shallow Priority Level II restoration will be implemented between the farm pond and the
property line. This approach will continue downstream to the property line, at which
point the incision and channel erosion become more pronounced. Once past the property
line, the channel will be re-routed slightly to the northeast to line up with the low point of
the valley. Here, the old channel will be partially to completely filled and the failed pond
dam will be removed to provide a higher functioning floodplain connection. The trees on
the relic floodplain are mostly small and unremarkable. The trees on the east side of the
existing channel will be preserved to be part of the restored channel buffer.
Below the residential development, Priority Level I restoration will continue by weaving
through the area with the mature trees. The existing channel will be plugged and targeted
for vernal pools where runoff concentrates.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-18 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

A width -to -depth ratio of 13 is proposed for the entire reach, which will reduce shear
stress by providing shallower bankfull depths to compensate for steeper valley slopes.
The proposed C channel will meander through available floodplain, incorporating old
channel features where possible.
Cattle will be excluded from all of Reach R4 and riparian buffers of at least 50 feet will
be established. More rock structures will be used on upper Reach R4 compared to other
reaches to guard against wood degradation in a higher and less wet proposed channel.
Harvested wood will be used to fill the old channel and for log vanes at meander bends.
It is worth noting that the dam on the pond at the top of Reach R4 is close to failing (see
Reach R4 photos in Section 2.9.4). A migrating headcut has only about 6 feet to travel
before the dam breaches. Removing the pond will eliminate a large source of sediment
and pollutants from the Browns Summit Creek system.
No channel crossings are proposed for Reach R4. Invasive species will be treated.
Reach R5 Enhancement and Restoration
Work along Reach R5 will involve Enhancement Level 1I practices to maintain stability
of the channel. The existing channel is incised but bank erosion is isolated and limited.
Consequently, Baker proposes to install one grade control structure, plant a riparian
buffer, and permanently exclude livestock. The spring at the head of the reach will be
incorporated in the project area. A cattle crossing will be established around the top of the
reach so that there will be no break in the enhanced channel.
Livestock will be excluded and the buffer will be planted. The riparian buffer will
average greater than 50 feet, though the buffer beyond uppermost right bank will be less
than 50 feet because of existing pasture fencing on the outside of the easement area and a
need to allow cattle to move through this area. Invasive species control will be
implemented.
Reach R6 BMP Enhancement
Work along Reach R6 will involve an Enhancement Level I/BMP approach to remove an
existing non jurisdiction farm pond and re-establish and stabilize the eroding channel
below it. The pond will be converted to a constructed headwater wetland feature with a
low -maintenance, concrete weir outlet. The wetland has been designed following the
NCDWR BMP manual with the exception of the outlet, due to the low maintenance
requirement. Thus, it will feature diverse topography and vegetation, as well as a forebay
and permanent pools. The channel leading into and out of the wetland will feature step
pools. The upstream segment will incorporate bench features where even small storm
flows will interact with the floodplain, thereby dissipating energy.
The constructed wetland was designed to detain discharge quantities from the 1 -inch
rainfall event. A V -notched weir will be implemented to slowly release discharges over a
48 hour period thereby reducing downstream discharge velocities. The extended draw
down time will also allow for sediments to settle out of the water column and for the
uptake of nutrients from wetland plantings. The constructed wetland was designed to
meet stormwater pollutant removal rates using the design parameters outlined in the
NCDENR BMP Manual. Design elements for the constructed wetland will include the
following wetland zones:
• Deep Pools:
■ Non-Forebay: 18-36" (include one at the outlet structure for proper
drawdown).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-19 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

■ Forebay: 18-36 "plus additional depth for sediment accumulation (deepest
near inlet to dissipate energy, more shallow near the exit).
• Shallow Water (low marsh): 3-6".
• Shallow Land (high marsh): Up to 12 ". This is the depth of the temporary pool.
• Upland: Up to 4 feet above the shallow land zone.
The conservation easement and buffer plantings will be extended approximately 15 - 30
feet beyond the footprint of the BMP to allow the buffer vegetation to act as pre-
treatment feature for both suspended sediment and nutrient loads. In addition, the area
along the channel will also be planted and placed within the conservation easement. A
cattle crossing will be constructed immediately upstream from the easement.
A 1.5:1 credit ratio for the valley length is proposed for this BMP feature. The valley
length is 442 feet.
See Appendix E for design calculations.
Reach Tl Restoration
Work on Reach T1 will involve a Priority Level I restoration approach. Priority Level 11
restoration will only be needed for a short distance to transition to raise the streambed to
a Priority Level I depth. The restored channel will follow the low point of the valley, as it
currently does not, and it will tie in to the Reach R2 at its newly restored elevation. The
primary source of impairment is livestock access and permanent exclusion fencing will
end this practice.
Rock and wood structures will be incorporated into the channel where appropriate to
promote stable bedform sequences and habitat diversity. A native riparian buffer is
proposed and because of the orientation of Reach T1, it will extend at least 200 feet from
the left bank. The top fifteen feet of the right bank will have a 55 -foot buffer but the
lower 100 feet will have a buffer that approaches 1,000 feet. Invasive species control will
be conducted along Reach Tl.
Reach T2 Enhancement
Work on Reach T2 will involve an Enhancement Level 11 approach to stabilize the
channel through planting and livestock exclusion. A grade control structure will be
incorporated to prevent a headcut that has formed near the confluence with Reach R2/R3
from continuing up the reach.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along all of Reach T2. Invasive
species control will be implemented and cattle exclusion fencing will be installed.
Reach T3 Restoration
Work on Reach T3 will involve a Priority Level I restoration to connect with the restored
main channel at the interface of Reaches R3 and R4. The targeted section of Reach T3 is
currently extremely incised from a headcut that has migrated from the main channel
through the reach. The bed elevation will be raised so that it ties to the restored main
channel. Structures will be incorporated to provide bedform diversity and prevent future
headcutting. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along all of Reach
T3.
Reach T4 BMP Enhancement
A second stormwater BMP feature will be created to stabilize a migrating headcut on
Reach T4 that is located at the outfall of a 30 -inch stormwater culvert, which drains much
of the Broad Ridge Court subdivision. The rock -lined step -pool channel will be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-20 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

constructed to bring the stormwater runoff from the outlet to the floodplain elevation. A
properly -sized basin will capture the runoff, diffuse its energy, and allow water to spread
across the vegetated floodplain, promoting nutrient uptake within the buffer. A stable
outlet channel will be constructed to deliver the runoff to the project reach. Baker
proposes 1.5:1 credit ratio for the valley length of this BMP, similar to the BMP along
Reach R6. The valley length of this BMP is estimated to be 170 feet, though only 117
feet will be included in the project because of easement area restrictions by the
landowner.
The riparian buffer of this BMP will not reach 50 feet beyond the right bank because it is
within a smaller residential parcel. However, this BMP is designed to dissipate and treat
stormwater runoff and not overland flow through the buffer.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-21 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.3 Natural Channel Design Criteria for Project Reaches
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Parameter
Composite Reference
Values
Design Values
Rationale
Reach R1
Reach R2
Reach RI
Reach R2
Rosgen Stream Type
E5
E5
E5
ES
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
_
49.0
32.3
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4 - 6
4 - 6
3.2
2.91
V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
-
_
15.2
11.1
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
12.9
11.0
Abkf W / D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
-
_
1.2
1.0
d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
10-12
10-12
11
11
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
-
> 100
-
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
> 2.2
> 2.2
> 6.7
-
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
1.5
1.3
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.1-1.3
1.1 - 1.3
1.25
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)
_
_
140-170
NA
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lin/Wbkf
5-12
5-12
10-13
NA
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
_
_
26-39
22-33
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
_
_
50-75
-
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5-10
3.5-10
4 - 6
-
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.3-1.6
1.3-1.6
1.4
-
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
.002-006
.002-006
0.0069
0.0068
Sval / K
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
_
-
0.0058
0.0054
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
_
_
0.013
-
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
1.2-2.0
1.2-2.0
2.0
-
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
-
0.001
-
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
0.0
-
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
-
2.7
2.2
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.2
2.2
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
-
17.4
14.9
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1-1.5
1.3
1.3
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
-
50-87
-
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.5-5
3.5-5
3.9-7
-
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-22 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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 onary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R3
Reach
lower/u er
p
Rosgen Stream Type
E5
C5
E5
C5
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
-
31.9
24.8/21.0
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4 - 6
3.5-5
3.3
3.8/4.2
V= /A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
-
-
9.7
6.5/5.0
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
-
10.3
9.2/8.1_*
AbkfW / D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
_
0.9
0.7/0.6
d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
10-12
10-14
11
13
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
-
_
> 23
>19/>17
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
> 2.2
> 2.2
> 2.2
> 2.2
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
1.2
0.9/0.8
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.1-1.3
1.1-1.4
1.3
1.3/1.3
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)
_
-
90-130
80-120/
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lnv Wbkf
5-12
7-14
9.3-13.4
12-18/
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
_
_
20-30
18 — 28/16-25
Note 7
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
2 - 3
2 - 3
2 - 3
2-3.1
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
_
-
35-56
30-42/22-43
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-23 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.5-10
3.5-8
3.6-5.8
4.6-6.5/2.7-12
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.3-1.6
1.2-1.5
1.2
1.13/1.23
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
.002—.006
0.002—
0.0095
0.0167/0.0175
0.01
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
_
_
0.0082
0.011/0.016
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
_
_
0.018
0.019
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schap
1.2-1.5
1.1-2.0
2.0
1.7
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
-
0.003
0.003
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
0.3
0.3
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
_
2.0
1.8/1.5
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.2
2.0/1.9
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
-
13.9
12.4/10.9
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1 — 1.5
1.1 — 1.7
1.3
1.3/1.3
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
_
47-70
36-64/29-52
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.5-5
3.5-7
4.8-7.2
3.9-7/3.6-6.4
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 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 evolutionary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach R6
Reach T1
Reach R6
Reach Tl
Rosgen Stream Type
135c
C5
135c
CS
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
-
-
16
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4-6
3.5-5
5.2
V— /A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
-
-
3.1
3.8
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-24 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
_
6.1
7.0
- * W /D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
_
_
0.5
0.5
d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
12-18
10-14
14
13
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
_
13
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.4-2.2
> 2.2
< 2.2
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
0.6
0.7
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.1-1.4
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)
N/a
-
-
60
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
N/a
7-14
-
8.6
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
N/a
-
-
14-21
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
N/a
2 - 3
-
2 - 3
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
N/a
-
-
28
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
N/a
3.5-8
-
4.0
Note 7
Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.1-1.3
1.2-1.5
-
1.12
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.005-
0.015
0.005-
0.015
0.019
0.027
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
_
_
0.016
0.019
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
_
_
0.06
0.029
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
1.1 - 1.8
1.1-2.0
3.8
1.5
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
-
0.02
0.0001
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
1.2
0.1
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
_
1.7
1.2
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
2.8
2.4
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
-
10.0
9.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1 - 1.5
1.4
1.4
Note 9
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
-
30-54
27-35
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2-6
3.5-7
4.3-7.7
3.9-5.0
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-25 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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 onary step towards stability.
Composite Reference
Design Values
Parameter
Values
Rationale
Reach T3
Reach T4
Reach T3
Reach T4
Rosgen Stream Type
135c
135c
135c
135c
Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
_
_
6.4
10.4
Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4-6
4-6
2.3
3.7
V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
_
_
2.8
2.8
Note 7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
_
_
5.8
5.8
Abkf W / D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
-
_
0.5
0.5
d=AiW
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
12-18
12-18
12
12
Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
_
_
15
12
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.4-2.2
1.4-2.2
< 2.2
< 2.2
Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
_
_
0.6
0.6
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.2
1.9
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
-
-
Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
N/a
N/a
-
-
Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
N/a
N/a
-
-
Note 7
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf *
N/a
N/a
2 - 3
-
Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
N/a
N/a
12-17
-
Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
N/a
N/a
-
-
Note 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-26 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Sinuosity, K (TW length/ Valley length)
1.1 — 1.3
1.1 — 1.3
1.2
1.2
Note 7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.005—
0.005—
0.017
0.017
0.015
0.015
Sval / K
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
_
_
0.014
0.047
Average Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
_
_
0.033
0.051
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
1.1 — 1.8
1.1 —1.8
2.4
1.1
Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
_
-
0.01
0.078
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.4
0.7
1.7
Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
_
_
0.9
1.9
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2-2.5
1.2-2.5
1.8
3.2
Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
_
_
7.5
7.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.1-1.5
1.1 — 1.5
1.3
1.3
Note 9
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
_
_
36
14
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2-6
2-6
6.2
2.4
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 17-27 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.3 Mitigation Work Plan
Pioposed Mitigation FeA(Ll[BS
Approanh
ReSAaratiul
Enhancement 111-5.1)
Enhancement II (2 51)
BIND I1.5 1 j
Canswadon Easement
P3rtl190und3n et
vVettand PAUgadan Types
I - Fun LtQnmy', 31 uud[r diu
3 Degnaded.1 51 Ctedi[roIi4 ,
3 • Flwsally Furienoning, 16.1 credo ra.: - —
4 Filed. 1 1 Creditratlo
5 . Pdy&dlGyi R6E5tYGIiStl;mereS, 1.:1 credst rib0
4
yi.
. 4 .
Rpt tri -s R.
jftwh R2 (lamor), E2, 2.5:1
�111
r
Rraeh fit {upper] Et, 1.5:1
.. -
Ruch Ta'. R. 1: I
Aw
14
Rf aCh RIC, -6R1P -
tvalsey 1,5:5 • —
v+ r
Oft SO4
1 Sff I,�}
Reach T4 EVAP AA
Resc. RS E2 2e,
0 250 500 1,400 Figure 17.3
Proposed Mitigaton Features
1 fit 1i' E R N A 7 P Q M A L Feet Browns Slammit Cr. Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-28 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators
Reference reach surveys can be 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 used several nearby reference reaches, including two previous NCDMS projects,
Buckhorn Creek and UT to Reedy Fork, and one neighboring unrestored stable reach, an
unnamed tributary in Haw River State Park, as shown on Figure 17.4. The NCDMS projects
are located approximately 11 miles southeast of the project site in the Carolina Slate Belt. The
Browns Summit project site and the Haw River State Park site are in the Charlotte Belt.
Buckhorn Creek was restored as part of the Holly Grove mitigation project, developed by
Restoration Systems, while UT to Reedy Fork was developed by Mulkey Engineers. Both of
these projects were constructed in 2007. Baker selected the Middle Branch reach on the
Buckhorn Creek project because its drainage area of 128 acres and valley slope of 0.015 ft/ft
are similar to that of the mid to upper Browns Summit reaches. Middle Branch was designed
as a Rosgen 134c stream type but it is more of an E/C4 stream type with ER greater than 2.2
and width -to -depth ratios of 11-13. Land use in the Middle Branch watershed is
commensurate with that of Browns Summit: 50 percent agriculture (mostly hay), 10 percent
pasture, 35 percent forest, and 5 percent residential.
Similarly, Reach R2-3 from the UT to Reedy Fork project is useful for the lower reaches of
Browns Summit because of its similar drainage area (211 acres) and valley slope (0.0075).
Reach R2-3 is a Rosgen C4 stream type with width -to -depth ratios of greater than 20. Land
use for the Reedy Fork project was 67 percent pasture/hay, 25 percent forested, 5 percent row
crops, and 3 percent residential. Like Browns Summit, the land use will have shifted to a
higher percentage of forest following implementation of the mitigation project.
Monitoring reports show that both have remained stable since construction. Pattern data are
available for the NCDMS projects (see Table 17.4), while survey of the closer reference
reaches was limited to cross sections.
The primary soil series mapped for the riparian area along Middle Branch of the Buckhorn
Creek reference site is Chewacla sandy loam, though smaller inclusions of Cecil sandy loam
and Coronaca clay loam are also present. Chewacla is described as being a somewhat poorly
drained alluvial soil commonly found on floodplains, with a low runoff rate and hydric
inclusions. This is very similar in description to the Codorus loam found in most of the
riparian areas of the Browns Summit restoration site. In fact, Chewacla and Codorus are in
taxonomically related families. The Cecil and Coronaca soils are both described as well -
drained, non -hydric soils with medium to rapid runoff rates found on upland Piedmont side
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-29 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

slopes. They are very similar to the Poplar Forest and Clifford soils found on the Browns
Summit site, which are described in a like manner.
Prior to restoration, the land adjacent to Middle Branch was heavily impacted by agricultural
activity and had very sparse vegetation. Aside from the managed pasture grasses and planted
row crops, the riparian areas primarily contained a mix of briars and invasive species such as
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), blackberry (Rubus spp.), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), and greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia). Isolated tree and sapling species included
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). For restoration, the target
plant community selected was a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont subtype) with
dominant planted tree species of American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm
(Ulmus americana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and river birch (Betula nigra) in the
floodplain, with American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American elm (Ulmus Americana),
white ash (Fraxinus americana), and bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) in the more
upland areas.
The primary soil series mapped for the riparian area along Reach R2-3 of the UT to Reedy
Fork reference site is Chewacla sandy loam, though smaller inclusions of Enon fine sandy
loam are also present. Chewacla soils are described as being somewhat poorly drained
alluvial soils commonly found on floodplains with low runoff rates and hydric inclusions,
very similar to the Codorus loam found in most of riparian areas of the Browns Summit
restoration site. Enon fine sandy loams are described as well -drained, non -hydric soils with
medium to rapid runoff rates found along Piedmont side -slopes, very similar to the Poplar
Forest and Clifford soils found at the proposed restoration site.
Prior to restoration, the riparian buffers along UT to Reedy Fork were almost non-existent,
with a very narrow buffer of scattered individual trees found along portions of some reaches.
Managed dairy cow pasture was the overall dominant land use within the buffer areas, which
heavily impacted the vegetation found on site. The most common species found in the sparse
riparian areas that do exist includes red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black willow (Salix nigra),
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and elderberry (Sambuca
canadensis). As part of the restoration effort, the target plant community of Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest was selected (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Dominant species
planted in the riparian areas included river birch (Betula nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), elderberry (Sambuca
canadensis), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
The Haw River State Park reference reach is located one mile west of the Browns Summit
project site and is essentially a very similar watershed and setting. The drainage area is 156
acres and the valley slope is 0.012 ft/ft. The land use is also relatively similar with slightly
more forest in the state park site, but also an elementary school that raises the percent
impervious cover to approximately 8 percent (Browns Summit is 5 percent). Soils in the
vicinity of this reference reach are Poplar Forest clay loam (15-25%), which is the same as
that around Reach R3 of Browns Summit. Existing vegetation found here includes red maple
(Acer rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), American elm (Ulmus americana), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia). A
cross section was measured at the top of bank with a bank height ratio of 1.0. The measured
bankfull area was as 6.45 square feet, which is 79 percent of the area estimated from the 1999
Piedmont regional curve. It is a Rosgen E5 stream type with a width -to -depth ratio of 9.0 and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-30 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

