20140345 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2015_20170119

OKI
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project
Anson County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95351, DEQ Contract No. 004641
Permits: SAW -2012-01108, DWR #14-0345
Yadkin River Basin: 03040104-061030
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Data Collection Period — July 2015
Submission Date — November 2016
n
4 This document was printed using 100% recycled paper.

0KI
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project
Anson County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95351, DEQ Contract No. 004641
Permits: SAW -2012-01108, DWR #14-0345
Yadkin River Basin: 03040104-061030
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
Data Collection Period — July 2015
Submission Date — November 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................1-1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ..................... 2-1
2.1
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................
2-1
2.2
SITE DIRECTIONS...........................................................................................................................................
2-1
2.3
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................................
2-1
3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH.. 3-1
3.1
PROJECT COMPONENTS.................................................................................................................................3-1
5.1.4
3.2
RESTORATION APPROACH.............................................................................................................................3-1
5.1.5
3.2.1
Reach HC -RI Restoration..........................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.2
Reach HC -R2 Restoration..........................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.3
Reach HC -R3 Enhancement.......................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.4
Reach UT4-RlaPreservation.....................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.5
Reach UT4-RlbRestoration.......................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.6
Reach UT4-R2 Restoration.........................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.7
Reach UT4-R3 Restoration.........................................................................................................................
3-4
3.2.8
Reach UT4-R4 Restoration.........................................................................................................................
3-4
3.2.9
Reach UT4-R5 Enhancement......................................................................................................................
3-4
3.3
PROJECT HISTORY, CONTACTS, AND ATTRIBUTE DATA..............................................................................
3-5
3.3.1
Construction Summary...............................................................................................................................
3-5
3.3.2
Conservation Easement Boundary Adjustment................................................................................3-7
WETLAND.......................................................................................................................................................
4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.................................................................. 4-1
11(lill_[1]01 V lte] 7I►`[ SUM�i:1► 1�7.YilK
5.1
STREAM MONITORING...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1
Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions....................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.2
Cross-sections.............................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3
Pattern........................................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.4
Longitudinal Profile....................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.5
Bed Material Analysis.................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.6
Visual Assessment.......................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.7
Flow Documentation.....................................................................................................................................5-3
5.2
VEGETATION MONITORING...........................................................................................................................
5-3
5.3
WETLAND MONITORING................................................................................................................................
5-4
5.4
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING...............................................................................................
5-4
6.0 AS
-BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION......................................................
6-1
6.1
STREAM DATA................................................................................................................................................6-1
6.2
VEGETATION DATA........................................................................................................................................6-1
6.3
AREAS OF CONCERN.......................................................................................................................................
6-2
7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS .....................................
7-1
7.1
STREAMS.........................................................................................................................................................7-1
7.2
WETLAND.......................................................................................................................................................
7-1
7.3
VEGETATION..................................................................................................................................................
7-1
7.4
SITE BOUNDARY.............................................................................................................................................
7-2
7.5
FARM ROAD CROSSING..................................................................................................................................
7-2
7.6
BEAVER MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................................................
7-2
8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 8-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4a
Project Attributes — Hurricane Creek
Table
4b
Project Attributes — UT4
Table
5
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
6
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table
7
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table
8
Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1
Vicinity Map
Figure
2a
Restoration Summary Map (Hurricane Creek Site)
Figure
2b
Restoration Summary Map (UT4 Site)
Figure
3
Reference Sites Location Map
Figure
4a
Monitoring Features Overview Map (Hurricane Creek Site)
Figure
4b
Monitoring Features Overview Map (UT4 Site)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4a, and 4b, Tables 1 through 4
Appendix B Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6), Profile and Cross -Section Graphs,
and Pebble Count Sheets
Appendix C Vegetation Summary Data (Tables 7 and 8)
Appendix D As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings
Appendix E Photo Log
Appendix F Conservation Easement Boundary Adjustment Documents
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 8,213 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, enhanced 2,481
LF of stream, and preserved 518 LF of stream along Hurricane Creek (HC) and unnamed tributaries (UT4) to
Brown Creek, a 303(d) listed stream that flows through the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. Baker also
planted approximately 33 acres (AC) of native riparian vegetation along the restored and enhanced reaches
(Reaches HC -RI, HC -R2, and HC -R3 on the Hurricane Creek portion of the project, and UT4-Rlb, UT4-R2,
UT4-R3, UT4-R4a, UT4-R4b, UT4-R5a, and UT4-R5b on the unnamed tributary portion of the project). A
recorded conservation easement consisting of 43.3 acres protects and preserves all stream reaches, existing
wetland areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity. The Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project (Site) is
located in Anson County, approximately four miles southeast of the Town of Ansonville (Figure 1). The Site
is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-07-10 and the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03040104-061030 of the Yadkin River Basin.
The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a rural piedmont stream system (Schafale and Weakley
1990), which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Based on the DMS 2009 Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Brown
Creek Tributaries Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the
Yadkin River Basin, although it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The TLW selection
criteria for the Yadkin Basin specifically targets projects that will address water resource impacts from nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution. The restoration strategy for the Yadkin River Basin as a whole targets projects which
focus on restoring stream functions by maintaining and enhancing water quality, restoring hydrology, and
improving fish and wildlife habitat.
The primary goals of the project were to improve ecologic functions to the impaired areas as described in the
DMS 2009 Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee RBRP as identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce NPS inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water resources by reducing stream bank erosion, and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• 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 providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
This report documents the completion of the restoration construction activities and presents as -built monitoring
data for the post -construction monitoring period. Table 1 summarizes project conditions before and after
restoration, as well as the conditions predicted in the previously approved project Mitigation Plan. Table 1 is
located in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-2 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
2.1 Project Location and Description
The Site is located in Anson County, NC, approximately four miles southeast of the Town of Ansonville,
as shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The project is located in the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) sub -basin 03-07-10 of the Yadkin River Basin and hydrologic unit 03040104-061030. The
project includes one named (Hurricane Creek) and four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Brown Creek and is
located in the Piedmont physiographic region. The Hurricane Creek (HC) portion of the project was
divided into three individual Reaches (HC -R1, HC -R2, and HC -R3), and the unnamed tributary (UT4)
portion of the project was divided into eight individual Reaches (UT4-RIa, UT4-RIb, UT4-R2, UT4-R3,
UT4-R4a, UT4-R4b, UT4-R5a, and UT4-R5b) as shown in Figures 2a and 2b.
Hurricane Creek (HC-Rl and HC -R2) and the mainstem of UT4 (UT4-R3 and UT4-R4) were shown as
solid blue -line streams on the USGS topographic quadrangle map (Ansonville Quad). The tributaries to
Hurricane Creek (HC -R3) and UT4 (UT4-RI, UT4-R2, and UT4-R5) are not shown as any type of blue -
line stream on the USGS map. All stream reaches, except HC -R3, are shown as (unclassified) streams
within the project limits on the 2005 Anson County Soil Survey (Anson, 2005). LiDAR imagery for the
site showed the presence of historic valleys for each of the project stream systems and field investigations
confirmed the locations of these valleys. On-site jurisdictional determinations of intermittent/perennial
status were conducted in February of 2013 and determined that reaches HC -R2 and UT4-R3 were
perennial, while reaches HC-Rl, HC -R3, UT4-R1, UT4-R2, UT4-R4, and UT4-R5 were intermittent.
Based on the DMS 2009 Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Brown
Creek Tributaries Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within
the Yadkin River Basin, although it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWT) area. The
restoration strategy for the Yadkin River Basin specifically targets projects that focus on restoring stream
functions by maintaining and enhancing water quality, restoring hydrology, and improving fish and
wildlife habitat.
2.2 Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, take US Highway 1 south through Sanford, for approximately 40 miles.
Take the exit ramp to US 151501 South to Carthage and then take NC 24/NC 27 West from Carthage for
approximately 33 miles before turning onto NC 109 South. Follow NC 109 South for 20 miles and take
the first right past Dennis Road. The UT4 site is located just south of the farm access road about one half
mile from NC 109. The Hurricane Creek site is located immediately south of Pleasant Grove Church Road
approximately 1.5 miles west of the UT4 site.
2.3 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the project were to improve ecologic functions and to manage NPS inputs to the
impaired areas as described in the DMS 2009 Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee RBRP and are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce NPS inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water resources by reducing stream bank erosion, and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes, and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• 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 providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
The project will directly address goals identified in the 2009 Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee RBRP, namely to
improve watershed conditions, reduce NPS inputs, and prevent increases to impervious surfaces areas.
The natural channel design (NCD) approach resulted in a stable riparian stream system that will reduce
excess sediment and nutrient inputs to the Brown Creek sub -watershed, while improving water resources
conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic species, including priority species identified in the Lower
Yadkin River Basin.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH
3,1 Project Components
The project area includes one named stream (Hurricane Creek) and four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Brown Creek and is located in the Piedmont physiographic region. For assessment and design purposes,
the Hurricane Creek (HC) portion of the project was divided into three individual Reaches (HC-Rl, HC -
R2, and HC -R3), and the unnamed tributary (UT4) portion of the project was divided into eight individual
Reaches (UT4-Rla, UT4-Rlb, UT4-R2, U74 -R3, UT4-R4a, UT4-R4b, UT4-R5a, and UT4-R5b). Native
species riparian buffer vegetation was established and/or protected at least 50 feet from the top of both
banks along all project reaches. Cattle were also excluded along all project reaches in which they were
previously allowed through the installation of approximately 9,500 feet of permanent fencing outside of
the conservation easement. The reach designations have remained in the same order to be consistent
throughout the document.
3,2 Restoration Approach
Based on the post -construction as -built survey, the Hurricane Creek portion of the project consisted of
2,043 LF of Restoration on HC -R1,1,393 LF of Restoration on HC -R2 and 564 LF of Enhancement II on
HC -R3. Additionally, the UT4 portion of the Site consisted of 518 LF of Preservation on Reach UT4-
Rla, 858 LF of Restoration on UT4-Rlb, 1,827 LF of Restoration on UT4-R2, 250 LF of Restoration on
UT4-R3, 396 LF of Restoration on UT4-R4a, 1,444 LF of Restoration on UT4-R4b, 335 LF of
Enhancement I on UT4-R5a and 1,581 LF of Enhancement I on UT4-R5b. Baker also planted
approximately 33 acres (AC) of native riparian vegetation along the restored and enhanced reaches, and a
recorded conservation easement of 43.3 acres protects and preserves all stream reaches, existing wetland
areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
The project involved the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of a rural piedmont stream system,
which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. Restoration practices
involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain, and restoring
natural flows to areas previously drained by ditching activities. The existing channels abandoned within
the restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table.
Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers in which
they previously had access.
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank, floodplain, and transitional upland
plantings. The Site was planted with native species riparian buffer vegetation following Schafale and
Weakley's (1990) guidance on vegetation communities for Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest (mixed
riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype), as shown in Table 7 and
Table 8 (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent conservation easement. Table 1 and Figure
2a and Figure 2b (Appendix A) provide a summary of the project components.
3.2.1 Reach HC -R1 Restoration
A Priority Level I restoration was constructed for this reach to fully restore stream functions and a
floodplain connection. The lowest part of the stream valley runs mostly in the adjacent field along the
existing tree line to the east of the degraded stream channel. Starting at the project boundary, the bed
elevation was raised gradually to provide a reconnection to the geomorphic floodplain. The restored
channel was constructed off-line along the field edge, and was built as a Rosgen `C5' type channel.
The stream was constructed as close as possible to the existing tree line. This allowed for ease of
construction in the pasture, while also taking advantage of the shading, biomass input, and root mass
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

of the existing mature riparian trees to remain. This approach also minimized the number of existing
trees that needed to be removed during construction.
The width/depth ratio for the channel is approximately 12, and over time the channel may narrow
slightly to more of an `E' stream type from deposition of sediment and stream bank vegetation growth.
In -stream structures included constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat, as well as grade
control j -hook vanes, log vanes, log jams, geo-lifts, and root wads for stream bed/bank stability and
habitat diversity.
The existing, unstable channel was filled along its length using a combination of existing spoil piles
that were located along the reach and fill material excavated from construction of the restored channel.
Shallow vernal pools were incorporated along the filled abandoned channel to provide habitat diversity
and improved detention of runoff.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along all of HC -RI. No stream crossings
or breaks in the easement were installed along HC -R1, and permanent fencing was installed along the
entire eastern edge of the easement to exclude cattle from entering the restored stream.
3.2.2 Reach HC -R2 Restoration
A Priority Level I Restoration approach continued downstream along HC -R2. The reach was
constructed beyond the existing right bank in existing pasture and again as close as possible to the
existing tree line as previously described for HC-Rl . In the downstream portion of the reach, a Priority
Level II Restoration approach was utilized to lower the stream to the existing bed elevation. These
approaches allowed for the restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as
well as improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, more frequent overbank flooding,
the restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats, exclusion of cattle and associated pollutants, and
decreased sediment loss from bank erosion. The upstream Priority Level I channel section was
constructed as a Rosgen `C5' stream type with a width/depth ratio of 16, though that may narrow
slightly over time. The channel transitions to a Rosgen `Bc' stream type in the downstream Priority
Level 1I section. The mature trees along the channel were preserved whenever possible and the riparian
buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along the entire reach.
At the downstream Priority II section of the reach, the restored channel transitions down to the elevation
of Hurricane Creek near the road crossing; therefore constructed riffle structures and rock cross vanes
were installed to control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision. Along this downstream transition section the channel banks were graded back to stabilize
slopes, bankfull benches were incorporated where possible, and riparian vegetation was re-established.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of HC -R2. The existing ford crossing in
the upstream portion of HC -R2 was improved with the addition of Class B stone topped with ABC
stone, and permanent fencing was installed along both sides of the easement to exclude cattle from
entering the restored stream.
3.2.3 Reach HC -R3 Enhancement
Work on HC -R3 involved a Level II Enhancement approach for the majority of the reach. Likely due
to the presence of bank vegetation along much of this reach, the stream showed minimal channel
incision. Level 11 Enhancement provided additional stability to both dimension and profile. Minor
channel bank stabilization and in -stream structures including log jams and log weirs were installed to
enhance bedform morphology for the portions of the reach where the channel had been most impacted.
A new, culverted crossing was also installed at the beginning of the reach to provide stable access
across to the upstream portion of the property. This crossing was designed to pass a 10 -year event,
with excess capacity on the floodplain to pass larger events without damaging the crossing.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along all of HC -R3. Additionally,
fencing was installed along the northern edge of the easement to permanently exclude cattle from
entering the stream.
3.2.4 Reach UT4-Rla Preservation
Preservation was implemented for the upstream portion of reach UT4-R1 to the existing powerline
easement. The stream and riparian buffer are currently stable and no future developments or impacts
are expected within the upper watershed. No work was performed along this reach and the existing
stream and forested riparian buffer are protected within a permanent conservation easement.
3.2.5 Reach UT4-Rlb Restoration
Continuing downstream of the powerline easement crossing, the restoration followed a Rosgen Priority
Level I approach in the upstream portion, transitioning into a Priority Level II approach at the
confluence with UT4-R5. The active headcut at the crossing was also stabilized. In -stream structures
such as log step pools, logjams, log vanes, and constructed riffle structures were installed to control
grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision.
The restored channel was built as a Rosgen `C5' stream type with a width/depth ratio of approximately
14, though the channel will likely narrow slightly over time. The existing, unstable channel was filled
along its length using a combination of existing spoil piles that were located along the reach as well as
fill material excavated from construction of the restored reach.
The existing pipe culvert crossing in the powerline easement was replaced with a larger diameter pipe
and the crossing improved with Class B stone to allow stable landowner access. Riparian buffers in
excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along all of UT4-Rlb.
3.2.6 Reach UT4-R2 Restoration
A Priority Level I Restoration approach continued along UT4-R2. The reach was constructed beyond
the existing left bank in existing pasture. The implemented techniques allowed for the restoration of a
stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved channel function through
more frequent overbank flooding, the restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats, the exclusion of
cattle and associated pollutants, and decreased sediment loss from bank erosion. This reach was built
as a meandering Rosgen `C5' stream type with a channel width/depth ratio of approximately 13. In -
stream structures installed included log vanes, root wads, geo-lifts and constructed riffle structures used
to control grade, dissipate energy, eliminate incision, promote habitat and bedform diversity, and
stabilize banks. The mature trees along the existing channel were preserved wherever possible and the
riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along the entire reach.
At the downstream end of the reach, the restored channel was connected to the bed elevation at the
UT4-R3/UT4-R4 confluence; therefore, a series of logjams were installed to control grade, dissipate
energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. Along this downstream transition
section, the channel banks were graded to stable slopes in many locations.
The existing, unstable channel was filled along its length using a combination of existing spoil piles
that were located along the reach and fill material excavated from the construction of the restored
channel. Vernal pools were incorporated along the filled abandoned channel to provide habitat
diversity and improve detention of runoff.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along all of UT4-R2. The existing
ford crossing was improved with the addition of Class B stone topped with ABC stone, and
permanent fencing was installed to exclude cattle from entering the restored stream.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

3.2.7 Reach UT4-R3 Restoration
A Priority Level III approach was utilized for reach UT4-R3, which begins at the confluence of UT4-
R2 and UT4-R4. The channel throughout this shorter section remained a Rosgen `Gc' stream type, but
with a post construction width/depth ratio of 6.4. A lighter touch was used on this reach from the initial
design due to the presence of existing mature trees along both banks. While this reach remains incised,
its degree of incision has been reduced, and it is stable due to the extensive presence and further
establishment of vegetation in and along the channel banks.
The restored channel transitions down to the existing bed elevation near the project boundary and rock
step pools, rock cross vanes, and constructed riffle structures were installed to control grade, dissipate
energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. To promote stability along this
reach, channel banks were graded back along much of the left bank, while the mature trees already
established along the channel were preserved wherever possible. Additionally, bankfull benches were
incorporated in a few locations. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along
the entire reach. Permanent fencing was also installed along the western easement boundary to prevent
cattle from entering the restored channel.
3.2.8 Reach UT4-R4 Restoration
Restoration in this section primarily followed a Priority Level I approach. In the shorter upstream
section above the crossing (UT4-R4a), degraded channel banks were graded back to stable slopes and
in -stream structures such as log weirs, log jams, and step pools were installed to control grade, dissipate
energies, promote stability, and improve bedform and habitat diversity.
Below the stream crossing, the restored channel (UT4-R4b) was built as a Rosgen `C5' stream type
with a width/depth ratio of approximately 14. The restored channel meanders across the historic
floodplain before its confluence with UT4-R2, transitioning into UT4-R3. In -stream structures such
as geo-lifts, log jams, log vanes, root wads, and constructed riffle structures were used to control
grade, dissipate energy, eliminate incision, promote habitat and bedform diversity, and stabilize
banks. The existing, unstable channel was filled along its length using material excavated from
construction of the restored channel, with a few vernal pools incorporated along its length.
The existing ford crossing between UT4-R4a and UT4-R4b was improved with Class B stone topped
with ABC stone to allow for a stable crossing. This crossing will be used for cattle movement during
scheduled grazing rotation and cattle will not have unrestricted access. Riparian buffers in excess of
50 feet were restored or protected along the entire reach length, and permanent fencing was installed
to prevent cattle from entering the restored channel.
3.2.9 Reach UT4-R5 Enhancement
Work on UT4-R5 involved a Level I Enhancement approach throughout the reach. Due to the presence
of bank vegetation along some of the reach sections, the stream showed minimal channel incision or
downcutting, thus Level I Enhancement was proposed to restore a more stable dimension and profile.
Localized channel bank regrading and stabilization was performed, and in -stream structures such as log
jams, log weirs, log vanes, and constructed rock riffles were installed to enhance bedform morphology
for the portions of the reach where the riparian buffer and/or channel had been impacted or where active
headcuts were stabilized. Additionally, several small, incised drainages flowing into the channel were
graded and stabilized. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored and/or protected along all of
UT4-R5. Existing wetlands are located throughout the buffer in the uppermost section (UT5-R5a), and
ephemeral pools are common here, especially along the right floodplain.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

