20030367 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20030326

STREAM RESTORATION Pt A
REACH ONE
(UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO THE ROANOKE RIVER)
CWMTF PROJECT No. 2000B-409A
CITY OF ROA
HALIFAX COUNTY,
RAPIDS
'H CAROLINA
FUNDED BY
cleanwater
"NA641AIMT TWIT FUND
CITY OF ROANOKE RAPIDS, NC
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
P.O. Box 38 - RoANoKE RAPIDS, NC 27870
Prepared by:
11 Dewberry
5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]

1
?11
0
1

7

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... iv
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... . 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ . 1
1.2 PROJECT BENEFIT ................................................................................................................ . 4
1.3 PROJECT APPROACH ............................................................................................................ . 4
1.4 PRESENTATION OF MATERIALS ........................................................................................... . 4
2 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................. 5
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... . 5
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................................... . 5
2.3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................. . 5
2.3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharges .................................. . 5
2.3.2 Surface Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................. . 5
2.4 SOILS ................................................................................................................................... . 5
2.5 CURRENT LAND USE ............................................................................................................ 7
2.6 FUTURE LAND USE ............................................................................................................... 7
3 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................................... 8
3.1 PROJECT SITE ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Reach 1 ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 ROSGEN SURVEY .................................................................................................................. 8
3.2.1 Cross-sections ..............................................................................................................8
3.2.2 Dimension .................................................................................................................. . 8
3.2.3 Pattern ......................................................................................................................... .9
3.2.4 Profile .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.5 Pebble Counts ............................................................................................................. . 9
3.2.6 Rosgen Classification ................................................................................................ 10
3.3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 10
3.4 PROJECT SITE SOILS ........................................................................................................... 10
3.5 BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX ......................................................................................... 10
3.6 PLANT COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................... 10
3.7 WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.7.1 Wildlife Observed ..................................................................................................... 10
3.8 ENDANGERED SPECIES ...................................................................................................... 11
3.8.1 Rare Plant and Animal Species ................................................................................. 11
3.8.1.1 Halifax County ...................................................................................................... 11
3.8.1.2 Roanoke Rapids USGS Quadrangle ...................................................................... 13
3.9 POTENTIAL DESIGN CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................... 14
3.9.1 Landowner Restrictions ............................................................................................. 14
3.9.2 Utilities and Easements ............................................................................................. 14
3.9.2.1 Power ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.9.2.2 Sanitary Sewer ....................................................................................................... 15
3.9.2.3 Potable .................................................................................................................... 15
3.9.2.4 Easements ............................................................................................................... 15
3.9.2.4.1 Existing Easements .......................................................................................... 15
3.9.2.4.2 Proposed Easements ........................................................................................ 15
3.9.3 Natural Heritage Sites ................................................................................................ 16
4 REFERENCE SITE CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................... 17
4.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 17
4.1.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park ............................................................................... 17
,4_ Dewberry
4.1.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park ............................................................... 18
4.2 ROSGEN SURVEY ................................................................................................................ 20
4.2.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park ................................................................................ 20
4.2.1.1 Cross-sections ....................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1.2 Dimension ............................................................................................................. 20
4.2.1.3 Pattern ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1.4 Profile .................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1.5 Pebble Counts ....................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1.6 Rosgen Classification ............................................................................................ 21
4.2.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park ............................................................... 21
4.2.2.1 Cross-sections ....................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2.2 Dimension ............................................................................................................. 21
4.2.2.3 Pattern ................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2.4 Profile .................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2.5 Pebble Counts ....................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2.6 Rosgen Classification ............................................................................................ 22
4.3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 22
4.3.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park ............................................................................... 22
4.3.2 Reference Reach 1 - Falls Lake State Park ............................................................... 22
4.4 SOILS .................................................................................................................................. 22
4.4.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park ............................................................................... 22
4.4.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park ............................................................... 22
4.5 PLANT COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................... 23
4.5.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park ............................................................................... 23
4.5.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park ............................................................... 23
4.6 WILDLIFE OBSERVED ......................................................................................................... 23
4.6.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park ............................................................................... 23
4.6.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park ............................................................... 23
5 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 24
5.1 SUMMARY ....................................................... .................................................................... 24
5.2 ROSGEN PRIORITY LEVEL .................................................................................................. 24
5.3 DIMENSION ......................................................................................................................... 24
5.4 PATTERN ............................................................................................................................. 24
5.5 PROFILE .............................................................................................................................. 24
5.6 MORPHOLOGICAL TABLE ................................................................................................... 24
5.7 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 26
5.8 STRUCTURES ....................................................................................................................... 27
5.9 RIPARIAN BUFFER .............................................................................................................. 28
5.10 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS ................................................................................................. 28
5.11 PLAN SHEETS ...................................................................................................................... 28
5.13 PROFILE SHEETS ................................................................................................................. 28
5.14 TYPICAL DETAILS ............................................................................................................... 28
6 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING ................................................................................................... 29
6.1 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 29
6.2 DURING CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................... 29
6.3 FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 29
7 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL .......................................................................................... 30
8 POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ........................................................................................ 31
8.1 MORPHOLOGICAL MONITORING ........................................................................................ 31
8.1.1 Permanent Cross-Sections ......................................................................................... 31
8.1.2 Longitudinal Profile ................................................................................................... 31
ills; Dewberry ;;

8.1.3 Pebble Counts ............................................................................................................ 31
8.2 HABITAT MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 32
8.3 VEGETATION MONITORING ................................................................................................ 32
8.4 PHOTO MONITORING .......................................................................................................... 32
9 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................33
Appendices
Appendix A Dimension Measurements
Appendix B Pattern Measurements
Appendix C Profile Measurements
Appendix D Endangered Species
Appendix E Native Plant Species (from SRI)
Appendix F Photographs
Appendix G Typical Cross-sections
Appendix H Plan Sheets
Appendix I Profile Sheets
Appendix J Typical Restoration Details
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Watershed Soil Series 6
Table 2.2 Watershed Soil Types 6
Table 3.1 Reach 1 Dimension Measurements 9
Table 3.2 Reach 1 Pattern Measurements 9
Table 3.3 Federal and State of North Carolina Species of Concern 12
Table 4.1 Reference Reach 2 Watershed Soil Series 22
Table 4.2 Reference Reach 2 Watershed Soil Types 22
Table 5.1 Morphological Table 25
Table 5.2 Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Estimate 28
Table 5.3 Shield's Curve Estimate 28
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2.1 Watershed Soils 6
Exhibit 2.2 Watershed Land Use 7
Exhibit 3.1 Natural Heritage Element Occurrences 14
List of Maps
Map 1.1 Location Map 3
Map 1.2 Project Site Aerial Photograph 3
Map 4.1 Reach 1 Location 17
Map 4.2 Reach 2 Location 19
List of Photographs
Photograph 1.1 Eroded Streambanks 2
Photograph 1.2 Alluvial Fan Deposit at Confluence with the Roanoke River 2
Photograph 3.1 Severely Eroded Section 11
Photograph 3.2 Previously Removed Section of the Roanoke Canal Trail 16
Photograph 4.1 Reference Reach 1 18
Photograph 4.2 Reference Reach 2 19
Dewberry ;;;
The North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund awarded CWMTF Project No. 2000B-409
to the City of Roanoke Rapids to stabilize/restore the first (shown herein as Reach 1) of three
tributaries within the City of Roanoke Rapids. Reach 1 has previously been determined to contribute
an estimated 525 tons per year of sediment to a portion of the Roanoke River known to be a spawning
and feeding ground for anadromous fish and to contain several species of State-status Threatened
mollusks. Restoration of Reach 1 will improve the stream's aquatic resource and function, as well as
contribute to improved water quality and protection of the Roanoke River.
Currently Reach 1 is a Rosgen F4b stream that is actively eroding. The stream is incised and has bank
height ratios that exceed 5. Erosion is resulting in private and public property loss and has exposed
several water and sewer mains.
The proposed restoration design is based on natural channel design methods and includes two
reference reaches. One reference reach was surveyed near Reach 1 within the Roanoke Rapids' Smith
Park. The surveyed reach is a Rosgen E4 stream, with poor pattern features. To augment the
reference data, particularly pattern and profile measurements, a second reference reach was utilized.
The second reference reach is located within the Falls Lake State Park and is a Rosgen E4b stream.
The design is a Priority 1 restoration for a Rosgen E4b stream that utilizes rock vanes, cross-vanes and
step pools for stability and elevation change. The Priority 1 restoration will establishes a new
alignment for the stream and will reduce bank height ratios to one (1). The overall stream sinuosity
will be increased in the proposed design and a riffle-pool sequence will be established.
The restoration includes restoration of the riparian buffer. A buffer 30 feet wide from the top of banks
will be established using only native species, of which a minimum of 20 feet wide from the top of
banks shall be native woody vegetation. The buffer will be protected with a permanent conservation
easement.
4111, Dewberry iv

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
' The North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund awarded CWMTF Project No. 2000B-409
to the City of Roanoke Rapids to stabilize/restore the first (shown herein as Reach 1) of three
tributaries within the City of Roanoke Rapids.
ib
ute
In recent years the City of Roanoke Rapids (City) has identified several tributaries that contr
large amounts of sediment loading to the Roanoke River. These tributaries have experienced stream-
bank erosion and head-cutting as a result of increased flows resulting from upstream development and
from several severe storm events. These storms have included hurricane Fran in 1996 and Hurricane
Floyd in 1999.
r According to the results of a recent City survey of eroded streams, Reach 1 is a primary contributor of
sediment to the Roanoke River, depositing an estimated 525 tons of sediment annually. Reach 1 is
suffering erosion (Photograph 1.1) that contributes significant sediment loads to the Roanoke River
' (Photograph 1.2). The sediment discharged to the Roanoke River may adversely affect the spawning
and feeding grounds of several important fish populations including the Striped Bass and the
American Shad and several species of State-status Threatened mussels. Estimates indicate a
successful restoration of Reach 1 may reduce sediment loading rates by up to 75% or approximately
400 tons per year.
The existing channel is actively eroding and has deposited a large fan of sediment within the Roanoke
River. Although the channel reach is bordered by many High Value Trees, the reach lacks a native
riparian buffer. Stream crossings include three (3) private pedestrian/lawn equipment bridges, one (1)
public pedestrian bridge, a large (30") sanitary sewer main, a potable water main, a private
water/sewer pipe and underground electric lines. Additionally, the stream bisects a remnant section of
the Roanoke Canal Trail, which runs parallel to the Roanoke River. The Roanoke Canal Trail is on
the historic register and is maintained by the Roanoke Canal Commission.
The Reach 1 project area is located within the limits of the City of Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
(Map 1), on private property referred to locally as "Lions Watch" (Map 2), which adjoins the Roanoke
River. This property is bounded by Old Farm Road to the South, Rolling Ridge Road to the West, and
the Roanoke River to the North. The eastern portion of the property is generally defined by
Downsbrook Drive and Interstate 95.
d
The upstream boundary of the Reach 1 project site is the downstream limit of a previously rip-rappe
channel located near the downstream face of the landowner's driveway bridge. The project area
extends downstream of the previously rip-rapped reach along Reach 1 in excess of 900 feet until it
reaches the Roanoke River.

1 411 Dewberry ,
Photograph 1.1 Eroded Streambanks
Photograph 1.2 Alluvial Fan Deposit at Confluence with the Roanoke River
1111 Dewberry 2 1

Map 1.1
Map 1.2

I` L
,Ct
I n ? 'a1
Project Site Aerial Photograph (from NCDOT)
3
li
1.2 PROJECT BENEFIT
In general, the restoration supports, wholly or in part, the following CWMTF goals:
? Enhance or restore degraded waters.
? Contribute toward a network of riparian buffers and greenways for environmental,
educational, and recreational benefits.
Specifically, the stream restoration will have the following benefits:
? Reduction of downstream sedimentation by stabilizing eroding stream banks within
the Lion's Gate property;
? Replacement of a degraded stream reach with a stabilized stream which supports
natural stream processes;
? Reduction in private property loss;
? Reduction in public property loss to the Roanoke Canal Trail, a Historic Register
property;
? Improved aquatic habitat, including pools for fish, and reduction in water temperature
from shading of riparian trees; and
? Improved aesthetics of the restored stream reach.
Specifically, the restoration of the riparian buffer will have the following benefits:
? Increased streambank stability in an area with easily eroded soils, which in turn
reduces the potential for public and private property loss'
? Additional source water protection for the Roanoke River, an essential spawning and
feeding ground of several anadromous fish;
? Reduction in sedimentation to a reach of the Roanoke River with known populations
of threatened (State status) mussels;
? Reestablishment of a riparian corridor for wildlife.
1.3 PROJECT APPROACH
The project was roughly divided into four general phases, data collection, surveying, data analyses,
and natural channel design. Although this list is in shown in chronological order of work completed,
there was overlap in the phases and several tasks were completed concurrently. Data collection was
completed in the general order of. 1) collection of watershed data; 2) data collection at the project site;
and 3) data collection at reference sites.
1.4 PRESENTATION OF MATERIALS
The information presented herein, is generally organized in the order the work was completed, which
is consistent with project approach listed in Section 1.3. This report is organized in the following
order: a discussion of the project site's watershed, a description of the project site and the field work
completed on-site, a description of the reference reaches and the field work completed at each site, a
discussion of findings from the field work and the corresponding design decisions, and presentation of
the conceptual design.
1, Dewberry 4

2 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
' 2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The project watershed is located in the piedmont province of North Carolina. Reach 1 has a relatively
small drainage area of approximately 76 acres, which is roughly three times longer than it is wide.
' The overall watershed slope is approximately two (2) percent.
The watershed headwater is predominantly commercially developed, while the remainder of the
' watershed consists of low density residential neighborhoods. Approximately 25% of the watershed is
undeveloped. Reach 1 is the downstream reach of an Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke River that
enters the Lions Watch property close to the intersection of Old Farm Road and Rollingwood Road.
Within the project reach parcel, this tributary has been stabilized with rip-rap from a culvert under Old
Farm Road to the upstream limit of Reach 1.
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
Reach 1 is not classified by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Reach 1 discharges to the
' Roanoke River, a class C stream.
2.3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
The NCDWQ does provide surface water quality information for Reach 1.
' 2.3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharges
The NCDWQ does not list any NPDES discharge permits for Reach 1.
2.3.2 Surface Water Quality Monitoring
The NCDWQ's Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan does not list any water quality
' monitoring site along Reach 1 or on the remainder of the Unnamed Tributary to Roanoke River.
2.4 SOILS
The watershed soils were referenced from National Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS)
Halifax County Soil Survey manual. Watershed soil types include Emporia, Goldsboro and
Udorthents series (Exhibit 2.1). Percentages of Soil Series and Types are shown in Table 2.1 and 2.2,
' respectively.

t
111 Dewberry 5
Soil Series Percentage of Soil Series Percentage of
Watershed Soils Watershed Soils
Emporia 55.3 Udorthents 42.8
Goldsboro 1.9
Table 2.2 Watershed Soil Types
Soil Type Percentage of
Watershed Soils Soil Type Percentage of
Watershed Soils
Fine Sand Loam 12.9 Urban Land Complex 44.2
Loam 42.8
The Emporia Soils in the watershed are C type soils, while the Goldsboro Soils are B type soils. The
soils are characterized by moderate and moderate to severe erosion potential and medium and medium
to rapid surface runoff.
6
Exhibit 2.1 Watershed Soils
Table 2.1 Watershed Soil Series
l II

2.5 CURRENT LAND USE
Watershed land use was determined from a combination of orthogra
(Exhibit 2.2). The land uses were determined to be very low and loi
wooded (25%), and light commercial (24%). The overall imperviou
nine (29) percent.
Legend
LANG Use
--I Very t.owDamly ReekNnllel
LowDeiulty Reddentlel !_,; 1.' ?'•.'; JC
Commen?ellepertmarl0 •_+ , 1- ` [ r Q
aw?Y P, ojed
_.IROede fit
WoodeWsoard ?; tt t9
A.
iic photographs and site visits
density residential (43%),
cover is estimated to be twenty
ilk
a r A
? R
d -•.
,? , . ,
O?
h
EI)
t ?
O\t.,-
4

I - ? ?Mxw
Exhibit 2.2 Watershed Land Use
2.6 FUTURE LAND USE
The project site watershed is located in an older suburban area, with little expected development. No
significant change in overall watershed land use is anticipated.
7
3.1 PROJECT SITE
The project site is located in eastern portion of the City Roanoke Rapids along the Roanoke River
(Maps 1.1 and 1.2). The parcel containing the project site is bordered by Rolling Wood Road and Old
Farm Road to the south and west and by the Roanoke River and Interstate 95 along the north and east.
The historic Roanoke Canal Trail parallels the Roanoke River and crosses the project site.
3.1.1 Reach 1
The upstream boundary of Reach 1 is a private driveway bridge, which forms the boundary between a
previously rip-rapped reach and the degraded reach. The downstream project boundary is the
confluence of Reach 1 and the Roanoke River.
The overbanks lack a riparian buffer, however there are several medium to large trees in the stream's
vicinity. The homeowner has added extensive landscaping, including azalea and rhododendron
plants.
There are two (2) private bridge crossings, one (1) public bridge crossing, and several utility crossing
including public and private buried electric, a 24" public water main, a 30" public sanitary sewer
main, an abandoned 12" water main, and one private water/sewer line within the project reach. The
Reach 1 project reach has one tributary, which outfalls from a concrete culvert 200 feet east of the
project reach.
The project reach is actively down cutting and is experiencing severe bank erosion (Photographs 1.1
and 3.1). As a result, the reach has become incised and is over-widened. A large alluvial deposit has
developed at the Unnamed Tributary's confluence with the Roanoke River (Photograph 1.2). The
upper project reach has a continuous slope and the downstream project reach is characterized by two
floodplain terraces for the Roanoke River.
3.2 ROSGEN SURVEY
Rosgen survey was completed on Reach 1 in April 2002, including stream dimension, pattern, and

profile measurements. Data collection techniques followed the guidelines as provided in the '
references.
3.2.1 Cross-sections '
Cross-sections were taken at representative features, namely five (5) riffles, four (4) head and
maximum pools, and three (3) runs. The data collected at each cross-section included longitudinal

and cross-sectional station, bankfull station and elevation, thalweg location and elevation, edge of '
water location and elevation, breaks in slope, and top of bank. Cross-section data for the surveyed
riffles and pools is provided in Appendix A. '
3.2.2 Dimension
The most dominant bankfull indicators in the reach were scour lines, breaks in slope and inundation '
features below the top of bank. Bankfull measurements were checked for reasonableness against the
regional curves developed by the North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute (SRI) and were found to
be in good agreement with the regional data.
11 Dewberry 8

The existing mean bankfull width of Reach 1 was determined to be 17.4 feet. The average bankfull
area was determined to be 16.6 square feet, which combined with the bankfull width indicates a mean
bankfull depth of approximately one (1) foot.
' Reach 1 has become incised and as a result is very entrenched, with entrenchment ratios ranging
between 1.1 and 1.7. The width to depth ratio had a large variation, ranging from 8.1 to 25.8, with an
overall average of 19. Summary Dimension data is provided in Appendix A.
' Table 3.1 Reach 1 Dimension Measurements

' Stream
Reach Bankfull
Area ft2 Bankfull
Width ft Bankfull Maximum
Depth ft Width/Depth
Ratio* Entrenchment
Ratio*
Reach 1 16.6 17.4 1.3 17.4 1.0-1.7
' * - Values listed are unitless.
3.2.3 Pattern
Reach 1's belt width measurements were found to range from 12 to 120 feet in width and its meander
wavelengths were measured to range from 60 to 400 feet in length. The radius of curvature was
determined to range from a minimum value of 21 feet and a maximum of 45 feet. Pattern
measurements are provided in Appendix B.
Table 3.2 Reach 1 Pattern Measurements

' Stream Reach Belt Width Meander Wavelength Radius of Curvature
Name ft ft ft
Reach 1 12 - 120 60 - 400 21 - 45