an entrenchment ratio of greater than 10. This reference reach provides valuable dimension
information for the middle to lower reaches of Browns Summit since they have similar
watershed characteristics. The valley slopes of the upper Browns Summit Reaches are higher
and thus a higher width -to -depth ratio is recommended.
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 Browns Summit 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-31 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.4 Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design Ratios
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Parameter
UT to Reedy Fork*
Buckhorn Creek -
Middle Branch**
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.33
0.2
Stream Type (Rosgen)
C4/1
E4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
40
28
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
11.3
7.7
Bankfull Riffle Cross -Sectional Area,
Abkf (sq ft)
6.1
5.4
Bankf ill Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
6.6
5.2
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
21
28
11
13
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
6.2
6.8
> 2.2
6.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
2.3
2.4
1.7
2.0
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
5.1
8.7
2.0
9.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
1.2
4.0
2.0
3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
1.3
4.9
1.5
3.0
Sinuosity, K
1.33
1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0075
0.015
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0056
0.013
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
2.3
2.7
2.3
2.8
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2.5
7.3
4.0
6.0
d16 (mm)
1.0
d35 (mm)
12.7
d50 (mm)
0.2 (existing)/4.0 (MY 4)
25.6
d84 (mm)
6.1 (existing)/ 12.2 (MY 4)
66
d95 (mm)
110
*Used Reach R2-3, Year 4 monitoring.
**Used Reach 5, Year 5 monitoring
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-32 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.4 Reference Stream and Wetland Location Map
r
E
i
Bvekhom Creek
Haw pprvEi
State Park
Lido
lUNLFO -
< t1T to Heady Fury,
r '
Reference W@t,and
A- Reference Stream Reaches
Geology
Carolina Slate Belt i
a Chadatta and Milton BeEts
9,
Figure 17.4
Michael BakeA D 1 2 Reference Sites
Yt5 tt'11 OMiles Location Map
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Browns Summit Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-33 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL
i _
r
E
i
Bvekhom Creek
Haw pprvEi
State Park
Lido
lUNLFO -
< t1T to Heady Fury,
r '
Reference W@t,and
A- Reference Stream Reaches
Geology
Carolina Slate Belt i
a Chadatta and Milton BeEts
9,
Figure 17.4
Michael BakeA D 1 2 Reference Sites
Yt5 tt'11 OMiles Location Map
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Browns Summit Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-33 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field
can be difficult and subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1984; and Johnson and Heil,
1996). Numerous definitions exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the
field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes,
1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage in the humid Southeast can
be especially difficult because of dense understory vegetation and a long history of channel
modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.
It is generally accepted that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel
to the elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of
channel formation and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also
corresponds with the dominant discharge or effective discharge, is thought to be the flow that
moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in
vegetation, the highest scour line, or the top of the stream bank (Leopold, 1994). The most
consistent bankfull indicators for streams in the Piedmont of North Carolina are the backs of
point bars, breaks in slope at the front of flat bankfull benches, or the top of the stream banks
(Harman et al., 1999).
Upon completion of the field survey, accurate identification of bankfull stage could not be
made in all reach sections throughout the site due to incised/degraded channel conditions.
However, bankfull indicators were apparent in portions of Reaches R1 (occasional top of
bank) and R3 (isolated benches). This information and bankfull area from the nearby Haw
River State Park reference reach were considered in context with regional curve data. This
process is described below.
17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves)
Hydraulic geometry relationships are often used to predict channel morphology features and
their corresponding dimensions. The stream channel hydraulic geometry theory developed by
Leopold and Maddock (1953) describes the interrelations between dependent variables such
as width, depth, and area as functions of independent variables such as watershed area or
discharge. These relationships can be developed at a single cross-section or across many
stations along a reach (Merigliano, 1997). Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically
derived and can be developed for a specific river or extrapolated to a watershed in the same
physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships (FISRWG, 1998).
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions
to drainage area. A primary purpose for developing regional curves is to aid in identifying
bankfull stage and dimension in 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
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999) and an unpublished NC Piedmont
Regional Curve developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (A. Walker private
communication, 2012) were used for comparison with other site-specific methods of
estimating bankfull discharge. Baker has successfully implemented a large number of stream
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-34 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

restoration projects in North Carolina using the published curve data and has produced "mini -
curves" specific to many these projects. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional curve equations
developed from the study are shown below in Table 17.5.
Table 17.5 NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve
Equations
Equations (Unpublished Revised
(Harman et al., 1999)
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve
(NRCS, 2008
Qbkf = 66.57 Aw" R2=0.97
Qbkf =58.26A,0.78 R2=0.99
Abkf = 21.43 Aw 0.68 R2=0.95
Abkf = 15.65Aw 0.69 R2=0.99
Wbkf = 11.89 Aw 0.43 R2=0.81
Wbkf = 11.64 Aw 0.46 R2=0.98
Dbkf = 1.50 AW 0.32 R2=0.88
Dbkf = 1.15 AW 0.28 R2=0.96
Based on observations made in small rural piedmont streams, the growing number of data
points provides supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull indicators that produce
smaller dimensions and flow rates than the published regional data. This appears to be the
case with Browns Summit Creek because measurements taken around the project area
provided similar results; the published (1999) Piedmont regional curve was generally higher
than 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 curves bracket the smaller Charlotte Belt streams that are part of
the Browns Summit Creek project.
As a comparison of representative stable cross sections identified in Reach R1, the NC
Piedmont Regional Curve estimates a bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf) of approximately
16.5 sf and a bankfull discharge (Qbkf) of approximately 46.9 cfs for a 0.675 mit watershed.
The revised rural piedmont regional curve estimates the Abkf of 12.0 sf and the Qbkf of 42.9
cfs. The existing surveyed channel dimension has cross-sectional area at the top-of-
streambank/bankfull indicator of 16.2 sf. Additionally, for Reach R3 bankf ill indicators
were present in the form of floodplain benches and those yielded cross-sectional areas of
approximately 7.5. The bankfull areas from the published regional curve is estimated to be
9.3, while that from the revised regional curve is 6.5 s£ Finally, a top -of -bank indicator from
nearby Haw River State Park yielded a bankfull area of 6.5 sf, while the published and
revised regional curve estimates are 8.2 and 5.9, respectively.
Thus, as described in Section 17.1.1.3, the geomorphological form for the site's stream
dimension often lies roughly halfway between the two regional curves.
Table 17.6 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Browns Summit Restoration Pro'ect Stream Miti ation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Estimate from
Measured At
Estimate from
DA
1999 Regional
Reach
Bankfull
Revised Regional
(sq mi)
Curve
Indicator (sq ft)
Curve (sq ft)
s ft)
R1 0.675
16.5
16.2
12.0
R3 0.289
9.3
7.4, 7.7
6.5
Haw R. State Park 0.241
8.2
6.5
5.9
Note: drainage areas in this table apply to cross section locations, not the outlet point of each reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-35 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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, logjams, 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.
Table 17.7 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Estimating Method
Bankfull Velocity
(ft/sec)
Bankfull Discharge
(cfs)
Reach R1
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve
4.09
67.4
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.60
43.2
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method'
3.94
64.3
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness'
3.16
51.4
Mannings "n" from stream type'
2.18
35.6
Baker Design Estimate
3.56
58.0
Reach R2
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvel
4.03
51.6
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve
3.50
32.4
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method'
3.57
41.4
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness'
2.95
34.0
Mannings "n" from stream type'
2.04
23.5
Baker Design Estimate
3.87
43.0
Reach R3
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.97
41.7
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curvet
3.42
25.7
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method'
4.22
41.0
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness'
3.47
33.6
Mannings "n" from stream type'
2.39
23.2
Baker Design Estimate
3.51
34.5
Reach R4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-36 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.7 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Estimating Method Bankfull Velocity
Bankfull Discharge
ft/sec
(cfs
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve 3.90 29.8
NRCS NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve' 3.29 17.9
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method3 4.72 30.7
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative roughness3 4.02 26.1
Mannings "n" from stream type' 2.78 18.1
Baker Design Estimate 3.69 24.0
Notes:
1 NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
' Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by NRCS (A. Walker personal
communication, 2008).
3 WARSSS, 2006 spreadsheet. Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning's Equation for the riffle
cross-section. Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n -values) ranged from approximately 0.035 to 0.055 based
on channel slopes, depth, bed material size, and vegetation influence.
17.2.4 HEC RAS Modeling
To check the bankfull cross-sectional area and design estimate for discharges, Baker constructed a HEC
RAS model of lower Reach R4, from station 23+59 to station 27+59. This is an area of Priority Level I
restoration that includes steeper riffle slopes which approach three percent. Figure 17.5 shows the
model results with the prescribed bankfull cross-sectional areas (9.2 sf for riffles, 12.4 sf for pools) and
design bankfull discharge of 24 cfs. The results show that incipient flooding is occurring in the pools
and at the downstream end of the modeled segment. The upper riffles are steeper and bankfull discharge
is typically one or two tenths of a foot below the bankfull elevation. It is expected that the pools will
flood first and also within an acceptable range given model uncertainty.
Figure 17.5 HEC RAS Model Output for Lower Reach R4 at Bankfull Discharge
BrownsSummit_Design Plan: R4b_dgn
4/9/2015
Legend
1000
978.7
WS PF 1
Grand
937.5
9267
Bank Sta
915.9
871.4
845.5 883
894.6
799.85
742.35
716.75
677.35
I 693.75
�
66185
617.85
/
635.85
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-37 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT 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 (1955) 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/meter). 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/ft). 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/gravel bed streams, such as Browns Summit 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 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. 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 NCDMS (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 17.6 show that all samples have a d50 in the 0.4-
0.8 mm range, indicating that the dominant bed material in the stream channel is medium to coarse sand
under current conditions. Additionally, the largest particles are fine to coarse gravel in all cases, with
the largest particles typically less than 16 mm, though up to 40 mm. This is essentially a unimodal size
distribution since everything is finer than medium gravel with no separation between the fractions.
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 Browns Summit Creek sediment samples. All of the reaches contain gravel and sand, with less
than 5 percent silt substrate due to the parent geology and soil, as well as cattle impacts. Gravel
composes approximately four (R4) to 23 (RI) percent of the substrate in all locations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-38 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Figure 17.6 Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Class Percent
ill■II�I■I■■
■ SII■
Figure 17.6 Sediment Particle Size Distribution (Continued)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-39 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL
i
Figure 17.6 Sediment Particle Size Distribution (Continued)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-39 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

17.3.3 Predicted Channel Response
The existing streams have sand beds, with roughly 20 percent gravel. 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.
The proposed design grain -size distribution is for it to remain essentially the same or become finer (e.g.,
less gravel) as the existing distribution (i.e., primarily sand with approximately 5-20 percent gravel).
Any potential reduction of the gravel composition stems from observations that gravel transport rates
increase by as much as several orders of magnitude with an increase in sand content of the bulk
sediment (Wilcock et al., 2001). We don't necessarily expect the sand content to increase, but if it does
then additional gravel may be transported through the project stream network. The sand content could
increase if, for example, saprolite that is currently exposed by incision is covered by fill as part of
Priority Level I restoration. The saprolite may be a source of channel gravel material.
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-40 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL
ClassPercent
17.3.3 Predicted Channel Response
The existing streams have sand beds, with roughly 20 percent gravel. 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.
The proposed design grain -size distribution is for it to remain essentially the same or become finer (e.g.,
less gravel) as the existing distribution (i.e., primarily sand with approximately 5-20 percent gravel).
Any potential reduction of the gravel composition stems from observations that gravel transport rates
increase by as much as several orders of magnitude with an increase in sand content of the bulk
sediment (Wilcock et al., 2001). We don't necessarily expect the sand content to increase, but if it does
then additional gravel may be transported through the project stream network. The sand content could
increase if, for example, saprolite that is currently exposed by incision is covered by fill as part of
Priority Level I restoration. The saprolite may be a source of channel gravel material.
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-40 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL

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.
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 1.5% 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, grade control log jams, 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 (WARSS, 2006).
Table 17.8 Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Parameter
Reach R1
Existing
Conditions
Reach R1
Proposed
Conditions
Reach R2
Existing
Conditions
Reach R2
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
58
58
43
43
Bankfull XS Area (square feet)
16.3
15.2
11.1
11.1
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft/sec)
3.56
3.82
3.87
3.87
Bankf ill Width, W (feet)
12.3
12.9
10.1
11.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/ foot)
9.3
11
9.1
11
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
15.0
15.3
12.3
13.0
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
1.09
1.0
0.9
0.85
Channel Slope (feet/foot)
0.0058
0.0048
0.0054
0.0055
Boundary Shear Stress,,c (lbs/ft2)
0.47
0.36
0.37
0.34
Subpavement dloo (mm)
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
Largest Moveable Particle (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
114
88
100
90
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.17
0.2
0.18
0.18
Predicted Critical Slope (feet/ foot)
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Stream Power (W/m2)
25.7
20.3
20.4
19.1
Parameter
Reach R3
Existing
Conditions
Reach R3
Proposed
Conditions
Reach R4
Existing
Conditions
Reach R4
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull Discharge Estimate, Q (cfs)
34
34
24
24
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-41 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Table 17.8 Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Parameter
Reach R1
Existing
Conditions
Reach R1
Proposed
Conditions
Reach R2
Existing
Conditions
Reach R2
Proposed
Conditions
Bankfull XSC Area (square feet)
9.7
9.7
6.5
6.5
Mean Bankfull Velocity (ft/sec)
3.51
3.51
3.69
3.69
Bankfull Width, W (feet)
8.5
10.3
7.6
9.2
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet)
1.15
0.9
0.86
0.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
7.4
11
8.8
13
Wetted Perimeter (feet)
10.8
12.2
9.3
10.6
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Channel Slope (feet/foot)
0.0082
0.0085
0.0164
0.0135
Boundary Shear Stress, i (lbs/ft2)
0.59
0.48
0.88
0.59
Subpavement dloo (mm)
13.5
13.5
6.8
6.8
Largest Moveable Particle (mm) per
Modified Shield's Curve
141
116
208
141
Predicted Critical Depth (feet)
0.29
0.28
0.15
0.18
Predicted Critical Slope (feet/ foot)
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
Stream Power (W/m2)
30.7
26.2
45.1
30.7
17.4 Existing Vegetation Assessment
The riparian areas within and adjacent to the proposed project area primarily consist of pasture,
agricultural fields, and mature successional forest, as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Historic land management surrounding the project area has been primarily for agricultural and
silvicultural purposes through the alteration of drainage patterns and the significant removal of native
species vegetation in and around much of the riparian zone. The forested portions of the site primarily
consist of Piedmont Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Many of these areas lack understory
vegetation due to extensive livestock use and grazing. The riparian buffer areas overall ranged from
somewhat disturbed to very disturbed and a general description of each community follows.
17.4.1 Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained or disturbed areas are found in the upper and middle sections of the project around
managed farm ponds adjacent to cattle pasture and hay production areas. The outfall areas for each
pond are disturbed with unstable, eroding channels. The surrounding areas are maintained for their
respective agricultural uses.
17.4.2 Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas
This community covers approximately 50-60 percent of the project area perimeter. Currently, the
majority of pasture areas are used for dairy cattle grazing. The vegetation within the open fields and
pasture areas is primarily comprised of fescues and clovers, along with a scattered variety of weeds
including dandelion (Taraxacum off cinale), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), and dog fennel (Eupatorium
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-42 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

capillifolium). In the scattered wooded areas within the pastures and fields, the canopy is dominated by
red maple (Acer rubrum), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
17.4.3 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
These forested areas comprise approximately 40-50 percent of the project area, mostly in the lowermost
portion of the project. The mature canopy is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), but
also includes some slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Much of the
understory is fairly open due to extensive livestock grazing, though woody shrub and vine species
include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), grape vine (Vitis rotundifolia), and tag alder (Alnus serrulata). Herbaceous species of
note include jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), soft rush (Juncus effuses), and various sedges (Carex
spp.) found scattered throughout the wetter areas.
17.4.4 Invasive Species Vegetation
The primary invasive species vegetation present on the project site are primarily Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium
vimineum), which were found interspersed throughout the riparian buffer areas and stream banks.
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
On-site investigations of the areas proposed for wetland mitigation were conducted on October 15,
2013 by a licensed soil scientist with the Catena Group, LLC (see Appendix 16.6 for the hydric soil
investigation), as required by the RFP. Their findings indicate the presence of hydric soils along the
floodplain of Reaches R1 and R2. The soils in this area were identified as "Soil Unit 1 — Hydric Soil'
in the hydric soil investigation. Catena noted that "Soil Unit 1 would likely be considered jurisdictional
wetland that has been severely degraded by a combination of human and livestock [activities]. As such,
it is a prime candidate for rehabilitation." Catena further concluded that "Soil Unit 1 is a prime
candidate for wetland restoration through rehabilitation. It is anticipated that through Priority 1 stream
restoration, removal of livestock, and revegetation, the hydrology will be restored and the soils will
eventually form structure, which will allow the wetland to regain its normal functions." Hydric soil
findings were based on hand -turned soil auger borings and the "NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
in the United States — Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0, 2010)".
17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal
regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR 328.3(b)
and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)). The areas in the project boundaries that displayed one or more wetland
characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics
included:
1. Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
2. Permanent of periodic inundation or saturation.
3. Hydric soils.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-43 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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 of 2014 to investigate potential
wetlands within hydric soils areas and confirm previously identified perennial and intermittent streams
in the project area. In total, the field survey identified four separate wetland areas containing hydric
soil indicators and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. These areas were
identified, flagged, and mapped. Wetland data forms are also provided in Section 16.1. Most of the
identified areas are currently subject to cattle grazing, which had a significant impact on the vegetation
as a result. These areas were field verified by the USACE and NCDWR in July 2014, and the proposed
mitigation plan for the site will seek to enhance and minimize disturbance of these wetland areas, if
possible, to restore a stable stream system.
17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations
It is almost certain that wetlands were historically present in the proposed wetland restoration area at
the bottom of the project, based on the existing topography, soils, hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation found there. The original plant community located in these wetlands was most likely
indicative of other forested alluvial wetlands in the region, but past and current agricultural land use
practices have altered the composition of the plant community presently found there. Wetland stressors
such as cattle grazing, man-made dams, ditching, and channel straightening have altered the vegetation
and hydrological connections within the project area.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-44 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

After completing the proposed stream restoration practices, these areas will likely experience a more
natural hydrology and flooding regime, and the riparian and adjacent wetland areas will be planted with
a more diverse range of native 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.
Furthermore, with the exclusion of cattle from the wetland areas, soil structure can begin to reform after
decades of severe degradation. Improved soil structure leads directly to increased water infiltration and
retention, improved soil porosity, increased plant root growth, reduced soil erosion, and decreased
overland flow volumes and velocities. It will also result in an improvement in the biogeochemical
processes important to wetland function.
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 229 days, beginning on March 25th
and ending November 10th (USDA Climate Data for Guilford County, WETS Station: Piedmont Triad
Intl Airport in Greensboro, NC). The area experiences an average annual rainfall of 43.14 inches as
shown on Table 17.9. During 2014, the nearest weather station (MCAT - NC A&T University
Research Farm, an ECONet type station) located roughly 10 miles to the south recorded 39.97 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
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Month -Year
Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
WETS Table Average
Monthly Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed
from Average (in)
Jan -2014
3.86
3.54
0.32
Feb -2014
2.74
3.10
-0.36
Mar -2014
6.28
3.85
2.43
Apr -2014
4.31
3.43
0.88
May -2014
0.84
3.95
-3.11
Jun -2014
3.49
3.53
-0.04
Jul -2014
2.78
4.44
-1.66
Aug -2014
2.38
3.71
-1.33
Sept -2014
2.10
4.30
-2.20
Oct -2014
2.15
3.27
-1.12
Nov -2014
5.72
2.96
2.76
Dec -2014
3.32
3.06
0.26
Sum
39.97
43.14
-3.17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-45 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