3.3 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
Baker implemented the project under a full delivery contract with DMS to provide stream mitigation
credits in the Yadkin River Basin. The chronology of the project is presented in Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant project
background information is presented in Table 4. Tables 2, 3, and 4 are located in Appendix A of this
report. As -built stationing is outlined in the Construction Summary, below, and in Table 1 in Appendix
A.
3.3.1 Construction Summary
In accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan and regulatory permits, construction activities began
in early November 2014 with site preparation, installation of sedimentation and erosion control
measures, and the establishment of staging areas, haul roads, and stockpile areas. The construction
contractor was River Works, Inc. (River Works). Actual in -stream structure location and placement
varied slightly from the design plans in various sections (as described below) due to unexpected field
conditions such as shallow bedrock or adjacent springs/seeps, as well as to improve vertical or lateral
stability at a given location. Any substitutions and/or relocations were made based on existing field
conditions and best professional judgment. The as -built plan sheets/record drawings depict actual
surveyed areas for the project and show any changes from the final design plans to what was
implemented on-site during construction. The as -built plan sheets/record drawings are located in
Appendix C.
Channel construction first began at the Hurricane Creek site in mid-November on the upstream portion
of HC -R1 at station 10+00 and proceeded downstream into HC -R2 towards Pleasant Grove Church Rd.
At the bottom of HC -R2, a downstream beaver dam located off-site within the Pee -Dee National
Wildlife Refuge backed water up in the channel. Requests to remove the dam were denied by the
managers of the Refuge. With standing water backed up into the channel, the final section of off-line
channel could not be constructed. Instead, the new channel was connected back into the existing
channel at approximately Station 40+25 and the banks were cut back to stabilize slopes and to help
reconnect the channel to its floodplain. The in -stream rock structures were still installed in this section,
though with larger sized stone, in the event the dam was ever to be removed the channel would be
protected from scour and potential incision.
Construction at Hurricane Creek then continued on the tributary HC -R3 at Station 10+36 and proceeded
downstream to its confluence with HC -R1 at Station 16+00. A permanent culvert pipe crossing was
installed in the uppermost portion of this reach to replace an unprotected ford crossing just outside the
conservation easement at Station 10+00. This will provide the landowner with a stable crossing
location that will not impact the restored channels downstream. Invasive species vegetation (Chinese
privet) was treated in the floodplain at the intersection of HC -R3 and HC-Rl . This will be an area of
particular focus in all future monitoring efforts.
Upon completion of the three channel reaches and in -stream structures for the Hurricane Creek site in
mid-March 2015, all vegetative plantings and coir fiber matting were installed, and permanent seeding
with straw was placed in all remaining disturbed areas before mobilizing to the next project site.
Permanent cattle exclusion fencing (woven wire) was installed along all reaches, with access gates as
shown on the as -built plan sheets/record drawings in Appendix D. The total as -built length for all
reaches on the Hurricane Creek site after construction is 4,001 LF.
Project work began on the Unnamed Tributaries (UT4) site with a separate Riverworks crew in mid-
January of 2015 with all the standard site preparation, including the installation of sedimentation and
erosion control measures, and the establishment of staging areas, haul roads, and stockpile areas.
Actual construction began along Reach UT4-R5a at Station 09+44. Shallow bedrock was encountered
for the uppermost 50 feet of this section and so little bank grading was conducted here, nor was the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

proposed log weir able to be installed in this uppermost section of channel. Logjams in this upper part
were substituted with rock riffles to avoid potential conflicts with the shallow bedrock, though the log
weirs and an additional log vane were able to be installed. Moreover, while sections of UT4-R5a
(particularly along the left bank) were graded back and stabilized with matting, the lowermost 50 feet
of this section ending at a powerline easement were not graded back as it had mature trees with an
established root mass growing along its banks and was deemed stable. Work then continued
downstream along Reach UT4-R5b with the Enhancement Level I approach, starting past the powerline
right of way at Station 14+40 and ending at the confluence with UT4-Rlb at Station 30+21. Work
included bank grading and installation of in -stream structures such as log weirs and log jams.
Reach UT4-Rla is Preservation only and ends at a break in the easement for a Progress Energy
powerline right of way. The break also provides the landowner with a vehicular crossing for his farm
equipment. As part of the restoration, the deteriorating existing pipe at the crossing was replaced with
a larger 36" RCP. Construction next continued along reach UT4-Rlb, where actual in -stream structure
location and placement varied only slightly from the design plans: a logjam was substituted for a rock
riffle at Station 13+75, a geolift with brush toe wasn't installed at Station 15+25 due to the presence of
existing mature trees growing along the bank (which provided ample bank stabilization and protection),
and the log weir step pool sequence beginning at Station 18+45 was moved slightly upstream to account
for higher than expected backwater conditions.
Construction continued along Reach UT4-R2 at the confluence of UT4-R5b and UT4-Rlb. The
uppermost 120' section of this reach from the confluence to the improved rock crossing was a long,
deep pool creating slight backwater conditions up into R5b and Rlb. The section also had extensive
mature hardwoods established along both banks. Considering the quality habitat present from the pool,
and to the relative stability of this section from the trees, the channel was not realigned here as originally
planned. Instead, a rock riffle was added just downstream of the confluence and a few steep banks
were graded back and matted. The remainder of UT4-R2 located downstream of the improved rock
crossing continued with the Priority Level I Restoration approach found upstream on UT4-Rlb. The
actual in -stream structure location and placement for UT4-R2 varied only slightly from the design
plans: the installation of native transplants/cuttings from on-site sources into the banks at Stations
29+40, 30+50, and 31+75 could not be completed due to an unexpected lack of appropriate source
plants. They were substituted with root wads in the first two locations, and a geolift with brush toe on
the third.
Work on reach UT4-R3 began at the confluence of UT4-R2 and UT4-R4b utilizing a Priority Level II
Restoration approach. Narrow benching was cut in several locations along the reach, and in many areas
along the left bank the slopes were graded back and stabilized with matting, though there were sections
where established, mature hardwoods were growing where this was not done in an effort to preserve
the trees. The location of one of the boulder cross vanes was moved upstream to improve its channel
stabilizing function.
Restoration work then began at the top of Reach UT4-R4 and continued downstream to the confluence
with UT4-R2. Actual in -stream structure location and placement for UT4-R4 varied only slightly from
the design plans. In the upper section of this reach, a single log weir was not installed due to the
presence of rock at its proposed location, while an additional log weir was placed just before the rock
crossing to further stabilize the channel. The location of the logjam at Station 12+00 was also adjusted
downstream by roughly 20' to avoid being undermined by a small tributary flowing in from the western
bank. In the lower section of the reach, an additional log weir and root wad were installed near the
outfall of the drainage channel at Station 26+70 to provide additional protection and stability to the
stream.
Upon completion of all the reach segments in mid-May 2015, permanent seeding with straw was placed
in all remaining disturbed areas on the site. The planting of bare -root trees and shrubs in the buffer and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

live stakes along the stream channels was completed in mid-March for UT4-Rl, UT4-R2, and UT4-
R5. Planting was completed in mid-May for the remaining reaches UT4-R3 and UT3-R4. Permanent
cattle exclusion fencing (woven wire) was installed along all reaches with cattle access (UT4-R2, UT4-
R3, and UT4-R4), with access gates as shown on the as -built plan sheets/record drawings in Appendix
D. The total as -built length for all reaches on the UT4 site after construction is 7,211 LF.
Baker and River Works met on site in May 2015 and conducted a final walk through inspection, and
generated a punch -list of final items to be completed. River Works completed this punch list and fully
demobilized in early June 2015. Baker met DMS personnel onsite for a site inspection in mid-June
2015. Baker completed the installation of all monitoring devices in July of 2015.
3.3.2 Conservation Easement Boundary Adjustment
During project construction on the UT4 portion of the project, problems were discovered with the
location of the conservation easement boundary at the two crossings on Reaches UT4-R2 and UT4-
Rlb. For the first crossing at UT4-R2 located between stations 21+11 and 21+42, Baker discovered
that the southern portion of the easement break opening was located within a stand of very mature oak
trees. Use of the crossing by the landowner for farm equipment would necessitate the cutting of many
of these oaks. That was not a desirable option for Baker, the landowner, or DMS as that stand of mature
trees was a direct example of the eventual canopy we are hoping to achieve through our buffer plantings
and would serve as a great seed source for years to come. Given that the riparian buffer along this side
of the stream was well in excess of 50 feet, Baker worked with DMS and the NC State Property Office
(SPO) to adjust the southeastern corner of the crossing. By placing two additional pins in the boundary
to cut that corner, we were able to afford enough maneuvering room for farm equipment to use the
crossing without having to clear any trees (Appendix F — Figure 1). The area removed from the
easement was 870 ftz. The stream buffer along this modified corner was reduced in width for a small
length, but is still a minimum of 50 feet throughout. As such, no reduction in stream credits is
warranted.
For the second crossing on UT4-Rlb located in a power line easement between stations 10+00 and
11+06, the proposed landowner crossing area was discovered to be located in a very wet, seasonally
ponded area. The landowner expressed serious reservations about his ability to get farm equipment
through this area from autumn until late spring. Field inspections of this crossing during that timeframe
confirmed his concerns. The continued use of the existing crossing, a built-up path that runs next to
the wet area was the logical solution to the problem, but was located within the sharply oblique angle
the conservation easement makes along the power line easement in this area. Baker again worked with
DMS and the SPO to adjust the northwestern corner of the crossing, to exclude the existing built-up
crossing (Appendix F — Figure 2). The area removed from the easement here was 1,584 ft'. As this
portion of easement was within the riparian buffer of a section of stream not included in the project
restoration (due to the oblique angle of the easement at this location), no reduction in stream credits is
warranted.
A revised plat showing the easement modifications for this section of the UT4 site was prepared by a
Professional Land Surveyor, and the modifications were accepted by the SPO, which issued a Partial
Release of Conservation Easement document on August 18, 2016 formally acknowledging the
modification. The document was recorded at the Anson County Register of Deeds on September 14,
2016 (Appendix F).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-7 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving NCDOT and NCDMS
full -delivery projects. The success criteria for the Site will follow the mitigation plan developed for this project,
as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG) issued in April 2003 (USACE) and NCDMS's 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 II approaches, monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections, photo
documentation, and vegetation assessments. The monitoring parameters shall be consistent with the
requirements described in the Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation sites in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Specific success
criteria components and evaluation methods are described in Section 5.0 and report documentation will follow
the NCDMS Monitoring Report template and guidance (v 1.3, dated 1/15/10).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
5.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted once a year for a minimum
of five years but up to seven years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness
of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross-sections),
pattern (planimetric survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), and visual observation with
photographic documentation. The success criteria for the restored reaches will follow the methods
described below in sections 5. 1.1 through 5.2 for each parameter. All monitoring features are shown in
the as -built plan sheets/record drawings (Appendix D) as well as in Figures 4a and 4b.
5.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankf ill events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of crest
gauges and photographs. One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain of HC -R2 at Station 34+40,
and one crest gauge was installed along UT4-R2 at Station 34+80. Both gauges are within ten feet
(horizontal) of the restored channels. The crest gauges will record the highest watermark between site
visits. The gauges will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Additionally, photographs taken by automated cameras mounted near the crest gauge along Reach R2
at Hurricane Creek, and on Reach R4b at Station 18+90 at UT4 will also be used to document the
occurrence of bankfull events, debris lines, and sediment deposition on the floodplain between
monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within a seven-year monitoring period. These two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull
events have been documented.
5.1.2 Cross-sections
Fifteen permanent cross-sections were installed for the project, with ten cross-sections located at riffles
and five located at pools. Each cross-section was marked on both stream banks with permanent
monuments using rebar to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for
cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-
section surveys will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, and must include measurements of Bank Height
Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the
features are present. Riffle cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System.
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. Stable cross-sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream cross-sections has been met. If changes do
take place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the stream banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross-sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2 for
`C' stream types) defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller channel sizes and
meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pins will not be installed unless monitoring results
indicate active lateral erosion.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the stream banks. Photographs will be taken
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

of both stream banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
stream banks. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the stream
bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
5.1.3 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders during baseline (Year 0) only. Subsequent visual monitoring will be
conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
5.1.4 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of restored channel after construction to
document the as -built baseline conditions only. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and
measurements collected included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements was 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. Longitudinal profiles will not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless
vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
These measurements will demonstrate that the restored stream profile provides more bedform diversity
than the old channel with multiple natural features (such as pools and riffles) that provide improved
aquatic habitat, as per the restoration objectives.
5.1.5 Bed Material Analysis
After construction, there should be a minimal change in the pebble count data or particle size
distribution over time given the current watershed conditions and future upstream sediment supply
regime. Since the streams are predominantly sand bed systems with minimal gravel, significant
changes in particle size distribution are not expected. A representative sample will be collected in
Hurricane Creek (HC -R2) and UT4 (Reach UT4-R4b) in locations where constructed riffles were
installed as part of the project. The post -construction riffle pebble count samples will be compared to
those collected during subsequent monitoring years. Any significant changes (i.e.; aggradation,
degradation, embeddedness) will be noted after stream bank vegetation becomes established and a
minimum of two bankfull flows or greater have been documented.
5.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit for each year of monitoring.
Photographs will be used to visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to
stream bank and bed 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.
This monitoring will be summarized in the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and
the Vegetation Conditions Assessment Table, which are used to better document and quantify the visual
assessment.
A series of photos over time will be also be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar
formations) or degradation, stream bank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal photos
should indicate the absence of developing mid channel or lateral bars within the channel or excessive
increase in channel depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing
degradation of the banks. The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six
feet from the same locations and view directions on the site for each monitoring period, and will be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-2 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

shown on plan view maps in subsequent monitoring reports. The visual monitoring effort will be
conducted per DMS's annual monitoring report guidance (0.5, June 2012).
5.1.7 Flow Documentation
Monitoring of flow will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream systems classified as
intermittent exhibit base flow for 30 consecutive days during 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,
data will be obtained from the Anson County WETS Station and from the automated weather station
(Wadesboro, COOP 318964 and Anson County Airport (KAFP-AWOS), approximately two miles
south of the site. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of
monitoring, Baker will continue to monitor flow conditions on the site until it documents that the
intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
The restored intermittent reaches for this project include Reaches Rlb and R4 on the UT4 site, as well
as Reaches R1 and R2 on the Hurricane Creek site. To document flow at UT4, in -stream flow gauges
(pressure transducers) were installed in Reach Rlb at Station 14+90, and in Reach R4b at Station
18+80. Additionally, the automated cameras installed along Reach R4b at near the flow gauge at UT4,
and along Reach R2 at Hurricane Creek will collect a series of regular and continuous photos over time
to illustrate water levels within the channel, and will be included in the annual monitoring reports as
part of the visual monitoring effort.
5.2 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 were installed and will be monitored across
the project in accordance with the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation — Level 1-2 Plot
Sampling, Version 4.2 (2008), and the total number of quadrants were calculated using the CVS -DMS
Entry Tool Database version 2.3.1 (CVS -DMS, 2012). The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square
meters. A total of sixteen vegetation plots were installed throughout the project as per the protocol for
Level 1-2 Plot Sampling. The individual vegetation monitoring plots are 100 square meters in size.
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. Individual seedlings
have 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.
The planting of live -stakes and bare -root trees and shrubs was completed in mid-March for all of the
Hurricane Creek site and for Reaches UT4-Rlb, UT4-R5a, UT4-R5b, and UT4-R2 on the UT4 site.
Planting was completed in mid-May for the remaining Reaches UT4-R3, UT4-R4a, and UT4-R4b. All
monitoring devices were installed on both sites in early July 2015. At the end of the first full growing
season (March 6' to November 29') from baseline/year 0, or after 180 days from planting, species
composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. The vegetation plots shall be monitored
annually for seven years, or until the final success criteria are achieved. 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 at the end of the seven-year monitoring period, which must average 10 feet in height. However,
if the performance standard is met by Year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260, 5 -year old stems/acre,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-3 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE and the Interagency Review Team
(IRT).
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. It is understood by the IRT that some smaller tree species, such as Carpinus
caroliniana and some slow growing Quercus species, will be unlikely to meet height targets after seven
years. 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.
The presence of exotic invasive plant species will be visually assessed semi-annually and controlled by
mechanical and/or chemical methods if necessary. Their locations will be shown on the Current
Conditions Plan View figures in the annual monitoring reports. Any invasive plant species control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations.
Baker will provide required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as: replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species vegetation, conducting beaver and beaver dam management/removal, or 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, seeded/planted throughout the site.
During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project site was in
compliance with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control regulations and applicable permitting
requirements.
5.3 Wetland Monitoring
No wetlands were proposed for the Site. Therefore, no wetland monitoring is required.
5.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
No stormwater BMPs were proposed for the Site. Therefore, no stormwater BMP monitoring is
required.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-4 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION
Stream and vegetation components will be monitored for seven years post -construction to evaluate project
success, unless the Site demonstrates complete success by Year 5 and no areas of concern have been identified.
The specific locations of vegetation plots, flow/crest gauges, flow cameras, and cross-sections are shown on
the as -built plan sheets/record drawings.
6.1 Stream Data
For monitoring stream success criteria, a total of fifteen permanent cross-sections were installed along the
two sites. The permanent cross-sections will be used to monitor channel dimension and bank stability
over time.
To provide a baseline for evaluating changes in bed conditions over time, cross-sectional and longitudinal
surveys were completed for the stream channels following construction. The as -built permanent cross-
sections (with photos) and as -built longitudinal data as well as the quantitative pre -construction, reference
reach, and design data used to determine restoration approach are provided in Appendix B.
Two post -construction as -built pebble count samples were also collected following project completion.
The riffle pebble count samples were taken along HC -R2 and UT4-R4b in constructed riffles, and the
results are provided in Table 5 of Appendix B.
To document above bankfull events, two crest gauges were installed along the restored channels on HC -
R2 and UT4-R4b. To monitor and evaluate channel flow conditions throughout the year in the restored
intermittent reaches, a combination of automated photographic documentation and flow data loggers (in -
stream pressure transducers) will be used. The flow cameras are stationed along the top of banks and the
pressure transducers and located along the thalweg of the channel near the camera location. For the UT4
site, specific monitoring devices installed include one automated flow camera (a Bushnell -brand wildlife
camera) and one in -stream pressure transducer on UT4-R4b, and an in -stream pressure transducer along
UT4-Rlb. For the Hurricane Creek site, an automated camera was installed near the crest gauge along
HC -R2.
The locations of the permanent cross-sections, crest gauges, flow cameras, and in -stream pressure
transducers are shown on the as -built plan sheets/record drawings found in Appendix D. Photographs of
the selected areas of the restored reaches are provided in Appendix E.
6.2 Vegetation Data
Bare -root trees and shrubs were planted within restoration and enhancement areas of the conservation
easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer was established and/or protected along both banks of all stream
reaches.
Planting of the Hurricane Creek portion of the project was completed in March 2015, and included all
buffer bare -root trees and shrubs as well as live -staking along the stream channel. To monitor vegetation
success along the Hurricane Creek reaches, five vegetation monitoring plots were established within the
planted riparian buffer areas.
The planting of bare -root trees, shrubs and live stakes along the UT4 portion of the project occurred in two
phases for the site. The first planting occurred along UT4-Rl, UT4-R2, and UT4-R5, which was
completed in March 2015. The second planting took place along UT4-R3 and UT4-R4 and was completed
in mid-May 2015. To monitor vegetation success along the UT4 reaches, eleven vegetation monitoring
plots were established within the planted riparian buffer areas.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