3.2.4 Profile
Reach 1's elevation difference between the upstream project limit and the downstream project limit is
28.3 feet and the project reach thalweg length is approximately 948 feet. The valley length for Reach
1 is approximately 825 feet. These measurements indicate a channel slope of approximately 3% and a
valley slope of approximately 3.2%. The sinuosity for the existing project reach is 1.149. The upper
' project reach has a continuous slope and the downstream project reach is characterized by two
floodplain terraces for the Roanoke River.
' The pool to pool spacing ranges from 73 feet to 342 feet. Three pools were identified, although the
reach did have several additional features that could be described as weak pools. Profile
' measurements are provided in Appendix C.
3.2.5 Pebble Counts
' A longitudinal and three cross-sectional pebble counts were completed on Reach 1. For the
longitudinal pebble count, Wolman Pebble Count measurements were taken in proportion to the
percentage (length) of riffles and pools in the project reach. The ratio of pools to riffles was
' approximately 3:2. Additionally, Wolman Pebble Counts were taken at two (2) representative riffles
and one (1) representative pool. Pebble count graphs and data sheets are provided in Appendix A.
1 .41_, Dewberry 9
The pebble count analysis resulted in a D50 of 4.1 mm and a D84 of 55 mm, which indicates a gravel
bed stream. Visual inspection of the project reach confirmed a gravel bed type as significant amounts
of gravel and cobble were visible along the reach.
3.2.6 Rosgen Classification
The existing project reach is degraded and unstable. The reach is entrenched (ratio = 1.28), with a
moderate to high width to depth ratio (ratio = 17.4), moderate to low sinuosity (sinuosity = 1.15), and
fairly steep slope (3%). Using Rosgen's Classification of Natural Rivers, the values above indicate
Reach 1 is Rosgen F4b stream.
3.3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Topographic survey was completed using conventional survey techniques within the stream and along
the immediate overbanks. Approximately 1,300 standard topographic shots were taken during the
survey including the top and bottom of banks, thalweg, breaks in slope, and points defining points
along curves. Additionally, bridge shots, location of large trees, utilities, standard topographic shots,
and culvert shots were included.
Horizontal and vertical control was taken from existing monuments within the City.
3.4 PROJECT SITE SOILS
The project site soils are Emporia series of varying slope, and moderate and moderate to severe
erosion potential.
3.5 BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX
Four (4) Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) forms were completed along Reach 1. Overall, Reach
1's banks have been assessed to have high to very high erosion potential, with downstream cross-
sections having very high erosion potential (Photograph 3.1). The BEHI measurements are consistent
with the erosion potential indicated for the project soil types by the Soil Survey. The BEHI values
and indexes are included in the dimension measurements in Appendix A.
3.6 PLANT COMMUNITIES
A vegetative survey was not completed on-site as most plants had been introduced by the property
owner as part of extensive landscaping effort along Reach 1. Little or no riparian buffer was present.
3.7 WILDLIFE
The project site is located on the property of a private residence in a semi-urban area. Specific
wildlife studies were not undertaken.
3.7.1 Wildlife Observed
No species were identified, however several small birds were noted and a small number of fish were
observed in one pool within the project reach. No other pools were observed to contain fish.
Dewberry 10

1 Phc
1 3.8 ENDANGERED SPECIES
3.8.1 Rare Plant and Animal Species
A search of the United States Fish and Wildlife Servic
Heritage Program (NCNHP) indicates no endangered
species that are found in the Roanoke Rapids USGS
and State Species of Concern are provided for Wake
to the project location.
I
:e (USFWS) and the North Carolina Natural
species and five (5) State-status threatened
luadrangle. Summary information for Federal
,ounty and the USGS Quadrangle corresponding
I
3.8.1.1 Halifax County
The USFWS lists three (3) endangered, one (1) threatened and nine (9) species of concern for in
Halifax County. The NCNHP lists eight (8) endangered, eight (8) threatened, seven (7) species of
concern, and nineteen (19) significantly rare species in Halifax County. The NCNHP list is a
' compilation of Federal and State lists. Table 3.4 lists the species of concern for the Federal and State
lists. Printouts of the NCNHP searches are included in Appendix D.

I

Table 3.3 Federal and State of North Carolina Species of Concern 1
Common Name Scientific Name State Status* Federal Status**
MAMMAL
Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Significantly Rare --
Southeastern Bat M otis austrori arius Special Concern Federal Species of Concern
BIRD
Anhin a Anhin a anhin a Significantly Rare --
Bachman's Sparrow Aimo hila aestivalis Special Concern Federal Species of Concern
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus Threatened Threatened
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Special Concern Special Concern
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicanus

ludovicanus Special Concern
--
Mississippi Kite ktinia mississi iensis Significantly Rare --
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Endangered
Warbling Vireo Vireo ilvus Significantly Rare --
REPTILE
None Listed -- -- --
AMPHIBIAN

--
Neuse River Waterdo Necturus lewisi Special Concern
FISH
Carolina Madtom - Tar

River Population Noturus furiosus pop 2 Special Concern
--
Least Brook Lamprey Lam etra ae tera Threatened --
Pinewoods Shiner L thrurus matutinus Significantly Rare Federal Species of Concern
Roanoke Bass Amblo lites cavi rons Significantly Rare --
CRUSTACEAN
Chowanoke Crayfish Orconectes vir iniensis Special Concern
Northern Carolina Spiny
Crayfish Orconectes carolinensis Special Concern Federal Species of Concern
VASCULAR PLANTS
Jame's Sedge Carex jamesii Significantly Rare -
Proposed _
Big Shellbark Hickory Carya laciniosa Significantly Rare -
Proposed
Eastern Isopyrum Enemion biternatum Significantly Rare -
Proposed _
Heller's Rabbit Tobacco Gnaphalium helleri var
helleri Significantly Rare -
Pro osed _
Lewis' Heartleaf Hexastylis lewisii Significantly Rare -
Limited _
Bog St. John's wort Hypericum adpressum Significantly Rare -
Throughout Federal Species of Concern
Sessile-flowered
Trillium Trillium sessile Significantly Rare -
Proposed
Dwarf Stinging Nettle Urtica chamaedryoides Significantly Rare -
Proposed _
Carolina Least Trillium Trillium pusillum var
usillum Endangered Federal Species of Concern
continued on next page
_? Dewberry 12 '

Common Name Scientific Name State Status* Federal Status**
INSECT
Argo Ephemerellan
Mayfly Ephemerella argo Significantly Rare Federal Species of Concern
Cinnamon
Shadowdra on Neurocordulia virginiensis Significantly Rare --
Mayfly Baetisca becki Significantly Rare --
MOLL USK
Dwarf Wed emussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Endangered
Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulate Threatened --
Alewife Floater Anodonta implicate Threatened --
Yellow Lance Elli do lanceolata Endangered Federal Species of Concern
Roanoke Slabshell Elli do roanokensis Threatened --
Atlantic Pi toe Fusconaia masoni Endangered Federal Species of Concern
Eastern Lam mussel Lam sills radiata radiata Threatened --
Green Floater Lasmi ona subviridis Endangered Federal Species of Concern
S uawfoot Stro hitus undulatus Threatened --
Notched Rainbow Villosa constricta Special Concern
--
Tar River S in mussel Elli do steinstansana Endangered Endangered
Yellow Lam mussel Lam sills cariosa Endangered Federal Species of Concern
Tidewater Mucket Le todea ochracea Threatened --
* - From NCNHP database updated January 2003. Search performed January 13, 2003.
** - From the USFWS database updated 5/31/2002.
3.8.1.2 Roanoke Rapids USGS Quadrangle

F

The NCNHP lists one significantly rare bird and five threatened mussels for the Roanoke Rapids
USGS Quadrangle. The bird, the Mississippi Kite, is listed as significantly rare in North Carolina, but
is globally secure. The Mississippi Kite winters in the tropics and migrates to breeding ranges whose
northern limit includes North Carolina. The Mississippi Kite's North Carolina habitat is mature,
extensive bottomland forests, which is not found at this urban project site.
The five mussels classified as State Status threatened are the Triangle Floater, the Alewife Floater, the
Roanoke Slabshell, Eastern Lampmussel and Tidewater Mucket. The NCNHP was contacted for
information regarding these species and the NCNHP does not list an occurrence for any endangered,
threatened or species of concern on the Unnamed Tributary, however, several occurrences of State
statues threatened mussel have been noted nearby on the Roanoke River (Exhibit 3.1).
' _ Dewberry 13
Project Area
ALEWIFE FLOATER Reach 1
Roanoke Canal Trail
Roanoke River
A Natural Heritage Element Occurences
Project Parcel
\ Reach 1 Watershed
1 ?
ROANOKE SLABSHELL
ALEWIFE FLOATER
EASTERN LAMPMUSSEL

TIDEWATER MUCKET
/TRIANGLE FLOATER
TIDEWATER MUCKET
EASTERN LAMPMUSSEL
J ?
GREEN FLOATER
TRIANGLE FLOATER
ALEWIFE
Exhibit 3.1 Natural Heritage Element Occurrences (Natural Heritage Program)
Reach 1 discharges to a reach of the Roanoke River classified as a spawning area for anadromous fish
species, most notably, the striped bass. The United States Army Corps of Engineers prohibitions and
special conditions for the use of all Nationwide Permits requires prior written approval from the NC
Division of Marine Fisheries or the NC Wildlife Resources Commission for discharges to anadromous
fish spawning grounds between February 15 and June 30. Construction for the project is not
scheduled to start before June 30, so written approval should not be required.
3.9 POTENTIAL DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
Potential design constraints for the Reach 1 restoration are listed below.
3.9.1 Landowner Restrictions
The property owners placed few constraints on the project. The only concerns identified were post-
construction flooding and a family pet gravesite. As requested by the owner, the proposed design
does not disturb the pet gravesite.
3.9.2 Utilities and Easements
The project site is intersected by several public and private utility crossings. A short description of
each existing crossing is listed below.
Dewberry 14

3.9.2.1 Power
Dominion NC Power has one aerial crossing near the middle of the project reach. Currently, the 19.9
' kV 1/0 PRIM. The aerial crossing is encased in a ductile iron pipe. This line will be relocated beneath
the proposed streambed during construction.
' Several private ground lights and one private electric junction box are located within the project
boundaries. These private electric features will be relocated as needed during construction.
' 3.9.2.2 Sanitary Sewer
The Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District has a 30" concrete sanitary sewer line crossing on the
downstream portion of the project reach. Currently, the crown of the main is partially exposed in the
' streambed. This main will be protected in place during construction.
One additional 8" ductile iron pipe crosses the upstream portion of the project reach. This aerial
' crossing pipe has not been identified, but is assumed to be the private sewer connection for the private
residence. This line will be protected in place or protected as an aerial crossing as needed during
construction.

3.9.2.3 Potable
Adjacent to the 30" concrete sanitary sewer main described in Section 2.10.2.2 Sanitary Sewer, the
' downstream portion of Reach 1 has two (2) potable water main crossings.
The first potable line is an abandoned Town of Weldon 12" ductile iron water main that is currently
' an aerial crossing. This line will be removed and plugged within the project boundaries during
construction.
The second potable line is a Town of Weldon 24" concrete water main. This main is approximately
40% exposed in the existing streambed. This line will be protected in place during construction.
There are several private irrigation lines and irrigation hydrants along the existing project reach.
These lines and hydrants will be protected in place or relocated as needed
.
3.9.2.4 Easements
3.9.2.4.1 Existing Easements
The Roanoke Canal Commission has a permanent easement along the Roanoke Canal Trail. Impacts
to this easement will occur as Reach 1 must pass through the easement to reach the Roanoke River.
The Roanoke Canal Commission has been made award of the project plans and has not raised any
objections to the proposed improvements.
' The existing water and sewer lines located on the downstream portion of the project, as described in
sections 3.10.2.2 Sanitary Sewer and 3.10.2.3 Potable, are located within an existing 40 feet wide
' permanent easement. Improvements will occur within this easement.
3.9.2.4.2 Proposed Easements
As per the CWMTF grant agreement, a 30 feet wide permanent conservation easement will be
' established along both sides of Reach 1. This easement will be measured from the top of bank of the
restored reach. This easement will be vegetated with native vegetation to reestablish the riparian
' buffer along Reach 1.

' r1lP Dewberry
15
Additionally, per the CWMTF grant agreement, a 100 feet wide permanent conservation easement
will be placed along the Roanoke River on the project site parcel. The 100 feet wide easement is
approximately 9 acres in size.
3.9.3 Natural Heritage Sites
Reach 1 currently bisects a portion of the Roanoke Canal Trail, which is listed on the historic register.
The Roanoke Canal Commission has been notified of potential impacts through Commission member
and City of Roanoke Rapids Manager, Rick Benton. To minimize impacts the design realigns Reach
1 through an area where the Roanoke Canal Trail has been removed previously (Photograph 3.2).

.M
Photograph 3.2

•t " F k. `
yppy.????".??y¢3YY4 ./!? ??' / 1, t' o?;i},•??17,?i??{iy4}1'1??}N???j??!`A•?
Previously Removed Section
Roanoke Canal Trail

16

Eight (8) stream sites were selected as potential reference sites based on apps
and upstream land use similar to Reach 1. The headwaters for each of these
urban and the drainage areas ranged from 42 to 162 acres. Each potential ref
assessed and two sites were deemed to have suitable morphological features
The remaining sites were severely degraded and many were noted to contain
altered features.
drainage areas
are semi-urban to
site was field
as a reference.
;ant reaches of
4.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The two streams selected for reference reaches w
EMRRP's Reach Assessment - Physical and Rea
outlined in the EMRRP Technical Note SR-03.
"Optimal" ratings using the Reach Assessment -
each reach are located in Appendix A.
1

ere evaluated using the US Army Corps of Engineers
ch Assessment - Environmental Characterization as
Both streams selected as reference reaches received
Environmental Characterization. Assessments for
4.1.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park
The Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke River within in
the Davis Recreation Center in Roanoke Rapids (Map 4
drainage area for this reach is approximately 90 acres ar
development. A significant portion of the stream bed cc
stream's ability to down-cut. The reach lacked sinuosiv
sanitary manhole and existing trees (Photograph 4.1).
L
?f ?l ?i ? Y w y ? 1
`` lF.c.• ` ' ?. Smith Park
VR _ s y
- 14
1 /
}, ! Y
11 Mt.

nith Park, located on 5`" Street adjacent to
, is classified as an E4 stream. The
is characterized by low-density residential
ained bedrock, which greatly minimized the
lue to horizontal restrictions caused by a

1 t
1?fg rw.c T
?, IT
f * y
4 ?
MAP 4.1

REFERENCE REACH 1 LOCATION (AERIAL FROM NCDOT)
ry
r 7r .,,
i
.0 4x11' e ? i
1
FF
Y
Photograph 4.1
Reference Reach I
4.1.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park
Reference Reach 2 (Photograph 3) is an Unnamed Tributary to Lower Barton Creek draining the
Chatsworth subdivision in northwestern Wake County (Map 4.2). The watershed drainage area is
approximately 36.4 acres and is roughly defined by Wagon Ridge Road and Adams Mountain Road at
the western watershed boundary, Brass Kettle Road along the southern watershed boundary and by
existing inter-stream boundaries elsewhere.
The watershed land use is approximately 32 percent wooded and 65 percent low density residential
development. The parcels, which are wholly or partially contained by the watershed, range in size
from one acre to 2.75 acres, many of which are retain significant wooded areas. Currently, the
watershed is approximately nine percent impervious.
Dewberry 18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Map
Photograph 4.2
Reference Reach 2
19
4.2 ROSGEN SURVEY
Rosgen survey of the reference sites followed the techniques outlined in the reference entitled USDA
stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field techniques. Morphological information for
each reference reach used for the project design is located in Section 5.6 Morphological Table.
4.2.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park
Rosgen survey for the Smith Park Reference Reach 1 was taken in April 2002. The surveyed reach
was 226 feet in length, approximately 23 bankfull widths, and contained five riffles and two pools but
lacked strong pattern features. However, this reference reach was included to provide dimension data
from a local stream with a drainage area very similar to the project site. A Field Drawing Sheet of the
surveyed reach is included in Appendix A.
4.2.1.1 Cross-sections
Cross-sections were taken at four (4) representative head of riffles and 1 representative head of pool.
Survey shots at these cross-sections included thalweg, edge of water, bankfull, breaks, flood prone
location, top of banks, and additional out of bank ground shots. Additionally, survey shots were taken
at the other features to confirm bankfull width and depth, pool to pool spacing, riffle to riffle spacing,
riffle to pool spacing, and water surface slope.
4.2.1.2 Dimension
The average bankfull area at the representative riffles was 9.8 square feet, while the average bankfull
width was 9.2 feet, which indicates a bankfull mean depth of one (1) feet. The average bankfull
widths that ranged between 6.5 to 12.3 feet. Rosgen cross-section survey data for the Smith Park
Reference Reach is located in Appendix A.
4.2.1.3 Pattern
Due to the lack of sinuosity of the stream no belt width or meander wavelength measurements were
taken. Pattern data from this reference reach was not used in design. I
4.2.1.4 Profile 1
The surveyed reach has an elevation drop of 3.35 feet along a channel length of 226 feet, which
results in a slope of approximately 1.48 %. The reach has a valley length of 210 feet and a stream
length of 226 feet, which indicates a sinuosity of 1.076. The two pools were separated by 31 feet or '
roughly 3.2 bankfull widths. The average riffle to riffle spacing was measured to be approximately 45
feet or 4.66 bankfull widths.
4.2.1.5 Pebble Counts
Wolman Pebble Count were conducted along the reach. Riffles represented approximately 80% of the
reach length, so pebble counts were completed with a ratio of 5 riffle counts to each pool count. A
total of 100 counts were taken, 16 counts taken at each of four riffles, 10 counts at one riffle, and 28
counts taken at a pool. The D50 of Reference Reach One was determined to be 19 mm, which
indicates a gravel bed. '
'? Dewberry 20 '

1

4.2.1.6 Rosgen Classification
The entrenchment ratio for the Smith Park Reference Reach was determined to be 2.22 and the width
to depth ratio was determined to be 11.8. This information combined with a sinuosity of 1. 1, a slope
of 1.5%, and a D50 of 19, indicates the surveyed reach of the Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke River
within Smith Park, is a Rosgen type E4 stream.
4.2.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park
Rosgen survey and dimension and pattern measurements for Reference Reach 2 were taken between
August 9 and 13, 2002. The surveyed length was 95 feet, approximately equal to 20 bankfull widths,
and contained two meander wavelengths, five (5) riffles and four (4) pools. The Field Drawing Sheet
for Reference Reach 2 is included in Appendix A.
4.2.2.1 Cross-sections
' Cross-sections were taken at one (1) representative head of riffle and one (1) representative head of
pool. Survey shots at these cross-sections included thalweg, edge of water, bankfull, breaks, flood
prone location, top of banks, and additional out of bank ground shots. Additionally, survey shots were
' taken at the other features to confirm bankfull width and depth, pool to pool spacing, riffle to riffle
spacing, riffle to pool spacing, and water surface slope.
4.2.2.2 Dimension
The bankfull area at the representative riffle was 3.3 square feet, while the average bankfull width was
5.1 feet, which results in a bankfull mean depth of 0.7 feet. Cross-section data for Reference Reach 1
can be found in Appendix A.
4.2.2.3 Pattern
The UT to Lower Barton Creek has a valley length of 68 feet and a stream length of 95 feet, which
indicates a sinuosity of 1.397. One belt width measurement was taken and measured to be 62 feet.
' The meander wavelength was taken at two locations, and resulted in a measurement of 18 feet and a
measurement of 32 feet. The radius of curvature measurements ranged from the tightest curve with a
radius of 3.5 feet, the second curve had radius of 13.5 feet, and the largest radius measured 23.6 feet.