17.5.4 Hydrological Characterization
The presence of hydric soils over much of the lower portion of the project site is evidence that the site
did historically support a wetland ecosystem there. Like many other rural areas in the region, site
hydrology was altered in a variety of ways to either to maximize the availability of arable lands or to
support livestock. At this site, man-made impacts such as damming for farm ponds, ditching,
placement of spoil piles, and channel straightening, along with intense cattle grazing and historic
timbering have altered the hydrological connection between stream and wetland within the project area.
Five automated groundwater wells were installed within the project area to evaluate the pre -
construction hydrologic conditions of the site. The data collected will provide a basis for comparing
pre -and post -construction hydrology for the project. All wells were installed to a depth of at least 36
inches below ground surface. Automated loggers (In Situ Inc. brand Rugged TROLL® 100 Data
Logger units) were programmed to record water table levels every hour.
17.5.5 Soil Characterization
Soils at the project site were initially determined using NRCS web soil survey data for Guilford County
(2014 survey data revision). The areas proposed for stream restoration and enhancement are mapped as
Codorus, Poplar Forest, and Clifford soils. Codorus soils are hydric soils, while the others are non -
hydric. The majority of the project site is underlain by Codorus soils, though the uppermost portion of
the easement including Reach R5 and R6 is underlain by Clifford soils, and a portion of Reach R3 is
underlain by Poplar Forest soils. Figure 2.3 shows soil conditions throughout the project area and the
soil descriptions are shown on Table 17.10.
Soils information found using NRCS Web Soil Survey data for Guilford County (2014 survey
data revision) indicates that the area contains primarily Codorus loam, Poplar Forest clay
loam, and Clifford sandy loam. The Codorus mapping unit includes Hatboro undrained soils
in the floodplain. Hatboro soils are also classified as hydric. The area proposed for wetland
restoration is along the floodplain of Reach R1 at the downstream end of the project. This
area has been heavily manipulated and degraded and is mapped primarily as hydric soils,
including Hatboro.
To further investigate the soil conditions present on the site, Baker contracted with the Catena
Group, LLC to perform a detailed soils evaluation of the site to determine the location and
depth of hydric soil conditions and the presence of buried hydric soil layers in the project
area. A licensed soil scientist conducted a hydric soils investigation on October 15, 2013 (see
Section 16, Appendix B). The report findings indicate the presence of hydric soils along the
floodplain of Reaches RI and R2, based on boring information and presence of at least one
hydric indicator and observed inclusions.
Table 17.10 Soil Mapping Units (NRCS Web Soil Survey, Guilford County, 2014 data revision)
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCDMS Project No. 96313
Soil Name
Landform
Hydric Soil
Description
Codorus
Typically very deep, moderately well to somewhat poorly
loam
Floodplains
Yes
drained soils found along level floodplains. Slope ranges
from 0 to 2%, frequently flooded.
Poplar Forest
Typically well drained, moderately permeable soils found on
clay loam
Hillslopes
No
gently sloping to steep hillslopes in uplands. Slope ranges
from 15 to 35%.
Clifford
Hillslopes
No
Typically very deep, well drained soils found along hillslopes
sandy loam
in uplands. Slopes range from 6 to 10%.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-46 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

17.5.6 Plant Community Characterization
Currently, a majority of the proposed stream and wetland restoration area is comprised of mature
successional vegetation and active pasture. Historically, based on both older aerials and landowner
verification, the area has been used for agriculture and cattle production, and several locations along the
stream were once dammed with significant ponded areas. Current canopy vegetation within the
existing delineated wetlands is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). Understory and
woody shrub species include red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora), southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Herbaceous and vine species are suppressed due to grazing but consist of soft rush (Juncus effuses),
smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Japanese stiltgrass
(Microstegium vimineum), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
17.6 Reference Wetlands
17.6.1 Wetland Description
An existing wetland and stream system that is representative of the system to be restored at the Browns
Summit Restoration Project site was identified very near the project area. The site falls within the same
climatic, physiographic, and ecological region as the restoration site. It also contains the same soil
series as the proposed wetland restoration area and encompasses a very similar drainage area.
The reference site is located along a small stream in a narrow valley within the Haw River State Park,
approximately 1 mile west of the Browns Summit Restoration Project site (see Figure 17.4). The
reference site is an example of a "Piedmont Alluvial Forest" as described by Schafale and Weakley
(1990). These systems exist along river and stream floodplains in Piedmont mesic forest communities
in which separate fluvial landforms and associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish.
Hydrology of these systems is palustrine — seasonally or intermittently flooded.
Based on discussions with Park employees and from historic aerial photographs dating back to 1937,
there is no evidence the reference site has experienced any significant disturbances recently, particularly
from timbering operations. However, the cutting of timber or use in agriculture may have occurred
long ago. Nevertheless, a mature canopy of vegetation now exists across the site, especially in the
wetland areas surrounding the stream channel itself.
17.6.2 Hydrological Characterization
The site classifies as a jurisdictional wetland, utilizing criteria identified in the USACE 1987 Wetlands
Delineation Manual. These criteria include oxidized root channels, high water table, water -stained
leaves, saturation, drainage patterns, and geomorphic position. Climatic conditions of the reference site
are the same as those described for the project site (Section 17.5.3). Site hydrology is controlled
primarily by the small unnamed tributary that flows through the site. Due to the shallow, stable
condition of the stream through the site, high water table conditions are maintained across the active
floodplain for prolonged hydroperiods. One automated groundwater monitoring well was installed in
the reference wetland area to evaluate the range of hydrologic conditions observed on-site. Data from
this se well will provide a basis for evaluating the success of the post -restoration wetland hydrology for
the project. The wells were installed to a depth of 36 inches below ground surface, and the automated
loggers (In Situ Inc. brand Rugged TROLL® 100 Data Logger units) were programmed to record water
table levels every 6 hours.
17.6.3 Soil Characterization
Codorus loam is the soil mapping unit found on the reference wetland site, the same hydric soil
identified on the project's proposed wetland restoration area. As described in Section 17.5.2, Codorus
loam soils are classified as hydric, very deep, moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils found
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-47 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

along level floodplains. The reference area is prone to frequent flooding from the adjacent stream
channel. The surrounding soil mapping unit found along the adjacent slopes to the valley is Poplar
Forest clay loam, a non -hydric soil.
17.6.4 Plant Community Characterization
Within the reference wetland area, the canopy vegetation community is dominated by Red maple (Acer
rubrum), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and American elm (Ulmus americana). Sub -canopy and
understory species primarily consist of Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), Red maple (Acer rubrum), River birch (Betula nigra), Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Dominant vines include Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia),
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia).
There was remarkably little herbaceous vegetation present at the time of site inspection in the late
winter. However, as the lower sub -canopy of a wetland system is often an important expression of the
native seed bank, any herbaceous wetland species found later in the growing season within the
reference wetland may be incorporated into the project's proposed wetland vegetation planting plan.
The reference site is comprised of greater than 50% facultative and wetter species and therefore meets
the hydrophytic vegetation requirement.
17.7 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology
The forested area in the downstream valley along Reach R1 is predominantly a large wetland area, which
can generally be divided into sub -areas that have been impacted to various degrees by human and/or
animal activity, and that have differing levels of existing wetland function. Reach R1 has been
straightened and is slightly incised, both of which impact the drainage and flooding patterns of the area as
a whole. To improve wetland hydrology functions to the site, the existing straightened stream channel
will be abandoned, to be replaced by a new, more sinuous channel built at the appropriate floodplain
elevation, thereby restoring their historical connection and improving flow dynamics between the stream
and wetland complex. The abandoned sections of channelized stream will be fully to partially filled to
eliminate the drainage effect caused by these features. Fill material will be generated when creating the
new, sinuous channel.
A wetland area along Reach R2 will be re-established by raising the stream bed and cutting back stream
banks prone to erosion to restore natural benching features. Spoil piles created from historical channel
relocation will also be removed from this area. Baker proposes third wetland area along lower Reach R4
where hydric soils are situated on an abandoned floodplain. The existing channel is severely incised and
approximately 6-8 feet below the floodplain. Priority Level I restoration is proposed to raise the channel
thalweg to about 1.0 feet below the floodplain. As described above, the existing channel will be partially
to completely filled; earth will need to be imported to fill this channel. These measures will restore
wetland hydrology to this section of the project.
When complete filling of any abandoned stream section is not possible, ditch plugs will be installed from
compacted earth. Ditch plugs will also be used in locations where the restored stream channel will cross
the existing stream channel. In areas where restored stream flows will contact fill material, root wads or
other protective measures will be installed to provide additional protection and deflect stream energies.
Due to the relatively small size of the restored channel and the low energy nature of the system, these
practices will be sufficient to prevent erosion and channel avulsion.
These practices have been used on numerous other projects with excellent results. Some sections of
existing channel may be only partially filled depending on the amount of fill material that can be
produced and the existing valley features. These partially filled areas will be discontinuous and will
mimic small floodplain pools or tree throws within the wetland areas that will add to the diversity of
habitat on the project site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-48 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Grading activities will focus on restoring pre -disturbance valley topography by removing the numerous
spoil piles, surface drains/swales, and some filled areas located in this area. The restored topography will
be patterned after the natural floodplain found in the stream and wetland reference sites, and will include
the removal of spoil piles and surface drains/swales. It will also include benching along sections of stream
channel where Priority Level I restoration is not feasible (Reach R2), as well as the restoration of minor
depressions in the adjacent buffer and floodplain that promote a diversity of hydrologic conditions and
habitats common to natural wetland areas (Reach RI). This wetland microtopography contributes to the
beneficial properties of forest soils and to the diversity and patterns of plant communities (Stephens,
1956; Bratton, 1976). This technique will be instrumental to the restoration of site hydrology by
promoting surface ponding and subsequent infiltration, and encouraging more dynamic water table
conditions in the fringe wetland areas.
Additionally, with the exclusion of cattle and the re-establishment of woody vegetation within the
wetland areas, soil structure can begin to reform after decades of severe degradation. Improved soil
structure leads directly to improved wetland hydrological function through increased water infiltration
and retention, improved soil porosity, increased plant root growth, reduced soil erosion, and decreased
overland flow volumes and velocities. This will also result in an improvement in the biogeochemical
processes important to overall wetland function.
The restoration design for the wetland is based on a targeted "Piedmont Alluvial Forest" riparian wetland
type, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of this system will be palustrine and
intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded, as the restored channel is designed to carry the bankfull
flow and to flood at discharges greater than bankfull. The revegetation plan for the overall riparian system
will consider the combination of existing on-site native vegetation and riparian communities identified for
a "Piedmont Alluvial Forest" by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The planting areas will be designated by
zones to represent site conditions that include both drier riparian buffer conditions as well as wetland
riparian buffers as shown on the project plan sheets (Section 20.0, Appendix F).
] 7.7.1 Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credit
The activities described above will be implemented on the specific wetland areas depicted in Figure
17.3 at the following credit ratios, as agreed upon with the NCIRT at the post -contract meetings in
April and June, 2014.
1. "Functioning" wetlands — forested areas with hydrology and hydric soils, such as along the right
bank of Reach Rl. The hydrology and vegetation are present but in many areas cattle trampling has
impacted the soil structure and ability to percolate water. These areas will be rehabilitated at a 3:1
credit ratio.
2. Degraded wetlands — areas with no wetland vegetation and partial hydrology such as along the
corrugated metal pipe at the beginning of Reach Rl. These areas will be rehabilitated as described
in Section 17.7 at a 1.5:1 credit ratio.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — cattle -trampled areas along the left bank of the middle of Reach R1
that lack wetland vegetation. These areas will be rehabilitated as described in Section 17.7 at a 1.5:1
credit ratio.
4. Filled wetlands — areas where spoil has been placed on top of delineated hydric soils, such as upper
Reach R2 and the downstream end of Reach Rl. These areas will be re-established at a 1:1 credit
ratio by removing the spoil piles and, along Reach R2, by raising the water table.
Baker added another category of wetland mitigation during the mitigation plan development in order to
provide additional credit to meet the contracted amount of 2.5 acres. This will be a fifth category,
defined as follows:
5. Hydric soils — areas with hydric soils but lacking wetland hydrology due to adjacent, severe stream
channel incision, such as along lower Reach R4. This area is shown in Figure 2.4c and a slightly
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-49 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

smaller version of it proposed for wetland re-establishment is shown in Figure 2.4d. Wetland
vegetation is also sparse in this area.
Priority Level I restoration will re-establish wetland hydrology by replacing a 6-8 foot deep channel
with one that is approximately 1 foot deep. This area is proposed for wetland re-establishment at a 3.5:1
credit ratio in order to provide the additional 0.08 WMUs needed to meet the contracted WMU amount
of 2.5. As mentioned above, hydric soils are present throughout this entire area. It was not determined
to be a jurisdictional wetland by Baker and the Corps during the JD, though it is adjacent to a
jurisdictional wetland area. The adjacent jurisdictional area was delineated based on the presence of
wetland hydrology and vegetation.
17.7.2 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank, floodplain, wetland and transitional
upland planting and described as the riparian buffer zone. The planting areas are shown on the
revegetation plan sheets in Section 20.0, Appendix F. In addition to 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, herbaceous plugs and permanent seedlings will be planted within
designated areas of the conservation easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along
both stream banks (100 foot total minimum width) for all of the proposed stream reaches within the
project boundary. In many areas, the buffer width will be in excess of 50 feet along one or both stream
banks (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 March.
Selected species for hardwood revegetation planting are presented in Table 17.11. Tree species selected
for restoration and enhancement areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are
able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of
time. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil
is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted as compared to the revegetation plan. The planting zone will be determined based on these
comparisons, and planted species will be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the
anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Disturbed soils across the
site will be prepared by sufficiently loosening to a depth of three inches prior to planting as described in
the technical specifications. 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 400 stakes per 1,000 square feet and stakes will be spaced
two to three feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections using triangular
spacing along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and bankfull elevation. Site
variations may require slightly different spacing.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-50 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 17.12 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided that is suitable for
stream bank, floodplain, and adjacent wetland areas. 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 stream banks of the restored stream channel.
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 stream banks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary
seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130
pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop
millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 17.11 Proposed Bare -Root and Livestake Species
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Botanical Name
Common Name —7--K
—Planted by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Riparian Buffer Plantings – Overstory (For all reaches except Rl, R2)
8' x 8' spacing - 680 stems/Acre
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
10%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
10%
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
10%
FAC
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
10%
FACW
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
5%
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
10%
FACW
Ulmus americana
American Elm
5%
FACW
Riparian Buffer Plantings – Understory (For all reaches except Rl, R2)
8' x 8' spacing - 680 stems/Acre
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
10%
FAC
flex opaca
American Holly
8%
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
Witchhazel
6%
FACU
Viburnum dentatum
Arrowwood Viburnum
8%
FAC
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry Bush
8%
FAC
Wetland Buffer Plantings – Overstory (For Reaches Rl, R2)
8' x 8' spacing - 680 stems/Acre
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
10%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
10%
FACW
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
10%
OBL
Acer negundo
Box Elder
10%
FACW
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
10%
FACW
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
5%
FACW
Nyssa sylvatica
Black gum
5%
FAC
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-51 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Wetland Buffer Plantings — Understory (For Reaches Rl, R2)
8' x 8' spacing - 680 stems/Acre
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
10%
FAC
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
10%
OBL
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
10%
FACW
Viburnum nudum
Possumhaw
10%
OBL
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
25%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
25%
FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
15%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
25%
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow
10%
OBL
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species
substitution is required, the planting contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the
procurement of plant stock.
Table 17.12 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
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%
2.25
FAC
Carex crinita
Fringed sedge
10%
1.50
OBL
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
10%
1.50
FACW
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
10%
1.50
FACW
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
2.25
FAC
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
10%
1.50
FACU
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
1.50
FACU
Impatiens capensis
Jewelweed
10%
1.50
FACW
Total
100%
15.00
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species
substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the
procurement of plant stock.
Table 17.13 Proposed Plug Species for Reach R6 Constructed Wetland
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Botanical Name
Common Name
%Planted by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Deep Pool Plantings
Four Cubic Inch Herbaceous Plugs to be Installed 4' On Center
Lemna spp.
Duckweed
25%
OBL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-52 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Nuphar lutea ssp. Advena
Yellow pond -lily
25%
OBL
Nelumbo lutea
American lotus
25%
OBL
Eleocharis acicularis
Needle spikerush
25%
OBL
High Marsh Plantings
Four Cubic Inch Herbaceous Plugs to be Installed 3' On Center
Lobelia cardinalis
Cardinal Flower
10%
FACW
Eupatoriadelphus
fistulosus
Joe Pye Weed
15%
FACW
Hibiscus coccineus
Scarlet Rose Mallow
15%
OBL
Lobelia elongata
Longleaf lobelia
15%
OBL
Rhynchospora colorata
Starrush whitetop
20%
FACW
Carex tenera
Quill sedge
25%
FAC
Low Marsh Plantings
Four Cubic Inch Herbaceous Plu s to be Installed 3' On Center
Sagittaria lancifolia
Bulltongue
10%
OBL
Iris pseudacorus
Yellow Flag
15%
OBL
Acorus americanus
Sweetflag
15%
OBL
Peltandra virginica
Arrow arum
15%
OBL
Pontederia cordata
Pickerelweed
20%
OBL
Scirpus cyperinus
Woolgrass
25%
FACW
17.8 Site Construction
17.8.1 Site Grading, In -stream Structures, and Other Construction Elements
A stream reaches will be constructed using a combination of Rosgen Priority Level I and Level 11
restoration approaches. Priority Level I approach will involve raising the stream bed so that the
bankfull elevation matches the existing floodplain. Due to the degree of incision, portions of the stream
reaches will also be constructed as Priority Level Il restoration, and a new floodplain bench will be
excavated at an elevation below the existing floodplain. Existing berms and/or spoil piles will be
removed or flattened to provide the stream access to its floodplain.
The proposed stream construction will result in a new channel that will meander across the floodplain in
order to mimic a natural piedmont stream. The reconstructed channel banks will be constructed with
stable side slopes, biodegradable erosion control matting, and planted with native vegetation for long-
term stability. The design channel will be constructed to flood the adjacent floodplain, wetlands, and
vernal pools more frequently and thereby improving hydrology across the site. Vernal pools will be
constructed at appropriate locations within the existing channel. These features will consist of small
floodplain depressions that will provide additional storage during larger flood events.
Additionally, the grading plan for the project site is will restore and enhance wetland functions by
grading portions of the site to improve groundwater hydrology and promote surface storage. Any areas
disturbed during construction will be planted with native species vegetation. The site will be protected
by a permanent conservation easement.
A variety of in -stream structures are proposed for the project site. Structures such as log vanes,
constructed riffles, root wads, log weirs, and grade control j -hook vanes will be used to provide grade
control, stabilize the newly -restored stream and improve habitat functions. Existing trees and woody
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-53 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

debris will be harvested through the construction of this project and incorporated whenever possible.
However, significant canopy trees to be protected will be marked prior to construction. A general
construction sequence is provided in the project plan sheets and describes the general construction
approach. Table 17.13 summarizes the use of in -stream structures at the site.
Table 17.13 Proposed In -Stream Structure Types and Locations
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Structure Type
Location
In locations along outside of meander bends or against one stream bank in
Root Wads
straight reaches to increase pool diversity and provide refugium for fish.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent to prevent possible
Grade Control J -Hook Vanes
downcutting or headcut migration, and stream bed/bank erosion.
In locations where grade control is necessary to prevent possible downcutting or
Grade Control Log Jam
headcut migration, and bed erosion.
Located throughout various meander bends to prevent to prevent possible stream
Log Vanes
bank 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 stream bank 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 or
Constructed Riffles
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 stream bank stability and
Vegetation Transplants
cover.
In locations outside of meander bends to create and/or increase stream bank
Vegetated Geolift
stability and reduce near bank stress.
Root Wads
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank along the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus a
portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank and reduce near bank stress by deflecting
stream flows away from the stream bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural
support to the stream bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a food
source for aquatic insects. Root wads will be placed throughout the project reaches primarily to improve
aquatic habitat and provide cover.
Grade Control J -Hook Vanes
Grade control j -hook vanes are utilized to provide grade control and protect the stream banks. These
vanes may be constructed out of logs and/or rock boulders. The structure arms turn water away from the
stream banks and re -direct flow energies toward the center of the channel. In addition to providing
stability to stream banks, grade control j -hook vanes also promote pool scour and provide structure
within the pool habitat. Grade control j -hooks have two to three boulders placed in a hook shape at the
upstream end of the vane. The primary difference between regular j -hooks and grade control j -hooks is
the way that the "hook" part of the structure is constructed. Regular j -hooks are constructed to have gaps
between the header boulders in the hook to promote flow convergence. Grade control j -hooks do not
have gaps between the header boulders in the hook and also have a boulder sill built from the outside of
the hook over to the opposite stream bank such that the structure can serve as a grade control feature.
Grade control j -hooks still promote scour in the downstream pool, thus providing habitat benefit.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-54 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