The Mitigation Plan for the Site specifies that the number of quadrants required shall be based on the CVS -
DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (2008), and the total number of quadrants were
calculated using the CVS -DMS Entry Tool Database version 2.3.1 (CVS -DMS, 2012). The sizes of
individual quadrants are 100 square meters. A total of sixteen vegetation plots were installed throughout
the project. The initial planted density within each of the vegetation monitoring plots is provided in Table
8. The average density of planted bare root stems, based on the data from the sixteen vegetation monitoring
plots, is 756 stems per acre. The locations of the vegetation plots are shown on the as -built plan
sheets/record drawings found in Appendix D.
6.3 Areas of Concern
No areas of concern are noted at this time.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-2 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy, non -cohesive soils are more prone to bank erosion than cohesive soils or soils with
high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with access to their floodplain are less vulnerable to erosion than channels that
have been disconnected from their floodplain.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive vegetation species can affect the extent to which a native
species vegetation buffer can be established.
• The presence of beaver can affect vegetation survivability and stream function.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and as well as a physical inspection of the Site at least twice per
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. Maintenance issues
and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the post -construction monitoring
reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any of the conditions listed above,
shall be discussed. Routine maintenance will be most likely in the first two years following site construction
and may include the following components as described below.
7.1 Streams
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.
7.2 Wetland
No wetland mitigation was proposed for the Site; therefore, no such maintenance is required.
7.3 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

7.4 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.
7.5 Farm Road Crossing
The farm road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
7.6 Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and dam breeching/dewatering and/or removal. Beaver management will be performed in
accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules and regulations using accepted trapping and
removal techniques only within the project boundary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

8.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), CVS -DMS Data
Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation: Level
1-2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.2, 2008.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
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.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Wilmington District.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with cooperation from US Environmental Protection
Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality.
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-1 10/3/2016
DRAFT BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT BASELINE REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

APPENDIX A
Figures 1 - 4, Tables 1 - 4

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 95351
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient
PhosphorusOffset Nutrient Offset
Type R RE
Totals 9,753.9 103.6
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/
t
Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage (LF)
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU)
Restoration Footage
or Acreage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
HC-R1
10+00 - 30+43
1,896
Restoration
2,043
2,043
1:1
HC-R2
30+43 - 30+52 &
30+82 - 44+67
1,288
Restoration
1,394
1,394
1:1
HC-R3
10+36 - 16+00
579
Enhancement Level II
225.6
564
2.5:1
UT4-Rla
10+00 - 15+18
518
Preservation
103.6
518
5:1
UT4-Rlb
11+07 - 19+64
906
Restoration
858
858
1:1
UT4-R2
19+64 - 21+11 &
21+42 - 38+23
1,673
Restoration
1,828
1,828
1:1
UT4-R3
28+92 - 31+42
244
Restoration
250
250
1:1
UT4-R4a
10+00 - 13+96
395
Restoration
396
396
1:1
UT4-R4b
14+28 - 25+23 &
25+43 - 28+92
1,392
Restoration
1,444
1,444
1:1
UT4-R5a
09+44 - 13+35
386
Enhancement Level I
260.7
391
1.5:1
UT4-R5b
14+40 - 30+22
1,535
Enhancement Level I
1,054.7
1,582
1.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
8,213
Enhancement I
1,973
Enhancement II
564
Preservation
518
BMP Elements
Element Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW=
Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
All powerline easements and cattle/vehicular crossings were excluded from the conservation easement boundary and so no credit reductions are associated with those features.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 9535 1)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 95351
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Jan-14
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Mar-14
Mitigation Plan Approved
Nov-13
N/A
Jun-14
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jun-14
Construction Begins
Sep-13
N/A
Nov-14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
Jul-14
N/A
May-15
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Jul-14
N/A
May-15
Planting of live stakes
Jul-14
N/A
May-15 *
Planting of bare root trees
Jul-14
N/A
May-15 *
End of Construction
Jul-14
N/A
May-15
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)
Jul-14
Jul-15
Jul-15
Baseline Monitoring Report
Feb-15
Jul-15
Nov-16 **
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec-15
Feb-16
N/A
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec-16
Nov-16
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec-17
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec-18
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec-19
N/A
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec-20
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec-21
N/A
N/A
* All of HC and Reaches Rl, R2, and R5 for UT4 were planted in March, while Reaches R3 and R4 were planted
in mid-May for UT4.
** As -built / Baseline Report submission was delayed due to conservation easement adjustment issues.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 9535 1)

Table 3. Project Contacts
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jake Byers, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Monitoring Performers Jill
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 9535 1)

Table 4a. Project Attribute Information -Hurricane Creek (Pre-Construction)
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - DMS Project No. 95351
Project Information
Project Name
113rown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project — Hurricane Creek
County
Anson
Project Area acres
14.1
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.0498 N, -80.0665 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Geologic Unit
Triassic Basin
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03040104 / 03040104061030
NCDWR Sub-basin
03-07-10
Project Drainage Area acres
1,383
Project Drainage Area Percentage Impervious
2%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (69%) Agriculture (15%) Impervious Cover (2%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
HC-RI
HC-R2 HC-R3
Length of Reach linear feet
1,347
1,384 546
Valley Classification Ros en
VII
VII VII
Drainage Area acres
1,077
1,383 119
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
26.5
31 23
NCDWR Water Resources Classification
Class C
7orphological Description Ros en stream e
Incised E
Incised E G/Incised Be
Evolutionary Trend
Incised
Incised E4G4F Incised B 4 G 4 F
Underlying Mapped Soils
ChA
ChA CrB
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly drained Somewhat poorly drained Moderately well drained
Soil Hydric Status
H dric
Hydric Non-Hydric
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.0035
0.0024 0.0108
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Zone AE Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5% <5%
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 (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No N/A
lCategorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
Yes 1yes
I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 4b. Project Attribute Information - UT4 (Pre -Construction;
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - DMS Project No. 95351
Project Information
Project Name
1BrowD Creek Tributaries Restoration Project
— UT4
7ounty
lAnson
Project Area acres
29.2
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.0477 N, -80.0274 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03040104 / 03040104061030
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-10
Project Drainaize Area acres
974
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<20
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest 69% Agriculture 15% Impervious Cover <2%
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT4-R1 UT4-R2
UT4-R3
UT4-R4
UT4-R5
Length of Reach linear feet
1,417 1,627
242
1,716
1,564
Valley Classification Ros en
VII VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area acres
218 706
974
267
452
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
28.5 29
32
26
23.5
NCDWR Water Resources Classification
Class C
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
F/G Incised E
G
G
Incised Be / C
Evolutionary Trend
Incised E 4 Gc 4 F Be 4 G 4 F
Bc4G4F
Incised E 4 G 4 F
Incised E 4 G 4 F
Underlying Mapped Soils
ChA ChA
ChA
ChA, Mall
ChA
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly Somewhat poorly Somewhat poorly Somewhat poorly
drained drained drained I drained
Moderately well
drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
H dric
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.0077 0.0053
0.0009
0.0073
0.0038
FEMA Classification
N/A Zone AE
Zone AE
Zone AE
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5% <5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
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 (Appendix
B)
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix
B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Cate orical Exclusion (Appendix
B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
I Yes I
Yes lCategorical
Exclusion (Appendix
B
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Ecosystem Division of Mitigation Servies (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the
general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and
stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these
previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
B
0
Hurricane Creek Project
Z
Refuge
0
UT4 Project
R'I
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, take US
Highway 1 south through Sanford, for
approximately 40 miles. Take the exit ramp to
US 15/501 South to Carthage and then take NC
24/NC 27 West from Carthage for
approximately 33 miles before turning onto NC 'Wadesboro
109 South. Follow NC 109 South for 20 miles _filesviille
and take the first right past Dennis Road. The 74
UT4 site is located just south of the farm access 03040201020020
road about one half mile from NC 109. The l
Hurricane Creek site is located immediately Note: Site is located within targeted local
south of Pleasant Grove Church Road
approximately 1.5 miles west of the UT4 site. watershed 03040104061030
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
� 52 � Project
Brown Creek Tributaries
1� Location NCDEQ -
1
Division of Mitigation Services
� 74 109
i
Anson County I V1'EBNA"°Vl7NA L
0 0.5 1 2
Miles

N
Franklinville
seur
Ahbo
DAVIDSON
COUNTY RA OLPH
Denton C d U N T Y
ROWN
COU NAT Y S\�rove
ew London
Badin
I emarle Troy ^r
ANLY MONTGOMERY
CO NTY COUNTY
_4,
No od
Mi
Anso ville
� 52
n
Project Location
Robbins
MOORE
COUNTY
Ell rbe
RI HMOND
OUNTY
Lilesville
Wad 1
74
A N S O Roc gham
COUNT \
Dob 'ns Heights
Ha let
=HAM
COUTY
Golds on
421
LEE
COUNT
Richland Creek
Carth
jCa
15
Pines
' ;luff
ern Pines
Foxfire Village
Pin
15
SCOTLAND
COUNtY
HOKE
COUNTY
urinburg
Gibson La ur
x
Michael Baker NCDEQ - Figure 3
Division of 0 2.5 5 10 Reference Stream
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Mitigation Services Miles Location Map
Brown Creek Tributaries

Conservation Easement
' Cross -Section (Riffle)
a.
F - Cross -Section (Pool)
Camera
#1 h R
Reach V Crest Gauge
C Vegetation Plot
As -Built Stream Centerline
A Restoration
Enhancement II
#14
-Aa i '- •
0 #2 No Credit
f_ $� #13
.� #15 „
Reach R3
>. .
iYd i--
�` #3
Ir
jL
Rpm
%4:W
Reach R1
��► , x.
ks
.
` k; Source: Esn�.®igitalGlabe, E- e. �larths111
eographicSrCNES/Air"bus2015 Aerial Photo 4' �P ,a DS, USDA, USG=, AES , Getma pinAer IN
IG , swisstopo, and
iIi N OO , NC- r Geographic
Inf rmati nand Analysi , NC 911 Board -
Figure 4a
Michael Baker 0 250 500 As -Built Monitoring
Feet Features Overview Map
INTERNATIONAL Hurricane Creek Site

:-
N Conservation Easement
Cross -Section (Riffle)
Cross -Section (Pool)
E- I Vegetation Plot
Flow Gauge
Crest Gauge
r ' Camera
As -Built Stream Centerline
Restoration
Enhancement I
r Preservation
Va� No Credit
. y �' Reach R3
s
#6 r f
_ �yy, n #16 .
.. a J!
#9
#2 Reach R1
#12
13 # b'
Reach R2 y #8 r .,
#$410a
14
71 #9
Reach R5
Reach 9R4��
7
#6 #15
2015 Aerial Photo
0 250 500
Feet
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Figure 4b
As -Built Monitoring
Features Overview Map
UT4 Site

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6),
Profile and Cross -Section Graphs, and Pebble
Count Sheets