4.2.2.4 Profile
' The surveyed reach has an elevation drop of 2.3 feet along a channel length of 95 feet, which results
in a slope 2.42%. The average riffle to pool spacing is 17 feet or roughly 3.5 bankfull widths. The
average pool to pool spacing is 23.1 feet or roughly 5 bankfull widths. The average riffle to riffle
spacing was 25 feet.
4.2.2.5 Pebble Counts
' A Wolman Pebble Count was conducted along the reach. Riffles represented approximately 65% of
the reach length, so pebble counts were completed with a ratio of 2 riffle counts to each pool count. A
total of 100 counts were taken, with 22 counts taken at each of three representative riffles and 11
' counts taken at each of three representative pools.
Bedrock was encountered in one pool and one riffle. Two riffles contained a gravel bed with a
number of cobble sized stones and the other riffle was a cobble bed with a number of gravel sized
ti 1D Dewberry 21
stones. The three pools contained sand beds and each had a small amount of silt/clay present.
Overall, the reach is classified as having gravel channel material. The channel material is 33% sand,
33% gravel, 20% cobble, 12% silt/clay, and 2% bedrock. The D50 of Reference Reach One is 4.9 mm.
4.2.2.6 Rosgen Classification
The entrenchment ratio for the representative riffle is 2.22, which indicates a Rosgen type C or E
stream. The width to depth ratio of 7.3 indicates the stream is a Rosgen type E stream. The sinuosity
is at the bottom end of Rosgen's range for an E stream, however, streams in North Carolina generally
have lower sinuosities than reported by Rosgen. The 2.4% slope and gravel bed result in a final
classification of E4b.
4.3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
4.3.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park
Topographic survey was not completed on the reference site.
4.3.2 Reference Reach 1 - Falls Lake State Park
Topographic survey was not completed on the reference site.
4.4 SOILS
4.4.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park
The entire reference site exists within one soil classification. This map unit is Emporia-Urban land
complex (ErB), which is a Sandy Loam that is composed of a mixture 40% Emporia soil, 30% urban
land, and 30% other soils (typically). Emporia soils are characterized by moderate permeability,
medium surface runoff potential, and moderate erosion potential. Emporia soils are generally
classified as hydrologic type C.
4.4.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park
The watershed contains several three soil series, namely the Lloyd, Madison, and Wilkes series.
Table 4.1 lists the soil series and the percentage of the watershed area in which each series is found.
The watershed soils are predominately Sandy Loams, with a nearly equal percentage of Loam soils.
The soil types and corresponding percentage of watershed area are shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1 Reference Reach 2 Watershed Soil Series
Percentage of Percentage of
Soil Series Watershed Soils Soil Series Watershed Soils
Ll od 47.4 Wilkes 1.1
Madison 51.5
Table 4.2 Reference Reach 2 Watershed Soil Types
Soil Type Percentage of
Watershed Soils Soil Type Percentage of
Watershed Soils
Sand Loam 51.5 Stony 1.1
Loam 47.4
Dewberry 22

' 4.5 PLANT COMMUNITIES
4.5.1 Reference Reach 1- Smith Park
' A number of large hardwoods were located near the reference reach site, however, the stream
generally lacked a riparian buffer. Since the reach was located in a park, the site was almost
exclusively covered in frequently mown grass.
'
4.5.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park
Reference Reach 1 can generally be described as a mature mesic beech cove. Many large diameter
' trees are present suggesting that the site has likely not been logged in more than 100 years. Due to the
lack of disturbance, the understory is relatively open and easy to walk through.
' The overstory along the stream is dominated by large diameter Beech (Fagus grandifolia) and Tulip
Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). A number of large Sweetgum trees (Liquidambar styraciflua) are also
present. At the top of the adjacent ridges, approximately 100 yards uphill of the stream, the overstory
' community shifts to habitat dominated by White Oak trees (Quercus alba) and Hickory trees (Carya
sp.), both of which are more typical of drier, mature upland piedmont forests.
The dominant woody understory species include Dogwood (Corpus sp.), Umbrella Magnolia
' (Magnolia tripetala), Ilex sp., Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and small American Elm trees
(Ulmus americana). Numerous small seedlings of Dogwood and White Oak trees, mostly liked
seeded from upland areas, are widely distributed. Vitis sp. was the most frequently observed vine in
t the understory.
In areas near the stream bank, Christmas Ferns (Polystichum acrostichoides) are common along with
patches of Microstegium. Several notable monoculture patches of Broad Beech Fern (Thelypteris
hexagonoptera) were also observed.
4.6 WILDLIFE OBSERVED
' 4.6.1 Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park
Reference site 1 is located in a park in an urban setting, therefore a wildlife survey was not completed.
Several small birds, crows and squirrels were noted during sites visits.
' 4.6.2 Reference Reach 2 - Falls Lake State Park
Although the reference site in near an existing sub-division a number of wildlife were observed.
' Tracks of whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) were noted and several
grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and a box turtle shell (Terrapene Carolina) were spotted. The
stream contained a small number of small fish and crayfish in the deeper pools. Birds noted at the site
' included American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Eastern Bluebird, Blue Jays (Cyanocitta
cristata), and small unidentified song birds.

' 1= Dewberry 23
5 (NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN
5.1 SUMMARY
The proposed steam alignment was designed with the Rosgen ratios developed from two reference
reaches. Because of the elevation change between the upstream and downstream project limits, the
downstream portion of Reach 1 was designed with step pools to provide a stable elevation change.
The new alignment contains 12 curves and 13 straight sections and is designed with 180 feet of
additional stream length. The design is a Rosgen E4 stream as guided by the reference reach data. A
summary of existing, reference and design Rosgen measurements are provided in Table 5.1
MORPOLOGICAL TABLE.
5.2 ROSGEN PRIORITY LEVEL
Reach 1 is currently incised with bank height ratios equaling or exceeding five (5). The reference
survey indicates Reach 1 should be designed with increased sinuosity and larger radius curves. Since
the site is very entrenched and requires additional stream length to increase sinuosity, the proposed
restoration is a Rosgen Priority Level 1 restoration with a new alignment. The Rosgen Priority Level
1 restoration will allow Reach 1 to utilize an existing wide floodplain, will allow for increased
sinuosity, and will return recharge to the groundwater table at previous elevations. The existing
channel will be backfilled as part of the proposed restoration.
5.3 DIMENSION
The proposed cross-sectional dimensions were based on the data collected from the project site and a
combination of data from both reference sites. The proposed section was compared to the SRI'S
regional curves for reasonableness and good agreement was found for the proposed Reach 1 typical
cross-sections.
The bankfull cross-sectional area and width will be reduced to 13 square feet and 12 feet, respectively.
Bankfull mean depth will remain approximately one (1) foot and bankfull maximum depth will be
increased to 1.8 feet. The restored reach will have a bank height ratio of approximately 1 a width to
depth ratio of 11.1 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.2.
5.4 PATTERN
The sinuosity of the proposed reach is increased to 1.21 and the radius of curvature for meanders has
been increased to a maximum of 100 feet. Eleven (11) curves are included in the design including
one set of double curves. The restoration utilizes a new alignment and the original channel will be
backfilled as part of construction.
5.5 PROFILE
The additional stream length reduces the overall channel slope, however, the majority of the elevation
change will be restricted to the downstream project reach in a series of step pools.
5.6 MORPHOLOGICAL TABLE
Rosgen Level 1 through 4 analyses was completed on Reach 1 and the Smith Park reference reach.
Although not specifically stated, Sections 1 through 4 of this report detail the four levels of
investigation for each of the streams.
Dewberry 24

' Using the data collected in Sections 1 through 4, Rosgen parameters and ratios were generated for the
reference reach and Reach 1. Table 5.1 summarizes the key morphological values for the reference
' reaches and provides the proposed or design values for Reach 1.

1

Table 5.1 Morphological Table
Dimension Parameter Units Reference Reference Existing Proposed
Reach l Reach 2
UT to UT to
Lower Barton UT to Roanoke UT to Roanoke
Reach Name Roanoke
River Creek River River
Falls Lake REACH 1 REACH 1
Smith Park State Park
Stream Type E4 E4b Fob E4b
Drainage Area miz 0.14 0.057 0.12 0.12
Bankfull X-Sec. Area, ABKF ft2 9.8 3.3 16.6 13
Bankfull Width, WBKF ft 9.2 5.1 17.4 12
Bankfull Mean Depth, DBKF ft 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.08
Width/De th, WBKF/DBKF 9.2 7.3 17.4 11.1
Bankfull Max Depth, DMAx ft 1.6 0.75 1.3 1.8
DmAx / DBKF 1.6 1.07 1.3 1.6
W. Flood Prone Area, WFPA ft 18.1 10.5 22.3 26.4
Entrenchment, WFPAIWBKF 2 2.22 1.28 '2.2
Bank Height Ratio, BHR 1.4 1 5.3 1.0
Bankfull Discharge, QBKF cfs 40 11.3 62 62
Bankfull Velocity, VBKF ft/5 4.1 3.4 3.73 4.77
Pattern Parameter Units Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Meander Length, LM ft N.M. N.M. 18 32 60 400 108 147
LM. Ratio, LM/ WBKF N.M. N.M. 3.8 6.8 3.9 25.7 9 12.3
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft N.M. N.M. 3.5 23.6 21.3 45.1 35 100
RC Ratio, Rc/WBKF N.M. N.M. 0.8 5.0 1.4 2.9 2.9 8.3
Belt Width, WELT ft N.M. N.M. 62 62 12 120 12 68
BW Ratio, WBLT/ WBKF N.M. N.M. 13.2 13.2 0.8 7.7 1 5.7
Profile Parameter Units Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pool Spacing, L,,, ft N.M. N.M. 17.4 35.1 72.9 341.8
P.S. Ratio, L /WBKF N.M. N.M. 3.7 7.5 4.7 22 4.7 7.5
Pool Width, W ft N.M. N.M. 3.4 4.9 7 14.1 12 12
P.W. Ratio, W /WBKF N.M. N.M. 0.8 1.0 0.45 0.91 1 1
Pool Depth, D ft N.M. N.M. .4 .8 1.67 1.88 2.5 2.5
P.D. Ratio, D /DBKF N.M. N.M. 0.9 1.9 1.67 1.88 2.31 2.31
Valle Slope, Svg 1.6% 3.40% 3.2% 3.2%
Channel Slope, Scn 1.48% 2.42% 2.99% 2.72%
Sinuosi , K 1.149 1.397 1.15 1,21
* N.M. - not measured, the stream lacked sinuosity
'? Dewberry 25
5.7 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
The pebble counts for the riffles indicated the riffles have a Dso of 5.7 mm. The movement of a
sediment particle is influenced by many factors, but in general, it is a function of a sediment particle's
physical characteristics and the hydraulic conditions present in a stream channel. Shields developed a
parameter referred to as the critical dimensionless shear stress, which is currently used in sediment
transport capacity analysis to estimate the energy needed to initiate movement of a particle of a given
size. Critical dimensionless shear stress (t*ei) is a measure of the force required to move a given size
particle resting on the channel bed. It can be calculated using the Dsos developed from the pebble
counts and the analysis of pavement and sub-pavement samples. The equation for critical
dimensionless shear stress is as follows:
t*ci = 0.0834(di/dso) -0.872
Where, t*ci = the critical shear stress (dimensionless)
di = Dso of riffle bed surface (mm)
Dso = subsurface dso (mm)
For Reach 1, the Dso of the riffle bed surface was 5.7 mm and the Dso of the sub-pavement sample was
estimated from the Halifax County Soil Survey to be 4.25 mm (based on percent passing sieve
number 40). These values result in a t*ci value of 0.0087 (see Table 5.2).
Once t*ei has been estimated, the depth of water in the channel that is necessary to move the largest
particle found in the bar sample can be calculated. Hey and Rosgen (1997) developed the following
relationship:
d=
t*ci ((r and - r water) / r water) Di
S
Where, t*,i = the critical shear stress (dimensionless)
r sand = density of sand (2.65 g/cm3)
rwater = density of water (1.0 g/cm)
Di = largest particle found on the point bar sample (ft)
S = average bankfull slope
The t*ei for Reach 1, as noted above, is 0.0087, the Di was 362 mm and the average bankfull slope
was 0.0 184, which results in a depth of flow of approximately 0.93 feet (see Table 5.2).
Table 5.2 Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Estimates

Reach
(mm)
(MM)
t*`t r sand
(g/cm3) r water
(b/ cm3)
Dl (ft) S
(ft/ft) d
A
Reach 1 5.7 0.425 0.0087 2.65 1.00 1.188 0.0184 0.93
The flow depth calculated using the Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress can be compared with the
proposed design mean riffle depth to determine if the design dimensions or profile need adjustment.
The required depth to move the 362 mm particle was calculated to be approximately 0.93 feet, which
Dewberry
26

compares favorably with the design mean bankfull depth of 1.08 feet and the design maximum
bankfull depth of 1.8 feet and indicates the proposed riffle cross-section should have enough flow
depth to adequately transport the available sediment.
Additionally, the shear stress was calculated using Shield's Curve. The formula below (1936) is used
to calculate a shear stress, which is then used to find a corresponding particle size on Shield's Curve.
The particle size found on Shield's curve will be the size particle that will be transported by the given
shear stress. The channel design, based on Shield's curve, should generate enough shear stress to
transport a particle equal to the D84 of the point bar.
t = gR,,s

r
J
Where, t = shear stress (lb/ft2)
g = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft2)
Rh = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average riffle slope (ft/ft)
The bankfull cross-sectional area is 13 square feet, the wetted perimeter is 12.61 feet, the average
riffle slope is 0.0184, and the D84 is 80 mm. Table 5.3 summarizes the values found using the formula
above and the Shield's Curve.
Table 5.3

Shield's Curve Estimates

Reach g
(lb/ft) Rh
(ft) Slope
(ft/ft) T
(Ib/ft) Particle Size (mm) -
Shield's Curve Pavement
D84 (mm) Bar D84
(mm)

Reach 1 .03 0.01 4 .75* 362
r * - Estimated from Halifax County Soil Survey (percentage passing sieve number 4)
l' Based on the Shield's urve ca cu ations, the design riffle cross-sec ions s ou d experience enough
shear stress to transport a 400 mm particle (based on extrapolated Shield's curve). This value was
compared to the D84 of the point bar, which is 362 mm, and the design cross-section should be
' adequately sized to transport the D84 of the point bar.
5.8 STRUCTURES
' A combination of rock structures, namely rock vanes and cross-vanes, are included in the design to
assist with grade control and flow re-direction. Additionally, small rock weirs have been placed at
secondary drainage features to protect the restored reach from bank erosion. Additionally, the local
' runoff buffer will pass through the restored riparian buffer as diffuse flow. Proposed locations of
structures can be seen on Plan Sheets 1 through 2.
' To protect the banks before the plantings can re-vegetate the stream banks and buffer, coir matting
will be used between the low flow channel to the bankfull stage to reduce erosion by providing a
temporary cover to exposed soils.
" 1" Dewberry 27
5.9 RIPARIAN BUFFER
As part of the stream restoration, the project will include restoration of the riparian buffer along the
project reach using native species. The native species list is taken from the vegetation survey
completed at Reference Reach 2 and has been supplemented with the SRI'S River Course Native
Riparian Plants and is shown in Appendix G and on the Construction Plans. Woody plants will be
planted at a density of 320 plants per acre a minimum of 20 feet from the top of the restored bank.
The restored buffer will extend 30 feet from the top of each restored bank.
5.10 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
The proposed cross-sections for Reach 1 are designed to adjust the stream to a Rosgen type E4b
stream. The riffle cross-sections will have a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 13 square
feet, a bankfull width of 12 feet, a bankfull maximum depth of 1.8 feet, and a bankfull mean depth of
1.08 feet. The width to depth ratio is approximately 11.1 and the entrenchment ratio will be greater
than 2.2.
The pool cross-sections will have a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 13 square feet, a
bankfull width of 12 feet, and a bankfull maximum depth of 2.5 feet. The pool sections differ from
the riffle sections by geometry as shown in Typical Sections in Appendix G.
5.11 PLAN SHEETS
Reach 1 will be a Rosgen Priority Level 1 restoration with several sections of the proposed channel
intersecting the existing channel. Additional length has been to increase sinuosity and reduce lateral
erosion. The proposed alignment is shown on Plan Sheets 1 to 2 in Appendix H.
5.13 PROFILE SHEETS
The upper project reach has been designed using the reference channel slope. The downstream reach
has been designed to incorporate a large amount of the elevation change for Reach 1. The elevation
change on the downstream reach is accomplished with three (3) series of step pools. The proposed
profile is shown on Profile Sheets 1 to 2 in Appendix I.
5.14 TYPICAL DETAILS
Typical restoration details to be used in the restoration are included in Appendix J.
Dewberry 28 '

6 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING
The general sequence of construction will proceed from upstream to downstream and is described in
' general terms below. Variance from the construction sequence as shown on the construction plan and
specifications will require prior approval from the engineer of record.

1

6.1 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
Prior to construction, a pre-construction meeting will be held. Following this meeting, the contractor
will be required to notify NC One-call to field locate utilities.
Following utility location, the contractor will stake the stream alignment, and will mark the limits of
grading and clearing and Limits of Disturbance (LOD). Contractor will then install tree protection
measures. Sediment control devices and runoff control measures will be installed. Following
inspection of protective measures, all vegetation marked for removal will be removed. The staging,
entry, and access routes will be cleared and then constructed.
6.2 DURING CONSTRUCTION
Each days work will be limited to the amount of work that can be completed and protected with
permanent or temporary measures before the work day's end. Sediment and erosion control measures
will be inspected and repaired/adjusted daily.
The stream channel will be protected from construction by diverting the natural flow opposite the
under construction bank. Techniques to divert stream flow may include, but are not limited to: (1)
edging with sandbags, (2) conveying water with corrugated metal pipe or corrugated plastic, or (3)
bypass water by pump-around.
Topsoil will be stripped and placed in stockpile to be placed over fill as needed. The channel will be
excavated and in-stream structures will be installed. The structures will be surveyed and stream banks
will receive final grading to design cross-sectional shape. The channel cross-section will be surveyed
and modified as needed.
Finished slopes will be stabilized with coir matting and the area will be temporarily or permanently
seeded according to the plans and specifications.
6.3 FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION
An as-built survey and as-built plans will be developed to ensure location and elevation of the
alignment and in-stream structures are in good agreement with the design plans. Permanent cross-
sections will be surveyed to determine stability of the stream and structures, and vegetation counts
will be conducted in test plots to determine survival rates.
All temporary erosion and control measures will be removed within 30 days after final site inspection.
=4 Dewberry _ 29
7 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
All land disturbance activities associated with the restoration are to be in accordance to the NC
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual and the NC Erosion and Sediment
Control Field Manual. Sediment and erosion control measures will be shown in detail on the
construction plans and a sediment and erosion control plan will be submitted to the NC Division of
Land Quality for permitting when construction plans are completed. The following provides a general
overview of proposed sediment and erosion control measures:
Sediment and erosion control measures to be used may include, but are not necessarily limited to,
diversion ditches, sediment basins, check dams, outlet protection, tree protection fencing, silt fencing,
temporary seeding, mulching, and erosion control blankets. Work will be limited to the length of
stream that can be constructed and stabilized before the end of the work day. All sediment and
erosion control measures will be inspected daily and following storm events, and will be adjusted
and/or repaired as needed.
The site contains a number of mature overstory trees. Tree preservation and protection measures will
be used to prevent damage to designated trees. Grading around trees that remain in place will be done
to minimize soil compaction over the roots.
Silt fencing will be used where necessary to control sediment transport and to protect exposed and
steep grades. Additional protection will be required for denuded areas not at final grade within seven
days and from any slope that seeps water from the slope face.
Sediment basins and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers and other measures, as required, shall be
constructed as a first step in any land disturbing activity and will be made functional before upslope
land disturbance takes place. Stockpiles will be stabilized or protected with sediment trapping
measures. When reaches require dewatering, a Pump-Around Detail will be provided to the engineer
for review prior to installation.
All disturbed areas above normal water level will receive temporary stabilization with vegetation
and/or mulch, weed free straw, hydromulch, cover crop, erosion control blanket, or similar. A
suitable temporary seed mixture will be provided on the construction plans.
Temporary accesses, storage, and staging areas are to be restored to preconstruction conditions. The
soil will be restored to alleviate compaction. Exposed areas will be stabilized in a manner similar to
disturbed areas described above. Where vehicle access intersects paved public roads, provisions shall
be made to minimize transport of sediment by vehicular traffic. When sediment is transported to
paved surfaces, the surface shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Washing will not be
allowed until the surface has been shoveled or swept and sediment disposed in a sediment control
area.
All temporary sediment and erosion control measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site
stabilization or after the temporary measures are no longer needed. Trapped sediment and disturbed
soil areas resulting from the disposition of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized to
prevent further erosion and sedimentation.
__pi Dewberry
?I" 30