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.
Log Vanes
A log vane is used to provide cover for aquatic organisms in the downstream scour pool and with a
potential secondary benefit of protecting stream banks by reducing near -bank stress and redirecting flow
away from the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one-half to two-thirds the
bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream flow intersects
the stream bank at an acute angle in a meander bend.
Log Weirs / Step Pools
Log weirs and step pools are used to provide grade control as well as provide a secondary pool habitat
benefit for aquatic organisms. A log weir consists of two logs stacked (a header log and a footer log)
and installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert elevation of the
streambed. A step pool sequence or log/rock "rollers" are also commonly used in confined settings
where sinuosity is less than 1.2 and in drainage areas less than 3 square miles, and located based on pool -
to -pool spacing ratios. They can be used as floodplain interceptors to intercept concentrated floodplain
flows from swales, ditches, low points, oxbow pond or vernal pool drains, etc. and to drain such flow to
the restored channel in a stable and natural manner.
Cover Logs
A cover log is placed along the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. It is most
often installed in conjunction with root wads. The log is buried into the outside stream bank of the
meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of the pool and may be buried in the
inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The placement of the cover log near the
bottom of the stream bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages scour in the pool. This increased
scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability.
Constructed Riffles
A constructed riffle is installed by placing coarse bed material (gravel, cobble, and small boulders) in the
stream at specific riffle locations along the profile. The purpose of this structure is to provide initial
grade control and establish riffle habitat within the restored channel, prior to the natural establishment of
an armored streambed. Wood material can also be incorporated with rock for these structures, and
function in a similar way as natural riffles; the surfaces and interstitial spaces are crucial to the life
cycles of many aquatic macroinvertebrate species.
Ditch Plug / Channel Block
A compacted earth plug will be installed by filling the existing ditch to prevent subsurface flows and
improve site hydrology. The fill material used for ditch plugs shall come from a nearby borrow area and
be free of debris, rocks, trash, etc. and shall consist of compactable soil material.
Vegetation Transplants
Vegetation transplants will be identified before starting construction as viable candidates (species and
size) for uprooting and relocation. Areas that must be cleared will maximize the harvesting of
transplants; transplants will be taken from other areas as suitable to enhance the rapid development of
vegetative growth along the constructed channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-55 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

Vegetated Geolift
Geolifts are a bioengineering measure used to stabilize stream banks. Geolifts are most commonly used
along the outside of stream meander bends. They are essentially a series of large overlapping soil
"burritos," or "lifts", constructed using coir fiber erosion control matting and native soils. Live cutting
materials, or whips, from specific woody native species plants are planted in the layers between the lifts.
A stone or woody brush toe base is typically installed to provide protection at the toe of the stream bank
and to provide a foundation for the geolifts. The geolifts are installed on top of the base material to
comprise the entire restored stream bank up to the bankfull channel elevation. Geolifts can be used to
effectively stabilize restored stream banks for all sizes of streams simply by varying the number of lifts
required to form the stream bank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17-56 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

18.0 APPENDIX D - REGULATORY CORRESPONDENCE
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 18-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

18.1 IRT MEETING MINUTES
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 18-2 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Meeting Minutes
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5792
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Gary, North Carolina 27515
Phoma: 979.453.5486
Fax: [phone]
Date Prepared:
April 15, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
April 14, 2014, 1:45 pm
Location:
On-site (Guilford County, NC)
USACE —Tyler Crumbley, David Bailey
NCDWR— Eric Kulz, Ginny Baker
Attendees:
NCEEP —Guy Pearce, Jeff Schaffer, Greg Melia
Baker—Scott Hunt, Chris Roessler, Scott King
Subject:
Post -Contract Site visit w/ NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
An on-site meeting was held on April 14th, 2014 at approximately 1:45 PM to discuss the Browns Summit
Creek Restoration (Full Delivery) Project in Guilford County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Familiarize the NCIRT with the stream and wetland 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 properties. Primarily restoration, but also enhancement approaches are proposed to provide
functional uplift. The site visit began at the upper end of the site on Reaches R5 and R6 and proceeded
downstream through the project area. All of the project stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,
T1, T2, and T3) and wetland restoration areas were observed and discussed. Observations and
conclusions for each reach and area are noted below.
Note: maps from the proposal and following this visit are included with this memo.
Reach R5
The group walked along Reach R5 below the spring and agreed with the proposed Enhancement Level II
approach at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. Livestock will be excluded and the buffer will be planted. A gradient
control structure will be installed to prevent the headcut located just below the spring from progressing.
Reach R6
Baker proposed to remove the pond at the head of Reach R6 and stabilize the channel below it with
essentially Priority I restoration, though Enhancement Level I with a credit ratio of 1.5:1 was specified
since this is not a perennial reach.
The Corps concluded that this is not a jurisdictional channel but rather a livestock watering pond in an
upland setting. Consequently, the group decided that a water quality BMP might be more appropriate
for the replacement of the pond. In effect the pond would be converted to a wetland -type feature with
a low -maintenance weir outlet. The area would be planted and placed within the conservation
easement.

Below the pond, the Corps appeared to consider that the channel is still non -jurisdictional, though this
determination was less definitive than upstream from the pond. If the Corps considers the entire Reach
R6 channel to be non -jurisdictional at this stage, then the BMP and a short channel will be constructed
to quickly connect into Reach R5 and begin Reach R4. If a jurisdictional determination must still be
made, the mitigation approach should be postponed. Baker requests the Corps' input on the
jurisdictional determination at this stage.
The credit ratio for developing a BMP and outlet channel for Reach R6 was not agreed upon. Instead, it
will be up to Baker to provide performance standards or measures tied to functional uplift in the
mitigation plan which will help to determine the credit ratio. Generally, the valley length of the BMP at a
1.5:1 or 1:1 credit ratio, similar to the original Enhancement Level I approach, was discussed as potential
mitigation compensation. Under this approach, the existing spillway channel below the pond, which is
actively eroding and filled with concrete debris, will be filled and stabilized. Baker requests the IRT's
input at this stage on how it intends to assign credit for the BMP.
Reach R4
This reach will begin where the future Reach R5 and R6 join. Presently, this confluence is located on the
delta at the head of the second pond. It is anticipated that this confluence will be moved upstream and
to the southwest from the existing confluence as part of the Reach R6 proposed mitigation (see above).
The pond at the head of Reach R4 will be removed and replaced with Priority I or shallow Priority II
restoration. This approach will continue downstream to the property line, at which point the incision
and channel erosion become more pronounced.
Once past the property line, the channel will be re-routed slightly to the northeast to line up with the
low point of the valley. The floodplain in this section will be leveled to fill in the existing eroding channel
and remove the relic pond dam. A second BMP feature will be created on the new floodplain to treat
runoff discharge by a 30 -inch culvert located just above and beyond the right bank.
The Corps acknowledged that some of the mature trees toward the lower end of Reach R4 would be
need to be removed for construction but that tree removal should be minimized.
Reach T3
This reach enters the mainstem from the right bank and forms Reach R3 below it. The channel is overly
deep and wide in this location due to a headcut progressing from the mainstem. However, the channel
is also barely intermittent above the headcut.
Baker proposes to remove the headcut and raise the stream to tie in to the Priority 1 restoration on the
mainstem. The reach length in the proposal of 102 feet will be shortened to 50 feet, which should be
within the area of the higher water table created by restoration of the mainstem.
Reach R3
Reach R3 begins at the confluence of Reaches T3 and R4. The upper section is currently backwatered
due to a farm pond just downstream. The pond will be removed as part of the Priority 1 restoration of
this reach. Tyler noted the narrow valley width in the lower part of the reach and the need to switch
sides of the channel to save some of the mature trees along it. Chris commented that the assumed
sinuosity is about 1.15. It's actually 1.18 but this can be worked out in the design process.
Reach T2
The group didn't discuss Reach T2. Most of this reach is covered by low vegetation. A headcut has
migrated slightly upstream from the mainstem and then it's a small ditch flowing from a pond above.

The proposed work is Enhancement Level II at a 2.5:1 credit ratio to plant and remove livestock from
this reach.
Reach R2
Reach R2 begins at the confluence of Reaches T2 and R3. It is eroding and fairly incised initially but the
bank height ratios tend to decrease moving downstream. Spoil piles are evident in the middle of the
reach beyond the right bank. The spoil piles will be removed and stable channel pattern will be restored
following a Priority I approach.
The wetlands proposed for mitigation are located along much of Reaches R2 and R1. These will be
discussed in the following section of the meeting minutes.
Reach T1
Reach T1 enters from the east on the downstream most property. It has a drainage area of 62 acres and
144 feet of Priority I restoration are proposed. As with all reaches, Baker will describe the functional
uplift that will be attained through restoration in the mitigation plan.
Reach R1
Reach R1 begins at the confluence of Reaches R2 and T1. The bank height ratios are not particularly
high, though there is channel erosion on the upstream and middle sections. The channel has been
straightened in the past so Priority I restoration is proposed to reestablish natural pattern and eliminate
bank erosion. The downstream end of Reach R1 has been previously manipulated and spoil piles remain
in this area. These will be removed as part of an effort to rehabilitate the wetlands in this section.
Wetland Mitigation
In the proposal, Baker lumped all of the areas mapped as hydric soils as candidates for wetland
rehabilitation. The Corps noted that some splitting of these areas into more specific categories should
be done because there are several different circumstances present, which would result in varying
approaches for functional improvement. The different areas may be generally categorized as follows:
1. Functioning wetlands —forested areas with hydrology and hydric soils, such as along the right
bank of Reaches R1 and lower R2.
2. Degraded wetlands — areas with no wetland vegetation and some hydrology such as along the
corrugated metal pipe at the beginning of Reach R1.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — mucky areas along the left bank of the middle of Reach R1 that
lacked wetland vegetation.
4. Filled wetlands — areas where spoil has been placed on top of presumed hydric soils, such as
upper Reach R2 and the downstream end of Reach R1.
NCEEP explained that it is important for all wetland mitigation to be used by this project be in the
restoration category (re-establishment or rehabilitation), otherwise it cannot be used according to the
RFP. He emphasized that the credit ratios were certainly up for discussion. The federal definitions for
wetland restoration and enhancement are listed below.
The Corps suggested we break out the four areas above and make a case for an appropriate credit ratio
based on functional uplift and the federal definitions. Baker will make another site visit to delineate and
map these different areas and then schedule for a return visit to the site with the Corps to go over the
mapping of the different areas and determination of appropriate credit ratios. Initial thoughts on credit
ratios, from both the Corps and Baker are provided herein:

1. Functioning wetlands —the Corps suggested credit ratios in the range of 2:1 to 3:1. One
comment about these is that this is a wetter time of year and some of the areas may be drier
much of the year.
2. Degraded wetlands — the Corps suggested possibly 1:1 credit for rehabilitation in these areas.
The hydrology would be improved, as well as the vegetation.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — the Corps suggested possibly 2:1 for these areas with the idea
that hydrology is present and may be adversely affected by Priority I restoration. Baker proposes
1.5:1 for these areas because we believe that livestock trampling has adversely affected
hydrology and soil structure in these areas. Baker believes that a compacted layer is promoting
surface ponding and preventing suitable/natural drainage. By removing the livestock and
planting appropriate wetland vegetation, Baker believes the soil structure will be rehabilitated
and wetland function will significantly improve.
4. Filled wetlands — the Corps didn't specify but this appears to be suitable for wetland re-
establishment at a 1:1 credit ratio. By removing the spoil, hydric soils will be exposed and
wetland hydrologic function will be re-established. Wetland planting will complete the picture.
Thus it appears that the partially -functioning wetlands (Item 3.) are where there is slight disagreement
between the Corps and Baker. This and other credit ratio details can be finalized after further mapping
and the follow-up field meeting with Todd Tugwell.
Federal wetland definitions in 33 CFR PART 332:
Enhancement means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an
aquatic resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement
results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other
aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Re-establishment means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment
results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and
functions.
Rehabilitation means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation
results in a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Contacts
• Jeff Schaffer will serve as the NCEEP Project Manager for this project with and Greg Melia will
provide technical assistance during project development and in review of deliverables. Chris
Roessler will be the Baker Project Manager and coordinate/submit project deliverables directly
with Jeff for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Steps
Project Schedule — Baker will map the four different wetland areas and conduct their
jurisdictional determination of the streams and wetlands in the next two weeks. In the
meantime, a follow-up meeting with the Corps and NCEEP will be scheduled to review the
results of Baker's wetland mitigation mapping. A separate meeting will be held to conduct the
jurisdictional determination with the Corps.
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 David Bailey for on-site JD verification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation 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: [e-mail]

Meeting Minutes
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5792
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Gary, North Carolina 27515
Phoma: 979.453.5486
Fax: [phone]
Date Prepared:
June 20, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
Location:
June 6, 2014, 1:00 pm
On-site (Guilford County, NC)
Attendees:
USACE — Todd Tugwell
NCEEP — Greg Melia
Baker—Scott Hunt, Chris Roessler
Subject:
Second of Two Post -Contract Site visits w/ NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
A second on-site meeting was held on June 6th, 2014 at approximately 1:00 PM to discuss the Browns
Summit Creek Restoration (Full Delivery) Project in Guilford County, NC. A meeting was previously held
on April 14th with other members of the IRT—the unchanged results from that meeting are included in
this memo. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Determine the credit ratio for the BMP -approach on non -jurisdictional Reach R6;
2. Reach agreement on mitigation approaches and credit ratios for the wetland areas that were
further delineated by Baker;
3. Identify and discuss potential concerns/issues based on field observations.
The site visit began at the upper end of the site on Reaches R5 and R6 and proceeded downstream
through the project area. Observations and conclusions for each reach and area are noted below.
Note: separate maps for the stream and wetland components following this visit are included with this
memo.
Reach R5 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
The group walked along Reach R5 below the spring and agreed with the proposed Enhancement Level II
approach at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. Livestock will be excluded and the buffer will be planted. A gradient
control structure will be installed to prevent the headcut located just below the spring from progressing.
Baker will try to include as much as the channel as possible and still allow cattle to move around the
head of the reach.
Reach R6 (updated from the previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
The Corps and Baker have concluded that this is not a jurisdictional channel but rather a livestock
watering pond in an upland setting. The group has decided that a water quality BMP will be more
appropriate for the replacement of the pond. In effect the pond will be converted to a wetland -type
feature with a low -maintenance weir outlet. It is possible that there will be several tiers of wetland cells
because the Corps recommended that the work extend as far upstream as possible in order to exclude
cattle from the eroded channel. The area included in the project will be planted and placed within the
conservation easement. A cattle crossing will be constructed immediately above the easement.
The credit ratio for developing a BMP channel for Reach R6 was agreed upon at 1.5:1 for the valley
length of the BMP. Under this approach, the existing spillway channel below the pond, which is actively
eroding and filled with concrete debris, will be filled and stabilized.

Reach R4 (notes are from previous meeting on April 14, 2014 except that credit is proposed for a
second stormwater BMP — see fourth paragraph in this section)
This reach will begin where the future Reach R5 and R6 join. Presently, this confluence is located on the
delta at the head of the second pond. It is anticipated that this confluence will be moved upstream and
to the southwest from the existing confluence as part of the Reach R6 proposed mitigation (see above).
The pond at the head of Reach R4 will be removed and replaced with Priority I or shallow Priority II
restoration. This approach will continue downstream to the property line, at which point the incision
and channel erosion become more pronounced.
Once past the property line, the channel will be re-routed slightly to the northeast to line up with the
low point of the valley. The floodplain in this section will be leveled to fill in the existing eroding channel
and remove the relic pond dam.
A second BMP feature will be created on the new floodplain to treat runoff discharge from a 30 -inch
culvert located just above and beyond the right bank. The culvert discharges runoff from much of Broad
Ridge Court, a newly developed subdivision. Baker proposes 1.5:1 credit ratio for the valley length of this
BMP, similar to the BMP along Reach R6. The valley length of this BMP is estimated to be 60-75 feet. The
outlet is currently causing a major headcut that will continue to migrate. To correct this, a rock -lined
step -pool channel will be constructed to bring the stormwater runoff from the outlet to the floodplain
elevation. Next, a properly -sized basin will capture the runoff, diffuse its energy, and allow water to
spread across the vegetated floodplain, promoting nutrient uptake within the buffer. A stable outlet
channel will be constructed to deliver the runoff to the project reach.
The Corps acknowledged that some of the mature trees toward the lower end of Reach R4 would be
need to be removed for construction but that tree removal should be minimized.
Reach T3 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
This reach enters the mainstem from the right bank and forms Reach R3 below it. The channel is overly
deep and wide in this location due to a headcut progressing from the mainstem. However, the channel
is also barely intermittent above the headcut.
Baker proposes to remove the headcut and raise the stream to tie in to the Priority 1 restoration on the
mainstem. The reach length in the proposal of 102 feet will be shortened to 50 feet, which should be
within the area of the higher water table created by restoration of the mainstem.
Reach R3 (includes a change on the lower part of the reach from restoration to E2)
Reach R3 begins at the confluence of Reaches T3 and R4. The upper section is currently backwatered
due to a farm pond just downstream. The pond will be removed as part of the Priority 1 restoration of
this reach. Tyler noted the narrow valley width in the lower part of the reach and the need to switch
sides of the channel to save some of the mature trees along it. Chris commented that the assumed
sinuosity is about 1.15. It's actually 1.18 but this can be worked out in the design process.
Below the stream crossing, the approach will change to Enhancement Level II at a 5:1 credit ratio, per
Todd Tugwell's request. The work will be limited to livestock exclusion fencing and supplemental
planting. No work will be done in the channel below the stream crossing.
Reach T2 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
The group didn't discuss Reach T2. Most of this reach is covered by low vegetation. A headcut has
migrated slightly upstream from the mainstem and then it's a small ditch flowing from a pond above.
The proposed work is Enhancement Level II at a 2.5:1 credit ratio to plant and remove livestock from
this reach. A grade control structure will be added to stop the headcut.

Reach R2 (includes a change from restoration to E2)
Reach R2 begins at the confluence of Reaches T2 and R3. Spoil piles are evident in the middle of the
reach beyond the right bank in the middle of the reach. The spoil piles will be removed as discussed in
the wetland mitigation section below.
Following this second meeting, Todd Tugwell requested Enhancement Level II at a 5:1 credit ratio for
this reach. The work will be limited to livestock exclusion fencing and supplemental planting. No work
will be done in the channel.
Reach T1 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
Reach T1 enters from the east on the downstream most property. It has a drainage area of 62 acres and
144 feet of Priority I restoration are proposed. As with all reaches, Baker will describe the functional
uplift that will be attained through restoration in the mitigation plan.
Reach R1 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
Reach R1 begins at the confluence of Reaches R2 and T1. The bank height ratios are not particularly
high, though there is some channel erosion on the upstream and middle sections. The channel has been
straightened in the past so Priority I restoration is proposed to reestablish natural pattern and eliminate
bank erosion. The IRT accepted this approach because the impacts from implementing it will not be as
high as the reach upstream, which has more mature vegetation.
The downstream end of Reach R1 has been previously manipulated and spoil piles remain in this area.
These will be removed as part of an effort to re-establish and rehabilitate the wetlands in this section.
Wetland Mitigation
The previous iteration of the minutes explained that Baker would map the wetlands to divide them into
different categories according to their existing condition in terms of vegetation and hydrology. This was
done in preparation for the June 6t" meeting with Todd Tugwell.
The different areas may be generally categorized as follows:
1. "Functioning" wetlands — forested areas with hydrology and hydric soils, such as along the right
bank of Reach R1. The hydrology and vegetation are present but in many areas cattle trampling
has impacted the soil structure and ability to percolate water.
2. Degraded wetlands — areas with no wetland vegetation and some hydrology such as along the
corrugated metal pipe at the beginning of Reach R1.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — mucky areas along the left bank of the middle of Reach R1 that
lacked wetland vegetation.
4. Filled wetlands — areas where spoil has been placed on top of presumed hydric soils, such as
upper Reach R2 and the downstream end of Reach R1.
NCEEP explained that it is important for all wetland mitigation to be used by this project be in the
restoration category (re-establishment or rehabilitation), otherwise it cannot be used according to the
RFP. The federal definitions for wetland restoration and enhancement are listed below.
At the June 6t" meeting, Todd Tugwell expressed that any wetland mitigation would appear to be linked
to changes to the stream channel. Consequently, the wetland mitigation along Reaches R3 (lower) and
R2 will be removed, with the exception of the wetland re-establishment along Reach R2 where spoil
piles will be removed and hydric soils will be at the ground surface.
The credit ratios for the four types of wetland areas are proposed as follows:
1. "Functioning" wetlands —the Corps suggested credit ratios of 3:1.