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Hurricane Creek (Reach 1) Length 2,043 ft
Parameter
USGS
Regional Carve
i
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data"
a
Design
As -built
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Gauge
a
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mcan Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
-----
14.8 14.9 -----
----- ----- ----- 13.5 ----- -----
16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- -----
----- 19.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 18.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 106.0 ----- -----
50.0 ----- ----- 53.0 ----- -----
4`.0 ----- ----- 79.0 ----- -----
----- 71.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.3 1.8 -----
----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- -----
----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
22.5 30.5 -----
----- ----- ----- 30.0 ----- -----
15.0 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- -----
----- 28.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 30.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
18.0 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- -----
----- 13.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 7.9 ----- -----
3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- -----
----- >2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
1.6 ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- -----
----- 45.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
69 ----- ----- 140 ----- -----
----- 93.0 ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- -----
39.0 ----- ----- 55.0 ----- -----
----- 55.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc / Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
5.5 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
2.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- 2.9 ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
90 ----- ----- 94 ----- -----
130.0 ----- ----- 230.0 ----- -----
----- 227.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- -----
3.5 ----- ----- 6.5 ----- -----
----- 4.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 48.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- -----
----- 0.0170 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0102 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- -----
50.0 ----- ----- 138.0 ----- -----
----- 133.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2.3 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 3.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 4.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- NIP ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- ----
0.13 / 0.33 / 0.6 / 4.5 / 14.1
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/ml
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- 1.68 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.00 ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 1.68 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.68 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- E ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ---
----- ----- ----- E5/C5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
2.9 3.9 -----
---- ----- ----- 4.3 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P --- ---
----- 3.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
87.4 129.5 194.3
---- ----- ----- 129.5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P --- ---
----- 110 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- --- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1745.5 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- 1896 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- --- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2043.0 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 1.07 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.20 --- ---
----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.0023 ----- -----
----- 0.0136 ----- ----- --- ---
----- 0.0120 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0029 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.0025 ----- -----
----- 0.0133 ----- ----- --- ---
----- 0.0023 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- 0.0034 ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- ---'
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- --- ---
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and U74 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
3 Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design
4 Values were chosen based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Hurricane Creek (Reach 2) Length 1,394 ft
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data3
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition '
a
Design
As -built
g
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Dimension and Substrate -Rifik
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mcan
Med Max
SD n
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
-----
14.8 14.9
-----
-----
----- ----- 16.0 -----
-----
16.2
-----
----- 16.7 -----
-----
-----
20.1
----- -----
----- -----
----- 22.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 162.0 -----
-----
50.0
-----
----- 53.0 -----
-----
49.0
-----
----- 85.0
----- -----
----- 69.0
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.3 1.8
-----
-----
----- ----- 2.2 -----
-----
0.9
-----
----- 0.9 -----
-----
-----
1.6
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1.4
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 3.5 -----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 1.5 -----
-----
-----
2.0
----- -----
----- -----
----- 2.3
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
-----
22.5 30.5
-----
-----
----- ----- 34.6 -----
-----
15.0
-----
----- 15.5 -----
-----
-----
31.0
----- -----
----- -----
----- 31.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 7.4 -----
-----
18.0
-----
----- 18.6 -----
-----
-----
13.0
----- -----
----- -----
----- 16.1
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 10.1 -----
-----
3.0
-----
----- 3.3 -----
-----
-----
>2.2
----- -----
----- -----
----- 3.1
----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 1.3 -----
-----
1.6
-----
----- 1.7 -----
-----
-----
1.0
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1.0
----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.3 -----
-----
-----
45.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.9
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
74
-----
----- 150
----- -----
----- 100.0
----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
14.3
-----
----- 26.1 -----
-----
40.0
-----
----- 60.0
----- -----
----- 55.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc / Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
5.5
-----
----- 5.7 -----
-----
2.0
-----
----- 3.0
----- -----
----- 2.4
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
90
-----
----- 94 -----
-----
140.0
-----
----- 250.0
----- -----
----- 230.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.5
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 6.5
----- -----
----- 4.4
----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 54.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.013
-----
----- 0.0413 -----
-----
-----
0.0170
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0080
----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
37.3
-----
----- 95.8 -----
-----
85.0
-----
----- 149.0
----- -----
----- 149.0
----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Deft ()
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
2.3
-----
----- 2.5 ----
-----
-----
3.2
----- -----
----- -----
----- 2.9
----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- NIP -----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
----
0.11 / 0.23 / 0.3 / 1.4 / 4.0
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
13.6 / 37.6 / 46.2 / 86.0 / 127.6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- ---
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
---
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/ml
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
----
----
----- ----- 2.16 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.00 -----
---
-----
-----
----- 2.16
----- -----
----- -----
----- 2.16 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
---
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
----
----- -----
----
----
----- ----- E -----
-----
-----
-----
----- C4 -----
---
-----
-----
----- E5/C5
----- -----
----- -----
----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
2.9 3.9
-----
----
----- ----- 4.4 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P ---
---
-----
4.2
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
87.4 129.5
194.3
----
----- ----- 155.0 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P ---
---
-----
130
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- -----
-----
----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ---
---
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1159.0 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)'
-----
----- -----
----
----
----- ----- 1288 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ---
---
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1393.0 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- -----
-----
---
----- ----- 1.07 ---
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.20 ---
---
1.2
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1.2 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.0023 -----
-----
-----
0.0136
----- ----- ---
---
-----
0.0120
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0029
----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
----
----- ----- 0.0025 -----
-----
-----
0.0133
----- ---- ---
---
----
0.0023
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0034
----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----' ---
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
-----
---
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- --
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
----
----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ---- ---
---
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----
----- -----
-----
----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and U74 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
3 Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design
4 Values were chosen based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95351
Hurricane Creek (Reach 3) Length 564 ft
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data3
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Carve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
g
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Dimension and Substrate -Rifflc
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mcan Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BE W3 O
-----
16.6 16.6 -----
----- ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- -----
----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 5.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 9.1 ----- -----
50.0 ----- ----- 53.0 ----- -----
21.0 ----- ----- 36.0 ----- -----
----- 10.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.4 1.9 -----
----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- -----
0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
26.8 36.2 -----
----- ----- ----- 5.8 ----- -----
15.0 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- -----
----- 6.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 4.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 5.6 ----- -----
18.0 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 7.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- -----
3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- -----
1.8 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.0 ----- -----
1.6 ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 45.0 -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re/ Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
5.5 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
90 ----- ----- 94 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 79.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- -----
----- 0.0050 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0046 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- -----
18.0 ----- ----- 50.0 ----- -----
----- 80.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2.3 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 2.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- NIP ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Now- T
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----
- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa % / G% / 13% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
z d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- ----
(0.29/ 0.63 / 1.0/ 3.4 / 6.7)
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/ml
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- 0.19 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.00 ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 0.19 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.19 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- E ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 135c ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 135c ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.0 4.4 -----
---- - ----- 4.5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P --- ---
----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
106.1 155.0 231.8
---- - ----- 26.5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P --- ---
----- 22 ----- ----- ----- -
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- --- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 559.0 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- 579 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- --- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 564.0 ----- -----
Sinuosity----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 1.02 --
----- ----- ----- 1.20 --- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.01 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.0078 ----- -----
----- 0.0136 ----- ----- --- ---
----- 0.0160 ----- ----- ----- --
----- 0.0047 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- -----
----- 0.0133 ----- ---- --- ---
----- 0.0025 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0047 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----' ---
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- --
----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- --- ---
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and U74 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
3 Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design
4 Values were chosen based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued'
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95351
UT4 (Reach 1) Length 1,376 ft
Parameter
USGS
Regional CurNc
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data3
Design'
As -built
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate -RifflE
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
-----
7.1 7.5 -----
8.6 ----- ----- 11.7 ----- -----
16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- -----
----- 11.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 14.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
12.7 ----- ----- 15.6 ----- -----
50.0 ----- ----- 53.0 ----- -----
16.0 ----- ----- 46.0 ----- -----
----- 89.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.9 1.1 -----
0.9 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- -----
0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- -----
----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.2 ----- ----- 1.9 ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
7.4 10.3 -----
10.5 ----- ----- 11.3 ----- -----
15.0 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- -----
----- 10.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 14.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
6.5 ----- ----- 13.2 ----- -----
18.0 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- -----
----- 13 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 13.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.3 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- -----
----- >2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
2.1 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- -----
1.6 ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.1 ----- ----- -----
----- 45.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
40.0 ----- ----- 80.0 ----- -----
----- 60.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- -----
23.0 ----- ----- 34.0 ----- -----
----- 40.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Re / Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
5.5 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
2.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- 2.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
90 ----- ----- 94 ----- -----
70.0 ----- ----- 90.0 ----- -----
----- 146.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- -----
3.5 ----- ----- 7.0 ----- -----
----- 4.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 37.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- -----
----- 0.0078 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0153 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- NIP ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- -----
39 ----- ----- 80 ----- -----
----- 78.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2.3 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 2.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
�01
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
z d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.06 / 0.34 / 2.12 / 36.6 / 101.8 (R2)
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
---- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m�
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
yr 9
----- ----- ----- 1.00 ----- ---
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.34 ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 0.34 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.34 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
G ----- ----- F ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C4 ----- -----
--- ----- ----- C5/B5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
2.4 3.9 -----
3.6 ----- ----- 3.9 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
25.2 40.9 63.0
----- ----- ----- 41.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 37 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
-- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 784 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1,417 -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 858 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.15 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ---
----- 1.11 ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.09 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Wft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.0058 -----
----- 0.0136 ----- ----- ----- ---
---- 0.0058 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0101 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.0067 ----- -----
----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ---
--- 0.0067 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0113 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VLo/ / L% / M% / 11% / VH % / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -
----- ----- ----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-'-- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---
----- ----- --- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- -----
---- ----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and UT4 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
3 Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design
4 Values were chosen based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued'
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95351
UT4 (Reach 2) Length 1,828 ft
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data3
Design'
As -built
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate -Rifflt
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
12.2 12.4 -----
----- ----- ----- 13.8 ----- -----
16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- -----
----- 16.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 15.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 36.6 ----- -----
50.0 ----- ----- 53.0 ----- -----
38.0 ----- ----- 66.0 ----- -----
----- 95.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.6 1.2 -----
----- ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- -----
----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
16.7 22.9 -----
----- ----- ----- 23.8 ----- -----
15.0 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- -----
----- 21.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 19.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 8.0 ----- -----
18.0 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- -----
----- 13 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 13.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.7 ----- -----
3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- -----
----- >2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
1.6 ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 45.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
60.0 ----- ----- 100.0 ----- -----
----- 75.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- -----
33.0 ----- ----- 50.0 ----- -----
----- 46.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc / Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
5.5 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
2.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- 2.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
90 ----- ----- 94 ----- -----
115.0 ----- ----- 180.0 ----- -----
----- 173.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- -----
3.5 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
----- 10.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 51.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- -----
----- 0.0040 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0043 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- NIP ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- -----
32 ----- ----- 65 ----- -----
----- 105.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2.3 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- - ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
2 d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.06 / 0.34 / 2.12 / 36.6 / 101.8 (R2)
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- ---- ---
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----'
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m�
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
----- ----- ----- 1.00 ----- -----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- ----
--- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- F ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C4 ----- --
-- ----- ----- C5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
2.6 4.0 -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 3.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
62.8 95.6 144.3
----- ----- ----- 95.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 80.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
-- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1590.34 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- 1,673 -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1827 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 1.15 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ---
----- 1.19 ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.15 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Wft)
----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 0.0058 -----
----- 0.0136 ----- ----- ----- ---
---- 0.0034 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0034 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.0067 ----- -----
----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ---
--- 0.0063 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0039 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VLo/ / L% / M% / 11% / VH % / E%
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---
---- ----- ----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----
----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- -----
---- ----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and U74 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
3 Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design
4 Values were chosen based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued'
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95351
UT4 (Reach 3) Length 250 It
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data3
Design'
As-builts
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate -RifflE
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
-----
14.1 14.2 -----
----- ----- ----- 13.1 ----- -----
16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- -----
----- 19.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 15.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 18.3 ----- -----
50.0 ----- ----- 53.0 ----- -----
44.0 ----- ----- 76.0 ----- -----
----- 21.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.3 1.7 -----
----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- -----
----- 1.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 3.2 ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
----- 1.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
21.0 28.5 -----
----- ----- ----- 28.7 ----- -----
15.0 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- -----
----- 28.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 36.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
18.0 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- -----
----- 13 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- -----
3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- -----
1.8 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- 1.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- -----
1.6 ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.48 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 45.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
N/A ----- ----- N/A ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- -----
N/A ----- ----- N/A ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re / Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
5.5 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
2.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
90 ----- ----- 94 ----- -----
N/A ----- ----- N/A ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- -----
N/A ----- ----- N/A ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength(ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 20.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- -----
----- 0.0130 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0153 ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- NIP ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- -----
4� ----- ----- 80 ----- -----
----- 50.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2.3 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 3.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
2 d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.06 / 0.15 / 0.48 / 10.3 / 130.2
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- ---- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----'
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m�
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
----- ----- ----- 1.00 ----- -----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- 1.52 ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 1.52 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.52 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- ---
---- ----- ----- G ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ---
--- ----- ----- 135c ----- -----
----- ----- ----- G5c ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
2.8 4.1 -----
----- ----- ----- 4.1 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
80.7 120.5 181.1
----- ----- ----- 120.5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 103.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
-- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 237 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)'
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- 244 -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 250 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 1.15 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ---
----- N/A ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.05 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 0.0058 -----
----- 0.0136 ----- ----- ----- ---
---- 0.0078 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0056 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.0067 ----- -----
----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ---
--- 0.0080 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0058 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VLo/ / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E%
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ---- ---
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- -----
----- ----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and UT4 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
3 Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design " Values were chosen
based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and on past project evaluations
s Ultimately, a Rosgen "G" stream type was maintained for this reach due to its stable location with mature trees eastablished along its banks
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued'
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95351
UT4 (Reach 4) Length 1,840 It
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data"
Design'
As -built
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Fifth
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SD 6 n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
7.8 8.2 -----
----- ----- ----- 7.7 ----- -----
16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
F oo prone Width ()
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 10.9 ----- -----
50.0 ----- ----- 53.0 ----- -----
28.0 ----- ----- 48.0 ----- -----
----- 75.9 ---------- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.9 1.1 -----
----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- -----
0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- -----
----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.1 ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
8.5 11.8 -----
----- ----- ----- 12 ----- -----
15.0 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- -----
----- 11.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 9.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 5.0 ----- -----
18.0 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- -----
----- 13 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 14.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- -----
3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- -----
----- >2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 3.1 ----- -----
1.6 ----- ----- 1.7 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.50 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 45.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.3 ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
40 ----- ----- 70 ----- -----
----- 55.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- -----
24.0 ----- ----- 36.0 ----- -----
----- 48.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
Re / Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
5.5 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
2.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- 4.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
90 ----- ----- 94 ----- -----
84.0 ----- ----- 140.0 ----- -----
----- 150.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- -----
7.0 ----- ----- 12.0 ----- -----
----- 13.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- -----
----- 0.0100 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- NIP ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- -----
42 ----- ----- 82 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2.3 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft")
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
2 dl / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.13 / 0.43 / 1.5 / 14.2 / 22.6
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
11.1 / 23.8 / 36.6 / 60.1 / 126.3
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- ---- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
---- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m�
-----
----- ---- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
----- ----- ----- 0.42 ----- -----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- 1.00 ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 0.42 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.42 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- ----
--- ---- ----- -----
- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- G ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C4 ----- --
-- ----- ----- C5B5c ----- -----
----- ----- ----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
2.5 3.9 -----
----- ----- ----- 3.9 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
29.5 47.3 73.4
----- ----- ----- 47.4 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- N/P ----- -----
--- 40.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
-- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1657 ----- -----
Channellength (ft)2
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- 1,787 -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1840 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 1.15 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ---
----- 1.12 ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- 0.0058 -----
----- 0.0136 ----- ----- ----- ---
---- 0.0063 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0054 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.0067 ----- -----
----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ---
--- 0.0069 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0062 ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VLo/ / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E%
-----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---
---- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and U74 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
" Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design
4 Values were chosen based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued'
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95351
UT4 (Reach 5) Length 1,973 It
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data"
Design'
As -built
Richland Creek (Moore County)
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Rif h:
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SO
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SO
n
Min
Mean
Mod Max
SD n
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
9.9 10.2 -----
16.8
----- ----- 23.5 -----
-----
16.2
-----
----- 16.7 -----
-----
-----
111.9
----- -----
----- -----
----- 16.2
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
33.6
----- ----- 94.3 -----
-----
50.0
-----
----- 53.0 -----
-----
32.0
-----
----- 55.0
----- -----
----- 69.4
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.0 1.3 -----
0.7
----- ----- 0.7 -----
-----
0.9
-----
----- 0.9 -----
-----
-----
1.2
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1.8
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.3
----- ----- 2.4 -----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 1.5 -----
-----
-----
1.5
----- -----
----- -----
----- 2.7
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
12.3 16.9 -----
11.2
----- ----- 15.4 -----
-----
15.0
-----
----- 15.5 -----
-----
-----
16.0
----- -----
----- -----
----- 28.4
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
25.2
----- ----- 36.0 -----
-----
18.0
-----
----- 18.6 -----
-----
-----
12
----- -----
----- -----
----- 9.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
2.0
----- ----- 4.0 -----
-----
3.0
-----
----- 3.3 -----
-----
-----
>2.2
----- -----
----- -----
----- 4.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.0
----- ----- 1.7 -----
-----
1.6
-----
----- 1.7 -----
-----
-----
1.0
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1.0
----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.30 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
45.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
N/A
-----
----- N/A
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
14.3
-----
----- 26.1 -----
-----
N/A
-----
----- N/A
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----
N/A
-----
N/A
----- -----
----- ----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
90
-----
----- 94 -----
-----
N/A
-----
----- N/A
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.5
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
N/A
-----
----- N/A
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 46.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.013
-----
----- 0.0413 -----
-----
-----
0.0050
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0086
----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- NIP -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
37.3
-----
----- 95.8 -----
-----
50
-----
----- 90
----- -----
----- 101.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
2.3
-----
----- 2.5 -----
-----
-----
2.4
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft")
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P -----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- ----- -----
----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
2 d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.30 / 0.70 / 1.3 / 5.5 / 8.4
6.0 / NP,/ 45.0 / 125.0 / NP
----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
-----
----- ---- ---
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- --- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m�
-----
----- ----- ---
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
----- 1.00 -----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- 0.71 ----- -----
---
-----
----- 0.71
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.71 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- ----
----
----- ----- -----
- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----
----- ----- E/Be -----
-----
-----
-----
----- C4 -----
--
--
-----
----- C5/E5
----- -----
----- -----
----- E5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
2.9 4.5 -----
-----
----- ----- 4.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P -----
-----
---
3.8
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
44.4 69.2 106.1
-----
----- ----- 69.3 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- N/P -----
-----
---
60.0
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
--
--
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1838 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)'
-----
----- ----- ----
-----
----- ----- 1,921 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
--
----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1916 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----
----- ----- L08 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.20 -----
---
-----
N/A
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1.04 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Wft)
----
----- ----- -----
---
----- ----- 0.0033 -----
-----
0.0136
----- ----- -----
---
-----
0.0033
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0053
----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----
----- ----- 0.003; ---
-----
-----
0.0133
----- ----- -----
---
-----
0.0035
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0061
----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- ----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VLo/ / L% / M% / 11% / VH % / E%
-----
----- ----- ----
----
----- ----- ----- ---
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
---
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- ----- ----
----
-----
---- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
I -----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
I Existing conditions survey data was compiled for each reach of Hurricane Creek and U74 respectively
z Bulk samples taken for pre-existing condition and pebble counts taken for as -built and annual monitoring
" Reference reach data for Richland Creek in Moore County from the NC DOT reference reach database was used in the design
4 Values were chosen based on previous sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95351)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Pr ect: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Stream Reach
UT4 Reach 1 (1,376 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)
BE Width (ft)
14.93
15.43
13.95
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.02
0.87
1.01
Width/Depth Ratio
14.58
17.74
13.83
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
15.3
13.42
14.07
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
58,95
46.7
89.23
Entrenchment Ratio
3.9
3.03
6.39
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.0
17.2
16.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.9
BE Width (ft)
BE Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BE Cross-sectional Area (fi:2)
BE Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank H i ht Rano
Wetted Perrmeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Stream Reach
UT4 Reach 2 (1,828 LF)
UT4 Reach 3 (250 LF)
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-5 (Pool)
Cross-section X-6 (Riffle)
BE Width (ft)
15.94
22.4
15.35
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
16.1
6.4
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
19.0
31.16
36.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
95.2
74.63
20.98
Entrenchment Ratio
6.0
3.33
1.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
18.3
25.2
20.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
L2
1.8
BE Width (ft)
BE Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BE Cross-sectional Area (fi:2)
BE Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Stream Reach
UT4 Reach 5 (1,973 LF)
UT4 Reach 4 (1,840 LF)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-10 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY"-
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY -
Based on fixed baseline bankfufl elevation
BF Width (ft)
15.35
16.99
11.58
25.93
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.56
1.93
0.82
0.96
Width/Depth Ratio
9.8
8.8
14.1
27.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
23.9
32.8
9.5
24.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.33
3.15
1.14
2.09
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
67.5
71.2
75.9
80.9
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.2
6.5
3.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
18.5
20.9
13.2
27.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.3
1.6
0.7
0.9
Based on current/developingcurrent/developing bankfufl feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Hurricane Creek Reach 1 (2,043 LF)
Hurricane Creek Reach 2 (1,394 LF)
Cross-section X-11 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-12 (Pool)
Cross-section X-13 (Pool)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Nly
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
18.92
34.27
29.02
22.54
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.61
1.84
1.77
1.40
Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
18.6
16.4
16.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
30.4
63.1
51.5
31.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.47
4.09
2.92
2.26
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
71.2
80.1
80.0
68.8
Entrenchment Ratio
3.8
2.3
2.8
3.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
22.1
38.0
32.6
25.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.2
Based on current/developing current/developingbankfufl feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft')
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Stream Reach
Hurricane Creek Reach 3 (564 LF)
Cross-section X-15 (Riffle)
BF Width (ft)
5.86
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.81
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
4.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.28
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
10.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
Bank Height Ratio
2.3
Wetted perimeter (fi)
7.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (fi:2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
NMI=
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Brown Creek Tributaries
Hurricane Creek - Reach 1 and Reach 2
Station 10+00 to 44+75
220
219
218 1-
- -
217
- -----------
216
215
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
214
213
- - - - - -WON- - - - - - - - - - - - -
212
........ ......
g 211
-- ---- --
> 210
w 209 -
208
- -
207
206
- - - ---- -- --- --- _
� —As-Built Thalweg
205 ..
.._...... .... _...... ........... _............. ........... _... ........... ........... _... ...........
204
-o--Left Top of Bank
203
202
Right Top of Bank
201
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Station

Brown Creek Tributaries
Hurricane Creek - Reach 3
Station 10+00 to 15+92
217
216
215
214
c
0
w
> 213
m
ED
212
211
—4—As-Built Thalweg
(Left Top of Bank
210
Right Top of Bank
209
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Station

Brown Creek Tributaries - UT4 Reach 1
Station 9+95 to 18+95
224
223 - - - - AAs-Built Thalweg
222 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -6--Left Top of Bank
221 _ —.._. ....._ _ _ ___...._ ..—_..—_..—_.... ....... ..... Right Top of Bank
220 -- -- - -- - - ----- -
219
0 218 - -
217 -
m
W 216--------- - - - _ _
215.............................................................................................. ___.... .....
214 -
213 -
212
211
210
990 1090 1190 1290 1390 1490 1590 1690 1790 1890
Station

Brown Creek Tributaries - UT4 Reach 2
Station 19+75 to 38+20
218
217
tAs-Built Thaweg
216
-M-Left Top of Bank
215
- - - (Right Top of Bank
214
.... .................. .
213
......
.. .... ............ ............ ................ .................. ..... ._....... ..... _.... _.._._..... _.....
c212
0
m 211
-
>
m
W 210
209
- -
208
-
207
206
205
-
204
1975 2075 2175 2275 2375 2475 2575 2675 2775 2875 2975 3075 3175 3275 3375 3475 3575 3675 3775
Station

Brown Creek Tributaries - UT4 Reach 3
Station 28+92 to 31+42
212
210
___m4
-- -----------------------------------------------------
208
----------- --- --------
c
;0
AAs -Built Thalweg
m 206
y
--w- Left Top of Bank
W
Right Top of Bank
204
202
--- ---------
----200
200
2890 2940 2990 3040 3090
Station

Brown Creek Tributaries - UT4 Reach 4
Station 10+00 to 20+50
219
218
_ _._ -._.
_.._. _.._. _._. _._. _._
AAs -Built Thalweg
217
Right Top of Bank
216
-_ -
215....
..... ... _....... .......... _............ .......... _............
.......... .... .......... ... . _
1 Left Top of Bank
214-
213
...........
212
-
- - -
o
211
-- ..._ _..
_.. _. .
w
>
210
- -
w
209
---------- -- -
-
208
207
--
206
-
205
-
204
203
1000 1100
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
Station

Brown Creek Tributaries - UT4 Reach R5
Station 10+00 to 30+21
228
226
---_
—4---As-Built Thalweg
f Left Top of Bank
224
— -- - —
Right Top of Bank
222
----------- -- ---------
----- ---------------- --- ----------- ------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------- ---------
220
—
—
0
218
— -----
ftA
-- —------------------------------------
-- — --
W216
_......
---- ----
--------------- --------
214
-
--- -- -- ------- -- ----- -----------
----
212
212
_ _.._. __-------------------------
------------------------------
210
208
1000
1500 2000 2500
3000
Station

Permanent Cross-section 1
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 15.3 14.93 1.02 1.81 14.58 1 3.9 223.41 223.42
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 1, Cross-section 1
227
226
r 225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
c
0
224
m
LU-------------------
223
�— As -built
222
- o--- Bankfull
---0-- Floodprone
221
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 2
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 13.4 15.43 0.87 2.16 17.74 1 3 219.62 219.63
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 1, Cross-section 2
223
222
-----------------------------------------------------------------o
;. 221
0
R 220
-------------------w
219
—�— As -built
218
--o--- Bankfull
---0 - Floodprone
217
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 3
(As -Built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature
Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C 14.1 13.95 1.01 1.81 13.83 1 6.4 219.05 219.05
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 1, Cross-section 3
222
221
a -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;. 220
W
O
219
------------------
My��
w
U
218
—+— As -built
217
--0-- Bankfull
---0-- Floodprone
216
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 4
(As -Built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature
Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C 19 15.94 1.19 1.72 13.34 1 6 212.02 212.03
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 2, Cross-section 4
216
215
214
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
$ 213
c
0
co 212
-----------------
>
_m
U' 211
210
As -built
--o-- Bankfull
209
--o-- Floodprone
208
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 31.2 22.4 1.39 3.39 16.1 1 3.3 211.62 211.63
216
215
214
$ 213
c
0
ca 212
_m
U' 211
210
209
208
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 2, Cross-section 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
--�—As-built
o- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 6
(As -built Data - Collected August 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Gc 36.8 15.35 2.4 3.19 6.4 1.7 1.4 205.59 207.68
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 3, Cross-section 6
215
213
211
0 209
R
207
LU
205
-------------------
�— As -built
203
---e - Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
201
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 7
(As -built Data - Collected August 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
R
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature
Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
E 23.93 15.35 1.56 2.33 9.8 1 4.4 220.03 220.04
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 5, Cross-section 7
224
-
223
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
222
$ 221
c
0
m 220
----------------------
-----------------------
U'
w 219
218
As -built
217
--o-- Bankfull
--o-- Floodprone
216
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 8
(As -built Data - Collected August 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
32.82
16.99
1.93
3.15
8.8
1
4.2
216.87
216.88
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 5, Cross-section 8
221
220
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
219
218
c
0
M 217
>
m
-------------------------
UJ 216
215
—+— As -built
214
--o - Bankfull
--o - Floodprone
213
100 110
120 130 140 150
160 170 180
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 9
(As -built Data - Collected August 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
9.5
J 1.58
0.82
1.14
14.05
1
6.5
213
213.01
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 4, Cross-section 9
216
215
r214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
c
213
---------------
m
w
212
�— As -built
211
0 - Bankfull
-- o - Floodprone
210
100 110
120 130 140 150 160
170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 10
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
24.8
25.93
1 0.96
2.09
27.12
1
3.1
212.23
212.24
Brown Creek Tributaries
UT4 Reach 4, Cross-section 10
215
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
214
r
213
c
0
m
212
LU
211
As -built
210
- o - Bankfull
- o - Floodprone
209
100 110
120 130 140 150 160
170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 11
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
TS Of 5:77TIC=.
-_
Max BKF
x
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Looking at the Left Bank
C
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
30.4
18.92
1.61
2.47
11.77
1
3.8
216.13
216.14
Brown Creek Tributaries
Hurricane Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 11
221
220
219
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
218
r
217
M 216
---------------------- -
w 215
214
213
—AAs -built
- o-- Bankfull
212
- o--- Floodprone
211
100 110
120 130 140 150 160
170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 12
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
63.1
34.27
1.84
4.09
18.6
1
2.3
216.18
216.18
Brown Creek Tributaries
Hurricane Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 12
221
220
219
218
Y
217
216
4
- - ---------------------------------------
w 215
214
—+— As -built
213
o - Bankfull
212
---e--- Floodprone
211
100 110
120 130 140 150 160
170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 13
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
t nA
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
1
Looking at the Left Bank
BH Ratio
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Pool
51.5
29.02
1 1.77
2.92
16.36
1
2.8
211.76
211.76
Brown Creek Tributaries
Hurricane Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 13
215
----------------o
214
213
c 212
--------------------------------------
Y
as 211
LU
210
As -built
209
-- Bankfull
- o - Floodprone
208
100 110
120 130 140 150 160
170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 14
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
31.6
22.54
1.4 2.26 16.08 1
3.1
211.71
211.72
Brown Creek Tributaries
Hurricane Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 14
215
214
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
213
c 212
....___.,------ ..___..------
.0
M
as 211
LU
210
As -built
209
-- Bankfull
- o - Floodprone
208
100 110
120 130 140 150 160
170 180 190
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 15
(As -built Data - Collected July 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
4.74
5.86
0.81
1.28
7.3
2.3
1.6
212.16
213.78
Brown Creek Tributaries
Hurricane Creek Reach 3, Cross-section 15
218
217
216
215
c
214
-------------
w 213
212
As -built
211
---e - Bankfull
---e - Floodprone
210
100 110
120 130 140 150
160 170 180
Station (ft)