? •-
•• • =i •1 WO
' An 11" x 17" drawing showing the plan view of the site(s) locating all structures with station
numbers, permanent vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections and benchmarks, beginning and
' ending points for longitudinal survey, and photo reference points will be generated for submittal with
the monitoring reports. Specific monitoring efforts will be as follows:
' 8.1 MORPHOLOGICAL MONITORING
Channel stability will be monitored by surveys of the stream geometry at project completion (as-built
' condition) and annually for five years following project completion or the agreed-upon termination of
monitoring, whichever is shorter. The Grantee field collection methods as outlined in Stream Channel
Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique (Harrelson, Rawlins, and Potyondy, USDA-
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report
RM-245, April 1994). Specific monitoring requirements are as follows:
' 8.1.1 Permanent Cross-Sections
Permanent cross-sections will be established at a density of at least one (1) cross-section per 20
bankfull-width lengths or approximately five (5) cross-sections for Reach 1. The permanent cross-
sections will represent approximately 50% pools and 50% riffles. Measure the cross-sections and
provide drawings to demonstrate bank and channel changes over time. The cross-section locations
shall be selected to monitor structures or features that may have an increased risk of failure. Each
' cross-section shall be marked on both banks to establish the exact transect location. A common
benchmark shall be used for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year
to year data. Data shall be taken at a scale that allows the evaluation of bank and channel changes.
Photos of each cross-section shall be made. Data shall be included for cross-sectional area, bankfull-
width, flood prone width, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, and stream type (for riffle cross
sections).
'
8.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be measured and drawn for prior to construction. A profile shall be
measured following construction and will be duplicated each year. The year to year profile data will
be compared to identify any changes. The beginning and end of each profile shall be well demarcated
and the length shall be at least 20 bankfull-widths. Elevation data will be collected to generate an
' average riffle slope and average pool slope. Additionally, the number of riffles and pools will be
noted.
8.1.3 Pebble Counts
Bed material changes will be evaluated by conducting Wolman Pebble Count two (2) permanent
cross-sections. A 100-particle sample shall be collected at each cross-section. Pebble counts will be
conducted following construction and year to year samples will be compared to this baseline
distribution. The D16, D50 and D84 will be generated along with percent cumulative graphs for each
' pebble count.
Dewberry
?: ,31
8.2 HABITAT MONITORING
Benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat monitoring will be conducted at three locations (above, within
and below the project) before the project begins and annually for a period of five years after
construction is complete or the agreed-upon termination of monitoring, whichever is shorter. Post-
construction monitoring shall begin one year after the stream restoration is complete. Monitoring
protocol for benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat shall follow DWQ's Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects, December 2001 or latest
version. Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring shall be conducted only by staff who have been
trained and certified to collect benthic macroinvertebrates as part of the 401 certification process or
have obtained a Certificate of Completion from DWQ's training course: Aquatic Insect Collection
Protocols For Stream Mitigation And Restoration Projects As Related To NCDENR DWQ 401
Certifications.
8.3 VEGETATION MONITORING
Survival of vegetation in areas that are seeded, in areas that include live stakes and planted trees will
be monitored using survival plots or direct counts. Coverage by the cover crop shall be evaluated at
regular intervals for the first 2 months following construction. Seeded areas shall be subjectively
evaluated using photographs of at least 4 survival plots; plots shall be 1-meter square and photos shall
be taken at least twice per year, in the summer and in the winter; the location of these photos shall be
marked in the field as the photo reference point, and all photos shall be taken from the same reference
points as the project progresses. Photos must be identified with date, location, and photo reference
location number. Survival of live stakes shall be evaluated using at least 3 plots. Plot size shall allow
for evaluating at least 100 live stakes. All bare rooted trees shall be flagged with identification
numbers; and trees will be examined twice per year, once in the summer and once in the winter.
8.4 PHOTO MONITORING
Electronic photographs of the project shall be taken before, during and after completion. The location
of all photos shall be marked in the field as photo reference points, and all photos shall be taken from
the same reference points as the project progresses. Photos will be identified with date, location, and
photo reference location number. A project site map shall be provided showing the location of each
photo reference point. The stream shall be photographed beginning at one end of the site and moving
to the other end with photographs taken at delineated locations. Photo reference locations shall be
marked and described for future reference. Photo points shall be close enough together to get an over
all view of the reach and cross-sections (including the streambed and overbanks).
Dewberry 32

Allen, H. H., and Fischenich, J. C. (1999). "Coir geotextile role and wetland plants for streambank
' erosion control, EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (TN EMRRP-SR-4), U. S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Biedenham, David S., Elliot, Charles M., and Watson, Chester C. (October 1997). The WES Stream
Investigation and Streambank Stabilization Handbook. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station (WES), Vicksburg, Mississippi.
' Watson, Chester C., Biedenham, David S., and Scott, Stephen H. (July 1999). Channel
Rehabilitation: Processes, Design, and Implementation. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, Mississippi.
FISRWG (10/1998). Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. By the
' Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG)(15 Federal agencies of the US
gov't). GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
Harrelson, Cheryl C.; Rawlins, C. L.; Potyondy, John, P. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
' illustrated guide to field techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
' North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. 2001. Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina. North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute. 1998. River Course. North Carolina State Bio-Ag
Engineering Cooperative Extension Service Water Quality Group, Raleigh, NC.
' Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
United States Department of Agriculture, et al. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration Principles,
Processes, and Practices. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. November 1993. Soil Survey
of Halifax County, North Carolina. Soil Survey Staff. United States Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
1

Dewberry
'_''33
1 .
1 %4l
i

I
I
I

N
I
I

I
i

REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
F1

1
APPENDIX A: DIMENSION MEASUREMENTS
A 1: REACH 1 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO THE ROANOKE RIVER

'J

Submitted by:

Dewberry
5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewberry.com

Existing Dimension Conditions
Riffles Mean Min Max
Bankfull Area 16.6 Ft.2 14.9 Ft.2 19.2 Ft.2
Bankfull Width 17.4 Ft. 11.0 Ft. 21.6 Ft.
FPA Width 22.3 Ft. 14.2 Ft. 35 Ft.
Mean Depth 1.0 Ft. 0.8 Ft. 1.4 Ft.
Max Depth 1.3 Ft. 1.0 Ft. 1.7 Ft.
Bank Height Ratio 5.3 Ft. 3.3 Ft. 6.7 Ft.
Low Bank Height 6.9 Ft. 4.5 Ft. 10.4 Ft.
High Bank Height 8.7 Ft. 6.7 Ft. 11.5 Ft.
Pools Mean Min Max
Bankfull Area 18.8 Ft.2 11.6 Ft.2 24.9 Ft.2
Bankfull Width 10.5 Ft. 7.0 Ft. 14.1 Ft.
Mean Depth 1.8 Ft. 1.7 Ft. 1.9 Ft.
Max Depth 3.0 Ft. 2.7 Ft. 3.9 Ft.
Max Bank Height 10.1 Ft. 7.8 Ft. 15.3 Ft.
Runs Mean Min Max
Bankfull Area 14.0 Ft* 2 11.4 Ft2 16.1 Ft, 2
Bankfull Width 14.2 Ft. 12.2 Ft. 15.4 Ft.
Mean Depth 1.0 Ft. 0.93 Ft. 1.07 Ft.
Max Depth 1.4 Ft. 1.19 Ft. 1.64 Ft.
Max Bank Height 10.9 Ft. 6.62 Ft. 16.9 Ft.
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
17.3 Ft.2 19.2 Ft.2 15.1 Ft.2 14.9 Ft.2 16.4 Ft.2
15.1 Ft. 21.6 Ft. 18.6 Ft. 11.0 Ft. 20.5 Ft.
19.6 Ft. 23.5 Ft. 19.0 Ft. 14.2 Ft. 35.0 Ft.
1.1 Ft. 0.9 Ft. 0.8 Ft. 1.4 Ft. 0.8 Ft.
1.4 Ft. 1.3 Ft. 1.2 Ft. 1.7 Ft. 1.0 Ft.
3.3 Ft. 4.4 Ft. 6.0 Ft. 6.3 Ft. 6.7 Ft.
4.5 Ft. 5.7 Ft. 7.3 Ft. 10.4 Ft. 6.9 Ft.
8.1 Ft. 6.7 Ft. 7.9 Ft. 11.5 Ft. 9.6 Ft.
P1 P2 P3 P4
21.3 Ft.2 11.6 Ft.2 17.3 Ft.2 24.9 Ft.2
11.3 Ft. 7.0 Ft. 9.6 Ft. 14.1 Ft.
1.9 Ft. 1.7 Ft. 1.8 Ft. 1.8 Ft.
3.9 Ft. 2.7 Ft. 2.7 Ft. 2.8 Ft.
7.8 Ft. 8.7 Ft. 15.3 Ft. 8.7 Ft.
2+46 3+99 7+49
14.6 Ft, 2 11.4 Ft, 2 16.1 Ft2
15.4 Ft. 12.2 Ft. 15.0 Ft.
1.0 Ft. 0.9 Ft. 1.1 Ft.
1.2 Ft. 1.6 Ft. 1.5 Ft.
6.6 Ft. 9.2 Ft. 16.9 Ft.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Cross Section Pool 1
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio = NA
Width/Depth Ratio = 7.1
Bankf ill Area = 5.4 ft.'
Bankft l Width = 6.2 ft.
Bankfull Depth = 0.9 ft
Bank Height Ratio = I
D50 = 2 mm
Q = 40 cfs (Estimated)
Existing Conditions
Swvey Data Rv"M Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA Hx0 EL Depth Width A.
962.5 99.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 989.5 97.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
995.5 96.73 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 996.9 96.12 0.00 1.40 0.00
998.2 L 95.15 0.97 1.30 0.63
1000.0 TW 94.62 1.51 1.80 2.23
1001.5 R 95.20 0.92 1.50 1.82
RBKF 1003.1 96.11 0.01 1.60 0.74
TOB 1006.4 98.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
1022.51 1 100.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pool 1
102
100
Bankfull
98
z
.4 96
2
w
94
92
90
990 995 1000 1005 1010
Cross-sectionsl Distance (ft)
Pebble Count Data Table and Graph
-
Particle
Gradiation Min
(mm) Max
(mm) a
P 70
01
#6 Reference Reach 1- Smith Park
Silt/Clay 0.0 #### S/c Pool 1 Pebble Count
Very Fine 0.06 #### 2
Fine 0.13 0.25 4
Medium 0.25 0.5 9 4 1 0070
Coarse 0.5 1 3 90%
Very Coarse 1 2 1 80%
Very Fine 2 4 3
70%
Fine 4 5
7
.
Fine 5.7 8 1 ii 60%
v
Medium 8 11.3 > 50%
6
Medium 11.3 16 w R 40%
Coarse 16 22.6 2
30%
Coarse 22.6 32
Very Coarse 32 45 2 U 20%
Very Coarse 45 64 1 10%
Small 64 90 0%

Small 90 128 A 0
01

Large
128
180
U .
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00

Large 180 256 Particle Size (mm)
Small 256 362
Small 362 512 v
3
Medium 512 1024 °
?
Large - V Lrg 1024 2048
Bedrock 2048 2100 Rock 5
D16_ 0.18 mm
D50 = 2 mm
D8c - 1100 mm
Total 281 1
Cross-section Riffle 5
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio = 2.0
Width/Depth Ratio = 9.9
Bankfull Area =15.3 ft.z
Bankfull Width =12.3 ft.
Bankfi l Depth =1.2 ft.
Bank Height Ratio =1
D_50 =120 mm
Q = 40 cfs (Estimated)
Stream Type = E
Existing Conditions
Survey Data BanldaD Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H:0 EL Depth Width Area
956.3 98.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
985.3 96.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB LBKF 990.7 95.46 0.00 5.40 0.00
992.3 L 94.08 1.20 1.60 0.96
1000.0 93.94 1.34 7.70 9.78
1001.9 94.39 0.89 1.90 2.12
RBKF 1003.0 95.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
RTOB 1003.7 96.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 1024.3 97.23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riffle 4 - Xsec 14 (Existing Conditions)
100
99
Bankfi ill
98
97
96
95
0
w 94
93
92
91
90
980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015
Cross-sectional Distance (ft)
Pebble Count Data Table and Graph
Particle
Gradiation
(mm
(mm a
H Rif
#5
Reference Reach 1- Smith Park
Silt/clay 0.0 0.061 S/c Riffle 5 Pebble C
t
Very Fine 0.06 0.125 oun
Fine 0.13 0.25
0
100 /
Medium 0.25 0.5 m 1 o
Coarse 0
5 1 90%
Very Coarse .
1 2 1 80%
Very Fine 2 4 700
Fine 4 5.7 C
60%
Fine 5.7 8 v
Medi
m 8 11
3 1 50%
u .
Medium 11.3 16 R 40%
Coarse 16 22.6 2 3
30%
Coarse 22.6 32 E
3
Very Coarse 32 45 1 U 20%
Ver
Coarse 45 64 ° 10%
y
Small 64 90 1 0%
Small 90 128 1 0
01 0
10 1
00 10
00 100
00

Large
128
180
U .
.
.
.
.
1000.00 10000.00
Large 180 256 Particle Size (mm)
Small 256 362
Small 362 512 b
Medium 512 1024 0 D16_ 9 mm
Large - V Lrg 1024, 2048, D50 = 120 mm
Bedrock 2048 2100 Rack 8 D8, 1100 mm
i
Cross Section Riffle 4
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio = 2.1
Width/Depth Ratio =10.3
Bankfull Area = 9.4 ft.2
BankfWl Width = 9.8 ft.
Bankfull Depth =1 ft.
Bank Height Ratio =1.8
D50 = 11.6 mm
Q = 40 cfs (Estimated)
Rosgen Stream Type = E
Existing Conditions
Survey Data BankhM Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H2O EL Depth Width Area
965.5 101.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 984.2 98.93 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 991.0 95.60 0.00 6.80 0.00
992.5 L 94.82 0.50 1.50 0.38
1000.0 TW 94.19 1.13 7.50 6.11
1000.8 95.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
RTOB 1001.7 96.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
1038.5 98.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riffle 4
100
I
99
98
Bankfull
97
w 96
95
w 94
93
92
91
90
980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015
Cross-Sectional Distance (ft)
Pebble Count Data Table and Graph
Particle • Rd:
Gradiation in
(1 ?? E~ #4
Silt/Clay 0.0 0.061 S/C
Very Fine 0.06 0.125 1
Fine 0.13 0.25
Medium 0.25 0.5
m 2 100°/a
Coarse 0.5 1 2 90%
Very Coarse 1 2 1 = 80%
Very Fine 2 4 i
70/
Fine 4 5.7 m
C
Fine 5.7 8 LL 60%
Medium 8 11.3 z 2 j 50%
Medium 11.3 16 0 40%
Coarse 16 22.6 1 30%

Coarse 22.6 32
Very Coarse 32 45 20%
Very Coarse 45 64 10%
Small 64 90 0%
Reference Reach 1- Smith Park
Riffle 4 Pebble Count
Snail 90 128 1 0.01
Large 128 180 U
Large 180 256
Small 256 362
Small 362 512
Medium 512 1024
Large - V Lrg 1024 2048
Bedrock 2048 2100 Rack 6
Total 16
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Particle Size (mm)
D16- 0.4 mm
D50 = 11.6 mm
D84 = 1100 mm

Cross Section Riffle 2
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio = 3.0
Width/Depth Ratio =7.5
Bankfull Area = 5.7 ft.2
Bankfull Width = 6.5 ft.
Bankfull Depth = 0.9 ft.
Bank Height Ratio =1.6
D50 =1100 mm
Q = 40 cfs (Estimated)
Rosgen Stream Type = E
Existing Conditions
Survey Data B-ddun Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H20 EL Depth Width Area
953.2 100.86 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 990.0 97.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 994.4 96.69 0.00 4.40 0.00
998.8 L 95.37 1.32 4.40 2.90
1000.0 TV 94.89 1.80 1.20 1.87
1000.3 R 95.34 1.35 0.30 0.47
RBKF 1000.9 96.69 0.00 0.60 0.41
RTOB 1001.51 1 98.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 1015.2 100.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
1020.2 101.47 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riffle 2
i
104
102
Bankful]
100
4?
c 98
W 96
94
92
90
980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015
Cross-sectional Distance (ft)
Pebble Count Data Table and Graph
Particle
Gradiation (Inm F #2
Silt/Clay 0.0 0.061 S/C
Very Fine 0.06 0.125
Fine 0.13 0.25 2
Medium 0.25 0.5 m 100%
Coarse 0.5 1 3 90%
Very Coarse 1 2 2 s 80070
Very Fine 2 4 i
Fine 4 5.7
m 70%
Fine 5.7 8 M 60%
Medium 8 11.3 50%
Medium 11.3 16 40070
Coarse 16 22.6 7
0
30
70
Coarse 22.6 32
Very Coarse 32 45 U 20%
Very Coarse 45 64 ° 10%
Small 64 90 0%
Reference Reach 1- Smith Park
Riffle 2 Pebble Count
Small 90 128 .0 0.01
0
Large 128 180 U
Large 180 256
Small 256 362
Small 362 512
Medium 512 1024 0
Large- V Lrg 1024 2048
Bedrock 2048 2100 Rack 9
Total 16
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Particle Size (mm)
D16_ 0.6 mm
D50- 1100 mm
D84= 1100 mm

Cross Section Riffle 1
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio =1.6
Width/Depth Ratio = 7.5
Bankfull Area = 9.0 ft.2
Bankfull Width = 8.2 ft.
Bankft ll Depth =1.1 ft.
Bank Height Ratio =1
D50 = 10.7 mm
Q = 40 cfs (Estimated)
Rosgen Stream Type = E
Existing Conditions
Survey Data BankM Hydnolic Geometry
TOB BKF SPA H2O EL Depth Width Area
976.2 101.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
F 988.4 99.97 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 996.2 97.39 0.00 7.80 0.00
997.2 L 96.27 1.12 1.00 0.56
1000.0 TV 95.91 1.48 2.80 3.64
1003.5 R 96.14 1.25 3.50 4.78
RBKF 1004.4 97.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
RTOB 1005.5 99.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
1010.2 101.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
1017.0 101.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riffle 1
105
104
103
102
w 101
:r
100
w 99
98
97
96
95
Bankfull
985 990 995 1000 1005
Cross-sectional Distance (ft)
1010 1015
Pebble Count Data Table and Graph
Particle I .. ;;; o. Rif.
Gradiation ?? ? I F #1
Silt/Clay 0.0 0.061 S/C
Very Fine 0.06 0.125 1
Fine 0.13 0.25 2
Medium 0.25 0.5 03
CJ2 1 100%
Coarse 0
5 1 2
90%
^
. C
Very Coarse 1 2 80%
Very Fine 2 4 m 70%

Fine 4 5.7
Fine 5.7 8 LL 60%

Medium 8 11.3 1 j 50%

Medium 11.3 16 ta+0 40%
Coarse 16 22.6 3 E 30%
Coarse 22.6 32 3
Very Coarse 32 45 2 V 20%