2. Degraded wetlands — Baker proposes 1.5:1 credit for rehabilitation in these areas. The hydrology
would be improved, as well as the vegetation.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — Baker proposes 1.5:1 for these areas. Livestock trampling has
adversely affected hydrology and soil structure in these areas. Baker believes that a compacted
layer is promoting surface ponding and preventing suitable/natural drainage. By removing the
livestock and planting appropriate wetland vegetation, Baker believes the soil structure will be
rehabilitated and wetland function will significantly improve.
4. Filled wetlands — Baker proposes wetland re-establishment at a 1:1 credit ratio. By removing the
spoil, hydric soils will be exposed and wetland hydrologic function will be re-established.
Wetland planting will complete the picture.
Contacts
• Jeff Schaffer will serve as the NCEEP Project Manager for this project with and Greg Melia will
provide technical assistance during project development and in review of deliverables. Chris
Roessler will be the Baker Project Manager and coordinate/submit project deliverables directly
with Jeff for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Steps
• Project Schedule — A separate meeting will be held to conduct the jurisdictional determination
with the Corps. Baker will update NCEEP separately on the expected stream and wetland
mitigation credits following the changes recommended by the IRT.
• 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 David Bailey for on-site JD verification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation 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: [e-mail]

I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Meeting Minutes
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5792
Date Prepared:
November 10, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
November 7, 2014, 10:00 pm
Location:
On-site (Guilford County, NC)
USACE —Todd Tugwell, David Bailey
NCEEP —Jeff Schaffer, Periann Russell
Attendees:
NCDWR — Ginny Baker, Sue Homewood
Baker —Chris Roessler
Subject:
Third Post -Contract Site visit w/ NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
A third on-site meeting was held on November 7t", 2014 at approximately 10:00 PM to discuss the
Browns Summit Creek Restoration (Full Delivery) Project in Guilford County, NC. Meetings with the IRT
were previously held on April 14`" and June 6t" —the unchanged results from those meetings are
included in this memo. The purpose of this meeting was to review lower Reach R3 and upper Reach R2
to come to an agreement on the approach. Priority Level I Restoration was initially proposed by Baker
but this was changed to Enhancement Level II (E2) at a 5:1 credit ratio in the second IRT meeting. After
the site had been surveyed, Baker reviewed the approach and thought enough problems were evident
that corrective measures beyond E2 were needed.
Prior to the November 7 meeting, Chris Roessler distributed a PDF titled
BrownsSummit_postSurvey_Restoration _ v_ Enhancement_R2_lowerR3.pdf, which showed topography,
photos, and cross sections of the reach sections in question. The bankfull cross sectional areas are
estimated to be 9.7 sf for lower Reach R3 and 12.0 for upper Reach R2. These areas correspond to bank
height ratios of approximately 1.8 to 2.1. Erosion is not widespread but many of the streambanks on the
outside bends are vertical and eroding.
Chris Roessler presented Baker's case to do Priority Level I restoration by stating that the evolutionary
trend for the stream reaches is likely to be down because the channel is incised and widening to create
space for a floodplain bench is expected. The channel is currently 7 to 12 feet wide and it would appear
to need floodprone widths of approximately 15 to 25 feet to be stable (i.e., to reach entrenchment
ratios of > 2.2). Additionally, two locations have riffles that are oriented up valley, which means that
flow vectors are pointed into vertical streambanks and the stream has nowhere to go without causing
significant erosion. Spoil piles are present along the right bank of upper Reach R2, and indicate past
channel manipulation. Finally, floodplain area is available along the existing channel without having to
remove mature trees, making Priority I Restoration more feasible. By reconnecting the channel with its
floodplain and restoring appropriate pattern and dimension, Baker is confident the channel would
remain stable indefinitely.
Todd Tugwell's perspective on the section is that it is currently not very degraded and falls in the middle
category of streams in North Carolina (i.e., not exceptional, but not very degraded). He thinks that if it
were tied to streams that are impacted, the mitigation ratio would not be very high. Also, he believes

that the functional uplift potential for the section is not very high. Todd generally agreed that more
work than fencing out cattle and planting a buffer is warranted.
Given these differing approaches, Chris Roessler suggested a compromise of Enhancement Level I at a
1.5:1 ratio. The two sharp bends will be smoothed, riffle structures will be incorporated to raise the bed,
vertical banks will be laid back and possibly benched, and the spoil piles will be removed, as long as
mature woody vegetation would not be harmed in the process. Additionally, large woody debris will be
incorporated in the form of toe wood, log vanes and/or weirs, and invasive species such as privet will be
treated.
NCDWR thought that Enhancement Level I (E1) is an appropriate approach for this section. Sue
Homewood stated that the mitigation plan should incorporate additional language about functional
uplift that is specific to this section of the project. David Bailey agreed with the E1 approach and stated
that the spoil piles should be removed as part of this effort.
Note: a map for the stream component following this visit is included with this memo.
Reach R5 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
The group walked along Reach R5 below the spring and agreed with the proposed Enhancement Level II
approach at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. Livestock will be excluded and the buffer will be planted. A gradient
control structure will be installed to prevent the headcut located just below the spring from progressing.
Baker will try to include as much as the channel as possible and still allow cattle to move around the
head of the reach.
Reach R6 (updated from the previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
The Corps and Baker have concluded that this is not a jurisdictional channel but rather a livestock
watering pond in an upland setting. The group has decided that a water quality BMP will be more
appropriate for the replacement of the pond. In effect the pond will be converted to a wetland -type
feature with a low -maintenance weir outlet. It is possible that there will be several tiers of wetland cells
because the Corps recommended that the work extend as far upstream as possible in order to exclude
cattle from the eroded channel. The area included in the project will be planted and placed within the
conservation easement. A cattle crossing will be constructed immediately above the easement.
The credit ratio for developing a BMP channel for Reach R6 was agreed upon at 1.5:1 for the valley
length of the BMP. Under this approach, the existing spillway channel below the pond, which is actively
eroding and filled with concrete debris, will be filled and stabilized.
Reach R4 (notes are from previous meeting on April 14, 2014 except that credit is proposed for a
second stormwater BMP — see fourth paragraph in this section)
This reach will begin where the future Reach R5 and R6 join. Presently, this confluence is located on the
delta at the head of the second pond. It is anticipated that this confluence will be moved upstream and
to the southwest from the existing confluence as part of the Reach R6 proposed mitigation (see above).
The pond at the head of Reach R4 will be removed and replaced with Priority I or shallow Priority II
restoration. This approach will continue downstream to the property line, at which point the incision
and channel erosion become more pronounced.
Once past the property line, the channel will be re-routed slightly to the northeast to line up with the
low point of the valley. The floodplain in this section will be leveled to fill in the existing eroding channel
and remove the relic pond dam.
A second BMP feature will be created on the new floodplain to treat runoff discharge from a 30 -inch
culvert located just above and beyond the right bank. The culvert discharges runoff from much of Broad

Ridge Court, a newly developed subdivision. Baker proposes 1.5:1 credit ratio for the valley length of this
BMP, similar to the BMP along Reach R6. The valley length of this BMP is estimated to be 60-75 feet. The
outlet is currently causing a major headcut that will continue to migrate. To correct this, a rock -lined
step -pool channel will be constructed to bring the stormwater runoff from the outlet to the floodplain
elevation. Next, a properly -sized basin will capture the runoff, diffuse its energy, and allow water to
spread across the vegetated floodplain, promoting nutrient uptake within the buffer. A stable outlet
channel will be constructed to deliver the runoff to the project reach.
The Corps acknowledged that some of the mature trees toward the lower end of Reach R4 would be
need to be removed for construction but that tree removal should be minimized.
Reach T3 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
This reach enters the mainstem from the right bank and forms Reach R3 below it. The channel is overly
deep and wide in this location due to a headcut progressing from the mainstem. However, the channel
is also barely intermittent above the headcut.
Baker proposes to remove the headcut and raise the stream to tie in to the Priority 1 restoration on the
mainstem. The reach length in the proposal of 102 feet will be shortened to 50 feet, which should be
within the area of the higher water table created by restoration of the mainstem.
Reach R3 (includes a change on the lower part of the reach from restoration to E2)
Reach R3 begins at the confluence of Reaches T3 and R4. The upper section is currently backwatered
due to a farm pond just downstream. The pond will be removed as part of the Priority 1 restoration of
this reach. Tyler noted the narrow valley width in the lower part of the reach and the need to switch
sides of the channel to save some of the mature trees along it. Chris commented that the assumed
sinuosity is about 1.15. It's actually 1.18 but this can be worked out in the design process.
R-Plew the
Per the November 7, 2014 meeting, below the existing and proposed stream crossing Enhancement
Level I at a 1.5:1 credit ratio, as described above, will be implemented for lower Reach R3.
Reach T2 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
The group didn't discuss Reach T2. Most of this reach is covered by low vegetation. A headcut has
migrated slightly upstream from the mainstem and then it's a small ditch flowing from a pond above.
The proposed work is Enhancement Level II at a 2.5:1 credit ratio to plant and remove livestock from
this reach. A grade control structure will be added to stop the headcut.
Reach R2 (includes a change from restoration to E2)
Reach R2 begins at the confluence of Reaches T2 and R3. Spoil piles are evident in the middle of the
reach beyond the right bank in the middle of the reach. The spoil piles will be removed as discussed in
the wetland mitigation section below.
the; rppic-h Thp wArk well hp larnatpd *A kwestec-k exr-1, sien feneing and supplemental planting. Ne �Age­rk
Per the November 7, 2014 meeting, Enhancement Level I at a 1.5:1 credit ratio, as described above, will
be imalemented for uaaer Reach R2 to the barbed wire fence at the orooerty line.
Reach T1 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)

Reach T1 enters from the east on the downstream most property. It has a drainage area of 62 acres and
144 feet of Priority I restoration are proposed. As with all reaches, Baker will describe the functional
uplift that will be attained through restoration in the mitigation plan.
Reach R1 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
Reach R1 begins at the confluence of Reaches R2 and T1. The bank height ratios are not particularly
high, though there is some channel erosion on the upstream and middle sections. The channel has been
straightened in the past so Priority I restoration is proposed to reestablish natural pattern and eliminate
bank erosion. The IRT accepted this approach because the impacts from implementing it will not be as
high as the reach upstream, which has more mature vegetation.
The downstream end of Reach R1 has been previously manipulated and spoil piles remain in this area.
These will be removed as part of an effort to re-establish and rehabilitate the wetlands in this section.
Wetland Mitigation
The previous iteration of the minutes explained that Baker would map the wetlands to divide them into
different categories according to their existing condition in terms of vegetation and hydrology. This was
done in preparation for the June 6t" meeting with Todd Tugwell.
The different areas may be generally categorized as follows:
1. "Functioning" wetlands — forested areas with hydrology and hydric soils, such as along the right
bank of Reach R1. The hydrology and vegetation are present but in many areas cattle trampling
has impacted the soil structure and ability to percolate water.
2. Degraded wetlands — areas with no wetland vegetation and some hydrology such as along the
corrugated metal pipe at the beginning of Reach R1.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — mucky areas along the left bank of the middle of Reach R1 that
lacked wetland vegetation.
4. Filled wetlands — areas where spoil has been placed on top of presumed hydric soils, such as
upper Reach R2 and the downstream end of Reach R1.
NCEEP explained that it is important for all wetland mitigation to be used by this project be in the
restoration category (re-establishment or rehabilitation), otherwise it cannot be used according to the
RFP. The federal definitions for wetland restoration and enhancement are listed below.
At the June 6t" meeting, Todd Tugwell expressed that any wetland mitigation would appear to be linked
to changes to the stream channel. Consequently, the wetland mitigation along Reaches R3 (lower) and
R2 will be removed, with the exception of the wetland re-establishment along Reach R2 where spoil
piles will be removed and hydric soils will be at the ground surface.
The credit ratios for the four types of wetland areas are proposed as follows:
1. "Functioning" wetlands —the Corps suggested credit ratios of 3:1.
2. Degraded wetlands — Baker proposes 1.5:1 credit for rehabilitation in these areas. The hydrology
would be improved, as well as the vegetation.
3. Partially -functioning wetlands — Baker proposes 1.5:1 for these areas. Livestock trampling has
adversely affected hydrology and soil structure in these areas. Baker believes that a compacted
layer is promoting surface ponding and preventing suitable/natural drainage. By removing the
livestock and planting appropriate wetland vegetation, Baker believes the soil structure will be
rehabilitated and wetland function will significantly improve.
4. Filled wetlands — Baker proposes wetland re-establishment at a 1:1 credit ratio. By removing the
spoil, hydric soils will be exposed and wetland hydrologic function will be re-established.
Wetland planting will complete the picture.

Contacts
• Jeff Schaffer will serve as the NCEEP Project Manager for this project with and Greg Melia will
provide technical assistance during project development and in review of deliverables. Chris
Roessler will be the Baker Project Manager and coordinate/submit project deliverables directly
with Jeff for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Ste
• Project Schedule — A separate meeting will be held to conduct the jurisdictional determination
with the Corps. Baker will update NCEEP separately on the expected stream and wetland
mitigation credits following the changes recommended by the IRT.
• 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 David Bailey for on-site JD verification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation 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: [e-mail]

INITERNAT10NAL
Meeting Minutes
BROWNS SUMMIT STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS Contract No. 5792
Date Prepared:
November 25, 2015
Meeting Date, Time,
Location:
November 24, 2015, 10:00 am
On-site (Guilford County, NC)
Attendees:
USACE — Todd Tugwell, Andrea Hughes
Baker—Scott King
Subject:
Lower Reach R2 mitigation approach type
Recorded By:
Scott King
An on-site meeting was held on November 24th, 2015 at approximately 10:00 AM to discuss the Browns
Summit Creek Restoration (Full Delivery) Project in Guilford County, NC. This meeting was held at the
request of USACE following an SMU credit modification request by Baker for the Lower R2 stream
section. There were at least two previous meetings onsite with other Baker staff members and the IRT,
the results of which are discussed in previous meeting minutes. This memo will only focus on the
discussion on Nov 24tH
Prior to the November 24th meeting, Scott King distributed a document titled:
Browns Summit SMU Credit Modification Request_16Oct2015.pdf, which showed photographs and
cross sections of the Lower R2 reach section in question, along with a proposal to change the restoration
approach from Enhancement II at a 5:1 ratio to Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio.
After walking the section in question, Todd Tugwell and Andrea Hughes generally took the position that
this stream section isn't too badly degraded, appears stable, and has mature trees close to the channel.
Thus they are not inclined to believe that Enhancement I is an appropriate or especially beneficial
approach to take here. They also pointed out that this stream's current condition isn't too far off from
sections of stream mitigation currently being approved at final close-out meetings. Scott King presented
Baker's case by emphasizing the channel incision and the sections of steep bare sideslopes. After
discussion, Todd and Andrea proposed that perhaps the uppermost and lowermost portions of this
section (which appeared to be the most degraded) would be suitable for more significant levels of
restoration. The uppermost section of Lower R2 (later measured in the field at 74 feet along stream
centerline) could be included in with the adjacent upstream section of stream mitigation (Reach R2
Upper) at an Enhancement Level I at 1.5:1 ratio, while the lowermost section of Lower R2 (later
measured in the field at 42 feet along stream centerline) could be included in with the adjacent
downstream section of mitigation (Reach R1) using a Restoration approach at a 1:1 ratio. They also
agreed that the middle section of Lower R2, while still using an Enhancement Level 11 approach, might be
more appropriate at 2.5:1 ratio rather than the current 5:1 ratio.
Todd and Andrea also stated that they didn't think these changes needed to be brought before the IRT
for another full review. Instead the revisions can be made to the mitigation plan and submitted with the
permit application.

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,
Scott King
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

18.2 EMAIL DOCUMENTATION - PER MS. HUGHES AND MR. KING
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 18-3 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

Suggs, Kristi
From: King, Scott
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 4:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Tomsic, Christopher; Suggs, Kristi
Subject: Browns Summit mitigation site wetlands issue
Attachments: BrownsSummit_HydricSoils_WetlandType5.pdf; BrownsSummit_WetlandType5.pdf;
BrownsSummit_SoilsMap.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good afternoon Andrea,
I just wanted to email everyone a quick summary of what we discussed earlier over the phone regarding the addition of
the "Wetland Type 5" area to the wetland restoration credit of the Browns Summit mitigation site. Please reply back if I
have presented anything incorrectly.
You expressed your reluctance to include additional wetlands that had not been previously discussed at the IRT field
meetings on site, but stated that you will allow us to include these in the mitigation plan based on the following
considerations:
-We are not seeking to expand our contracted WMU credit payment, we are only trying to ensure that we fulfill that
contracted amount. Only after credit ratio negotiations for the bulk of wetland areas located at the bottom of the
project were concluded did we fully realize we would be slightly short (0.08 credits) of our contracted amount.
-The small acreage of the wetlands in question makes this less contentious issue in your view, as we are only seeking
0.08 acres of paid credit from 0.33 acres of restored wetlands. That's 0.25 acres of restored wetlands the state gets free
— a $17,000 value!
-You seemed to agree that this was not viewed as an attempt to slip something by the IRT surreptitiously. Baker has
given a sincere, professional, and thorough evaluation to the area in question, had discussed this with DMS (though
admittedly more recently than would be ideal), and would very much appreciate the chance to include it in our
mitigation plan. We felt it was better to discuss it now than attempt to add wetland areas in two years down the road.
And when we next go out to download data from our pre -construction monitoring wells, I will invite you to meet us in
the field to investigate and confirm this area for restoration. We look forward to meeting you then!
Most sincerely,
Scott
As for the attached maps, please consider the following:
Project Soils Map: Note that the area of interest is mapped as a Codorus loam hydric soil by the NRCS.
Wetland Type -5 Hydric Soils Map: The presence of hydric soil was confirmed and mapped in the field by Scott King on
May 14, 2015 and subsequently surveyed that same day. Please note, the hydric soil map previously presented in the
mitigation plan had slightly erroneous hydric soil boundaries on the western bank (field map boundaries were used in
place of surveyed lines).
Wetland Type -5 Map: The area requested for restoration correctly totals 0.33 acres (erroneously noted previously as
0.27 acres). This is smaller than the total hydric soil acreage as we are only submitting the bulk of the eastern bank for
restoration credit. Again, we are not attempting to go beyond our contracted WMU credits.