Pebble Count; As -built Survey
Brown Creek Tribs Mitigation Project, DMS# 95351
SITE OR PROJECT:
REACH/LOCATION
FEATURE:
DATE:
Brown Creek Tribs
Reach R2 (Station 3
Rock Riffle
2 -Jul -15
Creek
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
AB 2015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
5
4%
4%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063 -.125
4%
0.125
Fine .125 - .25 4%
0.25
Medium .25 -.50 6 5% 9%
0.50
Coarse .50 - 1.0 9%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 9%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
L 50%
9%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 9%
4.0
Gravel
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
10%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 3 2% 12%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 12%
11.0
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 8 7% 19%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 2 2% 20%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 3 2% 23%
32
Very Coarse 32-45 31 25% 48%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
27
22%
70%
64
Small
64-90
19
16%
86%
90
Small 90-128 11 9% 95%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
4
3%
98%
180
Large 180-256 98%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
2
2%
100%
362
Small 362-512 100%
512
Medium 512- 1024 100%
1024
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 122 100%
Largest particle= 256
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 13.6 D84 = 86.0
D35 = 37.6 D95 = 127.6
D50 = 46.2 D100 = 1 256 - 362
Brown Creek Tribs (Hurricane Creek)
Reach R2 Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
SAB 2015
80%
70%
60%
m
i 50%
CD
a
40%
c`o 30%
E 20%
U 10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Brown Creek Tribs (Hurricane Creek)
Reach R2 Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB 2015
80%
70%
60%
C
W
L 50%
d
N 40%
30%
V
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Pebble Count; As -built Survey
Brown Creek Tribs Mitigation Project, DMS# 95351
SITE OR PROJECT:
REACH/LOCATION
FEATURE:
DATE:
Brown Creek Tribs (UT
Reach R4b (Station 19+
Rock Riffle
2 -Jul -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
AB 2015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
6
6%
6%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063 -.125
6%
0.125
Fine .125 - .25 6%
0.25
Medium .25 -.50 4 4% 10%
0.50
Coarse .50 - 1.0 10%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 10%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
10%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 10%
4.0
Gravel
Fine
4.0-5.6
10%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 10%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 2 2% 13%
11.0
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 2 2% 15%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 4 4% 19%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 9 9% 28%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
5
5%
33%
45
30%
Very Coarse
45-64
3
3%
36%
64
Small
64-90
11
11%
48%
90
Small
90-128
17
18%
66%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
25
26%
92%
180
Large 180-256 8 8% 100%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small 362-512 100%
512
Medium 512- 1024 100%
1024
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 96 100%
Largest particle= 256
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 11.1 D84 = 60.1
D35 = 23.8 D95 = 126.3
D50 = 36.6 D100 = 180-2561
Brown Creek Tribs (UT4)
Reach R4b Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% SAB 2015
80%
70%
60%
d
i 50%
d
a
y 40%
0 30%
E 20%
U 10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Brown Creek Tribs (UT4)
Reach R4b Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB 2015
80%
70%
i
60%
a
50%
rn
rn
40%
V
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Summary Data
(Tables 7 and 8)

Table 7. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Botanical NameCommon
Name
% Planted by Species
Total Number of Stems
Riparian Buffer Plantings
Betula nigra
river birch
9.0
1775
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
9.0
1775
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
6.0
1183
Nyssa sylvatica
black gum
6.0
1183
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
9.0
1775
Quercus alba
white oak
6.0
1183
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
9.0
1775
Quercus phellos
willow oak
6.0
1183
Riparian Buffer Plantings - Understory
Alnus serrulata
ironwood
5.0
986
Asimina triloba
paw paw
5.0
986
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
5.0
986
Diospyros virginiana
persimmon
5.0
986
Hamamelis virginiana
witch hazel
5.0
986
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire
5.0
986
Lindera benzoin
spicebush
5.0
986
Viburnum dentatum
arrowwood viburnum
5.0
986
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
10%
NA
Salix nigra
black willow
10%
NA
Salix sericea
silky willow
40%
NA
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
40%
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 9535 1)

Table S. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95351
Botanical Name
Common Name
Hurricane CreekVe etation Plots
1 2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
UT4 Ve etation Plots
10 11 12
13
14
15
16
Tree Species
Betula nigra river birch
8
6
1
3
2
6
3
10
5
5
5
2
1
5
2
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
3
5
6
1
4
7
2
5
3
3
2
1
3
4
Liriodendron tuli Jera tulip poplar
I
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvadca black gum
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
4
2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
4
4
3
6
3
1
1
Quercus alba white oak
1
2
2
1
3
2
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
Quercus michauxii chestnut oak
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
1,wamp
Quercus nigra water oak
1
Quercus phellos 1willow oak
I I
I
I 1
3
2
2
1
2
4
Shrub Species
Alnus serrulata ironwood
2
1
2
1
Asimina triloba paw paw
1
I
1
Car inns carohniona ironwood
1
3
3
2
1
1
Cornus ammonium silkly dogwod
1
Diospyros virginiana persimmon
4
2
3
1
1
2
Hamamelis virginiana witch hazel
2
3
Itea virginicaVirginia sweets ire
1
Lindera benzoin spicebush
11
1
1
Viburnum dentatum I arrowwood viburnum
I
1
1
4
3
2
2
1
3
2
Stems/plot
16
17
15
23
19
20
l8
17
20
22
18
19
15
20
20
20
Stems/acre
648
688
607
931
769
809
728
688
1 809
890
728
769 1
607 1
809
809
809
Average Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As -Built (Baseline Data)
756
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWN CREEK TRIBUTARIES RESTORATION PROSECT (DMS PROSECT NO. 95351)

APPENDIX D
As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings

W
W
U
okk
00
U
O
C
Pen flea
1 Refuge J
Rnfugo� j
1'
.,n f 41 ilx,-iY1
VICINITY MAP
USACE ID: SAW -2012-01108
NCDWR # 14-0345
PCN APPROVED ON: 08122/14
REAC
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ANSON COUNTY
LOCATION: APPROX. 4 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE TOWN OF ANSONVILLE.
TYPE OF WORK: A5 -BUILT SURVEY / RECORD DRAWINGS
GRAPHIC SCALE
INDEX OF SHEFTS
I.
TTFLP SHEiT
-A
STREAM CONVENTK3NAL SYMBOLS
PM6jE T ENGINEER
GENERAL NOTES
1394 FEET
STANDARD SPKMCATIONS
AS—BUILT HC REACH 3 LENGTH =
VEL'ETAT70N SELECTION
1-8
- NC1L7T CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 - 2-E.....
DETAILS
3-31,
� ASrBUILT SURVEY PLAN
4 - 41.....
RE•CURD DRAWING PIM'
5.9
AS-BUILVRECORD DRAWING PROFILE
USACE ID: SAW -2012-01108
NCDWR # 14-0345
PCN APPROVED ON: 08122/14
REAC
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ANSON COUNTY
LOCATION: APPROX. 4 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE TOWN OF ANSONVILLE.
TYPE OF WORK: A5 -BUILT SURVEY / RECORD DRAWINGS
GRAPHIC SCALE
DESIGN .SUMMARY
ell 'UN
INTERN AT 10 N A Lu`.�ry..F.l u
AS—BUILT HC REACH 1 LENGTH =
2043 FEET
PM6jE T ENGINEER
AS—BUILT HC REACH 2 LENGTH =
1394 FEET
LETTINC, DATE,
AS—BUILT HC REACH 3 LENGTH =
564 FEET
AS -BUILT UT4 - REACH 1A LENGTH =
518 FEET
zo 110 o 20 ao
AS -BUILT UT4 - REACH 113 LENGTH =
858 FEET
j
AS --BUILT UT4 - REACH 2 LENGTH e
1828 FEET
PLANS
AS -BUILT UT4 - REACH 3 LENGTH =
250 FEET
AS -BUILT UT4 - REACH 4A LENGTH =
396 FEET
AS -BUILT UT4 - REACH 4B LENGTH =
1444 FEET
AS -BUILT UT4 - REACH 5A LENGTH =
391 FEET
AS -BUILT UT4 - REACH 5B LENGTH =
1582 FEET
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
NCDEQ
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
CONTACT.
_HA_RRY TSOMIDES
PROJECT ANNAGER
PPx Rn[RN FRMNCT RRPRRB.Ne Na I--,tv Y1L'L'T1
Na�11� %wim --
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
Mich,bso rPanEnp4an% yIne.
Ffd] pmcy Bulli W6
c,�. rwRm cwaalru»rre
ell 'UN
INTERN AT 10 N A Lu`.�ry..F.l u
JACOB M. BYERS, PE
PM6jE T ENGINEER
SEPTEMBER 2014
SCOTT KING, LSS, PWS
LETTINC, DATE,
PROJECT MANAGER
- gr64pFxssrq��,gy.,f
SEAL -
LJ 175
NCDMS ID NO. 95351'
PROJECT ENGINEER
g SEAL _
034241 _

STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYIMBOILS
5t"17l^IRCEDES SHEET I -B
00
ROCK J -HOOK
TF
ROCK VANE
Cwt
OUTLET PROTECTION
—cam—
ROCK CROSS VANE
----------
DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE
_ _
Fraxmus arts Neruea
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK
am r
ROOT WAD
1,775
LOG J -HOOK
LOG VANE
U010
LOG WEIR
TF
LOG CROSS VANE
V
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
—cam—
BOULDER CLUSTER
----------
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
_ _
Fraxmus arts Neruea
LOG ROLLER
am r
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
1,775
FOOT BRIDGE
L
F::' TEMPORARY
GRADE CONTROL. LOG JAM
FACW
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
4 LOG STEP POOL
-1
SAFETY FENCE
TF
TAPE FENCE
FP
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
—cam—
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
----------
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
_ _
Fraxmus arts Neruea
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
9%
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
1,775
FOOT BRIDGE
L
F::' TEMPORARY
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
FACW
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
LLOW=fu�_
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
%I
TREE REMOVAL
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
The following table lists the bare root vegetation selection for the project site. Total planting area is approximately 29 acres and will vary based on areas
denuded during construction. Species shall be planted at density of 880 stems per acre and a minlmum of 50 feel from the stream banks to the
revegetalion limits.. Exact placement of species will be determined prior to site planting and based an apparent walness of planting locations and per etre
vegetation specialist Refer to the Revegetabon Plan Sheets 8 Construction Specifications for vegetation planting locations and riparian buffer
fMa el![± ntG
Rt arian13ufer-Treas iWxWs cf
TREE PROTECTION
MARCH 2009 (REV 2013)
DITCH PLUG
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
CHANNEL FILL
1,7
BRUSH MATTRESS
Wrttland Tolerance
GEOLIFT
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
The following table lists the bare root vegetation selection for the project site. Total planting area is approximately 29 acres and will vary based on areas
denuded during construction. Species shall be planted at density of 880 stems per acre and a minlmum of 50 feel from the stream banks to the
revegetalion limits.. Exact placement of species will be determined prior to site planting and based an apparent walness of planting locations and per etre
vegetation specialist Refer to the Revegetabon Plan Sheets 8 Construction Specifications for vegetation planting locations and riparian buffer
fMa el![± ntG
Rt arian13ufer-Treas iWxWs cf
-681)eta mslacre
MARCH 2009 (REV 2013)
6.05
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
SclentffPc Name
Common Name
%Planted By Species
Wrttland Tolerance
Approx. Number of Stones
_ _
Fraxmus arts Neruea
Green Ash
9%
FACW
1,775
Bafula n'
River Birch
9%
FACW
1,775
LLOW=fu�_
Tutip Poplar
6%
FAC
1,163
Quercus phofts
Willow Oak
6%
FACW-
1,183
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut oak
9%
_
FACW-
1,T75
N ssa s lvaFce
Black Gum
6%
FAC
1.183
_ _
Riatenus occidenra&s
American 5 amore
_
9%
FACW-
1.775
Quercus alba
While Oak
6%
FACU 1
1.183
7"psacum dac L falces
Sub -total
60%
0.75
11,832
Riparian Buffer . Understo (9'x8' spacing - 680 stemalacre
Indian rass
1D%
D.75
Scientific Name
Comincin Name
Total
10016
1.6.4
D—Pyros Virg—
Persimmon
5%
FAC
9166
Amus samdefa
Tag aider
5%
FACW
986
[mdera benzoin
S - ebush
5%
FACW
986
Fiamameks vorgfnrana
Witch hazel
5%
FAC-
986
Murnum derrfolum
Prrowwood Viburnum
5%
FAC
986
lies vir inuca
Virginia sweets pire
5%
FACW+
986
Ca rtes carofrmana
American Hornbeam
5%
FAC
986
Asimma iritaba
Paw
5%
FAC
985
Sub -total
40%
7,889
i otal tsare-roors
Ia,rzu
-GENERAL HT1,0'T' [�, )
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS (3'x Z x 2'), LOGS AND ROOTWADS.
2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN SUMMER 2014.
4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE -CALL" BEFORE
EXCAVATION STARTS. (1-500-1632-4949)
S. ENGINEER WILL FLAG SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
6. ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT OR LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
Common Name
MARCH 2009 (REV 2013)
6.05
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
6.06
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.24
RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
6.60
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.62
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
6.63
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
:\`110N SELECTION
Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures for the project site shall be planted throughout the tloWplain and riparian buffer
r3nrm­ — ­.— —.1 M inn.-- }omnry colo — — in th. --i— --j—
Scientific Name
Common Name
% Planted
fi S atlas
Total lbs
per Acre
Watland Tolerance
Andr n arardri
Bi blue stem
10%
1.50
FAC
D+chanlhelium ciandeslinum
Deer TOCRUe
15%
1.50
FACW
Carex crinala
Fri ed sed
10%
_
2.25
FACW+
Chasmanthium iatoUjum
River oats
5%
1.50
FACU
Elymus vi i•us
W6Z will rye
15%
1.50
FAC
Juncus efYusus
Soft rush
5%
2-25
FACW+
Panicum vi alum
ISwitchgrass
1 10% 1
1.50
I FAC+
Pal um pens&Micurn
Pennsylvania Smartweed
5%
0.75
FACW
Schaaclt i rum scapanum
Little blue stem
10%
0.75
MU
7"psacum dac L falces
Easter ams rass
5%
0.75
FAC+
sor0mirum nulans
Indian rass
1D%
D.75
FACU
Total
10016
1.6.4
Lave staking will be applied to all restored streambanks foplrning the details, in this plan set and according
to the construction specrficafigns.
Scientific Name
Common Name
% Planted By
species
Wedand Tolerance
Campus amomum
Silky D20ood
1D%
FACW+
Mix ni ra
Black willow
1D%
OBL
Salix soncoa
Sit Willow
40%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
$096
FACW-
The following table lists temporary seed mix for the project site. All disturbed areas wrlf be
stabilized using mulch and temporary seed as defined in the construction specifications
Planting dates Species Name Rate ilhslacrej
Seplember to March Annual Rye Grain (Cool Season) 130
April to August Browntop Mllet (Warr Season) 40

'S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
BOUNDARITS AND PROPERTY -
State Line -
County Line -
Township Line - -
City Line
Reservation Line
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin
Property Corner
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number 23
Existing Fence Line
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
Proposed Chain Link Fence
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
Existing Wetland Boundary
Proposed Wetland Boundary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundory
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE
Gas Pump Vent or WG Tank Cap
Sign
Well
Small Mine
Foundation
1' ' '
css rxA,vsrrrrrAYMN
Area Outline
urEroDsr js
Switch
Cemetery
RR Abandoned
Building
RR Dismantled
illw
School
m
Church
Dom
-
HYDROLOGY -
Stream or Body of Water -
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir - -
Jurisdictional Stream is
Buffer Zone 1 - sz
Buffer Zone 2 c:
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream -
Spring -
Wetlnnd
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch= -=r
False Sump - <>
STATE OF NORTH'[ CAROLINA,
'[NISI[ 1 [ -'.[ (-'rHWA ` S
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
RAILROADS.•
Standard Gouge
1' ' '
css rxA,vsrrrrrAYMN
RR Signai Milepost
urEroDsr js
Switch
SO H
RR Abandoned
- - - -
RR Dismantled
illw
RIGHT OF WA Y.-
m
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker
_.
Existing Right of Way Line
- - -
Proposed Right of Way Line - -
AATUR
Proposed Right of Way Line with
E.0.1.
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Line with
rn
Concrete or Granite MarkerJ`
Existing Control of Access
Proposed Control of Access
—
Existing Easement Line - -
---- -
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement-
€
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement
TD€
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement --
POE
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement -
Puy
Proposed Temporary Utility Easement
Tu€
Proposed Permanent Eosement with
- - - -
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
ROADS AND REL,4TED FEATURES:
Existing Edge of Pavement
Recorded U•'G Fiber Optics Cable
Existing Curb
-----
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
- - - C - - -
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
- - -
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
'•
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
T r T r
Existing Cable Guiderail
n n
Proposed Cable Guiderail
n n n n
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
VEGETATION. -
Single Tree
4a�
Single Shrub -
a
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard
0 0 0 4
Vineyard
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert - 0
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall
MINOR:
Head and End Wall—`�
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge - - >----------C
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or IB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES:
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
•
Proposed Power Pale
[�
Existing Joint Use Pole
illw
Proposed Joint Use Pole
m
Power Manhole -
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer
F1
U/G Power Cable Hand Hole
AATUR
H -Frame Pole
E.0.1.
Recorded U/G Power Line
Designated U/G Power Line (S.U.E.') ----"----
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pale
Proposed Telephone Pole
-0-
Telephone Manhole
U
Telephone Booth
0
Telephone Pedestal
Telephone Cell Tower
U'G Telephone Cable Hand Hole'
Recorded WG Telephone Cable
-
Designated WG Telephone Cable (S.U.E,`)- ---
- - - -
Recorded U/G Telephone Conduit
Designated UVG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.')----'�--
-
Recorded U•'G Fiber Optics Cable
Designated U/G UG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.`)
WATER:
Water Manhole -
Water Meter --
Water Valve
Water Hydrant -
Recorded LUG Water Line
Designated L/G Water Line (S.U.E.') - - -^-- -
Above Ground Water Line
TV:
TV Satellite Dish
TV Pedestal
TV Tower i
UG TV Coble Hand Hole 0
Recorded LUG TV Cable
Designated WG TV Coble (S.U.E.') --TM--
Recorded UG Fiber Optic Cable - "^-
Designated UG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.')
GAS:
Gas Valve - (5
Gas Meter -
Recorded U✓G Gas Line -
Designoted UG Gas Line (S. U.E.'j- - ----
Above Ground Gas Line A/G G -
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole is
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout (+
U/G Sanitary Sewer Line ss
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer AIG S.,PtWy so -or
Recorded SS Forced Main Line u
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U. E.`)
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
Utility Pole with Base —
p
Utility Located Object - - -
G
Utility Traffic Signal Box —IM
Utility Unknown LUG Line
m
U'G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
AIG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
WG Test Hole (S.U.E.`)
m
Abandoned According to Utility Records --
AATUR
End of Information
E.0.1.

ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WTHOUT TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON-SITE
- COIR FIBER MATTING �O
ISEE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHEET ESC -51 ty
FLOOD PLAIN - - BERM (0.5 -MAX, HT.) BERM(S) TOP OF BANK \,
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND \
LIMITS OF ROOT WADS. \
i )r � _BANKFULL STAGE
IS THE STS THICKNESS
IS BELOW STREAM BED
10kA5 FEET LONG THALWEG
s10'01AMETER CROSS SECTION VIEW
COVER LOG -
(6'-W DIA)
j
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS i
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE AVAILABLE ON-SITE
rF
TRANSPLANTS
ISEE SHEET 2-D) _TRANSPLANTS NOT TO
FLOOD PLAIN EXTEND BEYOND TRUNK TOP OF BANK -,
OF ROOT WADS
�fAR*Iliil.�:.
2�1 R 113 THE TRUNK THICKNESS
'IS BELOW STREAM BED
1 0-1 5 FEET LONG CROSS SECTION VIEW
>10" DIAMETER ----
COVER LOG (6'- &' DLA.) -
YAW
DM -
?r 'Y
RIFFLE
I-----
K12
D#Wx
S�
POOL
N
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL VNLL BE ROUNDED
AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
2. POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS ONLY.
PLAN VIEW
ER LOG [6- - 9- DIA.)
WAD
NOT
1 INSTALLATION USING THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A
TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD -
ONE -THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL
BASE FLOW CONOMONS OR CHANNEL BOTTOM.
2, THE NUMBER OF ROOTWADS ESTIMATED MAY VARY DEPENDING ON
THE ROOTMASS SIZE. IN GENERAL. ROOTWADS SHOULD PROTECT THE
OUTER MEANDER BEND AS SHOWN. SEE PLANS FOR APPROXIMATE
STATION AND LOCATION.
3. INSTALL COVER LOGS BETWEEN ROOTWADS TO PROVIDE HABITAT
ONLY WHEN AVAILABLE FROM ONSITE HARVESTING,
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
41QIV!9N9jU
1. GENERALLY LOG WEIRS, ROOT WADS, LOG VANES AND
COIR FIBER MATTING WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION
AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN
2. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR CHANGES TO STRUCTURE
LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
ROOT WADS
COVER LOGS -
GRADE CONTROL
LOG J -HOOK VANE
(SEE SHEET 2-D) 1
,lP•-' r
1 I
NOTES",
1. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL RESTORED
MEAMBANKS EXCEPT ON POINT BARS.
2. IF ROOT WADS DO NOT COVER ENTIRE SLOPE ON OUTSIDE
OF MEANDER BENDS, COIR FIBER MATTING IS NEEDED.
3, ROOT WADS SHALL BE ANGLED APPROXIMATELY 90'
TOWARDS THE STREAMBANK
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
JSEF SHEET 2-D)
TOP OF BANK
TO IP QF TERRACE
4?'
I-IIARIES NAkI VARIES� h "_
T ti
Ar OJiJaz
Z�
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
TOP OF TERRACE
�VARIES Woks +VARIESit /
'a D=MOrt
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
HURRICANE
CREEK
UT4
REACH
1
REACH
2
REACH
3 REACH
1 REACH21 REACH3
POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL_
16.0 16.5 240 15.8 21.0
REACH 4 REACH
5
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL RIFFLE
RIFFLE: POOL RIFFLE
PC106
19.1
9S0
90.1
27.0
R.7
13-0 11A
120 16.9 13.8
VIM
1.9
3.0
1.9
9.2
1;D
2.0 1.1
2A 1.6 1.0 1.7 3.7
1.1 22 1.5
2.4
19.0
SSS
1.
13.1
120
12.1 13.0
11.2 13.0 118 14,0 13.3
110 11t 12tl
12.5
960A&.8
DIA
53.1
6,9
tA0 140
20.2 21.0 A2.& 260 55.1
T1.0 18.5 7&.0
I
25.9
11_a
6S
19A
62
5.3
1.D 7.7
1.6 193 4.5 13-0 S.0
T.4 1.7 8.0
3.6
LOG WEIR
BAKER PROJECT" REFERENCE NO. I SHEET NO
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
i
� nears.
-
�: atk55ipy yrs i -
n4' SEAL •,r ^ APPROVED 8Y
039201 d i
"'•. �''NCIu�F �yaT � rG .6
rr aCauu
DATE:
MI h 1 ,ker €npleee.1. Inc
_ BxG aq 11t. - r `w'
e0.
- • c� kOKTM ci�aoilrw:ta+e
� B 9 .sage
I N T E R N A T I D NAL,..... .,
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
Wiry
\\ Q W
\ � u
� f
rr
I
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE --
(SEE SHEET 2-0)
WIDTH OF EIANKFULL MW
MAXIMUM DEPTH ID -M.)
WDTH TO DEPTH RATIO W.M l D)
EIANKFULL AREA TADO
BOTTOM WIDTH (M)
D4Au
J, 31
STEP -POOL

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET Nes
LIVE STAKING
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS !28975 1 2-,4
_ - -
PROJECT ENGINEER
VARIES VARIES
i
i
aNrtf CAR r' i
w�Zfo,4q
- LIVE STAKES (TYP.)
TOP OF STREAMBANK TOP OF --
,� STREAMBANH TOP OF STREAMBANH
SEAL % APPROVED BY
U393D1
_________ ______.
PLANTINGS •�•$✓q f';rGfNL?a'�•``'• �7 f�_
..'. - TOEDF SLOPE ; PLANT STAKES FROM TOP OF BANK
DATE
I.
TO TOE OF BANK IN A DIAMOND SHAPED
STAGGERED PATTERN
-- _
MlcnreI Boom P-ngfnnrin Inc,
---�___- BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
.-TOP OF STREAMELANK i 7. nnoa'P�m woL_ isre�
• '
uro: R1Y.14'mw
i I N T In R N A T 10 N A LiF�,°.::`�'-,
TOE OF SLOPE
NCOMS ID NO. 95351
GROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW
SOUARE CUT TOP —
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
BUDS FACING UPWARD —�
LIVE CUTTING —
MIN. 112' DIA
7.3'LENGTH
a-6' SPACINGI'll—
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
-
T T SPACING
ANGLE CUT
30.45 DEGREES
{�(NTILS;
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
1, PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFE RIPLANTING ZONE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2, ALLOW FOR &10 FEET BETV44EEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE
3. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL
-- NO LEVE STAKES
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK. DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
5, PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WOE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
ON POINT BAR
MOTE'$;
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN! WITHOUT i-ROCTING.
S. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
I STAKES PRODUCED FROM ON-SITE SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY,
7. FEEL µNpIANTSEN MOI&T SOIL.IILA OR
RSSTRAW OT PROMPTLY
2. DD NOT EWSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE -
1 STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BODS POINTI MG UPWARDS.
- 4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
5, STAKES SHOULD BE 1F2 TO 2 INCHES IM DIAMETER AND 2 TO S FT LONG.
PLAN VIEW B- STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING US OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
T. DO NOT LIVE STAKE POINT BARS ALONG MEANDER BENDS,
NOTES: TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW AND PROFILE
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK.
POOL MAX DEPTH - -
2 EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER
EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE, IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOTE
EXCAVATED IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE
AND ANOTHER. SHOULD BE SELECTED.
3 IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
IENTATED
—THALWEG
`
HEAD OF FOOL— ✓' POOL R HEAD OF RIFFLE
4!f$'4
VEGETATION IS OORPLACE
VERTICAL
4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
S. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED,
S. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
THEY TOUCH.
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMAS&. AND SOIL MATERIAL
TOP OF STRF.AMBANK..
f
4°" BANKFULL
l
LIMITS —`
CENTERLINE
PLAN VIEW
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, RDOTNIRS&. AMID SOIL MATERIAL
TOE Of BANK
--------------------- BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
BANKFULL--
STAGE
_L
FLOW
CROSS SECTION VIEWD-Max.
HEk6 OF RIFFLE (POOL) RIFFLEI
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOPMASS
HEAD OF POOL-' ROS G' RFFp;F THALWEG
! __
+
MAX DEPTH OF POOL
HEAD OF RIFFLE
e TOP OF BANK
PROFILE VIEW
TOE OF BANK
I�yr7J
1.
----}_______ - -_- M1_!1€l� j
------------------
-----------------------
1, HE POINTS SHOWN, e.g. HEAD OF RIFFLE, HEAD OF POOL AND MAX DEPTH 6F POOL
HE TARE THE CONTROL POINTS USED TO CUT THE PROFILE; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR
_
SHOULD CREATE SMOOTH TRANSITIONS BETWEEN CONTROL POINTS AS SHOWN ABOVE
2. THE DOWNSTREAM HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATLON SHOULD NOT EXCEED
THE HEAD OF POOL ELEVATION.
PLANVIEW
PLAN
THE CHANGE IN SHOULD OCCUR
3 GRADUALLY OVERT E ENTIRE ALENGTH OF THE BEND.
VIEW

OMER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO
LOG WEIR
LOG VANE
128975 1 2-B
PROJECT ENGINEER
r
LOG BURIED AT LEAST
r
/
BELOW STREAMBED
,t
i
Q41N CAAo[,ryy, I
1
i`.
BACKFILL WITH ONSITE STREAM ALLUVIUM � afF:S57pk',>�'3_ � -
$
,,,rr�,,---yyy TOP OF S7REAM@ANK
-- TRANSPLANTS OR
UNE STAKES
INVERT
ELEVATION -. �TTOM
�_ AM19DTH
(IF AVAILABLE), OTHERWISE USE A WELL 4 >r
GRADED MR OF CLASS A, CLASS @ R140 1057 STONE- SEAL I APPROVED 9Y
034401 e r
ELEVATIONFLpyy
i
kEADERLOG—'�P9rf{ O iINVERT'
STREAMBED
\ A�.
NDTH
_ S
E ��+LLTE.
APPROX.aN0TH
STR.ERIaIBED1.3
M CHANNEL WNIDTFI9ak•r
eyim••51,EI.
BACKFILL WITH ON-51TE ALLUVIUM IF AVAILABLE. kEADER LDG
1 4 W 1 OTHERWISE, USE A WVELL GRADED'MIX, OF CLASS
657
~
FILTER FABRICSCOUR
j
IIF RQUIREEDj — I N T E R N A T 1 O N A LPOOL
�✓ A, CLASS B, AND STONEFILTER
� f�-LQG WEIR S -. FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
� '�,1
rEXCAVATEi
1,1
FABRIC5' MINIMUM NGDMS ilD NO. 9,5351
J Ls 7R(,
(SEE SPECS.) -
c _ FOOTER LOG S ..' )SEE SPECS)'
__ _ _ -________-__I_____ _
POOL
A'
`�
SECTION A -A'
SECTION A,A'
fff
O fff
+
PLRN VIEW
LOG BURIED
IN STREAMBANK
ROOTWAD
AT LEAST 5'
PLAN VIEW
TOP OF STREAMBANK
TRANSPLANTS OR
LIVE STAKES
FLOW
INVERT ELEVATION -loo,
INVERT �,l, NOTES:'
ELEVATION 1` 'V 1 1 LOGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
HARDWOOD. AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
��
2 LOGS s24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG
HEADER LOG
r
-' FOOTER LOG
FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG.
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOG
HEADER LOG -_-
FOOTER LOG ATA MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
"
4. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATLEY 30% OF THE CHANNEL BOTTOM
PROFILE VIEW
WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOM TO THE INVERT ELEVATION.. NOTCH SHALL NOT EXCEED
31NCHES IN DEPTH
NOTES:
CROSS SECTION VIEW S. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
1- LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10' IN DIAMETER, RELA7NELY STRAIGHT. HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED,
6. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK.
2- SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. ROOTWADS SHOULD HE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND'PUICW SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
INTO THE
BANK. SEE ROOTVIRD DETAIL
4 FILTER
FABRIC SHOULD BE NAJLED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
PERMANENT ROAD CULVERT CROSSING
_ -----�
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
STEEL GATES
NOT TO SCALE
VAR4ES 6- THICK
COMPACTED CLASS A STONE
FILL MATERIAL
I 1
I L
v V �J
ABC STONE 4 INCHES THICK (TYP.)
OPTIONAL FLOODPLAIN CULVERT CLASS @ ,/ - �. CLASS @
(SEE PLANS FOR TYPE & SIZE) --. STONE'' -STONE
@URY CULVERT j
Culvert Depth u1 RegWrod FIJI INVERT 0.4'
Tvw Omer Cu1uNt(FT) STREAM CULVERT($)
- - - ISEE PLANS FOR TYPE $ SIZE)
STREAM 15
1 FT MAX,STONE
BERM BERM
i t f - OLA$$ B STONE
2 -, n INCHES THICK I?YP.1 „_,., �\_ (1 2
-
4
LASS B
S'ANO 1 6'
4. �,� _ _{SEE PL+aNS FOR SPECIFIC LENG lit
_ s
J
NOTES: FLOOD PLAIN 1.5
? w
PROFILE VIEW ALONG ROAD
H
1. INSTALL PIPE CULVERT IN ACCORDANCENTH DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS,
2- INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING FOR EROSION CONTROL ALONG FILL SLOPES
I --
- .. rnf / ,/.. I:/n !r./ './.. , ,/A. ✓. /' f -!i lir.l�.r; f.1rMR ln/ /n f J n /T f,
I
I
STEEL FRAME GATE
FILTER FABRIC
r
L' tl
'n' THICK
C LASSA
CLASS B STONE
STONE- CLASS8
STONE
NOTES:
2 2
1.. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
t - 1
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ONSITE
BEFORE WORK BEGINS,
-
3, MINIMIZE CLEARING AMC EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS.
_-_____________________________.._-___-_-
DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM, COMPLETE ONE SLOE
NOTES.
I
BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE-
4, INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE 7O THE FLGLN.
1. POST HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL HE THE SAME AS REQUIRED FOR THE ADJACENT FENCE
` -
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A 4:1 SLOPE- TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL
2. CONSTRUCT AN END OR STRESS PANEL AS REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFICATION, ON EACH SIDE OF GATE
STREAMaWK ONTO SIDE SLOPES.
5. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO TRAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION
3, HINGES AND LOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SPECIFIED BY GATE MANUFACTURER
CULVERTROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
STREAMBED
7. A STABILIZED PAO OF CLASS B STONE, 1 FOOT THICK LINED
WITH FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE SHALL BE USED OVER
CROSS
APPRQ,ILIMATLEY
BERM AND AADDED
4INCHES
,SECTION
NOTES :
TOOTOP LAYERSTONE
THICKHE
8. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE
1. TYPICAL SECTION APPLIES TO U74 REACH I AT APPROXIMATE
THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
STATION 16*30 AND HC REACH 3. STATION 10+00.
B. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
Z CULVERTS ARE TO BE EVENLY SPACED MINIMUM OF 24' APART
3 MINIMUM OF 18" COVER FOR ALL PIPES

BAKER PROJECT REF€R€NCE NO. SHEET NO
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
128975 1 2-c
FROIECT ENGINEER
i
A
�rT
O HEADER LOG
- HEADER LOST PRIMARY
A �i
gam'--�_
LOGS
3 t LARp�.�yy�
�;� ?O Qt4551pH,1 T y i
� fr
® BEGIN
- INVERT y
LNTH
ONSITE LL `\. ��_ .-•
pt OW
FILTER FABRIC-°�.'�CO
M b 0,1 -0.3'
` SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SEAL r I APPROVED 8Y.
� 039281
r 4 f'YGINEF :��t'�y
WC-+� �l L� �•s.
ELEVATION' ■
(TYPICAL 1
DATE:
(�
�✓
IIBR�
HEAdEPoLOG i
H=�B.g1.8.3'
aRU - {�
O.1W.3' } RRChpl Bekn Enpinee'rrpeyy Me.
11 t H-FM
7 p - • - @WO Nyrnty ia+MMSwb006
_ .49 O
rT F. Rolrr�ui cnlAneu
our cc, I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
--
SANDY SOIL BACKFILL
oIc
'
ID NO, 95351
SECONDARY LOGS-_ ____ _
SECTION A - j1i
_ - PRIMARY LOGS
5' MINIMUM
:. SPACE EVERY
5' -T
','���i - .FILTER FABRIC
_
(TYPK:AL )
- HEADER LOO
-
-TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
'
I CHANNEL DIMENSIONS BANKFULL ELEVATION
SET INVERT ELEVATION BASED _
ON DESIGN STREAM PROFILE f
END
\,
INVERT
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
- _
=- ��.- -- _ _ — HEADER LOG
_
-
— FOOTER LOG
;NOTES:
k'
LOG POLE -
(DRIVE POLE INTO GROUND
1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 OR MORE IN DIAMETER RELATIVELY STRAIGHT.
HARDWOOD PREFERRED, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BINK 5 ON EACH SIDE
I SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD SEAT LEAST VIN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10" AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 2 FEET ON EACH SIDE,
TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6) PLAN VI W
! S
SNOOD MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED
6' MINIMIMI MINIMUM
BURIED INTO BURIED INTO
3. VERTICAL POSTS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1D- IN DIAMETER AND SHOULD BE DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND
BANK BANK
A MINIMUM OF 6'.
SECTION -
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
5. ROOTWADS AND COIR FIBER MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
6. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND MOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH
MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS
BEFORE. ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL BLOCK
WOVEN FIELD FENCE
= DITCH TO 8E PLUGGED
- DITCH TO BE BLOCKED
END POST BRACE POST
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG 61NCH DIAMETER BY
-��-R NEW FLOW
B FOOT LONG
- I RB WIRE BRACE WIRE
ED GAUGE WIRE BARB 4YlRE {2 STRAPS OF 3lNCHES (TTP.}
9GAUGE WIRE}
-
DITCH PLUG -
DITCH PLUG -
�
X X M�X- - X-- — X
r�
\
1 p
" GRADUAT FD IN SIZE
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
48 INCHES -x X -- x` GET'T1NG LARGER IN
`Q
SIZE TOWARD THE TOP.
PLAN VIEW
PLAN VIEW
X X x * -x
-�— --x.x.—.X.y;
UNCnMPACTEd BACKFILL
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1.5 MINIMUM
VAR =5 10 GAUGE YORE 12.5 GAUGE WIRE GROUND UNE
FINISH GRADE
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
COMPACTED BACKFILL -. 1.6 MINIMUM
ROOT WAD PLACEMENT AS
DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
_
o f \ \/
,�.r i /\/� X/ \l//\!/\,� \//�\ i i \,i INCHES
r \ \ \ \
_r-
•
FINISHGRADE
NEWSTREAMBANKSHALLBE
TREATED AS SPECIFIED IN PLANS
DITCH INVERT
l FLOW
NOTE:
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED
/
CHANNEL INVERT
AT A SPACING OF 10-15 FEET.
-
y
COMPACTED BACKFILL
SECTION A - A'
COMPACTED BACKFILL
NOTES.'
NOTES
1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ONSITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT
1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT
IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
IN 10 INCH UFTS.
d FILL DITCH TO TOP OF BANKS OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER,
2. FILL DITCH TO TOP OF BANKS OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER,