Very Coarse 45 64 1 \ 10%
Small 64 90 1 0%
Reference Reach 1- Smith Park
Riffle 1 Pebble Count
Small 90 128 a 2
0 0.0
Large 128 180 U
Large 180 256
Small 256 362
Small 362 512
3
Medium 512 1024
Large - V Lrg 1024 2048
Bedrock 2048 2100 R.&
Total 16
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Particle Size (mm)
D1fi= 0.2 mm
D50 - 10.7 mm
D84= 80 mm
1000.0 10000.0
Cross Section 24 -- Riffle 5
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio =1.7
Width/Depth Ratio = 25.7
Banldtill Area = 98.5 fL2
Bankfull Width = 33.4 ft.
Bankfidl Depth = 2.9 ft.
Bank Height Ratio =1.2
Q = 62 cfs (Estimated)
BEHI = 44.9
Rosgen Stream Type = F
Existing Conditions
Survey Data Bankfall Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H2O EL Depth Width Area
916.7 59.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 957.3 58.36 0.00 0.00 0.00
972.8 51.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
981.9 50.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 991.5 49.79 0.00 9.58 0.00
992.5 L 49.11 0.68 0.98 0.33
1000.0 48.76 1.03 7.52 6.44
1011.0 R 49.14 0.65 11.03 9.27
RBKF 1012.0 49.79 0.00 0.97 0.32
RTOB 1017.9 55.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 1039.5 56.55 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 1 1077.8 58.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riffle 5 - Xsec 24 (Exlsting Conditions)
59 -
I
57 ? ---
Bankfull
II
55 -- ---
0 53 -?
w 51
-
49
i
I ?
47
45
950 960 970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040
Cross-sectional Distance (ft)
Bank Erodibility Hazard Index
C
it
i Very Law Low Mod erate Hi Ve77 igh Extreme Observed
r
er
a value index value index value index value value index value index Index
Bank ht./bankfullh 1.0-1.9 1.0-1.9 1.10-1.19 2.0-3.9 1.2-1.5 4.0-5.9 1.6-2.0 9 2.1-2.8 8.0-9.0 10 10
Root Depth/bank ht. 1.0-0.9 1.0-1.9 .89-.50 2.0-3.9 .49-.30 4.0-5.9 .29-.15 8.0-9.0 <.05 10 8.5
Root Density (%) 100-80 1.0-1.9 79-55 2.0-3.9 54-30 4.0-5.9 29-15 6.0--7.9 8.0-9.0 <5 10 8.5
Bank Angle( 0°-20° 1.0-1.9 21°-60° 2.0-3.9 61°-80° 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 91°-119° 8.0-9.0 >1l9° 10 7.9
Surface Protection (°/ 100 - 80 1.0-1.9 79 - 55 2.0-3.9 54 - 34 4.0-5.9 29 -15 6.0-7.9 14-5 8.0 - 9.0 10 10
Adjustments: Bedrock = Very Low. Gravel = Decrease by one category unless mixture of gravel/sand is greater than 50%. Subtotal: 44.9
Cobble= Low. Sand = Increase value by up to 10 points. Silt / Clay = none. Adjustments: 0
Stratification = Adjust 5 -10 points upward depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfu0. Total: 44,9

Cross Section 23 - Pool 4
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio = NA
Width/Depth Ratio = 8.0
Bankf ill Area = 24.9 ft.2
Bankfull Width =14.1 ft.
Bankfull Depth =1.8 ft.
Bank Height Ratio = 2.5
D50 = 2.2 mm
Q = 62 cfs (Estimated)
Existing Conditions
Surve y Data BanlduB Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA HO EL Depth Width Area
9695 55.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
974.5 55.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 989.4 56.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
993.5 5131 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 994.4 50.30 0.00 0.91 0.00
995.4 L 49.37 0.93 0.97 0.45
9972 48.31 2.00 1.80 2.64
1000.0 47.52 2.78 2.83 6.76
1002.8 47.68 2.62 2.81 7.58
1007.4 R 49.77 0.53 4.54 7.14
RBKF 1008.5 50.30 0.00 1.15 0.31
RTOB 1016.4 54.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
1034.2 57.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
1068.6 62.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pool 4 - Xsec 23 (Existing Conditions)
56
55 - ?_
Banlfull
54
-
j -- --
53 - -
52 ?
--

51
----
w 50

49
0or
48 -
----
47

46
990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015
Cross-sectional Distance (ft)
Pebble Count Data Table. and Graph'
Particle
Gradiation Min
(mm) Max
(mm)
F Pool
#15
Existing Conditions
Silt/Clay 0.0 0.061 S/C 11 Reach One - Pool 4 Pebble Count
Very Fine 0.06 0.125 2
Fine 0.13 0.25 b 4
Medium 0.25 0.5 C
U) 3 100%
Coarse 0.5 1 4 90%
Very Coarse 1 2 11 C 80%
Very Fine 2 4 12 .
`
m 70%
Fine 4 5.7 6 C
Fine 5.7 8 1 LL 60%
Medium 8 11.3 2 4) 50%
Medium 11.3 16 ro 1
R 40%
Coarse 16 22.6 5 3
30%
Coarse 22.6 32 3
Very Coarse 32 45 2 t) 20%

Very Coarse 45 64 3 e 10%
Small 64 90 3 0%
Small 90 128 A 1
Large 128 180 U 1 0'01
Large 180 256
Small 256 362
Small 362 512 b
Medium 512 1024 00
Large - V Lrg 1024 2048
Bedrock 2048 2100 Rock
Total 1 -7 75
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Particle Size (mm)
D16_ 0.06 nun
D50- 2.2
I nun
D84 = 25.0 mm
Cross Section 17 -- Pool 3
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio = NA
Width/Depth Ratio = 5.3
Bankfull Area =17.3 fl.Z
BmMWI Width = 9.6 fl.
Bankfull Depth =1.8 fl.
Bank Height Ratio = 5.5
D50 =1.8 mm
Q = 62 cfs (Estimated)
Existing Conditions
Survey Data Banldull Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H2O EL Depth Width Area
958.8 68.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
982.3 68.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 990.6 65.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 994.4 53.55 0.00 3.78 0.00
996.0 51.81 1.74 1.61 1.40
998.8 51.63 1.92 2.73 5.00
998.9 L 51.51 2.04 0.15 0.30
1000.0 50.82 2.74 1.14 2.72
1002.6 R 51.44 2.11 2.59 6.28
1003.5 52.62 0.93 0.88 1.34
RBKF 1004.0 53.55 0.00 0.49 0.23
1006.3 59.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
RTOB 1018.4 66.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
1044.4 64.73 0.00 0.00 0.00
1067.0 63.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pool 3 - Xsec 17 (Existing Conditions)
68

-
,
66

64

- i
Bankful
-
i

-±-
I
_.
62 i
,00
,0
60
C
° 58

W 56

54

52 -

50

48
990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020
Cross-sectionanl Distance (ft)
Pebble Count Data Table and Graph
Particle
Gradiation Min
(mm) Max
(mm) a
F Pool
#10
Existing Conditions
Silt/Clay 0.0 0.061 S/C 19 Reach One - Pool 3 Pebble Count
Very Fine 0.06 0.125 10
Fine 0.13 0.25 6

Medium
0.25
0.5
?
11 0
100 /o
Coarse 0.5 1 10 90%
Very Coarse I 2 8 s $0%
Very Fine 2 4 13 L o
0
Fine 4 5.7 4 /o
m 7
C
Fine 5.7 8 6 LL 60%
Medium 8 11.3 6 50%
Medium 11.3 16 w 6 40%
Coarse 16 22.6 7
Coarse 22.6 32 5 30%
7
Very Coarse 32 45 4 V 20%
Very Coarse 45 64 6 10%
Small 64 90 1 0%
Small 90 128 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Large 128 180 U
Large 180 256 Particle Size (mm)
Small 256 362
Small 362 512 b
Z
Medium 512 1024 0
Large - V Lrg 1024 2048
Bedrock 2048 2100 Rock 3
D16= 0.06 mm
D50 = 1.8 mm
D84 = 21 mm
Total 1751 1

Cross Section 14 -- Riffle 4
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio =1.3
Width/Depth Ratio = 8.1
Bankfull Area =14.9 ft.Z
Bankfull Width =11.0 ft.
Bankfiill Depth =1.4 ft.
Bank Height Ratio = 6.3
Q = 62 cfs (Estimated)
BEHI = 40.9
;osgen Stream Type = G
Existing Conditions
Survey Data Banhfidl Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H2O EL Depth Width Area
965.1 68.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
972.8 68.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 989.0 67.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
992.5 59.66 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 995.0 58.00 0.00 2.46 0.00
996.6 L 56.75 1.25 1.55 0.97
1000.0 56.35 1.66 3.45 5.01
1004.8 R 56.35 1.65 4.84 7.99
RBKF 1006.0 58.00 0.00 1.16 0.%
RTOB 1009.6 66.74 0.00 0.00 0.00
1031.6 66.61 0.00 0.00 0.00
1038.4 66.74 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riffle 4 - Xsec 14 (Existing Conditions)
I I
69 -
I
67 ---
65
a
a 63 -
o
w 61
59
i
57 - -
55
980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015
Cross-sectional Distance (ft)
Bank Erodib lity Hazard Index
C
i
i Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Observed
r
ter
a value index value index value index value index value index value index Index
Bank ht./bankfull h 1.0-1.9 1.0-1.9 1.10-1.19 2.0-3.9 1.2-1.5 4.0-5.9 1.6-2.0 6.0-7.9 2.1-2.8 8.0-9.0 10 10.0
Root Depth/bank ht. LO-0.9 1.0-1.9 .89-.50 2.0-3.9 .49-.30 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 .14-.OS 8.0-9.0 <.OS 10 6.5
Root lknsity(%) 100-80 1.0-1.9 79-55 2.0-3.9 54-30 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 14-5 8.0-9.4 <5 10 6.5
Bank Angle( 0°-20° 1.0-1.9 21°-60° 2.0-3.9 61°-80° 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 91'_ 1190 8.0-9.0 >119° 10 7.9
urfaceProtection 100-80 1.0-1.9 79-55 2.0-3.9 54-30 4.0-5.9 29-15 6.0-7.9 14-5 8.0-9.0 l0 10.0
Adjustments: Bedrock = Very Low. Gravel = Decrease by one category unless mixture of gravel/sand is greater than 50%. Subtotal: 40.9
Cobble = Low. Sand = Increase value by up to 10 points. Silt / Clay = none. Adjustments: 0
Stratification = Adjust 5 -10 points upward depending on position of unstable layers in relation to banldull. Total: 40.9
Cross Section 11-- Riffle 3
s>,ma,y Data
Entrenchment Ratio =1.0
Width/Depth Ratio = 23.1
Bankfull Area =15.1 ft.Z
Banldull Width =18.6 ft.
Bankfull Depth = 0.8 ft.
Bank Height Ratio = 6.0
Q = 62 cfs (Estimated)
BEHI = 35.6
.osgen Stream Type = F
Existing Conditions
Survey Data Banldull Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H2O EL Depth Width Area
959.6 68.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
965.3 68.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 990.7 67.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 991.4 61.20 0.00 0.70 0.00
991.8 60.20 1.00 0.41 0.21
992.9 60.17 1.03 1.05 1.07
997.7 60.05 1.15 4.83 5.26
1000.0 TW 59.98 1.22 2.31 2.74
1006.3 60.58 0.62 6.30 5.80
RBKF 1010.0 61.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
1010.0 62.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
RTOB 1012.6 67.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
1042.4 68.92 0.00 0.00 0.00
1047.4 69.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Riffle 3 - Xsec 11 (Existing Conditions)
75

73 i
- ?- -

71 - i
- --
Bankfull
69 -- -
i
67 -
I
a
°
65 I
m
w 63

61

59

57

55
990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015
Cross-Sectional Distance (ft)
Bank Erodibility Hazard Index
Criteria
Very
Low
Low
Mod
erate High
Very High
Extreme
Observed
value index value index value index value index value index value index Index
Bank ht./bankfiill h 1.0-1.9 1.10-1-19 2.0-3.9 1.2-1.5 4.0-5.9 1.6-2.0
6.0-7.9
2.1-2.8
8.0-9.0
>2.8
10
1.1
Root Depth/bank ht. 1.0 - 0.9 1.0-1.9 .89-.50 2.0-3.9 .49-.30 4.0-5.9 .29-.15
6.0-7.9
8.0-9.0
<.05
10
8.7
Root Density 100
-80 1.0-L9 79-55 2.0-3.9 54-30 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 14-5 8.0-9.0 <5 10 7.9
ankAngle V-20° 1.0-1.9 21°-60° 2.0-3.9 61°-80° 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 910 -ll9° 8.0-9.0 >l19° 10 7.9
Surface Protection (°/ 100-80 1.0-1.9 79-55 2.0-3.9 54-30 4.0-5.9 29-15 6.0-7.9 14-5 8.0-9.0 10 10
Adjustments: Bedrock = Very Low. Gravel = Decrease by one category unless mixture of gravel/sand is greater than 50%. Subtotal: 35.6
Cobble= Low. Sand = Increase value by up to 10 points. Silt / Clav = none. Adjustments: 0
Stratification = Adjust 5 -10 points upward depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull. Total: 35.6
APPENDIX A
Reach Assessment -
p Physical
Stream Reach SM A
Lat/LonQ r
Sheet #
Date
Gauge REF?© N
Surveyor
Watershed
Area
% Imp ^-q
Adjacent Land Use (100 m)
Wetland
Forest
ricuiture._____ •_
? & Recreatio
es en aTT-
CommerciaUlnd.
Transportation
Utility
Riparian Vegetation (30 m)
Barren
-fig rass
BLH
Sh
duogs-
erous
Invasive
Non-Native
Cover (%)?
Canopy
LWD
Other
Channel Characteristics
Planform 6%,
Bend
Cross
Straight
Profile
?fl
Pool
Run
Flow Tempe
Tranq.
Features
Point Bars
Mid Bars
Shoals
Chutes/Bac kwtrr..
Snags
Control
Slope (ft/mi) rn
Notes:
L
Stream Type
CEM Stage -
Geometry
Slope 3
Valley
Reach •'?- °lo
Riffle N nn
Pool
Planform
X x/14
Am-
Rc
Pool Depth AV Z--
Pool Width A-) Atq'
Riffle Depth -2
Riffle Width 6 - /?
Protection Characteristics
T
Unprotected =
r points
Revetments
Bioengineering
Grade Control
Other
Height N A-
Length N A _
Materials A) A
Bank Characteristics
Hei -t Total @ Riffle (Ft.)
4
8
8-12
>12
Bank Slope
Vertical
1:1
&aterial
Clay & Silt
Gra
Cobbles
Bank ition
to I
eathenng
Eroding
Advancing
Vegetation Types (% Cover)
Barren So'
Sedge rass
Shrubs
oniferous
Invasive
Non-Native
Erosion Processes
Ext
0
Bed
Toe
Upper Bank
Whole Bank
Pre ant Mechanism
None
Flow Entrainment
Piping
Shallow Slide
Cantilever
Rotational
Slab
Overbank
Other
Substrate
Unknown
Clay & Silt
Grav
ob (mm)
D84 (mm) 1100
Texture S?oO
OTHER NOTES / SKETCHES:
(Note Photo Numbers)
Technical Note EMRRP SR-03 11
M
0,0 47- t Iwle.+rS??'1
I< C 5 Poe "r ?Ncr rc? uX T o trot
APPENDIX B Q ?l c{ / i p° r , t?-. lot c ?ov
Reach sessment - Environmental Characterization
Stream V.e 2 Reaches }?"' Lat/Lon Sheet #
f)atr C;anae A)/4 REF? Y N Survevor /0+
Parameter Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Greater than 50% of SRH SRH and IRH habitat on 5 Less than 5% useable Less than 5% useable
1. Streambank and IRH habitat on to 50% of existing banks; SRH and IRH habitat; SRH and IRH habitat; lack
Epifaunal existing banks; presence mix of stable streambank some mix of stable of instream habitat
Substrate/ of bars, snags, cut banks, habitat but not all types; streambank habitat; diversity is obvious;
Available gravel or other stable bank well-suited for full habitat availability less substrate unstable or
Overbank Cover habitat at bank-full stage colonization potential; than desirable; substrate lacking.
to allow full colonization adequate habitat for frequently disturbed or
potential. maintenance of removed.
populations.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Mixture of substrate Mixture of sand and gravel Primarily sands and silts; Shifting fine sands, silts
2. Instream materials, with gravel and with silts at margins; some few shoals or gravel bars; and clays; no shoals or
Substrate cobbles prevalent; sand shoals and gravel bars; little emergent vegetation; gravel bars; mostly runs;
Characterization deposits are firm; several emergent vegetation LWD < 10 percent; gravels no emergent vegetation;
shoals and gravel bars; present or not; LWD > 10 are highly embedded. little or no LWD;
LWD > 10 percent; percent; gravels and embeddedness not
embeddedness minimal. cobbles only slightly relevant.
embedded.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Predominantly riffles and Approximately equal Occasional riffle; tranquil Generally all tranquil runs;
3. pools; few tranquil runs; distribution of riffles, pools runs > 25% of reach; pools a few pools near LWD;
Morphological ratio of distance between and runs; distance associated with LWD; poor habitat; distance
Diversity and riffles divided by width of between riffles divided by distance between riffles between riffles divided by
Flow the stream generally 5 to the width > 10; more than divided by the width of the the width of the stream is a
Conditions 10; variety of habitat is three distinct stream >25; only 1 to 3 ratio of >25; dominated by
key; more than 4 distinct velocity/depth patterns distinct velocity/depth one velocity/depth pattern.
velocity/depth patterns present. patterns present.
present.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
More than 90% of the 70-90% of the streambank 50-70% of the streambank Less than 50% of the
4. Bank streambank surfaces surfaces covered by native surfaces covered by streambank surfaces
Vegetative covered by native vegetation, but one or vegetation; at least two covered by vegetation;
Diversity and vegetation, Including more class of plants is not classes of vegetation only one class of
Condition trees, understory shrubs, well-represented; present; Invasive species vegetation; Invasive
Above Bank-full and herbs; vegetative disruption evident but not present; disruption species dominant;
disruption minimal or not affecting full plant growth obvious. disruption of streambank
evident; almost all plants potential to any great vegetation is very high.
allowed to grow naturally. extent.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 1 0
12 Technical Note EMRRP SR-03

I
I
I

Category
Parameter
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Naturally stable; Stabilized; Grade control Moderately unstable; some Unstable; entrenched;
Channel
5 evidence of incision or present and evidence of entrenchment and/or active headcuts;
.
Stability (Base bank failure absent or incision or bank failure impending entrenchment; impending or active bank
Level) minimal; limited potential absent or minimal; some long-term channel stability failures; any CEM level.
for future problems; CEM potential for future questionable; impending
Level 1 or 5. problems; CEM Level 1, 4, bank instability; any CEM
or 5. level.
SCORE 20 19 8 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Banks stable; evidence Moderately stable; Moderately unstable; 30- Unstable; many eroded
6. Bank Stability of erosion or bank failure infrequent, small areas of 60% of bank in reach has areas; "raw" areas
absent or minimal; little erosion mostly healed areas of erosion; high frequent along straight
potential for future over; 5-30% of bank in erosion potential during sections and bends;
problems; <5% of bank reach has areas of erosion. floods. obvious bank sloughing;
affected. 60-100% of bank has
erosional scars.
SCORE 6 20)19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Width of riparian zone Width of riparian zone Width of riparian zone less Width of riparian zone less
7. Riparian >100 m for at least 90% exceeds 30 m for at least than 30 m for 10 to 50% of than 30 m for at least 50%
Vegetative Zone of bankline; human 90% of bank length; bank; human activities of bank; little or no riparian
Width activities (i.e., parking human activities have have impacted zone for vegetation due to human
lots, roadbeds, clear-cuts, impacted zone for less more than 10% of banks. activities for at least 10%
lawns, or crops) have not than 10% of banks. of banks.
impacted zone.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Existing riparian habitat Existing riparian habitat Existing riparian habitat Existing riparian habitat
8. Riparian high quality; preservation only slightly degraded; somewhat degraded; degraded; preservation not
Management of habitat likely with preservation and/or preservation and/or desirable or attainable;
Potential minimal management; improvement likely with improvement possible but improvement not likely or
affords opportunities for moderate management would require significant would require significant
demonstrations and effort. management effort. and costly management
improvements. effort.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Technical Note EMRRP SR-03 13

b-IN
a
?o' C 1
r
_._ -- PAD I

I ) 1
mod
s oo ?
P
S?
f, l

' REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

APPENDIX A: DIMENSION MEASUREMENTS
A2: REFERENCE REACH 1 UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY TO THE ROANOKE RIVER
'
Submitted by:
Dewberry
' 5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewberry.com