Scott King, LSS, PWS I Environmental Specialist I Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway — Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518 1 [Office] 919-481-5731 1 [Fax] 919-463-5490
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
1aa ,
11
i N r E R N A r e o H A L � We Make a Difference
Wa aas.
Caner[wnhus: Q UVO `r r'" `

19.0 APPENDIX E - DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR REACH R6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 19-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL

OBJECTID Area -AC-
Landuse
1.00
9.38 Fallow Good
2.00
1.25 Fallow Good
3.00
1.88 Fallow Good
4.00
2.01 Fallow Good
5.00
29.16 Fallow Good
6.00
1.31 2 acre lot
7.00
0.12 2 acre lot
8.00
0.51 2 acre lot
9.00
2.43 2 acre lot
10.00
12.67 Fallow Good
11.00
0.73 Impervious
12.00
0.01 Fallow Good
13.00
0.01 Impervious
TOTAL 61.47
MUSYM SOIL TYPE
CN
NaB B
83.00
778.64
W W
98.00
122.38
DaA C
88.00
165.06
CkC A
74.00
149.02
CkB A
74.00
2157.72
NaB B
65.00
85.24
DaA A
46.00
5.68
CkB A
46.00
23.28
CkB A
46.00
111.65
CkB A
74.00
937.73
CkB A
98.00
72.00
CkB A
74.00
0.71
CkB A
98.00
0.94
4610.04
AVERAGE CN
74.99
IA
0.01 For Simple Method Calcuations

Browns Summit Full Delivery
Hydrology Worksheet for Constructed Wetland (T6)
US Elev
Time of Concentration
DS Elev
839 835
DA = 61.47 Total DA to US Farm Road is 61.47 AC
Unpaved Sheet Flow Max Length Unpaved Sheet 300 feet
1 Slope Length P (2 -yr 24 hr) Mannings n Travel Time Travel Time
(ft/ft) (ft) Factor (hrs) (min)
Cultivated Soils (Residue >20%) 0.013289037 301 3.37 0.17 0.50 30.01
US Elev
DS Elev
835 814
Shallow Concentrated Max Length Shallow Concentrated 1000 feet
2 Slope Length Assumes n=0.02 Velocity Travel Time Travel Time
(ft/ft) (ft) (fps) (sec) (min)
0.023178808 906 2.22 408.11 6.80
US Elev
DS Elev
814 802
Notes P based on NOAA ATLAS 14 Greensboro Pump Station
Note: Velocity taken from Figure 3-1 (Unpaved) in TR -55 Manual
Channel/Ditch Flow
3 Slope Length n depth width Velocity Travel Time Travel Time area wp Rh
(ft/ft) (ft) Factor (fps) (sec) (min)
0.016129032 744 i 0.04 1 i 3 i 2.64 i 282.21 i 4.70 i 1.5 i 3.6 0.4
Total Tc
41.51 min
Lag Time 24.91 min
Note: Velocity calculated from existing condtioi
ranged from 3.17 to 3.81 w/ average of 3.45.

Simple Method (Simple method used to calculate water volumes for Constructed Wetland)
Rv = 0.05+0.9*IA Runoff coefficient (unitless)
Where:
IA=fractional impervious area (unitless)
V = 3630*Ro*Rv*A Volume of Runoff (cuff)
Where:
RD= Design storm rainfall depth (in) (typically 1" to 1.5")
A = Watershed area (ac)
Units
DA 61.47 ac 2677633 ft2
RD= 1.00 in
IA=
0.01
unitless
RV =
0.06
unitless
V =
13588.32
cuft
V =
3.74
ac -in
Discrete SCS Curve Number Method
Q* = (P-0.2S)2/(P+o.8S)
S = (1000/CN)-10
V = Q*DA
DA = Drainage Area (ac)
Q* = Runoff Depth (in)
P = Rainfall Depth (in). Typically 1.0" to 1.5"
S = Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
V = Required treatment volume (ft)
Units
S = 3.33 in
P = 1.00 in
Q* = 0.03 in
0.096047

Water Quality
N=
0
D =
0 in
Cd =
0.6
Inv =
0 ft
Channel Protection
N=
0
D=
0 in
Cd =
0
Inv =
0 ft
Wetland, Stage/Discharge
Lenath = 1 0 Ift IL lftl I 25IAnole (dea) 1 30.001L fftl 1 1581
0.0
Q=Ce*8/15*(2*g)A0.5*tan (angle/2)*hA2.5
Ce = 0.585 for 30 deg angle
Drawdown of Water Quality Volume Using Static Method (Assume pond immediately fills up with storm event to treat and then drawdown starts thereafter)
1" Storm Voulume 3.74 ac -in
1" Storm Voulume 0.312 ac -ft
Detention Time 2 day
Release Rate 0.074 cfs
Stage/Discharge
808.00
807.00
806.00
805.00
804.00
N
803.00
802.00
801.00
800.00
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Discharge [cfs]

Total Volume
Elevation
Area (sf)
Area (ac)
Avg. Area
(ac)
Height (ft) Inc vol (ac -ft)
Acc vol (ac -ft) Notes
798.50
424
0.010
799.00
568
0.013
0.011
0.5
0.01
0.01
800.00
1286.98
0.030
0.021
1
0.02
0.03
801.001
18167
0.417
0.2231
1
0.22
0.25
801.50
7606
0.175
0.296
0.5
0.15
0.40
802.00
10588
0.243
0.209
0.5
0.10
0.50
802.50
13571
0.312
0.277
0.5
0.14
0.64
803.00
14887
0.342
0.327
0.5
0.16
0.80
803.50
15786
0.362
0.352
0.5
0.18
0.98
804.00
16635
0.382
0.3721
0.5
0.19
1.17
804.50
17632
0.405
0.3931
0.5
0.20
1.36
805.00
18563
0.4260.415
0.5
0.21
1.57
805.50
19657
0.451
0.439
0.5
0.22
1.79
806.00
20651
0.474
0.463
0.5
0.23
2.02
807.00
20651
0.474
0.474
1
0.47
2.50
808.00
807.00
806.00
805.00
804.00
rn 803.00
R
CO 802.00
801.00
800.00
799.00
798.00
0.5
Stage/Storage
Storage [ac -ft]
1.5 2 2.5

Constructed Wetland Volume and Surface Area
V =
1.86
ac -in
SCS
V =
6752.40
ft'
SCS
V =
3.74
ac -in
Simple
V =
13588.32
ft3
Simple
Ponding Depth =
12.00
in
Surface Area =
0.16
ac
SCS
Surface Area =
6752.40
ft2
SCS
Surface Area =
0.31
ac
Simple
Surface Area =
13588.32
ft2
Simple
Non-Forebay Surface Area =
1358.83
ft2
10%
Forebay Surface Area =
1358.83
ft2
10%
Shallow Water (low marsh) Surface Area =
5435.33
ft2
40%
Shallow Land (high marsh) Surface Area =
5435.33
ft2
40%
Actual Surface Area =
—According to the DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method"
*"DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12—*
Surface area of wetland is divided up into the zones as described below (Per NCDENR BMP Manual)
Deep Pools
Non-Forebay 5-10%
Forebay 10%
Shallow Water (low marsh) 40%
Shallow Land (high marsh) 30-40%
Design Depth of Each Wetland Zone (Per NCDENR BMP Manual)
Non-Forebay 18-36" include one at outlet structure for drawdown) if applicable
Forebay 18-36"
Shallow Water (low marsh) 3-6" don't make to deep!
Shallow Land (high marsh) Up to 12" surface area calculation. Also depth of permanent pool.
Percentages and depths are as follows for this design (Per design decision)
Non-Forebay 10%, Forebay 10%, Shallow water 40%, Shallow land 40%
Non-Forebay 36", Forebay 36", Shallow water 3", Shallow land 12"

20.0 APPENDIX F - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 20-1 1/13/2016
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- FINAL

NORTH CAROLINA
T
NCI140 I
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
NDRADD80.98919
S
GUILFORD COUNTY
o
LOCATION. APPROX.3 MILES NORTHWEST OF BROWNS SUMMIT
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
rrww
INDEX OF SHEETS
A
VICINITY MAP
1.\ PFAMCPMRNXIXNI�
eTM1YEMM6PEC
•
VEKIAl1OX 5ElECTCx
18-- X(90i COXYEMKWI9YNBOLE
II
SIA
2�bP UkTMLS
O
_ ��
]......OEXEPXCONSTRIMMN9EOJEXCE
U...... PVHNflV
III
U-19...... PPOFlLFS
M
A 10.
`. \ Ij 1j1
IE.}L..... REYEGEfATIXI RIN
W\\\
a
EGI-EC9 EP0910NCONIRW PUN
y.S
\ BEGIN ALH <LONER•
ENO REACH 5 - A 1
1.SA ♦
BEGIN REACH 4
ER 1\ A ♦ST �
1
BEGIN R CH 3 UPPER BE N REACH 3 UPPF0.
12
010
_ .3W80.00
_
NNGRM9 E�
WERE
Siax9VIII
.94
STA. S1♦11 S3
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
PREPARED IN TFIE OFFICE OF:
GRAPRIC SCALES
DESIGN
SUMMARY
PROJECT ENGINEER
W
PGM wue
eanre+c I17
nmLosm
m
3B
v 3B w
'xcx
14
_=
[ffi�
ItIblCkt 2 UVORK
147
10 NCDENR
PROGRESS DRAWING
1.54E Ups DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
Onws
SGM
1652 MML SERVICE CENTER
JACO�M. BYERS, PE
PER REVIEW MERGED MY
°1°°'®
j0 9 �0 �0 . w
® PGw x w ww RALEIGH, NC 2)699-1652
Eo xor ESE roR maanvrnm
PROFILE IHOIDONIALI RG,a e
w
IUTIIEENM•. PE
am
L1
YMRRE�RHAN,
83
70 CONTACT.JEFF

STREAM CONVENTIONAL
SYMBOLS
3.05
SUPERCEDES SHEET 1-B
®
ROCKJAOOK
A—
SAFETY PENCE
man
ROCKVANE
TF—
TAPE FENCE
OUTLETPROTECTON
FP—IWYEARFLOODPWN
2. All IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PUN,
Cf t,
y y
ROGKCRO35VANE
—o-
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
YS%
DOUBLE MOP ROCKOROW VANE
--- u---
EXIFRNGMAIORCONTOUR
dailXlib
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR
.........
�18TINGMINORCONTOUR
PoRYMw Plrly
FwCWeM Nwdl FIRM ft N, dalMawC[
DOUBLENTNGDEFLECTOR
_–. --
UMIT80FOISNRBANCE
®
TEMPoRARYSILTCHECK
---
PROPERTY ONE
A
ROOTWAD
w
FOOTBRIDGE
10
LOG JN001(
r
TEMPORARYSTREAMCROSSING
CRL
LOG VANE
Lm¢WIMIY
PERMANENTbTREAM CROSSING
15%
OG W R
RMmh vmv Wv',I
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
^
LOG CROSS VANE
FMw
Orcwveaw
Q,11'ap.25
W%
Is
TREE REMOVAL
/jT
LOG STEP POOL
Saprnm Him/lie
10%
OBL
16
PROTECTION
.
MADE CONTROL LOG JAM
ml.
DITCH
ORCNELAI
®
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
IMmMw Mgmka
CHANNELFILL
=
BOULDER CLUSTER
PomNmnmNww
BRUSH MATTRESS
cm
ROCKSTEPPOOL
®
OEOUFTAIHBRUSHTCE
'NOTE
ALL SEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE
USED ON THIS PROJECT
Proined PinSperler III RIM h Rd I aarrvnel Wetland
IMIw nl lk[k RMI.I ivn PmFLI
--rom.mY.w
3.05
Rimini Now
Camra Ma.eu.dilyl In I %NoaT wmwl
Meppml Plul
Few CUR, Wb FRMMMM Pill m Rr In WIN a' 0.ce r
I . THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIREDTO INSTALL INSTREMS STRUCTURES USING
�22
m RRIVILW P0RPo1dm4T
ATRACKHOEWA AHYDMUUCTHUMBOFSUFFICIENTS95TO PLACE
862
W.
—VP
TEMPORARS'ROCKDAM
2. All IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PUN,
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
NehMI.N'"r0.
Mw MrWIw
YS%
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION NARK.
3. CONSTRUCTOR IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN EARLY 2013.Y
F/e Mm'mnknt
Natenems
25%
NLOMSID No. 53313
OM.
PoRYMw Plrly
FwCWeM Nwdl FIRM ft N, dalMawC[
B ENGINEER RILL FLAG MEER TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
bNlm eaNlwlL
Carl
IPF
IM
FILW
cwar.merpa.y,wl..
Ian Pyr Wma
Is%
235
F
Mklrrmr,ww
sMmFownwlo.
Im
15%
CRL
2MMI"N."M
Lm¢WIMIY
10%
15%
AL
RMmh vmv Wv',I
SmrR WBRmp
I 1m
20%
FMw
Orcwveaw
Q,11'ap.25
W%
Is
FM-
LswMURnWq
Fw CuN[ Bxs N[Aneew PIW M W hall OtCaur
Saprnm Him/lie
10%
OBL
s*wmdamrr
l"11M%
FAC W
YAw mi 1 IB%
ml.
xmNQ
15%
ORAL
IMmMw Mgmka
IS%
OBL
PomNmnmNww
PiabelrN
YO%
OBL
rola
GBL
NawarlB Nglnlauo
GENERAL NOTES
--rom.mY.w
3.05
TREE PROTECTION
Rm
PROGRESS DRAWING
I . THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIREDTO INSTALL INSTREMS STRUCTURES USING
RIPARIANAREASEEOING
m RRIVILW P0RPo1dm4T
ATRACKHOEWA AHYDMUUCTHUMBOFSUFFICIENTS95TO PLACE
862
W NO US LCR 01IUCTAN
BOULDERS (3Y1M LOGS AND RODTNAOS.
TEMPORARS'ROCKDAM
2. All IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PUN,
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
E15
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MIMMME DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
:..M m,
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION NARK.
3. CONSTRUCTOR IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN EARLY 2013.Y
Ixi Enxx FlOx)Lmwr.v.
<. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NIXYTH CAROLIIU'9NEfJ1L' BEFORE
fAawelgihw
NLOMSID No. 53313
)(CAVATION STARTS (1dL08624919)
B ENGINEER RILL FLAG MEER TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
SNvrva
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
NORTH CAROUNA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
MARCH2O09 (REV2013)
3.05
TREE PROTECTION
Rm
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.24
RIPARIANAREASEEOING
END
TEMPORARYSEOIMENTMAP
862
TEMPORARY SILT PENCE
6.93
TEMPORARS'ROCKDAM
BTO
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
VEGETATION SELECTION
Pmwmd Ferwn SIMI MWare
Paan SwIl 7, Ik Min.Ym P.l
MMWBMr[Ndly-QerxMllar RembRl.Yi1
¢aPY -6MmW.Y[rt
B MNmt
ummodwr
%nam
w Spall"
Studio
BWkel
venin
newt
A drgwgwx.olib
Sgww en
IW
I]
FM
fMwwrlmm
A'dwilam
Dwrlar@e
IM
E15
FAC
Far..mmm
MgK1 M4'
14%
Grcm Ns
DBL
fAawelgihw
Mgxd.mltlp
H%
✓ewbeq.
SNvrva
SaRwR
IPF
1.5
FA
Awlmmwgamn
SMmIpY[
Is%
235
65C
SAcwdynum amryrw
Link NwYm
Im
15
FACV
Swybnnrxm mrna
4 wni
10%
I S
FAN
Myarka mpmaia
Itaalvatl
I 1m
15
FMW
Gmin..'MIM.
wHmNwu
W%
Is
rl wi rawmn ryaw%a me to mr5 wmwBHBoalhxsor
puny Beµvkaru411on rawurcAttrpaYA[auw nROAmneaatuE
pairm Brrw S werraepowlrR ver Iw Ihpauermo(pLfuk
Propmrtl4rr-Rett mtl LlwawtrSyAn
Lnum Ymmnl nl
MMWBMr[Ndly-QerxMllar RembRl.Yi1
¢aPY -6MmW.Y[rt
vYlvnlm
0.¢n Ns 10%
FetlV
BNW[Y Nu[
bmmalmm[
PLM
%PImrN
pSarlw
WeYW
TelnetB.,h
IM
FACW
iwrur A -^-o
Mmpmr IDSL
mp mtv ,Pluly- 0""W* 6nYl rMKww,M ALAN
Baa EMm Ink
FKW
xvvAM=
Grcm Ns
10N,FACW
p4w,w A "N'
I5%
✓ewbeq.
¢ Bmh
FFK
[e44keugvn
Suuhny
FAM
eAMAmRdpym
NMPMar
im
Ism otwxn
Mwkpm 5%
W
Odmiuml ll
SwiIaxwl
IU.L
FKW
NWWB
mxy-VwtrvMppu WYe¢IrM)1
Mn10%
d �mrwgkmm Pmmoom 5% FMmi
Mvmmw mYlrnwllr
uSSunu
IG%
Gmin..'MIM.
wHmNwu
FAC
mt
Mprlm Btlkrnrlry-u.6mMryr¢nal r[whm6FM¢S.NI
0"vorwimml
xiwduv
FAC W
YAw mi 1 IB%
ml.
Cv.pinm rw.lirwnu
mH—
I oN,
rw
Poylu
su ywlnov
GBL
NawarlB Nglnlauo
N'Il[Mmlail
6%
11
$pnMvni [m
ireJmtB
FlbalVry 25%
FMW
Flhrvum Jmbwn
NnnuW Nkauw
B%
FM'
rSlMparSnorMrnnlm BemrBM IS%
mL
yrnhrrSBww
IN
FM'
Silky IMPIl
ANN." Inamik, IB%
In; FUYrpsieaekatiwnuawSwpr Euwlort(wm[xwawldllryalh
tuddoffildift lFyclvuarilYlwnnrcw rcArpw
trail va nm poop l:n la Barr mr r%rmmal n or io n. n pw
uaY.