I
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NQ. I SHEET NO
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE 128975 I 2-D
PROJECT ENGINEER
BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION -.
, TOE
I
�
t, LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE THE SAME SPEC) S AS VE LIVE STAKES
i
� a rernrs r
�t\Y, ChR6'�,I F
1: u
TOP g ��
OF BANK --y Girl
ERASION CONTROL
MATTING
AND SHALL BE INSTALLED DURING VEGETATION DONCY
Jr�4 SEAL *�: '± I APPROVED BY:
i .
''�
2. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A DENSITY OF 20-39 CUTTINGS
G392D1
Tl
RIFFLE D•mmmc
PER LINEAR FOOT AND A MAXIMUM DIAMETER. OF 2.51NCHE5.
y
°
g B.
__..______ _____ SANKFULL
3. NUMBER OF SOIL LIFTS MAY VAR'N IN GENERAL UFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE`ryGINE4t
TOP OF BANK OR BANKFULL STAGSf'
4. GEOLIFTS Td BE INSTALLED IN CHANNEL SECTIONS ALONGSIDE SLOPES STEEPER
�
rr°'rmrr� r DATE:
-EROSION GDNTROL MATTING SHOULD
BE
L REPLACED BENEATH ROCKS
LOPES.
THAN 2:1 AIJDIdR ADJACENT TO HILL SLOPES-
I
TOE
exleaRFI asks, EnRl ed Inc.
+n.
WELL GRADED MIX OF
_P11.11
RU curtaiiM Jr5+e�
- -.�
CLASS A, CLASS B. AND #57 STONE
SNI THIGKNESS
WELL GRADED MIX
STAKE TOP LAYER 4' DEEP TYP
( } TAP
OF MATTING INS' TRENCH
w. 9'P'atu
OF BANK 1 BAN STAGF. 9"11 y
INTERN AT 10 NAL' -"-,-
[.
IV NOM. iHICIC4ESS OF
CLASS A CLASS B. AND #57 STONE CLASS 2 STONE
(SEE MATTING OETAIW �
r
NCbM5 ID NO. 45351
SECTION B - s'}
I
ERASION CONTROL MATTING
C
S
i
ENCOMPASSES UFT
FLOODPLAIN
UNDISTURBED
EARTH
LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
4 LNr-
HEAD OF RIFFLE
1.9' LIFT OF
COMPACTED
.- WELL GRADED MIX OF GLASS B
f AND CLASS A STONE CAN BE
BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT -
AN SOIL L1YPJ
MI
SUBSTITUTED FOR BRUSH M
AND STATION
PLAN VIEW
1+4 OF
GLIDE
LENGTH " S NOM. THICKNESS
-SITE
r
BASEFLOW
WELL GRADED MIX
/ CLA$5 A. CLASS B. AND 457 STONE
7 FINISHED BED
/
ELEVATION "
r
I TAIL OF RIFFLE r - V4 OF RUN LENGTH
G$ ,� °,
BRUSH TOE Al-PROX. t FT
- BELOWFINISHED
a.,ryr.,4G� 4'g :•it 'il _
-
BED ELEVATION
0
POOL
CLASS 2STONE
1. UNDERCUT CHANNEL BED ELEVATION 18 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYERS OF STONE.,
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANGHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER -'
2. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH
PROFILE A - X
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
THAT THE EROSION CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS
DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
3. INSTALL SUB LAYER OF CLASS 2 STONE
4- INSTALL WELL GRADED MIX OF SPECIFIED STONE, COMPACTED TO GRADE
5. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, SMOOTH, AND CONCAVE,
VVrtW YHE ELEVATGON OF THE BED 92 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.
6, RIFFLE LENGTHS HALL VARY, SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE AND STRUCTURE TABLE FOR
NOTES:
BEGINNING AND ENDING STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS.
1. WHEN GEOLIFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER, USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
ROCK CROSS VANE
GRADE CONTROL
LOG J VANE
LOG BURIED AT LEAST
-HOOK
FLOW
Tg�
BELOW STREAMBED -
1
SACKFILL HATH A WELL GRADED MIX
OF CLASS A, CLASS B, AND 057 STONE
113 BOTTOM WIDTH
-.
- NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS
SiANEBRCKFILL G
® GRADEI`x
HEADER ROCK
STONE BACKFILL --
� BTREAMBEO - t - -_
EDGE OF CHANNEL
'
HEADER LOG -
APPROX.
j POINT -�
}�K _i'2� _ -
BOTTOM
WDTH
HEADER ROCK INVERT
SFREAMBED
i_
- - _ - - -- -
4 O --
cy
O A '.. 1� -
GEOTEXTILE FASRTC-
FOOTER ROCK
77 MINIMUM
STATION AND ELEVATION
Ei. 1
LEAVE 0 S - 0.8' GAPS IN THE HOOK(SEE
SECTION OF THE HEADER ROCK \\ A.�
NO GAPS BETWEEN FOOTER ROCKS.
-
FILTER
--FABRIC
FOOTER LOG 5' - SPECS)
SPECS)
O
TOP OF HOOK RUCKS SHOULD BE r
© -
SECTION A - A'
ABOVE BASEFLOW. _A
A'
': to
-
SECTIONA A'
.-�
VANE
STREAM BED ELEVATION -.
LTER FRBR
Fl IC
(SEE SPECS)
ARM
BANKFULL
- -
- HEADER ROCKr
r
"EXCAVATE ''I : BOULDER
_
FLOW -
7%SLAPS _
j POOL TO + �� //?•
t PROFILE I
SET INVERT ELEVATION OF HEAD
ROCK TO PROFILE ELEVATION ER
r SCOUR PdOL , •,+
0-.y, Td 4 .-� -
�X L c �-
- 05
�. f r�
��ILL
/
FOOTER ROCKS SHOULD�ELE•VATTOPJ� -
BE PLACED BELOW THE
'' f
ROOTWAO -
STONE BACKF��
STREAM BED.
`
TOP OF STREAMBANK �{3
-- FOOTER ROCK
'•A - - ROOTWAD
FLOW
51LL LBLIRIEOI SILL fBURfED
HERDER ROCK
®' VANE ANGLE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC-' __ SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
PROFILE VIEW B - B'
O l
4�
LOG BURIED
STREAM
-
29' TO 36' FOOTER ROCK -
VANE ARM
IN ATS RESAMBANK
VIEW
PLAN
FOOTER LOG
y
PLAN VIEW,
.-CROSS VANE INVERTIGRADE POINT
HEADER LOG -- F _ FOOTER ROCK
NPTE�a"
F
NOTES FOR ALL VANL.M_VCTURES..
FLAW -`� HEADER ROCK
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1(r IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED,
1. INSTALL BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS ANDRIF
/
2. BOULDERS MUST BE 3•x2' x 2'.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG_.
PROFILE VIEW
EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN
��/
4. ROCTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT SECURES THE HEADER LOG
UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.___
2. DIG TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOATER
R
INTO THE BANK SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL
A ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM
VANE THE ARM AND
/'*��'
tf
5, BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOD FOR ACHORING.
FEET
3. STARTSIDE ATA7 BANF K AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIEN
RST ANDTHENHEADER [TOP} ROCK,
`!� �t? / „n j �,.
\`. 'r /� 'f�
6. HEADER BOULDERS TO BE PLACED D.5 TO 02 APART,
7. NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SHOULD HE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
45AN F TRA . CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS. STONE BACKFILL .� ti / /�%�rf��
40 SCOUR POOL F R T I PROVE \\� `�\,?l•'- POOL
N BE PLA EDFILI �f�/�/!< �/I ��%����
S. FOOTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT 114 TO 1!3 OF THE LENGTH IS O(NAR•}STRF_AM OF THE
HEADER.
B. USE NANO PLACED GAPS SIDE AND
�% �+✓'Itf/\ �t�`/��/J�`f�'
FOOTER ROCKS. GEOTEXTILE. FABRIC -�
T. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HA5 BEEN PLACED. RLL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF
THE STRUCTURE WITH OWSITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE
FOOTER ROOK PROFILE VIEW C - C'
HEADER ROCK,
-

LOG BURIED
BELOW STR.EAM3ED -
1
LOG VALE
`I
ILL
r' I
BANKFULL
- COI R FIBER MATTING r
IEXCAVATEj
SHOUCO BE INSTALLED
d
BEFOREWELL GRADED MIX
CLASS A, B. AND 957
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
STONE BACKFILL ..
HEADER LOG i
APROX, 0
STEMBD
-�
FOOTER LOG - L MINIMUM -1.+
SECTION A - A'
NOTES.
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST IO" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED,
2. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ANCHOR LOGS.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
4. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
5. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING,
S. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL
T TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
A BEGIN LOG STEP INVERT ELEVATION AND STATION
�Iy `II Y
POOL
C L �-� ;EXCAVATO
POOL
END LOG STEP INVERT ELEVATION AND STATION
TQ_7
L
A•
PLAN VIEW
I
-- - -BACKFILL WITH A WELL GRADED MIX.
OF CLASS A, CLASS B. AND 957 STONE
g
1
PROTECT BANK USING
ROOTWADS
PROTECT BANK USING
BOULDERS
_I c'
PROFILE VIEW
TIE-IN SWALE
TB� d I TO
��f�1��jjj����//���pp g /^ DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING DRCH
0 a BANKS BEYOND BENCH LIMITS
<F
LOG AND ROCK STEP -POOL
-- BENCH LIMIT
GRADE BANKS TO 2 1 MINIMUM
AND STABILIZE WITH COIR FIBER
MATTING AND LIVE STAKES
10' LONG (MIN.) LENGTH PER
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
O's
COIR FIBER MATTING -•.
INT E
r' I
BANKFULL
- COI R FIBER MATTING r
IEXCAVATEj
SHOUCO BE INSTALLED
POOL
i
BEFOREWELL GRADED MIX
CLASS A, B. AND 957
i f
ROOTWAD
k
— LOGS BURIED IN
STREAMBANK HI
AT LEAST S'
PLAN VIEW
NOTES.
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST IO" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED,
2. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ANCHOR LOGS.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
4. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
5. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING,
S. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL
T TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
A BEGIN LOG STEP INVERT ELEVATION AND STATION
�Iy `II Y
POOL
C L �-� ;EXCAVATO
POOL
END LOG STEP INVERT ELEVATION AND STATION
TQ_7
L
A•
PLAN VIEW
I
-- - -BACKFILL WITH A WELL GRADED MIX.
OF CLASS A, CLASS B. AND 957 STONE
g
1
PROTECT BANK USING
ROOTWADS
PROTECT BANK USING
BOULDERS
_I c'
PROFILE VIEW
TIE-IN SWALE
TB� d I TO
��f�1��jjj����//���pp g /^ DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING DRCH
0 a BANKS BEYOND BENCH LIMITS
<F
LOG AND ROCK STEP -POOL
-- BENCH LIMIT
GRADE BANKS TO 2 1 MINIMUM
AND STABILIZE WITH COIR FIBER
MATTING AND LIVE STAKES
10' LONG (MIN.) LENGTH PER
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
O's
COIR FIBER MATTING -•.
INT E
BANKFULL
- COI R FIBER MATTING r
SHOUCO BE INSTALLED
12` NOM THICKNESSS OF
BEFOREWELL GRADED MIX
CLASS A, B. AND 957
STONE BACKFILL -'
CROSS-SECTION
POOL TO POOL SPACING VARIES.
---SEE STRUCTURE TABLE, LONG PRO
AND PLAN VIEW FOR APPROXIMATE
A
-------- - 4-- STATION LOCATION I ELEVATION
RIFFLE D+naEe
----------------
FILTER
- --_
FILTER FABRIC
SECTION A - A'
TOP OF BANK RIFFLE WIDTH - HEADER LOG
(INVERT ELEVATION)
1' RIFFLE L' -M. '- BASE FLOW
- FOOTER LOG
SECTION B - B'
NOTES"
BANKFULL 1. LOGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 1 Or IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD,
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.
2 SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILEDISTAPLED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL
4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE 3'X 2'X Z AND PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING -
5 LOGS SHOULD BE ANGLED 60' - 70' FROM THE STREAM BANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD NOT EXCEED 2%
6, STEP HEIGHTSIDROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED OA FT AND POOL DEPTHS NOT TO EXCEED I,9 FT
7, THE NUMBER LOG STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGIN AND ENP STATIONING DEPENDING ON
LOG DIAMETER SIZE. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE AND STRUCTURE TABLE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
THALWEG ELEVATION
OF INCOMING DITCH
B' MIN.
THALWEG ELEVATTDN
OF RESTORED CHANNEL
4
COIR FIBER MATTING—
TYPICAL PROFILE FOR SWALE
BACKFILL LITH A WELL GRADED MIX
OF CLASS A, CLASS B. AND 957 STONE
. _ A'
THALWEGP
STREAM BED
TOP OF BANK
+N POOL WIDTH -
,
------------ -- UANKFULL
--------- S7_Wk FLOW_ .
POOL
SECTION C - C"

BEGIN HC - REACH 1

NAD 83
END HC - REACH 2

O
[jIry
[� a
int L
a
E
n
STA. 15+18.00

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
128975 1 3Q
SFAL
r,� ,9utiv�
Mlchnl Bsk�r
_ e4,oSxry. kPyr Enpd27rn
p 1
NWrm Goura7#518
- Nwn�. 419,W.SxSe
I N 7 E: R N A T I 0 N A L X�.:ry:PrSx
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
AS BUILT SURVEY
UT'4
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 so
SCALE (FT)

m I/
STA. 31+42,13
SAVik PROIECT kEFEREN.CE NO. SHEET NO
128915 3E
i'��OLEE 4M1
Mak ka�l 6ak®r EnglneerM Ine.
nr. Honrn enreaciN� si5+e�
. sie..a�.scae
I N T E R N A T I 0 N A L
NCDMS ILS Na. 45351
] UT4 - REACH 4B =
,IN UT4 - REACH 3
1.28+92.29
UT4 - REACH 2
1. 38+23.08
-VEG PLOT 09
O -) I
P-1
x
CK CROSS
E ETrP.1 >�
TIE:. INTP
EXJSTING FENCE
3
A5 -.BUILT SURVEY
UT4
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
l2B975 3F"
• tom: R.O b
--
a
t4AD 83
L175
_'71bsmve'
ARch... Enpin�rrinp Inc.
a]M+aiagancA PaiM1rer. 'wan '
fir,., HgRPH CAor� �M ry+� itl
1Morr Yf4 MS!AY�
IN T E R N A T 6 0 N A L;
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
KGL'EN ARE
p�
7 FLOW CAMERAx
7,9,00
. G VINE (TYP.) LFLOW J -
GEGUFT 4'u1 "
BRUSH TOE (TVP.)
r
GAUGE
CONSCTRUCTEf
RIFFLE
(TYP.)
xXx x AS -BUILT THALWEG
f LX X
o
m
>o
000
LOG VANE MP.) LOG WEIR (TYP.)
WE a. PLOT m8
---- FENCE_
WOVE
A5 BUILT SURVEY
UT4
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
lllll�l�
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO, SWEET N4
12897.5 3G
lq¢o w�r9
SEA[,
Mkhaal Baker Ee�glnaerlrvp Ine.
NORTH
AAOU tivM365
rc. Fi)R�TH LAhGlJlin i137a
❑rona. 430.ti1R
N T E R N A T 1 9 N A L i��mar�r as°R
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
AS BUILT SURVEY
UT4
PIAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 T_1TI��
`
SCALE (ET)

�o
E
BAKER PRDIECT REFERENCE NC?. SHEET NO.
128975 3M
•µ:pT li Cq,�a,
NAD 83
IdiehaM Biker Enpina�dn Ine.
a000 neve„er. Ark.r. ^wAeux�
Cary, nbRTN Gh��lw6 t1;A
PnmA 919 Ae�.SsaB
I N T€ R N A T I O N A Lir.a:.'0Feia
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
E
E i
\� S UILT THALWEG
LOG P.)
END UTA - REACH 5A l
STA. 13+35.32 y
w
x
000
BEGIN UTA - REACH 5A AS -BUILT THALWE �''`�1gr0�
STA. 9+44.46 CE et-- Ste
! '1,� VEa PLOT 1015Laf. WEIR (TYP.) LIX3 VANE (T5`P.j �� 8 BEGIN UT4 - REACH 5B l\
STA. 14+40.25 AS -BUILT TQC' OF BANK (TYP.)
10+00 11+00
- CONSTRUCTED
�t RIFFLE 1TYF.1
fc
A
ir.
rn
E CE C
AS—BUILT SURVEY
UT4
ALAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 Bo
11411 ism `(FT) L�

BAKER PROJE[T REFERENCE NO. SHEET N4
!28375 31
' pRrl4�^ �•,
`~``flpP'�FE,p�/�.•HQ ._.
fill
_ rte7
NAD 83
qy? veru,.
�OZEE n
Michael Baker Eng Ineenng Ine.
mo apervcy Pen..ey. Suxe ",
�rry. NURrH C/WOLIwF tih+e
Pcwmc 019.16A�la
I N T E R N A T f 0 N A L i.M°ra iou
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
E
E
CE
E
2
LOG WEIR (TYP. LOG."
�2.O.
} zzon
24+00 z
26+.
y Y
r
AS -BL G
ILT THALVVE
CE
E�L7
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK {TYP.
cc
E
E E
VER PI.C7T k1a
As -BUILT SURVEY
UT4
PLAN VIEW
4o 26 0 410 so
SCALE (FT)

BEGIN HC - REACH 1

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SKEET NO.
128975 1 4A
P20JECT ENGINEER
u
ue.nr
1
los AP O BY
SEAL
i 039201 5
R
"'4'�CgB 11 6'1'E i
GATE:
i
i
i
p�lsfiar%Brkrr Enpinrrhnp Inc.
0.egenry Pen'ery. l I eoG
Gear. ND104 GlR9lfNw
Pewee. 919.r95.54N
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
x
sem—x—�
--GEOLIFT 1MTH
++
BRUSH TOE(TYP.)
X-14
� 3x
.REST r
fA11GE ! [11
X-1i
i
S
VEG PLOT
RECORD DRAWING
HURRICANE CREEK
PLAN HEW
40 20 4 40 80
11111
SCALE (FT)

WER PROJECT R€FERENC£ NO. SHEET NO
!2€975 1 48
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
NAD 83 -
sE
i 039201 I
Y
EQL'`��• °
I Mj.,LM"L4' Y DATE:
Y
L
L
Fchael 9ahnr E.glmerinp Inc.
Ppercy Ren�yr. .SVM 4Je
Cvy, npRSat GROIL'�1F ]iS LF
PLNNs: FrR.NEO.fYh
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
END HC - REACH 2
STA. 44+6677 I
AS -BUILT THALWEG _ -
= r -
43
42+
ure �
�x
ROOT YNADS ITYPJ
RK CRO
N- ANE {TYP.SS
V
AN
'
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK TYP.)
z - J
Ir x r�
uar
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE {TYP.J /
Y VEG PL®TO. _
DESIGN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT--' LaGyANEfTYP1
M -
l "
RECORD DRAWING
HURRICANE CREEK
FLAN VIEW
40 20 0 410 as
SCALE (FT)