J

Existing Dimension Conditions - Unnamed Tributary in Smith Park

I
I

J

I
I

I
Riffles Mean Min Max
Bankfull Area 9.8 Ft. 5.7 Ft. 15.3 Ft.
Bankfull Width 9.2 Ft. 6.5 Ft. 12.3 Ft.
FPA Width 18.1 Ft. 13.5 Ft. 25.0 Ft.
Mean Depth 1.0 Ft. 0.9 Ft. 1.2 Ft.
Max Depth 1.6 Ft. 1.4 Ft. 1.8 Ft.
Bank Height Ratio 1.4 1.0 1.8
Low Bank Height 2.1 Ft. 1.48 Ft. 2.90 Ft.
High Bank Height 3.5 Ft. 2.15 Ft. 4.70 Ft.
Pools Mean
Bankfull Area 5.4 Ft.
Bankfull Width 6.2 Ft.
Mean Depth 0.9 Ft.
Max Depth 1.5 Ft.
Low Bank Height 1.5 Ft.
0+48
5.4 Ft.
6.2 Ft.
0.9 Ft.
1.5 Ft.
1.5 Ft.
0+00 0+3 9.5 1+05 1+ 49
9.0 Ft. 5.7 Ft. 9.4 Ft. 15.3 Ft.
8.2 Ft. 6.5 Ft. 9.8 Ft. 12.3 Ft.
13.5 Ft. 19.3 Ft. 21 Ft. 25.0 Ft.
1.1 Ft. 0.9 Ft. 1 Ft. 1.2 Ft.
1.51 R. 1.8 Ft. 1.4 Ft. 1.51 R.
1.0 1.6 1.8 1.0
1.48 Ft. 2.9 Ft. 2.6 Ft. 1.5 Ft.
3.51 Ft. 3.6 Ft. 4.7 Ft. 2.15 Ft.
I

Cross Section 8 -- Pool 2
Summary Data
Entrenchment Ratio = NA
Width/Depth Ratio = 4.2
Bankfull Area= 11.6 ft.z
Bankfull Width = 7.0 ft.
Bankfull Depth = 1.7 ft.
Bank Height Ratio = 3.1
Q = 62 cfs (Estimated)
Existing Conditions
Survey Data Banldull Hydraulic Geometry
TOB BKF STA H:0 EL Depth Width Area
957.5 70.823 0.00 0.00 0.00
967.0 70.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
LTOB 989.4 70.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
991.0 69.95 0.00 0.00 0.00
993.5 66.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
LBKF 995.5 64.44 0.00 2.05 0.00
997.5 62.28 2.16 1.97 2.13
997.8 L 63.16 1.28 0.30 0.52
1000.0 61.75 2.69 2.21 4.39
1001.7 R 63.15 1.29 1.66 3.30
1002.1 62.12 2.32 0.46 0.83
RBKF 1002.5 64.40 0.04 0.36 0.42
1004.6 65.53 0.00 0.00 0.00
1008.0 69.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
RTOB 1012.1 70.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
1028.5 69.71 0.00 0.00 0.00
1049.4 69.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pool 2 - Xsec 8 (Existing Conditions)
71
70
69
68
a 67
a
66
w 65
64
63
62
61
985 990 995 1000 1005 1010
Cross-Sectional Distance (ft)
I REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
APPENDIX A: DIMENSION MEASUREMENTS
A3: REFERENCE REACH 2 UNNAMED
' TRIBUTARY TO LOWER BARTON CREEK
' Submitted by:
Dewberry
' 5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewberry.com
I

Existing Dimension Conditions - Unnamed Tributary to Lower Barton Creek

Riffles Mean Min Max
Bankfull Area 3.3 Ft.2 Ft.2 Ft.2
Bankfull Width 5.1 Ft. 4.9 Ft. 5.8 Ft.
FPA Width 10.5 Ft. Ft. Ft.
Mean Depth 0.7 Ft. Ft. Ft.
Max Depth 0.8 Ft. 0.5 Ft. 1.0 Ft.
Bank Height Ratio 1.2
Low Bank Height 1.11 Ft. Ft. Ft.
High Bank Height 1.17 Ft. Ft. Ft.
0+00 0+25 0+49 0+75
3.7 Ft.' --- Ft.2 --- Ft.2 --- Ft.2
4.7 Ft. 4.9 Ft. 5.7 Ft. --- Ft.
10.5 Ft. --- Ft. --- Ft. --- Ft.
0.7 Ft. --- Ft. --- Ft. --- Ft.
1.0 Ft. Ft. Ft. 0.5 Ft.
1.2
1.11 Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft.
1.17 Ft. --- Ft. --- Ft. --- Ft.

Pools Mean Min Max
Bankfull Area 3.6 Ft.2 Ft.2 Ft.2
Bankfull Width 4.3 Ft. 4 Ft. 4.5 Ft.
Mean Depth 0.8 Ft. Ft. Ft.
Max Depth 1.6 Ft. 1.1 Ft. 2.2 Ft.
Low Bank Height 1.07 Ft. Ft. Ft.
0+20 0+40 0+57 0+93
--- Ft.2 3.6 Ft.2 --- Ft.2 --- Ft.2
4.5 Ft. 4.4 Ft. 4.0 Ft. --- Ft.
--- Ft. 0.8 Ft. --- Ft. --- Ft.
1.1 Ft. 1.1 Ft. 2.2 Ft. 1.9 Ft.
Ft. 1.07 Ft. Ft. Ft.

M M M M M i r r M ? ? > ? ? w ? r_ ?
Cross Section 0+00 -- Riffle 1
Summary Data Existing Conditions
Entrenchment Ratio 2.22 Survey Data Banlda Hydrautie Geometry
Width/Depth Ratio = 6.6 TOB BKF STA H2O EL Depth Width Area
Bankft l Area = 3.3 ft.2 - 3.0 89.56 0.00 0.0 0.00
Banldull Width = 4.7 ft. 6.0 99.56 0.00 0.0 0.00
BankfUll Depth = 0.7 ft. 8.0 89.42 0.00 0.0 0.00
Bank Height Ratio = 1 9.0 88.42 0.00 0.0 0.00
Water Surface Slope = NA ft. LTOB LBKF 9.2 88.20 0.00 0.2 0.00
Q = 11 cfs (Estimated) 9.2 L 87.40 0.81 0.0 0.00
9.7 TV 87.25 0.95 0.5 0.44
Rosgen Stream Type = E Riffle 1, flowing left to right. 12.0 R 87.44 0.77 2.3 1.97
13.5 87.83 0.38 1.5 0.86
Unnamed Trib to Little Barton Creek
RBKF
13.9
88.20
0.01
0.4
0.08
Riffle 1 - Xsec
RTOB
14.4
88.26
0.00
0.0
0.00
16.7 88.36 0.00 0.0 0.00

93
19.7
89.68
0.00
0.0
0.00
29.0 92.59 0.00 0.0 0.00
92

-010
Notes:
91 Bankfull
)
0?
90
W
00
89
88
87
0 5
10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
? A w ? M r r r M M M M M M M M M M M
Cross Section 0+40 -- Pool 2 (Head of Pool)
Summary Data Existing Conditions
Entrenchment Ratio = 2.3 Survey Data Ban" Hydranhe Geometry
Width/Depth Ratio = 5.4 TOB BKF STA HO EL Depth Width Area
Bankfull Area = 3.6 ft.2 6.0 88.59 0.00 0.0 0.00
Banldull Width = 4.4 ft. 9.3 87.67 0.00 0.0 0.00
Bankfi l Depth = 0.8 ft. 11.2 87.69 0.00 0.0 0.00
Bank Height Ratio = 1 LTOB LBKF 12.4 87.35 0.00 1.2 0.00
Water Surface Slope = NA ft. 12.7 87.08 0.27 0.3 0.04
Q = 11 cfs (Estimated) 12.9 86.68 0.67 0.2 0.09
13.3 L 86.37 0.98 0.4 0.33
Rosgen Stream Type = N.A. Pool 2, flowing right to left. (Above) 15.0 TW 86.28 1.07 1.7 1.75
Unnamed Trib to Little Barton Creek 15.9 R 86.41 0.94 0.9 0.91
Pool 2 - Xsec. 16.3 86.68 0.67 0.4 0.32
16.5 87.08 0.27 0.2 0.09
90 1
RTOB RBKF 16.8 1 87.35 0.00 0.3 0.04
18.01 1 89.32 0.00 0.0 0.00

89 Notes:
e
° 88

87 Bankf d]
86
5 10 15
Distance (ft) 20
mberry & Davis, Inc.
Nbeny Conip ny
Sketch Sheet
Job Name ?e
..Project Name
Notes
Pcwk
1??°h Yf?
?6r '/'s 405
-7 y S 1-3
1
---- ---- -----Date
Crew No.
-- - ------ Sheet No. of
A
y
? s
77? CY,
QJ
C
c?

^44
r
41
4 (.

>115
?. •?-?
K?
(y

APPENDIX A
t Reach Assessment -
Physical
?
I

' Reach
Stream U
La ULon
Sheet #
Date -p?,
-° F?
Gauge NA REF?? N
Su
Mqw-
rveyor
Watershed
Area (sm) __ '` 3aa t c 2
% Imp -_ lO 1b --
Adjacent Land Use (100 m)
Wetland
culture
Parks & Recreation
Residential
Commercial/Ind.
Transportation
Utility
Riparian Vegetation (30 m)
Barren
edgy?M-s-_-,
BLH
Shrub
ec' oust
Coniferous
Invasive
Non-Native
Cover (%)
Canopy --
LWD --JV -----
Other
Channel Characteristics
Planfo
en
Cross
Straight
Profile
Run
Florap Fe
atures >v, <}
Point Bars
Mid Bars
Shoals ?`?'
Chutes/Backwtr.
Snags
Control
Slope (ft/mi)
Notes: --?
Stream Type
CEM Stage __-________-
Geometry
Slope
Valley --- _
Reach __!a
Riffle
Pool
Planform
X - -?=-
Am
Rc,k
Pool Depth ___ C)
Pool Width
Riffle Depth ___O 2_pf
Riffle Width
Protection Characteristic
Type
o emoted
Hardpoints
Revetments
Bioengineering
Grade Control
Other
Height
Length _-_-M, __
Materials
Bank Characteristics
He?Total @ Riffle (Ft.)
4-8
8-12
>12
Bank Slope
Vertical
1:1
X1:2
Bank Material
Clay & Silt
Sand
,Of 0-6?
Ba dition
Stabl
eathering
Eroding
Advancing
Vegetation Types (% Cover)
Barren Soil
edge & Grass
Shrubs
_ciduous-?
Coniferous
Invasive
Non-Native
Erosion Processes
Extent
one (Stable
Be
Toe
Upper Bank
Whole Bank
Pre`Fl t Mechanism
one
D84 (mm)
OTHER NOTES / SKETCHES:
(Note Photo Numbers)
ow Entrainment
Piping
Shallow Slide
Cantilever
Rotational
Slab
Overbank
Other
Substrate
Unknown
Clay & Silt
Sand
r2vel
D50 (mm) ----------
Texture

I Technical Note EMRRP SR-03 11

O u-?'? <<' orC' ;

pcY
C APPENDIX B
V 1 40
i ?fl Reach Assessment - Environmental Characterization
'
Stream Reach f Lat/ Lon - - Sheet #
Date Gauge REF? N Surveyor M K
Parameter Cate gory
i Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Greater than 50% of SRH SRH and IRH habitat on 5 Less than 5% useable Less than 5% useable
1. Streambank and IRH habitat on to 50% of existing banks; SRH and IRH habitat; SRH and IRH habitat; lack
Epifaunal existing banks; presence mix of stable streambank some mix of stable of instream habitat
i
Substrate/ of bars, snags, cut banks, habitat but not all types; streambank habitat; diversity is obvious;
Available gravel or other stable bank well-suited for full habitat availabifity less substrate unstable or
Overbank Cover habitat at bank-full stage colonization potential; than desirable; substrate lacking.
to allow full colonization adequate habitat for frequently disturbed or
potential. maintenance of removed.
populations
SCORE 20 19 118/17 16 15 14 13 12 11 - 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
-_ - - -
1 Parameter --- - -
Category
-
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
i Mixture of substrate Mixture of sand and gravel Primarily sands and silts; ! Shifting fine sands, silts
2. Instream materials, with gravel and with silts at margins; some few shoals or gravel bars; and clays; no shoals or
Substrate cobbles prevalent; sand shoals and gravel bars; little emergent vegetation; gravel bars; mostly runs;
Characterization deposits are firm; several emergent vegetation LWD < 10 percent; gravels j no emergent vegetation;
shoals and gravel bars; present or not; LWD > 10 are highly embedded. little or no LWD;
i LWD > 10 percent; percent; gravels and embeddedness not
embeddedness minimal. cobbles only slightly relevant.
embedded.
i
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 - ! 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter - --
Category
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
i Predominantly riffles and Approximately equal Occasional riffle; tranquil Generally all tranquil runs;
3. pools; few tranquil runs; distribution of riffles, pools runs > 25% of reach; pools a few pools near LWD;
Morphological ratio of distance between and runs; distance associated with LWD; poor habitat; distance
Diversity and riffles divided by width of between riffles divided by distance between riffles between riffles divided by
i Flow the stream generally 5 to the width > 10; more than divided by the width of the the width of the stream is a
Conditions 10; variety of habitat is three distinct stream >25; only 1 to 3 ratio of >25; dominated by
key; more than 4 distinct velocity/depth patterns distinct velocity/depth one velocity/depth pattern.
velocity/depth patterns present. patterns present.
i present.
[SCORE ? 20 19 18 17 16 115 14 13 _1211 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter
Category
----
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
More than 90% of the 70-90% of the streambank 50-70% of the streambank Less than 50% of the
4. Bank streambank surfaces surfaces covered by native surfaces covered by streambank surfaces
Vegetative covered by native vegetation, but one or vegetation; at least two covered by vegetation;
Diversity and vegetation, including more class of plants is not classes of vegetation only one class of
Condition trees, understory shrubs, well-represented; present; invasive species vegetation; invasive
' Above Bank-full and herbs; vegetative disruption evident but not present; disruption species dominant;
disruption minimal or not affecting full plant growth obvious. disruption of streambank
evident; almost all plants potential to any great vegetation is very high.
allowed to grow naturally. extent.
' SCORE r29 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
12 Technical Note EMRRP SR-03

- - -
Category
Parameter
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Naturally stable; Stabilized; Grade control Moderately unstable; some Unstable; entrenched;
5. Channel evidence of incision or present and evidence of entrenchment and/or active headcuts;
Stability (Base bank failure absent or incision or bank failure impending entrenchment; impending or active bank
Level) minimal; limited potential absent or minimal; some long-term channel stability failures; any CEM level.
for future problems; CEM potential for future questionable; impending
Level 1 or 5. problems; CEM Level 1, 4, bank instability; any CEM
or 5. level.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Cat egory
I Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Banks stable; evidence Moderately stable; Moderately unstable; 30- Unstable; many eroded
6. Bank Stability of erosion or bank failure infrequent, small areas of 60% of bank in reach has areas; "raw" areas
absent or minimal; little erosion mostly healed areas of erosion; high frequent along straight
potential for future over; 5-30% of bank in erosion potential during sections and bends;
problems; <5% of bank reach has areas of erosion. floods. obvious bank sloughing;
affected. 60-100% of bank has
erosional scars.
' SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
' r Parameter Cate gory
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Width of riparian zone Width of riparian zone Width of riparian zone less Width of riparian zone less
7. Riparian >100 m for at least 90% exceeds 30 m for at least than 30 m for 10 to 50% of than 30 m for at least 50%
Vegetative Zone of bankline; human 90% of bank length; bank; human activities of bank; little or no riparian
Width activities (i.e., parking human activities have have impacted zone for vegetation due to human
lots, roadbeds, clear-cuts, impacted zone for less more than 10% of banks. activities for at least 10%
lawns, or crops) have not than 10% of banks. of banks.
impacted zone.
'
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Parameter Catto e -gory- -
-- -
Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Existing riparian habitat Existing riparian habitat Existing riparian habitat Existing riparian habitat
8. Riparian high quality; preservation only slightly degraded; somewhat degraded; degraded; preservation not
Management of habitat likely with preservation and/or preservation and/or desirable or attainable;
Potential minimal management; improvement likely with improvement possible but improvement not likely or
affords opportunities for moderate management would require significant would require significant
demonstrations and effort. management effort. and costly management
improvements. effort.
SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
I Technical Note EMRRP SR-03 13

I*

I

REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
APPENDIX B : PATTERN MEASUREMENTS
B 1: REACH 1 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO THE ROANOKE RIVER

Submitted by:
It Dewberry
'
5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewbei-i-y.com
I
7
i
i
i
Pattern Measurements
Summary
Meander Wavelength LM
Radius of Curvature Rc
Belt Width WBLT
Valley Length Lv
Stream Length Ls
Sinuositv K
Existing Conditi ons
Mean Min Max
230 Ft. 60 Ft. 400 Ft.
30 Ft. 21 Ft. 45 Ft.
48 Ft. 12 Ft. 120 Ft.
825.3 Ft
947.7 Ft
1.148 I(Xsec32 - Xsec1)
ng Conditions
Curve
Meander Wavelength LM
Radius of Curvature Rc
Cord Length C
Mid Ordinate M
Belt width WBLT
Curves
1 2
Ft. 400 Ft.
3 4 5
Ft. Ft. 60 Ft.
45 21 28
59 Ft. 42 Ft. 44 Ft.
11 Ft. 25 Ft. 11 Ft.
Ft. Ft. 120 Ft.
24 32
23 Ft. 54 Ft.
3 Ft. 15 Ft.
12 Ft. 13 Ft.

REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

APPENDIX B: PATTERN MEASUREMENTS
B 2: REFERENCE REACH 2 UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY TO LOWER BARTON CREEK
Submitted by:
t Dewberry
5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewberry.com

Pattern Measurements - Unnamed Tributary to Lower Barton Creek

F FRardius of
ature Belt
Width Meander
Wavelength
Mean Ft. 13.5 62.0 25.0
Minimum Ft. 3.5 62.0 18.0
Maximum Ft. 23.6 62.0 32.0

Stream Valley
Sinuosity
Length Length
101 68 1.49

P',

Units Radius of
Curvature
Ratio Belt
Width
Ratio Meander
Wavelength
Ratio
Mean --- 2.5 11.3 4.6
Minimum --- 0.6 11.3 3.3
Maximum --- 4.3 11.3 5.9
Curves Belt
Width Meander
Wavelength
#'s (Ft.) (Ft.)
1 &2 62.0 32.0
2&3 --- 18.0
Curve Radius of
Curvature
# (Ft.)
1 13.5
LI 2 23.6
3 3.5

N

1

n

I REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

APPENDIX C: PROFILE MEASUREMENTS
C 1: REACH 1 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO THE ROANOKE RIVER
Submitted by:

1

fj Dewberry
5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewberry.com

w w w w w w ¦? w w w w w ws w Illll? i w Illlilf? w
Longitudinal Survey
Channel Bottom
Sloe Point Station ELEV
108 0.00 71.02
13.25 125 17.32 68.72
3.69 141 60.42 67.13
6.63 167 94.18 64.89
3.69 250 120.38 63.93
1.40 258 157.82 63.40
-4.81 259 178.00 64.37
11.20 274 201.43 61.75
5.64 284 213.02 61.10
-5.23 379 245.80 62.81
2.21 351 302.08 61.57
2.47 352 348.31 60.42
1.67 362 374.84 59.98
6.18 363 399.47 58.46
2.08 470 465.69 57.08
2.25 475 498.33 56.34
4.80 484 543.20 54.19
2.22 485 560.95 53.80
10.36 513 589.71 50.82
9.97 521 606.00 49.19
-15.68 546 616.06 50.77
5.61 547 637.38 49.57
4.73 588 680.80 47.52
-2.59 609 728.76 48.76
13.66 624 748.70 46.04
3.75 640 775.17 45.05
2.96 639 794.93 44.46
-5.27 638 810.97 45.31
4.18 637 832.85 44.39
-0.79 686 872.76 44.71
4.28 688 903.40 43.39
0.31 690 947.71 43.26
1.62 696 982.99 42.69
Reach 1 Existing Profile
Waters Surface
Sloe Station Eav
0.00 71.23
12.37 17.32 68.87
3.71 60.42 67.35
4.99 94.18 65.74
2.13 120.38 65.13
1.73 157.82 64.49
-1.86 178.00 64.88
9.42 201.43 63.16
0.09 213.02 63.15
0.13 245.80 63.13
1.53 302.08 61.87
2.06 348.31 60.90
2.96 374.84 60.11
4.34 399.47 59.03
2.21 465.69 57.61
3.05 498.33 56.55
5.14 543.20 54.67
2.18 560.95 54.31
6.53 589.71 52.73
5.52 606.00 51.44
2.47 616.06 51.09
3.15 637.38 50.74
2.88 680.80 49.37
0.42 728.76 49.13
11.23 748.70 47.02
4.87 775.17 45.61
0.48 794.93 45.53
1.39 810.97 45.33
2.29 832.85 44.77
0.54 872.76 44.56
2.44 903.40 43.78
0.24 947.71 43.67
0.50 982.99 43.53
72
62
C
O
c4
d
W
52
42
0 200 400 600
Longitudinal Distance
-* Water's Surface -*--Channel Bottom
800 1000

' REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

I
I

APPENDIX C: PROFILE MEASUREMENTS
C2: REFERENCE REACH 1 UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY TO THE ROANOKE RIVER
Submitted by:
Dewberry
5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewberry.com
M M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M
Reference Reach 1 - Smith Park Profile
98
97
0 96
95
°-' 94
w
93
92
0
50
Long
Station Thalweg Water's
Surface Bankfull
0.0 95.91 96.27 97.39
17.0 94.70 95.90 96.96
39.5 94.89 95.37 96.69
48.0 94.62 95.20 96.12
55.0 94.56 95.15 96.55
81.0 94.79 95.26
105.0 94.19 94.82 95.6
149.0 93.94 94.08 95.46
226.0 92.56 92.82 93.35
100 150 200
Station
-*-Thalweg --m-Water's Surface A- Bankfull
250
I
I REACH 1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
I

I
1

11

APPENDIX C: PROFILE MEASUREMENTS
C3: REFERENCE REACH 2 UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY TO LOWER BARTON CREEK
Submitted by:
Dewberry

5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
' phone: [phone] fax: [phone]
www.dewberry.com

I
90 T-
89 -'`

88
-
o
,?-
87
a?
w 86 ---
85 - ---
i
84 -'
0

3
s
Unnamed Tributary to Lower Barton Creek
20 40 60 80 100
Longitudinal Station
?- Thalweg -a-Water's Surface -?- Bankfull ?- Low Bank
Feature KF Elev WSEL Difference
Riffle 1 87.83 87.45 0.38
Pool1 87.47 86.86 0.61
Riffle 2 87.16 86.82 0.34
Run 1 86.68 86.39 0.29
Run 2 86.69 86.36 0.33
Riffle 3 86.76 86.37 0.39
Pool2 86.68 86.15 0.53
Riffle 4 86.32 85.92 0.40
Poo13 85.26 84.93 0.33
Max 0.61
Min 0.29
Range 0.32
SHOT STA. ELEV.
TW 0.0 87.40
TW 20.0 86.74
TW 22.2 86.41
TW 25.0 86.77
TW 40.0 86.28
TW 43.1 86.31
TW 49.0 86.33
TW 57.4 85.86
TW 59.8 85.49
TW 66.0 85.50
TW 70.5 85.81
TW 74.8 85.79
TW 92.5 84.73
TW 95.0 84.70
TW 101.0 84.95
TW 123.0 81.52
TW 130.0 80.48
SHOT STA. ELEV.
WS 0.0 87.45
WS 20.0 86.86
WS 22.2 86.83
WS 25.0 86.82
WS 40.0 86.39
WS 43.1 86.36
WS 49.0 86.37
WS 57.4 86.15
WS 59.8 85.96
WS 74.8 85.92
WS 92.5 84.93
WS 95.0 84.95
WS 101.0 84.99
WS 123.0 81.92
WS 130.0 81.92
SHOT STA. ELEV.
BKF 0.0 87.83
BKF 20.0 87.47
BKF 22.2 87.14
BKF 25.0 87.16
BKF 40.0 86.68
BKF 43.1 86.69
BKF 49.0 86.76
BKF 57.4 86.68
BKF 74.8 86.32
BKF 92.5 85.26
BKF 95.0 85.42
BKF 101.0 85.43
BKF 123.0 82.33
BKF 130.0 82.40
SHOT STA. ELEV.
TOB (L) 0.0 89.42
TOB 20.0 88.25
TOB 22.2 88.22
TOB 25.0 88.15
TOB (L) 40.0 87.69
TOB 43.1 87.87
TOB 49.0 87.98
TOB 57.4 87.67
TOB 74.8 86.99
TOB 92.5 85.94
TOB 95.0 86.10
TOB (L) 101.0 85.82
TOB (L) 123.0 83.86
TOB (L) 130.0 83.88

11

I*

I
I
I

d
I
t
Updated: 05/31/2002
HALIFAX COUNTY
Common Name
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow
Bald eagle
Cerulean warbler
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Invertebrates
Scientific name
Aimophila aestivalis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Dendroica cerulea
Picoides borealis
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Chowanoke crayfish Orconectes virginiensis
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon
Tar River crayfish (=Albermarle crayfish) Procambarus medialis
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis carioca
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata
Vascular Plants
Bog St. John's-wort
Carolina least trillium
Hypericum adpressum
Trillium pusillum var.
pusillum
Status
I
MProposed
for delisting)
?SCE
Endangered
Endangered
NO
Endangered

' KEY:
Status Definition

' Endangered - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
Threatened - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
' throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Proposed - A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
C1 - A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient
' information to support listing.
FSC - A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the
future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for
listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing).
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a
species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare
' species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
' EXP - A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as
threatened on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species
proposed for listing on private land.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental
' records.
' *Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
* * * Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or
habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
1
' For additional information regarding this Web page, contact Mark Cantrell, in Asheville, NC, at
mark [e-mail]
' Visit the North Carolina ES Homepape
Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page
1 Keywords=(same keywords listed above - used for search tools)

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program USGS Quadrangle Search
Search Criteria: =Roanoke Rapids
Quads: 6
Major Grou Scientific Name (Habitat Common Name
p link)
Bird
Mollusk
Mollusk
Mollusk
Mollusk
Mollusk
Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle Floater
Anodonta imnlicata Alewife Floater
Ellit)tio roanokensis Roanoke Slabshell
Lampsilis radiata Eastern Lampmussel
radiata
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater Mucket
State Federal State Global Quad
Status Status Rank Rank Status
SR - S213 G5 Current - ROANOKE
RAPIDS
Current - ROANOKE
T - S2 G4
RAPIDS
Current - ROANOKE
T - S l G5
RAPIDS
T - S1 G2G3 Current - ROANOKE
RAPIDS
Current - ROANOKE
T - S 1 S2 G5T5
RAPIDS
T - S1 G4 Current - ROANOKE
RAPIDS

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program County Search
Search Criteria: halifax, All
Search Results: 61 records found.
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State Federal State Global County Status
Status Status Rank Rank
Mammal Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Bat SC FSC S2? G3G4 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Mammal Sciurus niger Eastern Fox Squirrel SR - S3 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Bird Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow SC FSC S3B,S2N G3 Historic - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Bird Anhinga anhinga Anhinga SR - S2B,SZN G5 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Bird Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SR FSC S2B,SZN G4 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Bird Haliaeetus Bald Eagle T T S3B,S3NG4 Current - Halifax - MAP -
leucocephalus HABITAT
Bird Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite SR - S2B G5 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Bird Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike SC - S3B,S3N G4T4 Current - Halifax - MAP -
ludovicianus HABITAT
Bird Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpeck er E E S2 G3 Historic - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Bird Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo SR - S2B,SZN G5 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Amphibian Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog Sc - S3 G3 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Fish Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke Bass SR - S3 G3 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Fish Lampetra aepyptera Least Brook Lamprey T - S2 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP -

Fish Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods Shiner
Fish Noturus furiosus pop 2 Carolina Madtom - Tar
River Population
Mollusk Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedgemussel
Mollusk Alasmidonta undulata Triangle Floater
Mollusk Anodonta implicata Alewife Floater
Mollusk Elliptio lanceolata Yellow Lance
Mollusk Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke Slabshell
Mollusk Elliptio steinstansana Tar River Spinymussel
Mollusk Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe
Mollusk Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel
Mollusk Lampsilis radiata Eastern Lampmussel
radiata
Mollusk Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater
Mollusk Leptodea ochracea Tidewater Mucket
Mollusk Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot
Mollusk Villosa constricta Notched Rainbow
Crustacean Orconectes carolinensis North Carolina Spiny
HABITAT
Obscure - Halifax - MAP -
SR FSC S3 G3
HABITAT
SR - S2 G3T2Q Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
E E S I G 1 G2 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
T - S2 G4
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
T - S l G5
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
E FSC S I G2G3
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
T - S I G2G3
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
E E S l GI
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
E FSC S l G2
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
E FSC S l G3G4
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
T - S 1 S2 G5T5
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
E FSC S l G3
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
T - S l G4
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
T - S2S3 G5
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
SC - S3 G3
HABITAT
SC - S4 G3 Historic - Halifax - MAP -

Crayfish
Crustacean Orconectes virginiensis Chowanoke Crayfish
Insect Baetisca becki a mayfly
Insect Ephemerella argo
Insect Neurocordulia
virginiensis
Vascular Plant Carex jamesh
Vascular Plant Carya laciniosa
SC FSC S3
SR - S1
HABITAT
G3 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
G2 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
G4 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Historic -Halifax -MAP -
Argo Ephemerellan Mayfly SR FSC S 1
Cinnamon Shadowdragon SR -
James's Sedge
Big Shellbark Hickory
Vascular Plant Enemion biternatum Eastern Isopyrum
Vascular Plant Gnaphalium helleri var Heller's Rabbit Tobacco
helleri
Vascular Plant Hexastylis lewisii Lewis's Heartleaf
S2S3 G4
SR-P - S l
SR-P - S l
SR-P - S2
SR-P - S2?
SR-L - S3
Vascular Plant Hypericum adpressum Bog St. John's-wort SR-T FSC SH
Vascular Plant Trillium pusillum var Carolina Least Trillium E FSC S l
pusillum
Vascular Plant Trillium sessile Sessile-flowered Trillium SR-P - S l
Vascular Plant Urtica chamaedryoides Dwarf Stinging Nettle SR-P
Natural Basic Mesic Forest _
Community (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Si?
HABITAT
G5 Historic - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
G5 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Historic - Halifax - MAP -
G5
HABITAT
G4G5T3? Historic - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Current - Halifax - MAP -
G4
HABITAT
Historic - Halifax - MAP -
G2G3
HABITAT
G3T2 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
Historic - Halifax - MAP -
G4G5
HABITAT
S l G 4G5 Current - Halifax - MAP -
HABITAT
G5T3 Current - Halifax - MAP
Natural Coastal Plain
Community Bottomland Hardwoods - - - S4 G5T5 Current - Halifax -MAP
(Brownwater Subtype)
M M M i i M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Natural Coastal Plain Levee
Community Forest (Brownwater -
Subtype)
Natural Coastal Plain
Community Semipermanent -
Impoundment
Natural Coastal Plain Small
Community Stream Swamp -
(Blackwater Subtype)
Natural Coastal Plain Small
Community Stream Swamp -
(Brownwater Subtype)
Natural Cypress--Gum Swamp
Community (Brownwater Subtype)
Natural Dry Oak--Hickory _
Community Forest
Natural Dry-Mesic Oak--

Community _
Hickory Forest
Natural Low Elevation Seep -
Community
Natural Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Community Forest (Coastal Plain -
Subtype)
Natural Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Community Forest (Piedmont -
Subtype)
Natural Piedmont Monadnock
Community Forest
Natural Piedmont/Coastal Plain

Community _
Heath Bluff
Natural Piedmont/Low
Community Mountain Alluvial -
Forest
- - S4 G5T5 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S4 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S5 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S2S3 G5T3T4 Current - Halifax -MAP
S5 G5T5 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S4 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP

- - S5 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP

- - S3 G4? Current - Halifax - MAP

- - S4 G5T5 Current - Halifax - MAP

- - S4 G5T5 Current - Halifax - MAP

- - S4 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S3 G4? Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S5 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP

Natural Piedmont/Mountain
Community Bottomland Forest
Natural Piedmont/Mountain

Community _
Levee Forest
Natural

Community Wet Pine Flatwoods -
Special

Habitat Wading Bird Rookery -
- - S3? G5 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S')? G5 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S3 G3G4 Current - Halifax - MAP
- - S3 G5 Current - Halifax - MAP

1

I*

I

m

The following tables were published in 2002 by the NC Stream Restoration Institute. They
are inteded to be used as guidelines for appropriate species, native to North Carolina, to be
used in Restoration Projects.
1
lie
.t rt°?art?
Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North Carolina
The following tables are recommended plants for stream restoration by North Carolina physiographic region
based on known commercial availability. This list is certainly not exhaustive and is intended to be used only as
a basic guide. Each restoration site is different; therefore revegetation plans should be developed on a case-
by-case basis. Not all of the plants listed in the following tables are appropriate for all restoration sites.
Consult with local plant guides and/or plant professionals if in doubt about your restoration plan.

I

TREES
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain*
Aesculus octandra
yellow buckeye
Betula lenta
cherry birch
Betula nigra Betula nigra Betula nigra
river birch river birch river birch
Carya aquatica
water hickory
Carya cordiformis Carya cordiformis Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory bitternut hickory bitternut hickory
Carya ovata Carya ovata
shagbark hickory shagbark hickory
Celtis laevigata Celtis laevigata
sugarberry sugarberry
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white-cedar
Diospyros virginiana Diospyros virginiana Diospyros virginiana
persimmon persimmon persimmon
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash green ash green ash
Fraxinus profunda
pumpkin ash
Gordonia lasianthus
loblolly-bay
u

t

TREES (continued)
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain"
Halesia caroliniana silverbell
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Nyssa sylvatica Nyssa sylvatica Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum blackgum blackgum
Persea borbonia
redbay
Platanus occidentalis Platanus occidentalis Platanus occidentalis
sycamore sycamore sycamore
Populus heterophylla
swamp cottonwood
Prunus serotina Prunus serotina Prunus serotina
black cherry black cherry black cherry
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Quercus michauxii Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak swamp chestnut oak
Quercus nigra Quercus nigra
water oak water oak
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Quercus phellos Quercus phellos
willow oak willow oak
Quercus shumardii Quercus shumardii
Shumard oak Shumard oak
Salix nigra Salix nigra Salix nigra
black willow black willow black willow
Taxodium distichum var.
bald cypress
Taxodium distichum var.
pond cypress
Tilia heterophylla Tilia heterophylla
white basswood white basswood
11

7

SMALL TREES / SHRUBS
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain*
Acer floridanum
southern sugar maple
Aesculus pavia
red buckeye
Aesculus sylvatica
painted buckeye
Alnus serrulata Alnus serrulata Alnus serrulata
tag alder tag alder tag alder
Amelanchier arborea Amelanchier arborea
serviceberry serviceberry
Aronia arbutifolia Aronia arbutifolia Aronia arbutifolia
red chokeberry red chokeberry red chokeberry
Asimina triloba Asimina triloba Asimina triloba
common pawpaw common pawpaw common pawpaw
Calycanthus floridus Calycanthus floridus
sweet-shrub sweet-shrub
Carpinus caroliniana Carpinus caroliniana Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood ironwood ironwood
Cephalanthus occidentalis
buttonbush
Clethra alnifolia
sweet pepperbush
Corpus altemifolia alternate Corpus altemifolia alternate
leaf dogwood leaf dogwood
Corpus amomum Corpus amomum Comus amomum
silky dogwood silky dogwood silky dogwood
Comus stricta
swamp dogwood
Corylus americana Corylus americana Corylus americana
hazel-nut hazel-nut hazel-nut
Cyrilla racemiflora
titi
Fraxinus caroliniana
water ash
Hamamelis virginiana Hamamelis virginiana Hamamelis virginiana
witch-hazel witch-hazel witch-hazel

1

1

SMALL TREES / SHRUBS (continued)
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain*
Hibiscus moscheutos Hibiscus moscheutos
marsh mallow marsh mallow
Ilex coriacea
gallberry
flex decidua flex decidua
deciduous holly deciduous holly
flex glabra
inkberry
flex verticillata Ilex verticillata
winter berry winter berry
Itea virginica Itea virginica
Virginia willow Virginia willow
Leucothoe axillaris Leucothoe axillaris
doghobble doghobble
Leucothoe racemosa
doghobble
Lindera benzoin Lindera benzoin Lindera benzoin
s icebush s icebush s icebush
Lyonia ligustrina Lyonia ligustrina Lyonia ligustrina
male-berry male-berry male-berry
Lyonia lucida
fetter-bush
Magnolia tripetala Magnolia tripetala Magnolia tripetala
umbrella tree umbrella tree umbrella tree
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Morus rubra Morus rubra
red mulberry red mulberry
Myrica cerifera
wax myrtle
Physocarpus opulifolius Physocarpus opulifolius
ninebark ninebark
Rhododendron Rhododendron Rhododendron
wild azalea wild azalea wild azalea
Rhododendron viscosum Rhododendron viscosum Rhododendron viscosum
swamp azalea swamp azalea swamp azalea

1

SMALL TREES / SHRUBS (continued)
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain*
Rosa palustris Rosa palustris Rosa palustris
swamp rose swamp rose swamp rose
Salix sericea Salix sericea Salix sericea
silky willow silky willow silky willow
Spirea latifolia
meadowsweet
Staphylea trifolia
bladdernut
Stewartia malacodendron
silky camellia
Storax americana
snowbell
Symplocos tinctoria Symplocos tinctoria Symplocos tinctoria
sweet leaf sweet leaf sweet leaf
Viburnum cassinoides Viburnum cassinoides
Withe-rod Withe-rod
Viburnum dentatum Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrow-wood arrow-wood
Xanthorhiza simplicissima Xanthorhiza simplicissima Xanthorhiza simplicissima
yellow-root yellow-root yellow-root
Zenobia pulverulenta
zenobia

t

l

HERBACEOUS
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain*
Aster novi-belgii
New York aster
Acorus calamus
sweet flag
Arisaema triphyllum Arisaema triphyllum Arisaema triphyllum
jack-in-the-pulpit jack-in-the-pulpit jack-in-the-pulpit
Asclepias incarnata Asclepias incarnate Asclepias incarnata
swamp milkweed swamp milkweed swamp milkweed
Carex comosa
bottle brush sedge
Carex crinata Carex crinata Carex crinata
fringed sedge fringed sedge fringed sedge
Carex intumescens Carex intumescens Carex intumescens
bladder sedge bladder sedge bladder sedge
Carex lupulina Carex lupulina Carex lupulina
hop sedge hop sedge hop sedge
Carex lurida Carex lurida Carex lurida
lurid sedge lurid sedge lurid sedge
Carex scoparia Carex scoparia
broom sedge broom sedge
Carex stricta Carex stricta Carex stricta
tussock sedge tussock sedge tussock sedge
Carex vulpinoidea Carex vulpinoidea Carex vulpinoidea
fox sedge fox sedge fox sedge
Chelone glabra Chelone glabra Chelone glabra
turtlehead turtlehead turtlehead
Cyperus strigosus Cyperus strigosus Cyperus strigosus
umbrella sedge umbrella sedge umbrella sedge
Dichromena colorata
white-top sedge
Eleocharis parvula
dwarf spike-rush
Elymus hystrix Elymus hystrix
bottlebrush grass bottlebrush grass
Eupatorium fistulosum Eupatorium fistulosum Eupatorium fistulosum
Joe-pye-weed Joe-pye-weed Joe-pye-weed
I

t

HERBACEOUS
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain*
Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium pen`oliatum
boneset boneset boneset
Impatiens capensis Impatiens capensis Impatiens capensis
jewel-weed jewel-weed jewel-weed
Juncus effusus Juncus effusus Juncus effusus
soft rush soft rush soft rush
Kosteletzkya virginica
seashore mallow
Leersia oryzoides Leersia oryzoides Leersia oryzoides
rice cutgrass rice cutgrass rice cutgrass
Lobelia cardinalis Lobelia cardinalis Lobelia cardinalis
cardinal flower cardinal flower cardinal flower
Ludwigia alternifolia Ludwigia alternifolia
bushy seedbox bushy seedbox
Lobelia siphilitica
great blue lobelia
Ludwigia alternifolia
bushy seedbox
Osmunda cinnamomea
cinnamon fern
Osmunda regalis
royal fern
Panicum virgatum Panicum virgatum Panicum virgatum
switchgrass switchgrass switchgrass
Peltandra virginica
arrow arum
Polygonum sagittatum Polygonum sagittatum Polygonum sagittatum
tearthumb tearthumb tearthumb
Scirpus americanus
American three-square
Scirpus atrovirens Scirpus atrovirens
green bulrush green bulrush
Scirpus cyperinus Scirpus cyperinus Scirpus cyperinus
woolgrass woolgrass woolgrass
Scirpus validus Scirpus validus Scirpus validus
soft stem bulrush soft stem bulrush soft stem bulrush

HERBACEOUS (continued)
Mountain Piedmont Coastal Plain*
Sparganium americanum
bur-reed Sparganium americanum
bur-reed Sparganium americanum
bur-reed
Thelypteris palustris Thelypteris palustris Thelypteris palustris
marsh fern marsh fern marsh fern
Uniola latifolia
river oats Uniola latifolia
river oats
Vernonia noveboracensis
ironweed l Vernonia noveboracensis
ironweed Vernonia noveboracensis
ironweed
-This assumes fresh water stream restoration sites only.