S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTT.
Stale Line --
Courcy Una --
Tommhip Una
IF I III,
Reservation Una
Propend Una
Existing Iron Pin
Propend Comer
Property Momann
Parcel/Seauanw Number
Existing sena We
—
—
-*—
Proposed Warren Wire Fence
—
Proposed Chain Link Fenn
—
Proposed Barbed Wire Fares—
ennExisting
----
ExistingWorland Boundary
---
Proposed Welland Boundary
—
Exlnmg Endangered Mimal Boundary
—
Existing Endangered Hom Boundary
—
BUILDINGS AND OTIDiR
CVLTVRE•
Gas Pump Poor or UG Tank Cap
�—
Sign
•
well
`
Small Mire
A
Foundation
o
Arra Outline
C
Cemekry,
D
Building
--E--
Schaal
—.+—
Church
—ow—
HYDROLOGY.-
Stream or Body of Water
Hydra, Pool or Rme^oir
Judadhiminol Sham
Buffer Zana 1
Burger Zone Z
Flow Mow
DisopWarirg Sheam
Spring
Watland
Proposed Latmal, Tail, Hood Dark
False Some
6
—W STATE
t—
OF N(O f'H CAR®Ll\:\
DIVISI®N DP HT(j'IWAYQ
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
:: / . ii I 1
Stondod Gauge
O
RR Stinal Milepost
•tya
Swikh
D
RR Abandoned
----
RR Dismantled
—•—
RIGHT OF W.M.-
—^—
Baseline Control Point
In I.pn
Usting Right of Way Mature
0
Existing Right of Way Lina
Oa
Proposed Right of Way Una
�—
Proposed Right of Way Una III
•
Iron Pin and Cap Mohr
`
Prepared Right of Way Una wRh
A
Concede or Grand Marker
o
Existing Control of Acnss
®
Proposed Combat Combat of Accost
D
Existing Easement Una
--E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Ememend--E—
—.+—
Pmrerad Temporary Drainage Easement—
—ow—
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement —
—vas—
Proposed Pennonend Utility Easement
—rta—
Proposed Temporary Utility Easamml—
—tUF—
Proposed Permanent Eosemem will
----'--"
Iron Pin and Cap Monier
m
ROADS AND RELATED F"IVRBS•
Existing Edge all Pavement
Abandoned Aco rdirg to Uglily Rewb —
Durdng Curb
Designated UG Fiber Opsin: Cable (S.U.E.'}
Proposed Slope Stokes Cut
---L---
Proposed Sbpe Snakes Fill
--- i ---
Prepared Wheal Chair Ramp
Edstirg Wool Guardrail
'
Proposed Guardrail
'
Existing Cable Guiderail
Proposed Cable Widerail
Eauolity Symbol
0
Paramount Removal
PEGETATION,.
Single Tree
Single Shrub
o
Hedge
Wands Um-^^^^^^�
Orahord
D G G O
Wneyerd
E"VING STRUCTURES'
O
MAJOR:
o
Bridge, Tunnel or Bea Cul, of
m
Bridge Wing Wall, Hand Wall and End Wall-
me
MINOR:
—•—
Hand and End Wall
—^—
Pipe Current
In I.pn
Footbridge
^n—
Drainage Bax: Catch Basin, 01 or A
Oa
loved Ditd Guyer
Storm Bawer Mnnhale
•
Storm Sewer
`
V ILMES
O
POWER:
o
Existing Power Pole
m
Proposed Power No
a5
Existing Joint Use Pole
—•—
Proposed JoiMUse Pale
—^—
Power Manhole
In I.pn
Pomo Una Tamar
^n—
Power Troneformer
B
UG Former Coble Hand Hole
H-Fmme Pole
Receded UG Power Una
Designated UG Pavmr Una (S.U.E.-I
PROGRRRS DRAWING
Pot REVEa � my
IO NOT = rq Lansing w
WATER
Water Manhole
O
Water Malar
o
Water Vahm
m
Water Hydmnt
Q
Recorded UG Water Una
—•—
Designated LIG Water Line IS.U.E.'J---•----
—^—
Above Ground Water Um
In I.pn
N:
O
N Satellite Der
N Pedestal
m
N Tower
----•----
UG N Cable Hand Hole
51
Recorded UG N Cable
—^—
Designated UG N Cable (S.LLE.'J—
----^----
Recorded UG Fiber Optic Came
^n—
Designated UG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.•r -^'F---
GAS
Gas Vahe
O
Gas Mater
Receded UG Gas Una
Designated UG Gn Una (S.U.E.•J
----•----
Above Ground Gas Una
•6
SANITARY SEWER
Soni orySewer Manhole •
Sanitory Samar Cleanest O
1.113 Suntory Sewer Litre —a—
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer
TELEPHONE:
Receded SS Ford Mein Una—
Existing Telephone Pal
Designated IS Forced Main Una JSL.E.•)
— ----..----
Proposed Telephone Pole
•6
Telephone Monbele
®
WSCUTANEOUS:
Telephone Mall
m
Utility Pale
Telephone Paternal
m
Uitily Pale with Bose
O
Telephone Cell Tamar
A
Utility Noted ObjeH
o
UW Telephone Came Hand Hal
®
Utility Traffic Signal Bea
D
Recorded UFS Telephone Cable
—•—
LA34 Unknawn UG Una
—.+—
Oesi9nodnd UG Telephone Cable IS.U.E.rJ--
---"----
UG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Q
Recorded UG Telephone Canduh —
—'—
AG Tank; Wada, Gas, Oil
O
Designated W Telephone Conduh IS.U.E.Y
----'--"
URi Test Hole IS.U.E.'I
m
Rooded UG Fiber Optics Cable
— ^—
Abandoned Aco rdirg to Uglily Rewb —
AATUR
Designated UG Fiber Opsin: Cable (S.U.E.'}
---gym--
End dInformation
E.O.I.

ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRRNSPL S NINE NOT NV501L1SlE ON-SITE
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSP W N!9 ME RVNIABLE ON9RE
NLL6
I r T
J w`<
IUFF L
RIFFLE WI WIfiIffuLL BENCH
PROGRESS DRAWING
nmvw,wm� AN RBVILM �ONLT
00 NOT VQ AS IVTTIRVCIpN
G `
POOL
oeomNi NpPtlO
� .w.svwvm.eoa[.af ufa.a9MKMLPNPIIINB
POOL' jR] WINNLL BENCH
�nxw� q ixerm.�.sureaxao�n�x,�
r
..f w
31EP-PoOl
WIN
No
11
r
..f w
31EP-PoOl
WIN

LIVE STAKING
urxm , • A 1
wu¢
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
CROSS SECTION VIEW
------------
PLAN VIEW
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
»II
BRUSH MATTRESS
PROGRRSS DRAWING
M NV189 W0.N1® ONLT
W XP! U98 AIR CONhUC1m
W= l
TrPlcu.sTn�
�[enrvl
mu wuwura
aucKruCR0a�
muss
P�_N h
LEC SON
TrPlcu.sTn�
�[enrvl

4-WIRE BARBED HARE FENCE
No
LOG WEIR
WwTINQmm
rrw�Orin
Pmr: SS DRAWING
iPn¢VMP
1rnIMIX�e
Po0. 98v1[r WXPOONA ONLY
NY NOT On mR coRmir T10N
r
®4--
y�
rain rsPn rsNrs.
I.rR R MIX
page-
®
'1
EtW PM1El.TYPEI ENOD PANE4TYPE I1
INTERNATIONAL
y�
SCOU
I1m®
NCDMS ID No. 66313
Oouneuiwi.P9
W
/ucau
STRESS PM PANEL AT MINOR DEPRESSION
MORTISE DETAIL
r 11
n.....P
mfl�.Po PNn.A..X�PPRa,
u� jjr
wOMPLcp
LINE PANELS
a�w
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE
LOG VANE
t<omrne'. C
O
Xrwn.P,.aPwN><n
•.. wmuPi
A'-
EECDONA-A'
rOJhPWa
F r°c^an°Er'�mc
I�exuw rl
u
m
SECT ON A-A'
.\
mryTur!ery
Irt
1
vcrermvwx
emnRn PM''. �
PWS 68m[xww'
mRnNlr{Pi1LSIS ✓'='
nVNra
}yyliNY.y�"-S%Oman®--
q"� "�<iMRPW9
�
,PudmJ
-�
NOTES
un�sum.r xurrarm. AS
anw
tlosm
mrm�waMEwLfxLw � JeerT~yyr4"
E
eMFIUunmerto
iuommmm�.aPowmPTrtwcurzxrm�m
iaeoa°Em"i°.PnOi" ce xnrwan°oornRna.rtau�"aurva PRQHLEV

LOG ROLLER
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
PRGGRM DRAWING
m "VIEW PYRPEEDUU.YLE
M NM M M MIWFRW.RMY
TERNATION
o
HERE,
HANDSOME) PSUFE FORD REGUMIL, v,,lSTU RED FELDBERG ,TS, HER BANK
em rrn Saw
DITCH PLUG
SECnONA-A'
ORB SACOSIRL
mwWi.miEPww
i
ERNST
� oevlo•I
1
RJFVATBDN
I
\
� mmvwmlvx
I
e
BROORff
HGADIRIm
Eovs
-
Im�,IPP
m
2 AT
C -
EASED MATERIAL SHUBLL OF
SHOULD BEATLEAST IvxCOLLOIDAL AND sxouSEBORDEN WOTFfEBORROW
AUNBIUUMUFE
BOARD FOR
A HUGE FABRIC SHOULD BE "LED TO THE LNEVIDU RADEQUAL
shof
IONIC
6 SOLDIERS AND CUR EWER WDENG CAN OF LINES WHISTEAD GO DOE CARL FEAk2M, PER SMOOTHEN 01 PONSTOM
0 4FLOR �EENGH HELD DECIP MA�ATCO A UNDER OF SECONDARY LOUIS AMO VKK)by BESIDES a
o
HERE,
HANDSOME) PSUFE FORD REGUMIL, v,,lSTU RED FELDBERG ,TS, HER BANK
em rrn Saw
DITCH PLUG
SECnONA-A'
ORB SACOSIRL
ERNST
RJFVATBDN
BROORff
C -
o
HERE,
HANDSOME) PSUFE FORD REGUMIL, v,,lSTU RED FELDBERG ,TS, HER BANK
em rrn Saw
DITCH PLUG
SECnONA-A'

CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
NR8
GEOLIFT HATH BRUSH TOE
rw+.a
e 11N°�o oiwx'�uf5i'w4�°c'm PROGR[RESS DRAWING
•mue.� um muss
_ _________� PoR VRv PVIIN9d T
aEore�ae.MN �6'�k."L"€7'dd"�".c6A1lYdG6'�1�'!W&'x"LR9"���cmO•'• w xor vu wx mmxurnm+
•. PS.S3".'9R5'SS,`€RYbSRi"�••••°"`•"`w°°�m•"'•
SECTION B-4
PAPd(.`MW
ROCK STEP POOL CHANNEL
POOL CROSS SECTION B9'
41
m.miew�. W ro�w�ww.uwoR

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
M�U�ER�IMRI� INC
FULONBIGCOXSFRVREOXSEOUENLESALLVLPELLSE� D"INGIMPLEWWATONOFTI SEEN Lg1iPPCFOR SXPllE OF
1EM_ilg
APRgVEOER09pN0.VOSEOIFESAWF LONFROLPTAH id SFELIFIC FONTRUCMH£EOVEXO REMSPNOSMOLLPFRESPo161BLE i0R
1, 0.} PAGKq SIW1 CONI NORTH CAROLINA V E DELI CENTER II800.6S HAS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
] CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPAID 3TABILQPo CONSTRUCTION UNTIMM9 AND HALL BONDS AS INdGTED ON THE PLANS,
FEARSCONTRACTOR RESOLVE EDUmLEm, NATERFUS5, PREPARE HEARING ARI AND STOCKPILE ARMS AS SOWN OR THE
.. CONSTRUCTION TRAFF"HVI BE RESTUN IEOro THE ARG DENOTED AS 'ENDS OF DIsIURPMICF OR TNVL ROAD6 ON THE FLANS
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEUPoRARY RUCK TUBS AT LOCATORS INSINUATED ON THE PLANS.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTAL IEWMARY ME FENCE AROUND THE STAGING AREN51 TEM1PoRARY ULT PERMS WILL ALSO BE
THE CONTRACTOR SHNL INSTALL All TFAATiARI AND PERMANENT STMGBCWSSNB AS SHOWN ON THE PIANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ALL EROSION ABU EDNIFMATDN CORXOL PUCLICES NONE MEN INSTMLED AM ARMOURED. M GENERAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
ARMS FRM1 UPSTREAM TO DOW STR6W AW INSTFEAM 9IBIICNBE6MW CIUNN6FEE LMTERIALPoULL BE INSTALLED USING A PVM0.
AIpUNDOR FLOW OVERSICN MASSIVE ASBROWN ON ME PGB.
NMPCTIRBHUEPgLYIELPORPRV BEFOPLD WLCXMALOIST1RBm ME0.4 ANTRAL EXON FALX WdU(DAY
�OR
10, TIE COMM4TOt W 4L EEOH CON51 W CigN 41 EXCAVATING CHANFL TILL NAIERIAE IX MEAS 51 p W N OH iNE P ENS. ME
Oi SFMEPMRWYFILGGVATEDM\TEM4LLSNCL40BESTOCI9ILEDURIWtSXOAHMC PlPN6.INANYARFASWNERE AIER
FXGVATON C4PlHS WILLEXCEED 101NPNE6, iDPEOILSIWLBE9TUPPE0.6TOCNPRFD IND%AC£D PA[%OVFATIESEA4EAS TOA
MNIMIM MYTH OF MEN INCHES TO ACHIEVE DESIGN GRACES AND CREATE A SOIL WE FOR VEGETATION.
11 THE CONTRACTOR SMALL BEGIN CONSTRUCTOR ONSTREAM REACH RS AM PRMFFO IN A MAINSTREAM IMECTW. TNBIITARIM SHONE
BECOMRFRDA6THEY eAFRGCHEOIE G. RS AHDRe6HPLL BE WLPIFIEDPPoOMNPROLFEOHG WRX RaVWER1. PoRTONSOFTHE
NEW DESIGN CHANCE WILL BECOMSTMUCIED OFFLINE AND IN THE CONY WHENEVER POSSIBLE, THE CONTRACTOR SAME EKGVAM THE
CNUMMS 70 DESON GRACES IN ALL AREAS SWUM WITHIN IO FEET OF THE TOP OF EMITTING BUREAU MINES.
1E AFTER EXCAVATING THE CNWNEE TO DESIGN GRACES INSFALL INGFREE MSTiVCNFES. SENDING, MATTING AM TRANSPLANTS IN THS
SECTION. AND READY THE CHANNEL TO ACCEPT FLOW PER APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER.
15 FLON WILL BE
TINNED IMO THE CONSTRUCTED PARRI THEM THE AREA NAM AROUND THE NEW CHANNEL HAS REN 5TAWLS= WWENTEROSION WNIROLNATWGAUOGPoVNDCOVER IUVm4TELYNEGINPLVGGNG FILLNG, AIOGMCNG}MEAPdND]XEOfNANEEA4
SHOWN ON FEARS. MDNNG IN A MAINSTREAM DIRECTION TO ALLOW FOR CRANAGE OF THE CO CHANNELS. NO FLOWING WATER SHALL
BE TURNED I ANY NEUTER OF CHANNEL FRAOR TO THE CHANNEL BEND COMPLETELY STASL UED WITH ALL STRUCTURES INSTALLED
AND nNFPoVE) BY THE ENGINEER
M.THE NEW CHANNEL SECTIONS SHALL FEWER OPEN ON THE COWN6liENI END TO ALIFOR DRAINAGE DURING MN EVENTS,
15 MY GRACNG ACTAMES ADJACENT TO THE SERNMCHANNEL IR CO AA ETEO PRIOR TO TURNED WATER INT THE MAN STREWN
IS ONCE THE SUSAN WORK 16 COXXETE, ARTY TGFOGRY BELOING, FERNWEM BELONG, AND BELCHING TO ANN AREAS JASILASED
W WXGCONSIINCFLOX.ISMOPMYANDT4RMANEMSEEUNGSIULLBEARVEDINPYMFAS6V5LEPTIOE IOEROSgN UE.
OIBNRBFO OITCX RW NS, SLOPES STEEPER THAN SX:1 V, 0.YO SPoIL AAGSI SHICX LHUi GRCIND COVER 31'WPIL W TION IB ESLAPEISXED
WITHIN FWRTEFNII<I WORNINGOAYS FOLLOWIW CMNEigNOFGMgXG ALLBLOPESSTEEFERTHANZH V SHALL BESTABIULEDAS
9MX0.4 WGCTIGdE WITHIN 9EYEXIi1GLEHDM GUS. 9HEEf 1A FOR VEOETATOH9FECIESSEHECigN.
II TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPROVE AM CONSTRUCT THE FATTING FARM PoAO CRGS9NG6 BY KEENNESS) MERRIMENT CULVERTS ANgOR
FORD CROSSINDS TAPLRING SIDE FLOWN AND ASCI IMG THE FARM ROAD M D ELEVATORS ACCOMMNS ED THE RAMS AND
BRCIFIGTgB.
ALL WASTE NAMELY.
MAT BE RENEWED FROM THE PROJECT SITS TO AN ARE APPROVED BY THE ENG NEER
19 THE CONTRACTOR SHV1 TEAT AREAS OF REMOVE SPECIES WEGETPTKKI THROUGHOUT THE REJECT AREA ACCORDING TO THE PLANS
THE CONTRACTOR
UWLCOWETEi1E
TILE OF HE YEAR.
IS FREE OF IMSH ME LEFNVER SAVERALS FRER TO DEW &LCAT ON OF MUIRDTT
FROMTHESBE.

I
STA. 10+26.20
i I
I I
_ 1
PROPOEEOFENCE APPRO. ENT \
i\{ OUTSIDE CONSERVAl10N i0.5EMENT 1
c,vv r1t• I Imo— __'_ __— _
INSTALLROCKLINED v \\\\` \\4+ •.I /' / / _ T '
CAME CROSSING ___ '
_ i
r%__\gym___lAt-0U_--------
i
•e�vv. �Jl. 8. �_� — •R/v-, �'x.�.i._ — _^""__�__-tip; _I___ I
---,_----- ` BEE %ND MATS _
�IFSTALLCONSTROCIEORIFFLE `
\ _ _AND9TA tREHEAOCUT
i
i */s
CHANNEL FILL
DITCH PLUG
I

PROGRM DRAWING
FOR !BORA PM MT
m xm ut ivl mNBiPUC110N
lai'O.
y' PROPOSEOFENCEAPPROXT
�ooisiDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT _ NWMS IDD NO. 96313
INSTALLLOGWEKi (TYP.) x _
GRADE 61.0PE BEYOND RAMS 'RMYJoll `
I AT A 4:I OR FWTTER ` 1/// %101 PROVE GTING DIdQ �\
E%I
------- -_ - ♦ — \
_ 1l+00 _/ \/ ��+ INSTALL ROCK ST�RPOOL`�TYPJ {(
I
EIRREAC115-7A15+61.84 P
BEGiN REACii4U R@R
I BE IN RB
�v v I �•� / i/i/i /i/ I //r _ REACH 4 UPPER
IN tBTt bcT?D _
MATCH SHEET 6 17+00
4
CHANNEL FILL
s
p ®DITCH PLUG
d BROWNS y SUdPIAN VD?w
o 0 40
11 lilSGL�E IFI)
a

'tv \ l� - ,_� p ins �\ y.Q '�. W a� _.�=� , �• � 1 �-- _ / / �
nMOVEEXISNNG-I
C- IN FENCE WTIH
CONSERVATpN
_ PPBEMEtlL- \ \�. • / / I ��•� L.��INSTALL LOZi,Wl
INSTALLLOG p\v POOL(TM.) e-11 `
_—_.-r'`-v__n.___- lraTFLL ioLANEIS Ir91V JI I
= CHANNEL FILL
® DITCH PLUG
J
........_...........
....... z�y
IX , E X o
----
NGDMS
________
__
___ ___ _________
i
_ NHTe-I-g_____-__i
______
________ __,\
\ -Q_______ _-________
-
___- E EA
_______
_______ _____
-______-END
\ovaSEO
,8
RFEACN4 WER_
,_________
_-_--____
a -- -----�
FENCEMPROXz--_____
B6GONSfiRVAilOI1FiSE1dENi----------------
REA
BEGIN-----CJ3
_
______�- --
B
`
n•
INNS TALL LONSIROCTEO
{� — -
___-
_______
-_� �/�
'____,_
IIIA
m
ryEgvP
,______ t
REACH 4 LOWER -- -------------
- ___
INSTIL Gr�NFrSpa.( /i
-;
,_-
---
INSTALL LOG VANf (iYP)
/
-%r
^ i
Y
'tv \ l� - ,_� p ins �\ y.Q '�. W a� _.�=� , �• � 1 �-- _ / / �
nMOVEEXISNNG-I
C- IN FENCE WTIH
CONSERVATpN
_ PPBEMEtlL- \ \�. • / / I ��•� L.��INSTALL LOZi,Wl
INSTALLLOG p\v POOL(TM.) e-11 `
_—_.-r'`-v__n.___- lraTFLL ioLANEIS Ir91V JI I
= CHANNEL FILL
® DITCH PLUG
J

1
PRODRRSG DRAWING
M nmmw NWdiN NRY
1 OY MO! Uy R4 m'MY411CIIOX
INTERNATIONAL
_____ - r%tWOREDFENCEAP%2O%.P
* �- �OMIDE CONSERVATION EAG
EMENT 1
_- ------/4%_______INSTALLLOG - -_
---------- -__-----�-` _-____ _STEP 2CBt(iVP.) _- ---
-----
"iEACH 3iUPPEil ` - _- _ aem ---------
---- 'a'�✓*--- _- ate-'_ - ] - --INSTALL COW TgI/CTEB---- ------
3o.,,.
- -\\��__ ''``--/rNGTAIL LOG VANE (ryP.)' - - -
NSTALL LOG n OR
iii / - oo
pl I yl
IN6O41 OEIXIFT(T� . III 1 _ _ - / III ---SS h
t
IT)O _ - REMOVE 9PM�TN('OAM
----------
AZ AZ
1 CHANNEL FILL
® DITCH PLUG ; _AR1p VJ SUMMIT
1 01 Wl�o
SCALE IFI)