F'
- END UT4 - REACH 1A
STA. 15+18.00
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
128975 4C
PROJECT ENGINEER
r
i
I
I
•'� I VROVEO BY
SEAL ~` I
439201
FNENt4 5 i 3%l6
•,``, ....u..i���``• DALE:
MkhpRl BRras17aker Enplin�rinp Inc.
9CU] PaAwal. Suas aOG
C��y, HORip CAROIfNA.11Sta
nen19 M],6NE
INTE R N A T I O N AL:l
NCDMS 9D NO, 95351
'ScrrL
�u
E(lYT
E -P.)
E
RECORD DRAWING
UT¢
PIAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
V I I�
SCALE (FT)

— 1
STA. 31+42..13
SANER PROJECT REFEREkCE k0. 5mcEP NQ
12$975 4E
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
� narr,rraq I'
y� LAlp
r4pi O,y*f. � APPROVEQ By'
0 034201 i
aM.Y 8x" RATE:
Y
Mithq@I 9sk@f Efl{I1.@o Mij Int.
Cmm=fac Rooenry Prrtwex.
4�ry NdNiH CI}YOLI114
Pfwnf @Y9.aW `A@@
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
NCUMS ICJ NO. 95351
7 UT4 - BEACH 4B
3lN UT4 - REACH 3
k. 28+92.29
7 UT4 - REACH 2
k. 38+23.0B
-VEG PLOT #9
4
CTED
P,j
y� �V
11
CK CROSS aeae
E ITva.1
I�.
rr T1E INTO
EXISTING FENCE
RECORD DRAWING
UT4
PLAN VIEW
40 210 0 40 &0
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHM NO,
128975 4F
PROJECT ENGINEER.
.t c r
a yiH EddOli
F ` _ APPROVED 8�
SEAL
NAD 93-
,;s:fNGINLE�:�S.
aa,,i
4vE t.
[ATE=
, I
I
I
Nlclwl9Akir EetBlnrtr!(� lns.
NOC4 Rev PaM1�. 5w. eW"
LrY. NbR'fW �Gr,xA ]}SVA
Pliw'. i19,1A] NAR
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
NCDMS [D NO. 95351
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
�c, r7+pp
RESIGN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
'Tr'
I
pf4G
—rLOW CAMPRA
r9#
X
x
.._
Ob VANE 1TYP.) ., _-
_ FLOW !
"_
GEOLIFT WITH
9RUSH TOE (TYP.)
- -
GAUGE r
na; ?TM i
CON�SCTRUCTEO
RIFFLE:
(TYP.)
AS -BUILT THALWEG
m
x
LOO VANE (TYP.) LOO WEIR (TYP.)
-
VEGPLOT*$
-- .--
-'. �VE FENC
_-
RECORD DRAWING
UP
PLAN VIEW
40 20 ® 40 80
SCALE (FT)

NAD 83
BEGIN UT4 -REACH 4B
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEEP NO.
128975 1 43
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
ssl
,4SHr CFAO''""i. I
I
I APPROVED &Y':
SFAL _ I
I
"'•� uienrri" DATE:
t
I
Mlchae48aker EnginHrin Ine..
cel a.:w•<r a��r, sWro e�
s'v. M�AI'h GAPatINA T15 ra
Pear: 91BK]Sfde
1NTERNATION ALL,; i�r-iae
NCDMS ID NO. 45351
RECORD DRAWING
UT4
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

rsmm_4._
NAD 83

Nwiiiiii..-- /t ��
NAD $3 � / P
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NU. SHEET NO
!28975 1 41
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
H tC R p'
e4 SEAL T'�}. APPITOVE46Y
i
i 039201 F
DATE:
M.t... IBokbr EnplbunsneeN. Int.
R'JPJ Aepmry Pukwy, 670
ry. kOR1N C/A04nM T�Sr4
ea�. PI3.NkSIp
«gt .i0.i.SiPC
IN T E R N A TI O H A L 4< o.toer
NCDMS IQ NO. 95351
RECORD DRAWING
UT4
ALAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE N(7, SHEET NO.
HURRICANE CREEK - REACH 1
128975
PROJECT ENGINEER
EXISTING GROUND
i
i
3 o`:�Kz EAR,pr hr
r i�4� �+r; i xI�P�6vEo 6Y
# SEAL '-
DESIGN HANKFULL=
- 034201 i
220
q
!/}
xkMnl @alar EngIrH.A Ine.
-
— -- '--
'-
LLJ
—
Phaw azRree.see
- -
Eu. ozc.�cesaen
I WIERNATIOPJAL�r.n,,.:r-,�
F
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
210
AS -BUILT THALWEG
DESIGN THALWEG
- L-41-15 -
t" T
�bAYITrL '
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00
17+00
18+00 19+00
HURRICANE CREEK - REACH 1
720
—DESIGN RANKFULL
—EXISTING GROUND
0
n
220
N
4
4
F
Sn
Z
J
Lu
210
- - --
_ _
21C
AS -BUILT THALWEG
— DESIGN THALWEG
200
200
19+00
20+00
21+00
22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00
26+00
27+00 28+00
29+00
HURRICANE CREEK - REACH 1 & 2
220
220
DESIGN BANKFULL
EXISTING GROUND
0
0
0
F
o
0
o.
+
-
m
uj
210
N 210
-
-
LI
-
J
L)
U
LAS
Q
-BUILT THALWEG
DESIGN THALWEG
2M
200
29+00
30+00
31+00
32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00
36+00
37+00 38+00
39+00

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NQ, SHEET NO,
HURRICANE CREEK - REACH 2
128975 6
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
220��r'......
I
I
R!i
i'S4 •fi .s r APPROVFD RN
SEAL
—EXISTING GROUND
E4392�Y
i
+
rt;
DESIGN BANKFULL
Jim.r,•a�r DATE'
"Jim a
i
`
I
hflc h�qY Bailor EnylnrerYnp tnc.
rr
210
1
r0 GRP NaI'g,-
.r 4, Ba595BB
_
ui
t -b
Far. 3, .a51 ;a90
1 N T E Et tJ A T I O k A L LVnnw'c-,oe,
T
L
NCDMS !D NO. 95351
J
Y
_
200
AS -BUILT THALWEG
SEAL
-- DESIGN THALWEG
39+00
40+00
41+00
42+00 43+00
44+00
HURRICANE CREEK- REACH 3
;' CI
220
DESIGN THALWEG
r.
210
L.AS-BUILTTHALWEG
1 - -
-- - - I —
210
i
20L
—EXISTING GROUND
200
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00 14+00
15+00
UT4 - REACH 1
230
230
8
EXISTING GROUND RESIGN 6ANKFULL
a
a
d
vi
o+
f -
Lu
Ilil
220
i
220
- --------._.-
uj.
z
i
J
U
W
I
AS -BUILT THALWEG
210
2117
— DESIGN THALWEG
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00 14+00
15+00 16+00
17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00

- -
- —
- - - -
-- - --- - -
TIMER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
UT4 - REACH 1 / REACH 2
126975 7
PRO)€CT ENGINEER
-
DESIGN BANKFULL
i
CAAp"9 i.
_ .i`4 'pis = APPROVMBY:
SEAL ; M
039201 i
220
o
o
O
•"y�+';GINEVE'�;s' j O
9rca
6
grg3 rW.i
w
_. ..- - _ --
y��,�
,. .• — -- -- -- -
Kcba lBaRpe EnRI a Zp me.
r
�-AS-BUILTTHALWEG
_-
Lu
Z
-
c waRrticwauRi zi's �eS
• a a1sa.arae
1NYERNA7IONALuc.nnp 8�
s
-
ciuja
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
210
z
T
„,
2R�'4k p5.Si`j�y"I.y .
DESIGN THALWEG
rn� SEAL
EXISTING GROUND
_-
loocl
200
200
20+00
21+00 22+00 23+00
24+00
25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00
29+00
UT4 - REACH 2
220
DESIGN BANKFULL
220
CD
O
O
6
0)
210
N�.--.
_.--_
-
__ `-�.__ - -- _-
__ _ _
-
_- _ -
-_
LIJZ
210
¢
-
- - -.
W
Z
_
-AS-BUILT THALWEG
Fes..
I
200
---EXISTING GROUND
DESIGN THALWEG
200
29+00
30+00 31+00 32+00
33+00
34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00
38+00
39+00
UT4 - REACH 2
220
—
220
-EXISTING GROUND
©
0
-DESIGN
BANKFULL
210
0
OI
a
210
Lu
-
z
f
M
v-
--
-
t)
I
I
¢
200
j
AS -BUILT THALWEG
200
I- DESIGN THALWEG
39+00
40+00 41+00 42+00
43+00

BOER. PROJECT REFERENCE NO. 5HEET NO.
UT4 - REACH 4 128975 8
PROJECT ENG6NEER
y111111r ,r i
`'y`5'd CA$Q�qs
:'�2a,' SE3Slp• N�
APPpOVEQ BY:
pEStGN eANKFULL 039 1 } '
—EXISTING GROUND (j
CD
220
1
t RRs, a.� B.lu J np swt. n Inc.
e= $e,,,
Pte.earl
ZLu Pr XY a?w5+ae N{tFb1R
t N T E A N A T I O N A L
— — < NCDMS ID NO. 95351
210
AS -BUILT THALWEG
`�o4:�Essi
a qy,�•
—DESIGN = LAT75
THALWEG YeaA -
alm (.2- 7
2010
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00
UT4 - REACH 4
EXISTING GROUND
220 � 220
—DESIGN BAN KFULL
' o
Lu
a
rn
� cv
o
v>
y 210
-
210
m — 0
LLJI, -- - - ~
AS -BUILT THALWEG -
200 200
DESIGN THALWEG
19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00
220 UT4 - REACH 3 220
DESIGN BANKFULL
210 210
0
0
0)
c+J
a: VJ
w
4C1 y
200 , 200
M
—AS -BUILT THALWEG
4-
- EXISTING
GROUND DESIGN THALWEG
P
c` -
a
m 29+00 30+00 31+00

BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO
LLT4 - KEAC"_b
128975 9
PROJECT ENGINEER
230
DESIGN THALWEG
—DESIGN BAN KF U LL
.PROVED BY:
-s
ar
DATE'
220
Lu
C-, C CAAO� 273,1
I N T E R N A T 14 N A L
NCDMS ID NO. 95351
—AS -BUILT THALWEG
.. js , sr6
�pz�
210
L-1115
_E_XISTING GROUND
10+00
11+00
12+00 13+00
14+00 15+00 16+00
17+00 18+00 19+00
230
PTA -_REACH 5
230
DEStGN BANKFULL
DESIGN THALWEG
220
40
+
+ 220
w
L>
210
210
--AS-BUILT THALWEG
�--E,XJS_nNG GROUND
200
200
19+00
20+00
21+00 22+00
23+00 24+00 25+00
26+00 27+00 28+00
29+00
230
UT4 - REACH 5
230
220
+
DESIGN BANKFULL
220
uj
z
TL
<
210
210
DESIGN THALWEG
—EXISTING GROUND
—AS -BUILT THALWEG
200
200
29+00
30+00

APPENDIX E
Photo Log

Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view downstream at Station 10+00 Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view downstream at Station 11+80
Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view downstream at Station 14+50 Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view upstream at Station 16+90
Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view upstream at Station 17+50 Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view upstream at Station 19+25

Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view downstream at Station 19+75 Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view downstream at Station 22+40
Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view downstream at Station 24+00 Hurricane Creek Reach 1, vernal pool at Station 26+25
Hurricane Creek Reach 1, view downstream at Station 29+30 Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view upstream at Station 31+40

Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view upstream at Station 32+75
P"M
Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view downstream at Station 33+00
4 -
fa.��_.4 bl�
Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view upstream at Station 35+70 Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view downstream at Station 36+00
Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view downstream at Station 39+10 Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view downstream at Station 40+75
1
Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view downstream at Station 39+10 Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view downstream at Station 40+75

Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view upstream at Station 43+75 Hurricane Creek Reach 2, view downstream at Station 44+25
Hurricane Creek Reach 3, view upstream at Station 11+40 Hurricane Creek Reach 3, view downstream at Station 14+00
Hurricane Creek Reach 3, view downstream at Station 15+50 Hurricane Creek Reach 3, view upstream at Station 15+90
d.. r
f^
f'7
Hurricane Creek Reach 3, view downstream at Station 15+50 Hurricane Creek Reach 3, view upstream at Station 15+90

UT4 Reach 1, view downstream at Station 11+00
UT4 Reach 1, view upstream at Station 14+15
UT4 Reach 1, view downstream at Station 12+75
UT4 Reach 1, view downstream at Station 14+25
UT4 Reach 1, view downstream at Station 15+40
UT4 Reach 1, view downstream at Station 17+20

UT4 Reach 1, view upstream at Station 19+00
UT4 Reach 2, view of crossing at Station 21+25
UT4 Reach 2, view downstream at Station 21+50
UT4 Reach 2, view at Station 26+00
UT4 Reach 2, view downstream at Station 28+75
UT4 Reach 2, view upstream at Station 31+75

UT4 Reach 3, view upstream at Station 29+50
UT4 Reach 4, view upstream at Station 13+40
UT4 Reach 4, view upstream at Station 18+20
UT4 Reach 4, view upstream at Station 20+50
UT4 Reach 4, view downstream at Station 21+25
UT4 Reach 4, view upstream at Station 22+50

UT4 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 11+00
UT4 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 22+20
UT4 Reach 5, view downstream at Station 26+50
UT4 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 13+10
UT4 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 23+75
�t
•
�"% r' "ter '� •• -
�'�-`
I
r
UT4 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 13+10
UT4 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 23+75
�t
•
• R
I
r
UT4 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 28+25

APPENDIX F
Conservation Easement
Boundary Adjustment Documents

". 4; "'•• '� • New Easement Boundary Points
• 'r Modified Conservation Easement Boundary
Original Easement Boundary
quit y°;e "fFl.. �.e ��.� 1* � H � "•��� -
w �r of d ".« � -lot
' - ri•; t
f L
r �new boundary ' •' _•• . ,� y point located
f
53 ft from top of stream bank
•
IL
1
• a t r
5 � �
Mat�Oaks _
74
.t
k p g p Information and° Y
N OneMa •, NC Center for Geo • ria • h1i'c
• Anal sis,�N`C 9''
r Board
Michael Baker Figure 1: Crossing #1
0 50 Feet Easement Boundary Adjustment
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Brown Creek Tribs Project (UT4 Site)

New Easement Boundary Points
N Modified Conservation Easement Boundary
1 ,
Original Easement Boundary
seasonally
ponded
Existing zy = , `� area " • }' .
Pathivr
^-
.1
!r r
J,
J"
•� � _ ,� a :--fid-' • � ^ .R ��`,\
Stream Outside CE
(No SMU Credit)
f1
Ik
• -• t ' ` NC One ap, NC Center for Geographic Informahi n and Analysis NC 911 F
sa3t.�fa�i�1%fii'' -� Baa rd
Michael Figure 2: Crossing #2
Baker 0 50 Feet Easement Boundary Adjustment
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Brown Creek Tribs Project (UT4 Site)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ANSON
SPO 04-C
DMS SITE 95351
FILED
ANSON COUNTY, NC
JOANNE S. HUNTLEY
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Sep 14, 2016
AT 10:45 am
BOOK
01128
START PAGE
0206
END PAGE
0208
INSTRUMENT #
01579
RECORDING
$26.00
EXCISE TAX
(None)
PARTIAL RELEASE OF A 0.04 ACRE
AND A 0:02 ACRE SECTION
OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
(Deed Book 01054, Page 155)
THIS PARTIAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT, is made as of the date set forth in the notary
acknowledgement below, by the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA through the Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 116 W. Jones Street, Raleigh. NC 276603-8003, hereinafter
party of the first part and Alan Dale McRae, (unmarried), whose address is 151 Bailey Road,
Wadesboro, NC 28170, hereinafter party of the second part,
WITNESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS Alan Dale McRae conveyed a conservation Easement to the State of
NC covering 8.97+/- acres for the Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration Project in an instrument
executed on December 19th, 2013, and recorded in Deed Book 01054, Page 155, Anson County
Registry, and;
WHEREAS, the State of NC has agreed to release two small sections of the property
described herein from said Conservation Easement as conveyed in Deed Book 01054, Page 155
that were not intended to be included and to remedy management issues for the described areas as
shown on attached "Exhibit All.
NOW, THEREFORE, the party of the first part in consideration of TEN DOLLARS
($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
hereby releases and forever quitclaims unto the party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, all
right, title, claim and interest of the party of the first part in and to those two sections of land
identified as "Abandoned Existing Conservation Easement 0.04 Acres and Abandoned Existing
Conservation Easement 0.02 Acres on a Map of Survey by J. David Lee, III PLS, and attached as
Exhibit "A".
See attached "Exhibit A" for above referenced map and legal description of the areas to be
released.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the aforesaid tract of land, together with all privileges and
appurtenances thereunto belonging, to it, the said party of the second part, its heirs, successors and
assigns free, and discharged from the aforementioned Conservation Easement.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA has caused this
instrument to be executed in its name by Tim Walton, State Property Office Director, NC
Department of Administration.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
BY: . Lt✓
Tim Walton,
State Property Office Director
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
14105 a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County of
and the State of North Carolina, do certify that Tim Walton, personally came
before me this day and acknowledged that he is Director, State Property Office, Department of
Administration, State of North Carolina, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the
State, has signed the foregoing instrument.
fL
IN WLITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal, this the l? day
ofGi US 2016.
My Commission Expires: ?ISali
N
r
Notary Public
Print name: ,L'., i" M r'k e 1 aTef

It .,
E,c
®®o 0
4 s
\ ccs vmkz I I I m
o m z k r" ' G z`
�n 5z,p� mE'mac gn MMM
�,��� Ill
Z
mz
Mv'�p���
a �
e vzoM1�1r< I tg��, i3 z
v
elmyzc a`5}az.go z6�3Aa11111�2
AM
;j ZC Cm A'f; a 3
m VIP
co
Or/i a
€ z m " .. 1tf C� • •' O�`w e
Z@`v'z&33 3 irrr J" a
am ��
°z
m 1 \ p s 3
n �� R \
O P - a A
16
zm O ma m n n - z
2YS'5n �^a0 > mfn py � z ^Zn nm Fp pO lo AnSm
z p u ,��. m In al"i �.' m Z Z g Ei 4o
N i ^.
z I y �ooaz yoU.� " a
m ?n2�' Kg Jx$ 111111 6 e
o0ZI
put: ^l -y
aN,.vi,t• f l'< pi O'
" 5$ mm m°3=
Nij95�WD m
G a p =
z z z '•.'.0 /7 o
� �
Q i / O O
Sys,V2l zr�s, \ �__� z a e
z m D
ttsRY 8tp o .zi 14 r 3 Z v i
Uij2. t�Ny zu \ I \ o S O n m A Z
e�F'ICt PRu gF�, N m 13 � 9 n m m -J < Z i
►- i ��^! 2 p m J
id 0
m A D m
C Uj 519e2G.59\� C ,`n G1 n O O
mY 7r,
66.2T azo y r A
m
Z e A r <
=nor D K
S y 3 n Z
m p
� D
Z
NAD 832011
z
? m A
INTO
m !P fg= Izr z
2 y Pow A pI Fz im,
j i c a As. qH
.pyyKVSp3�a n O � TY -i
p
9SY Kc
�2

DULY REC HU� ry; RE
EG. OF� EOS
gY JOANNE S.
ANSON Cow NC