CHANNEL FILL
® DITCH PLUG

1
/ ruoy�a
r /
1-N lF
93'RfA_
- — REACH 3 LOWER
_ eExcx LlMnn
rb ,.
4 41+28.83 -- � -
REACH T2
+00.00
CHANNEL FII
® DITCH PLUG
mm
m
NROPOSED FENCE APPROk ]'
HITSIDE CONSERVATIONfA4EMENT j REMOVE
SPOIL%LES
jlll
REACH 2 UPPER
i/o� II I
¢,r
Iti�1 I
44*oa I
V
11 II
'
I I`
I ✓�
1
__
/ �
INSTPll LOi3"�ANE RTP.)
11;
INSTAk.' EULIFf RTP.I
REAGM T2 - STA.
12+82.50
43+72.20
BECJNREACH29PPERSTA.
CHANNEL FII
® DITCH PLUG

PRDGRRS6 DRAWING
a xrvmr wxw� oNLr
m xor uss xce mnmlxarm
.� Ix rexx.no x xL'�.
,� NCDMS ID NO. 96313
`« REACH 2 UPPER _,p •'LOWE
�//iH _-----
--
y _—;�>_- �--"° =-- -- — -- '\ / 1 \ .76
,_ `�� \ _ \ / / 1 END WEA` TA. 11+44=
IP v 1 _ ..,� _ --_ %/ _ . / 1 CHiTST .42
1 INSTALL GN/
. L `�\
\\ Yb LGGJ
' t T
h2 :_° ��`�fEACH2LOWER
_ _
N POIL
Ni
\ \ ' $
�A T 1 A Al
PILES
\
1
ww
Zw
L. x
' INSTALL LOG WEIR \ \ END REACH 2 UPPER \-----------------;II
11 B
STA. 49+85.00 _----------
REACH Tl
RT
\
CHANNEL FILL
l
® DITCH PLUG
BROWNS SUMMIT
\ BE -IN REACH T1 PLAN P/EW
BTA. 10+00.
3D p 3o io
5®

CHANNEL FILL-�
xw m
PROPOSER FENCE ® EASEMENT OUTSIDE PLUG TSIDE CONSERVATION E43ENENT�
i\\ _ , LF —"—"' d V NCDM3 NO. 96313
I \
t e � � / � I ♦ �` _ ma
REACH r,
��� i 1 1 INST&LLOGWFIR(IYP J `Y
_INSTALLL OMIE RYP.) - i . (
�i / AV INSTALLLOGA -
STP POOL (IYP)
v
.G
�x�
/ / y`.✓ - rte -
p4
r -
______
may.
N' INS TaLL GsouPT�rvP--) .- ___ --
INSTI.LL WEIR,TYPJ
n
- � _ ___ - ` Y
it----- _
i 11l IIIlI`--__ i_______
hIl 111411`•_ �_ - _ - __ Y . ♦ - _
:��'0/rl/�I nil _

PROGREIS DRAWING
!II IWI N4WNbpRi
�`_ W NOI Ili M WttlIAGL'11IX1
rrPROPOSED FENCE ARMOR T
�OUTSIOE CONSERVATION FASEMEW
IN T e FNA TIYx AL'�e.W
w w 1 w a w V 1°D "�^ NCDMS ID NO. 96313
S1C/ TALL LOO STEP PONL(IYP.)
------------
FjsT a ltslnLLwp c
mP.l�or�mot REACH
Y
r e
,
DR C 1
_ ♦ 0.
I� �� ill I1 i1 \V), lI I30'RCP
A
II
it II
1 Al 1 NSTALLGEOLIFinR.)� it���
�`�\ \\ Z. s �•.l } r }� INS*A1L60NNI EU(IYP) CTED Y' Irl
INSTAM40GYMIE(M) V \ ✓ �'Y��` t Y !
CHANNEL FILL
DITCH PLUG
yMOWNS svnraur PIAN Pb'W
3
__ SCAIE IFl)

REACH 5
LVOR
raroae 01
s^
810
.
PRo0Ree9 DRAwINO
_..-._..-..
`
d
$
M REVIEW VVLI
ONsnueimx
—_
S
a
4o nm ua ns om rox
8
..._._...W..^^.w�
800
aS
x
$a
5
R
as
Y
NCIXd51O No M13
`
£w
790
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
REACH PER
REACH 5-R�CsHd4UP
8Y
_
FXISTWGP
GfMI
LXISTI
NJUXO
Y8
800
a
32
800
d$
owEd
AvEI
s
d
'�
sd
____
dE ♦
a me
Y
S
daG
gg 883 a^
Zg
T,5 i
790
790s
Y$
_
Yase
MSGR
^aw
LLKG cEd
p
MON ETWETIOH4WOSR
:
We
sd
sw
,w
SSS kC
780
a a 780
uw
15+00
18+00
17+00
18+00
19+00
20+00
800m
DCONTMWCnORRRMH4UMR
REACH 4 UPPER- REACH 4
LOWER
800
M
WNSTRULiIMP
H4 LONER-
r"JSTE3FAL DW
LEI
qLOW
d
R
am
em
qq
si x�;8m
$
^
gg
790
'---sd
8tl
3zw
$mm
P: 38d
¢
$€ ea
A € a. 790
R 4
8s
8
W
a9
— —_—_g^'{1
�/
11 ]\/
]80
C�Cq6q
p¢p
YE
s
n
780
#d
aw
C2
$8 1
``S`$
R
ep
$W
El
N O
-
.R.L,wEG
8�
GNaNR
s d
s d
sd
770
770
21+00
22+p0
23+00
24+00
25
+00
28+00

REACH 4 LOWER REACH 3 UPPER
vaR
raowe� �s�
-
790
EMITTING
GROUND
�B B�
�$
�oo
EXISTINGO LAI
DRAWING
Po& REVIEW SWRRW ONLY
xm Vm FOR WNrtPULTON
nd
$d--
w
a
88d
d
m
.
_...
—,2
760
__- _.._
..
x
INTERNATIONAL=�.
W'
Ncumslo Ne. 96313
p
DESIGN
aW
y
sB
iTmG$
aw
$a
A
770
ow
s
$8
770
W
ENO CONSTRUCTION REPCH 4 LCAER
SEEN CONSTRUCTION REACH 3 UPPER=
H CO R n N
27+00
28+00
29+00
30+00
31+00
CHUPPERPROPOSED
Ar
y
AF
B
s
fig SIEMENSRE
HO
a
sm
d
"xF
s
g
B�
fr
r GFWNO
e�
S B� �F
B
NLL
leo
780
�NW
B
_
r
_
no23
">°
£�
mB xB
B
no
OCUGNO 4p
BG
62T�WE2g
rvw
A
}�'Ww
aW
5c
as
9-
760
760
32+00
33+00
34+00
35+00
36+00
REACH 3 UPPER - REACH
3 LOWER
780
780
8
IrPRGPGddaEG
URNKFULL
Bd
B8
fi
16
f
--
stl
PPG
gg
BR
B
_
770
]]0
______
--
Tm
8r11w
AX
R--
760
y" ^ 760
w
ENO CONSTRUCTION REXCN 3 UPPER
750
]50
37+00
38+00
39+00
40+00
41+00
42+00

780
REACH 3 LOWER - REACH 2 UPPER
`N LI E� w 16
PROGRESS DRAWING
®
^m+
PROPOSES EO
m
M REV" NRMl83 ONLT
770
K ii
]R�
ry
SIB
X
NO NOT OR FEW ax N
J
_
_._.
-\
...__
..._. _.w
IIr
AN
760
R
gR gZ
3
NCDMSID No. 6W 13
6A
IgRg
dF
Z�
iF DESIGN
m
fF
s
lg $g
ww
END OXJIRVITOX NF.TCMJVPPFA
750
750
43+00
44+00
45+00 46+00
47+00
REACH
2 UPPER - REACH 2 LOWER - REACH 1
Exo CIXisiNVrnoN ] LOLh£H
IR
% B
PROPOSES
, . W
770
a
rSnuNPvu
m
"
m
m
770
R
_
/
ow
V�
rj
�R
DS^
aW
]60
760
sC�
R�
n„
sRffi
DESIGN NG
Cw
ANN CONSMUCTUM RATION z TANNER
750
750
48+00
49+00
50+00 51+00
52+00
53+00
REACH 1
no
Ba
m
no
reu+
w
9
a
w
swW
60 8 sWEXISTING
s AR
Ra SS R S R am
BB
/ BQ y8
d3B
R
Y�
i�
Bo
A,
FIII
760
-
._.._.-
__—..
780
FB
-
KB
Re
qqR
R
gym$
F^ °Exi10v"eow
b
R3
„p
B
SX
8w
8d
sw&$ws
B
:B
e3
s"
"w k
kw
9�',
ld
0S
750
sw
sw
750
53+00
54+00
55+00
56+00
57+00
58+00

770
REACH 1
, �XN.
g d-
y$
GPGIIN°
$ g
PRODRS4 RDRAWING
Y°.WI UY RR WHIAIX'!KN
..._—... f
$6 $
'-�FR
'°-IlrswsilxG
a
IN Xx X AiIOX AL....
^
$
DESIGN Sm 8m
nw.Lacc,
R c
ROOMER) No. M13
750
6
; R
# j
51
$W
68 8
J;E
-w
Tg
s gw
740
740
59+00
60+00
61+00
62+00
63+00
770
REACH 7qD
REACH T1
REACH 6
'OS
GILL
770
IIr°�N
7
yGR q B "g{'rym
go
]]0
FULg
Pfl°°
BMxFULLN
S
OD
GROUND
u
$ Sm d#
838s
L
9dpE
8.m�S8
EXISTI
GROUND
810
810760 88
/.._I—r.
_gb-C
.n£So 3Ra
3Fg
_.. ._
70
760
Ed
I
LA
No
EirG
E S
0
800E
8ag
°eslGx
EwG
S7
O
gd
E
B�
750
tl
. L
w
STAND
GROUND
740
790
790
64+00
10+00
11+00
10+00
11+00
REACH 6
18
�°+°VLL°
• Y
E
8
��
N..-
GRWXp
o
s
Pg R
Ns DO
89
810810
`Eg9pTAsNG
ms_—l
-----------
--
ab
g_. 8�ga�
N88sd
__-.._3
.
_.._._.._.
eoo
8008
.
_
�0
m
etlatl
s
x Aa
$;
�g
a
790
e9
weRAN
fim
�wm
eve
$�
gm
sm sS
XOCc°xsi°N�rn°D"n"evens.
790
e
8
4�
sW
Fri
1. o
sd
�d
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00

REACH T2
F14C;e r
780
8
END
CONSTRUCTION RUCH T2-
-
PROGILMS ORAWINO
$ i
g
FOR REVURN NURSING ONLY
rFWCPoBEO
I S4NWull
e
$
,
m
•
8
$$
..—__._..
_...___....__
PS
770
------
.__.._._._......._.._.._
mom..... u...
8 n
=
NCNAIS 10 No. M3138'
=e
THAWE
xNDLG GRO 8
$
A
So
760
m 8
760
7
' aw
$w
10+00
11+00
12+00
REACH T3
REACH T4
•
aaarosso
awxauu
790
790
800
g g $ 8 $
B00
8SO
g � q
$
EXISTING
8 IS g $
ROUND
3
r
raoPosEo
$8
¢R
s
sw s'r.
rOPKKF
G
_ __
6u
8 $ 6 W
EUS CONSTRUCTION REACH Ta.
U g8R 8$SS 8P
END CONSTRUCTION REAcxaxvrER
I11
i
]BO
_ -
_"--
..= _....
780
790
'" s s w a
]90
DESIGN
R
RR ONSTRueaw RUCHi].
ENo000NSIRUCA0IRUCH.LOWER
_
/
j
iWLLWEd
+F
$g •8
$ S $ 8m 8 8
R
w
770
770
780
E w k C
780
ED X. > g 4
W
GROUND }jµ�yEd
10+00
10+00
11+00

{"T
R )
RIPARIAN BUFFER PL TINOS:
OVERSTORY, UNOERSTORT, ANO LIVE STANES
WITNIN CONSERVATIONEASEMENT(EXCEPT BMP)
PROORRSS DRAWINO
NALL IMNl1my
w NOT = m NWRlL11Rl
ERORNS SUMMIT
REVEGETA77ON PLAN
�'
1111
III
I rf
a t
I
I III
�
Ili
/ll
i
ii/
iii i
�'--Awamx
L MuuelzaNE
I 1 1 1
RIPARIAN BUFFER PL TINOS:
OVERSTORY, UNOERSTORT, ANO LIVE STANES
WITNIN CONSERVATIONEASEMENT(EXCEPT BMP)
PROORRSS DRAWINO
NALL IMNl1my
w NOT = m NWRlL11Rl
ERORNS SUMMIT
REVEGETA77ON PLAN

ry
III
`1
PRODRRRS DRAM ND
MI LLYRx NMm OAT
1
M m M EA OIONO.'110N
IIa-
``I
IxiE ORA Mlt'i.,�«i
1
I NCOMS ID NO. 96313
I
I
WETLAND BUFFER PIANTINDS:
1
II OVERSTORY, UNDMUORY, AND LWE STA
WRNIN CONSERVATION EABEMENT y
1
I I
r
I
m
\
I
x
I m
11
I
1
9
I
�L
I
I
1
II
RIPARUN BUFFER PLANINGS'
f
IMRSTORY, UNDEMTORY, AND LNE BUDS
--\
W 04 CONSERVATION EASEMEM(EEOEPT BMP)
I BROWNS SUMMIT'
RRVRGRTATTON PIAN
so�

�
a
1
uooae zr�
PIUMIU 6 DRAWING
A mWW MraYE1Ll
m Mrt IR 1m mRRUL110X
1
,A�}_ '
NW�
x TO
NCDMSID NO. 96313
1
1
WERSTORY, BUFFER PLANTINGS:
GVERSTORWITHIN
VE STMESEASEMENT
-- '---
_------
-"
WITHINIZWSEI,AN0N
WITHIN CONSERVATION EASEMENT
-----
—"W
UJ
W
_
2
_
1
111 111
1 1
1\
11
1,--�f�
�/�
��
summa
1AROWNS
REPECUAZ70 PLAN
Win r°
SCAIE �n

�140048Y
NC
EC -1
1,114
sm.naDESUROM� ems,
xGDMS 10 M. RESIN
am srMwWUY GROOM- cuxW VHON ACCESS ____.. _..
IMWBUYIFLWL a
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
RET FL.�
LOCATION. • APPROX.3 MLLES NORTHWEST OF BROWNS SUMMIT
r _
�/,
TYPE OF WORK: STRRAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
BEGN PE.
.
rrww
—J
z
ili
w 1M ii1�U
y
�M7
.�\1\
1
EN HAR - STA 31H1%
BEGIN M 4 LOWER
N EACH 5 -S 0.1561.
BEGIN REACH <UWER 1 3
BEGIN R N 3 UPPER EC4
AS:
N
BEGIN EACH ]UPPER
—
REACH t
tr
`CJr
ST0. SN11.93
76
=BEGIN
_3i
�
00
ATA 39.60.
O
l
STA aB.80.00
W
GRAPHIC SCALES
STANmDARDNA
PROJECT SNGINEGR
PROJECT
n mom M�l
a.'........
TRIS PIxllEC1' CONR'ABWJ
13
�
xALV1Y
EROSION CONTROL PL1N8
O.m Tlvro GRAre. CQNa Lc ON Atvae
PRGGRP.SS DRAWING
pOH REVIEW NRPoY90NLY
Oio
o so 100
'
CONSTRUCTION.
Sy0 tT.Wro x xv WFUMMEm MP
JACOB M. BYEM, PE
+�
"B, B _i
P ANS
N NOT USS FOR NNSIRUCIIpY
RSICT l
TOTAL DIMMED -
]].1 AovR
wcx wn
KATHLEEN M. INIQ N.Pf
� mm

W m
CROSS SECTION
WPROGRRR4 DRAWINp
PoP MV6V WPPoSS ONLP
NOi YX IOP C01:61RVClION
INTEPNNTIO
CROSSSEC Nmm
• • • • • • • • • • •
P�NEW
1lRE

•••^•._•••._..
��nnw
dY�x00saxo�
I
suwc
PANAMA,
RfrAf4Po[
�
s-wn
MARBLE HOPE THAI HALL PENNEY IMP SAM REVENUES LEFFEENT )EARTIEVAI
TO CHARTER TIRE ENTRITYPTED AREAS, THE ITEMIAND HEASNA HER MISSISSIPPI INFRALL
• NEW CONTRACTOR MA 4 1 SIERRA PREMONITORY ARMS IN
SEEM MEN AFFAN AM 0 A SHFORMANY FINE PENN THI ERMINES
REMOVAL OF THE I AN RI SPUR I WMEHAROUS DI SHARE AND
TEMPORARY FLEARSEE ROSE STM71NG ME EYE [MANNERISM INS YEAH
I ES HERRERA, TOR VILL TFORMNSH ALL ANSI AM STANOMMOST IN HAS [AM
PARTARN TME PLEAFFAROUND ARRA NETRAMEN INS FOREMASTS YEAR
PROGft855 ORA WING
Poq pCVRR pVpp1Pd 41yY
W IqI V96 WR (IXAIHIMVIVN
OfIRYE110M♦

\ mHlb4B em�
n.0 PROGRESS DRAWINO
l \ n(uawarvw.wwu.am.m xeawnarmauwawmvrvwxawx \ OR RIBBON RBNBI RLi
\ \\ m xm Ilt R1 RMRULTRI
' // /Y rma wi,sw6r0.rto vrertawT.me rvwnf4rwnwma.Fnma�m'n M \\\\\\ 19 RNA T30M A
\ NCDMS ID NO. 96313
,ee<a.....r�,..,......saa.a,.,�.....r..,..„.. \\\ MATCH LINE STA. 29+0D SHEETEC-5
Ti
I u ..,�..a««.�.�•a..ill I
\ BEGIN REACH 3 UPPERl
p i �
IN
6rI TEMPORARY GRAVEL \ t CH T3
AN
i CONSTRUCTION ENTRCEALL. \ AR
-'' ; II ii:
\ ' % i / PUMP-OUND 8
LIMITSOFDIBNRBANCE \ _���/ \ IF FLOWING
STAOINGSTOCNPBE AREA CH5
� BEGIN REACH
4 UPPER
BOOK�I BEGIN REACH 4 LOWER / /� iel %% 4 %yl / BEGINPUMMPP-MOUND]
At
/
IIIINSTALL ER0610N LONTR0. ALlTTING
v �o, i I���;IYYYY AONGALL CONSTHUCTEO BMRS pYR.) /i/ � =3-I,c°=�
____ /
BEGIN WMRMOWP *\` I � 11 1 % � \` / Q � IVLIMDGN
S OF OIRBMCE
IF FLOWING I A Avg / UMITSOFDISMREMCE / .' J I: �rt �`�Z Jai \\
ENDPUMP-AROUND IMD2 1%� \ \ \\
y �``"�. CyY =u� iJ� / BEGIN PUMP-MWND9 / j END�P-MOUND 3AND y
BEGIN UMRMOUNDS
eY__-i.� / IF FLOWING %\�
BEGIN PUMP-AROUND 2 / IldhO
MMI
BROANS SUMMl7
\ IF ROWING IF ROIV�ING / `� EROSION CONTROL PLAN
jpp so o so 14D