Fil

The following table was published by the NC Stream Restoration Institute in its River Course Proceedings. It
lists plants, native to Virginia, that are suitable for use in restoration projects.

Ilk'
rte<ts?r,ttit?u i?a?iti+tr
T i
tifi
Na
S C
N Region Light Moisture
ype
[ c
en
c
me ommon
ame M P C S P F L M H A
Tree M/L Acer barbatum Southern sugar maple x X X X X
Tree M/L Acer saccharinum silver maple x X X X X
Tree M/L Acer saccharum sugar maple x X X X
Tree M/L Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch x X X X
Tree M/L Betula lenta cherry birch, sweet birch X X X X
Tree M/L Betula nigra river birch x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Carya aquatica water hickory x X X X
Tree M/L Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory x X X X X X X X
Tree MIL Carya glabra pignut hickory x X X X X X X X
Tree M/L Carya ovata shagbark hickory x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Carya tomentosa mockernut hickory x X X X X X X X
Tree M/L Celtis laevigata sugarberry, hackberry x X X X X
Tree M/L Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar x X X X X
Tree M/L Cladrastis kentuckea yellowwood X X X X
Tree M/L Diospyros virginiana persimmon x X X X X X X X
Tree M/L Fagus grandifolia American beech x X X X X X
Tree M/L Fraxinus americana white ash x X X X X X
Tree M/L Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Fraxinus profunda pumpkin ash, red ash x X X X
Tree M/L Juglans nigra black walnut x X X X X X
Tree M/L Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar, yellow poplar x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Magnolia acuminata cucumber magnolia x X X X X
Tree M/L Magnolia fraseri Fraser magnolia x X X
Tree M/L Nyssa aquatica water tupelo x X X X X X
Tree M/L Nyssa sylvatica black gum x X X X X X X X
Tree M/L Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora swamp black gum x X X X X
Tree M/L Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Picea rubens red spruce x X X X X
Tree M/L Pinus echinata shortleaf pine x X X X X X
Tree M/L Pinus palustris longleaf pine x X X X X
Tree M/L Pinus rigida pitch pine X X X
Tree M/L Pinus serotina pond pine X X X X
Tree M/L Pinus strobus white pine x X X X X
Tree M/L Platanus occidentalis sycamore x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood x X X X
Tree M/L Populus heterophylla swamp cottonwood x X X X
Tree M/L Prunus serotina black cherry x X X X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus alba white oak x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus bicolor swamp white oak x X X X
Tree M/L Quercus coccinea scarlet oak x X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus falcata Southern red oak x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus laurifolia laurel oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus lyrata overcup oak x X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus margaretta sand post oak x X X X
Tree M/L Quercus marilandica black jack oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak x X X X X X X

C?

I

T S
i
tifi
N Common Name Region Light Moisture
ype c
en
ame
c M P C S P F L M H A
Tree M/L Quercus nigra water oak x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus phellos willow oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus prinus chestnut oak x X X X X X
Tree MIL Quercus rubra Northern red oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus shumardii shumard oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus stellata post oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus velutina black oak x X X X X X
Tree M/L Quercus virginiana live oak x X X X
Tree M/L Robinia pseudoacacia black locust x X X X X X
Tree M/L Taxodium ascendens pond-cypress x X X X
Tree M/L Taxodium distichum bald-cypress x X X X
Tree M/L Tilia americana var. heterophylla basswood x X X X X
Tree M/L Tsuga canadensis Eastern hemlock x X X X X X
Tree M/L Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock x X X X X
Tree M/L Ulmus alata winged elm x X X X X X X
Tree M/L Ulmus americana American elm x X X X X X
Tree S Amelanchier arborea downy serviceberry, shadbush x X X X X X
Tree S Amelanchier canadensis Canada serviceberry x X X X
Tree S Amelanchier laevis smooth serviceberry x X X X X
Tree S Asimina triloba pawpaw x X X X X X
Tree S Carpinus caroliniana ironwood, American hornbeam X X X X X X X
Tree S Cercis canadensis eastern redbud x X X X X X
Tree S Chionanthus virginicus white fringetree, old man's beard x X X X X X
Tree S Corpus alternifolia alternate-leaf dogwood x X X X
Tree S Corpus florida flowering dogwood x X X X X X X
Tree S Crateagus crus-galli cockspur hawthorn x X X X X X X
Tree S Crateagus flabellata fanleaf hawthorn x X X X
Tree S Crateagus flava October haw x X X X X X
Tree S Cyrilla racemiflora titi x X X X X
Tree S Fraxinus caroliniana water ash x X X X
Tree S Gordonia lasianthus loblolly bay x X X X X X
Tree S Halesia tetraptera (H. carolina) common silverbell x X X X X
Tree S Ilex opaca American holly x X X X X X X X
Tree S Juniperus virginiana Eastern red cedar x X X X X X X
Tree S Magnolia tripetala umbrella tree x X X X
Tree S Magnolia virginiana sweetbay magnolia x X X X X X X
Tree S Morus rubra red mulberry x X X X X X
Tree S Osmanthus americana wild olive, devilwood x X X X
Tree S Ostrya virginiana Eastern hop-hornbeam x X X X X
Tree S Persea borbonia red bay x X X X X X
Tree S Persea palustris swamp bay x X X X X X
Tree S Pinus pungens table mountain pine x X X
Tree S Prunus americana American wild plum x X X X
Tree S Prunus caroliniana Carolina laurel-cherry x X X X X
Tree S Quercus incana bluejack oak x X X X
Tree S Quercus laevis turkey oak x X X X
Tree S Rhus glabra smooth sumac x X X X X
Tree S Rhus hirta (Rhus typhina) staghorn sumac x X X
Tree S Salix caroliniana swamp willow x X X X X X X
Tree S Salix nigra black willow x X X X X X X
Tree S Sassafras albidum sassafras x X X X X X X
Tree S Staphylea trifolia bladdernut x X X X
Tree S Symplocos tinctoria horse-sugar, sweetleaf x X X X X X X
Tree S Ulmus rubra slippery elm x X X X X
Shrub Aesculus sylvatica painted buckeye x X X X X
Shrub Alnus serrulata' common alder x X X X X X X X
Shrub Aronia arbutifolia red chokeberry x X X X X X X

I
T S
i
tifi
N C
N Region Light Moisture
ype c
en
c
ame ommon
ame M P C S P F L M H A
Shrub Baccharis halimifolia silverling X X X X X X
Shrub Callicarpa americana American beautyberry X X X X X X
Shrub Calycanthus floridus sweet-shrub X X X X X
Shrub Castanea pumila Allegheny chinkapin X X X X X X X
Shrub Ceanothus americanus New Jersey tea X X X X X X
Shrub Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush X X X X X X
Shrub Clethra acuminata mountain sweet pepperbush X X X X
Shrub Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush X X X X X
Shrub Comptonia peregrina sweet fern X X X X
Shrub Corpus amomum silky dogwood X X X X X X X
Shrub Corpus stricta swamp dogwood X X X X
Shrub Corylus americana American hazel, hazelnut X X X X X
Shrub Euonymus americanus hearts-a-bustin', strawberry bush X X X X X X X
Shrub Fothergilla gardenii witch-alder X X X X
Shrub Gaylussacia frondosa dangleberry X X X X X X
Shrub Hamamelis virginiana witch hazel X X X X X X X
Shrub Hydrangea arborescens wild hydrangea X X X X X
Shrub Ilex coriacea gallberry X X X X X
Shrub Ilex decidua deciduous holly, possumhaw X X X X X
Shrub Ilex glabra inkberry X X X X X X
Shrub Ilex verticillata winterberry X X X X X X X X
Shrub Ilex vomitoria yaupon holly X X X X X
Shrub Itea virginica Virginia willow X X X X X
Shrub Kalmia angustifolia var. caroliniana lamb-kill, sheep-kill X X X X X
Shrub Kalmia latifolia mountain laurel X X X X X X
Shrub Leucothoe axillaris coastal dog-hobble X X X X
Shrub Leucothoe fontanesiana dog-hobble X X X X
Shrub Leucothoe racemosa fetterbush X X X X X X
Shrub Lindera benzoin spicebush X X X X
Shrub Lyonia ligustrina northern maleberry X X X X X X
Shrub Lyonia lucida shining fetterbush X X X X
Shrub Myrica cerifera* Southern wax-myrtle X X X X X X X X
Shrub Myrica cerifera var. pumila* dwarf Southern wax-myrtle X X X X X
Shrub Myrica heterophylla* bayberry, evergreen bayberry X X X X
Shrub Pieris floribunda evergreen mountain fetterbush X X X X
Shrub Rhododendron atlanticum dwarf azalea X X X
Shrub Rhododendron calendulaceum flame azalea X X X X
Shrub Rhododendron catawbiense Catawba rhododendron X X X X X X X
Shrub Rhododendron maximum rosebay rhododendron X X X X X X
Shrub Rhododendron periclymenoides pinxter flower, wild azalea X X X X X X
Shrub Rhododendron viscosum swamp azalea X X X X X X
Shrub Rhus copallina winged sumac X X X X X X X
Shrub Rosa carolina pasture rose, Carolina rose X X X X X X X
Shrub Rosa palustris swamp rose X X X X X X
Shrub Rubus allegheniensis Alleghany blackberry X X X X
Shrub Rubus cuneifolius blackberry X X X X X X
Shrub Rubus odoratus purple flowering raspberry X X X
Shrub Salix humilis prairie willow X X X X
Shrub Salix sericea silky willow X X X X X X
Shrub Sambucus canadensis common elderberry X X X X X X
Shrub Spiraea alba narrow-leaved meadowsweet X
Shrub Spiraea latifolia broad-leaved meadowsweet X
Shrub Spiraea tomentosa meadowsweet X X X
Shrub Stewartia malacodendron silky camellia E
Shrub Stewartia ovata mountain camellia X X
Shrub Styrax grandifolia bigleaf snowbell X j j

l
Shrub
Vaccinium arboreum
sparkleberry
X X

s

T N
ifi C
N Region Light Moisture
ype ame
c
Scient ommon
ame M P C S P F L M H A
Shrub Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry X X X X X X X X X
Shrub Vaccinium crassifolium creeping blueberry X X X
Shrub Vaccinium elliottii mayberry X X X
Shrub Vaccinium stamineum deerberry, gooseberry X X X X X X
Shrub Vaccinium pallidum lowbush blueberry X X X X X
Shrub Viburnum acerifolium maple-leaf viburnum X X X X X X
Shrub Viburnum dentatum Southern arrowwood viburnum X X X X X X X
Shrub Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum X X X X X X
Shrub Viburnum prunifolium blackhaw viburnum X X X X X X
Shrub Viburnum rafinesquianum downy arrowwood X X X X
Shrub Viburnum rufidulum rusty blackhaw X X X X X
Shrub Xanthorhiza simplicissima yellowroot X X X X X X
" These species fix nitrogen and should not be used for riparian restoration adjacent to Nutrient Sensitive Waters

N

I

I

n
7

N
C

TYPICAL SECTIONS
0.00 2.00 6.00 10.00 12.00
1.8
1.75
BANKFULL
DEIRTH
1
1.
1
------- ------- ------
0.
0.75
w0
0.
0.
0 0.00
Station (fl)
RIFFLE
3.0
2.0
w
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.0 4.0 6.0
Station (ft)
RIGHT MEANDER
2.500
KFULL ,
TH
1.25
0.00
8.0 10.0 12.0

W_
Day
SUB -REACH 2 SUB-REACH 4 SUB-REACH 7 & 9
STA 6+41.27 STA 7+09.66 STA 8+12.84 TO STA 9+16.85
TO STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+65.84 STA 10+04.95 TO STA 10+41.42
L roa 14.73 9.36 7.43
Lou. 3.68 2.34 1.86
W_ 23.45 22.85 24.25
'b W_ 11.73 11.42 12.13
W_ 12.00 12.00 12.00
yew. 6.00 6.00 6.00
BOULDER 24" TO 30" 24 TO 30" 30" TO 36"

I
SIZE INTERMEDIATE
I
TER

INTERMEDIATE
DIA. )IA. DIA.
STEP POOL PROFILE DIMENSIONS
2.50
FUII?
DEPTH
w
25
0.00 4.75 7.00 9.50

3.0 I I
-------- 4-------- I_---
I I
I I I
- -4 --
I
I I
- ------
I
I I
-- -------
I
I
I I I I I
I 1 I I I
I I I I I
I I
tD -------L-------1--- --L---
I I I ---1-----
I L- ----
I
I 1
I I I I
I I
I
0-0
- 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
8.0 10.0 12.0
Station (ft)
LEFT MEANDER
REACHES 1,3 596 & 8
REACH 1 - STA 0+00 TO STA 6+41.37
REACH 3 - STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+09.66
REACH 5&6 - STA 7+65.84 TO STA 8+12.84
REACH 8 - STA 9+16.85 TO STA 10+41.02
Lwa
L o...
BANKFULL ELEVATION FLOW -
D? Da
BACKFILL 6" DEEP WITH POOL INVERT '\ GEOTEXTILE (2 LAYERS INSTALLED
GRAVEL & COBBLES PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER)
3 'T'YPICAL STEP POOL CROSS-SECTION AT BRINK
0
J NOT TO SCALE
LL_
DIMENSIONS FOR STEP POOL
AT MAX POOL DEPTH
BOULDERS
W..
1/2 W_ few,w
BANKFULL ELEVATION -
DIMENSIONS FOR STEP POOL
AT POOL BRINK
REACH 2 REACH 4 SUB-REACH 7 & 9
STA 6+41.37 STA 7+09.66 STA 8+12.84 TO STA 9+16.85
TO STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+65.84 STA 10+04.95 TO STA 10+41.42
Wa 12.00 12.00 12.00
yews,,,, 6.00 6.00 6.00
D_ 1.75 1.75 1.75
BOULDER 24" TO 30" 24" TO 30" 30" TO 36"
SIZE INTERMEDIATE
I INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE

L_ DIA. DIA. DIA.
REACH 2 REACH 4 SUB-REACH 7 & 9

STA 6+41.27 STA 7+09.66 STA 8+12.84 TO STA 9+16.85
TO STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+65.84 STA 10+04.95 TO STA 10+41.42
W_ 23.45 22.85 24.25
1/2 W- 11.73 11.42 12.13
D- 3.91 3.81 4.04
BOULDER 24" TO 30" 24" TO 30" 30" TO 36"
SIZE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE
DIA. DIA. DIA.
BOULDERS ' _--GEOTEXTILE (2 LAYERS INSTALLED
BACKFILL 6" DEEP WITH POOL INVERT PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER)
GRAVEL & COBBLES
NOT TO SCALE
STEP POOL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
NOTE: IN THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE, UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM
STEP POOLS OCCUR WITHIN THE SAME STEP POOL REACH.
1. STARTING AT THE FURTHERMOST DOWNSTREAM STEP POOL AND MOVING IN AN
UPSTREAM DIRECTION, EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL THE CHANNEL TO TWO FEET BELOW
FINAL GRADE.
2. INSTALL THE FIRST LAYER OF GEOTEXTILE IN THE MOST DOWNSTREAM
STEP POOL, LAYING SHEETS PARALLEL TO THE PROPOSED CENTERLINE AND
OVERLAPPING SEPARATE SHEETS A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET. INSTALL THE
SECOND LAYER OF GEOTEXDLE PERPENDICULAR TO THE FIRST LAYER,
STARTING FROM THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE REACH AND WORKING
UPSTREAM, OVERLAPPING ADJACENT SHEETS A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET.
3. STARTING AT THE DEEPEST POINT IN THE FURTHESTMOST DOWNSTREAM STEP
POOL BACKFILL THE AREA FOR THE FIRST ROW OF BOULDERS WITH SIX INCHES
MINIMUM OF ON-SITE GRAVEL AND COBBLES AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
PLACE FIRST ROW OF BOULDERS. BACKFILL FOR SECOND ROW OF BOULDERS
AND PLACE BOULDERS. REPEAT STEP 3 UNTIL STEP POOL IS COMPLETE.
4. FILL THE SPACES BETWEEN THE BOULDERS WITH EXCAVATED ON-SITE GRAVEL
5. REPEAT STEPS 1 THROUGH 4 FOR THE REMAINING UPSTREAM STEP POOLS.
REACH 2 REACH 4 SUB-REACH 7 & 9
STA 6+41.27 STA 7+09.66 STA 8+12.84 TO STA 9+16.85
TO STA 6-:70.83 TO STA 7+65.84 STA 10+04.95 TO STA 10+41.42
L roa 14.73 9.36 7.43
Law 3.68 2.34 1.86
D. 2.36 2.25 2.50
D. 0.79 0.75 0.83
BOULDER 24" TO 30" 24" TO 30" 30" TO 36"
SIZE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE
DIA. DIA. DIA.
;r .
BOULDERS - '
POOL INVERT GEOTEXTILE (2 LAYERS INSTALLED
BACKFILL 6" DEEP WITH PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER)
GRAVEL & COBBLES
STEP POOLSTEP POOL PROS
NOT TO SCALE

w
` S
i

w
f

N

Q m
m
m
co

a
o
U
oa ?
T.
N 10
f p
al
..
a z

F
0 0
W 2
(3 ca of
IL -
Q 0g
z4'a
O CC W
0Y
600
aa¢
C 0
Q
% U
rA E
W
Q
a
m 0
?a 04
y EECA
d' a
J?
w1.
a'
CAI by prpw
aw. VARIES
MAY 7, 2002
Oq AaMd [aw
cWMTF
5ECTION5
STEP POOL PLAN
STEPPOOL PLAN DIMENSIONS
0.00 2.50 5.00 7.25 12.00
r,
My W
?
s

\ BANKFULL ELEVATION LIMIT

t
A
L
.
1 N
W
FOOTER LOG ?
1
1 m
MY
w
a
?
INSTALL ROOTED CUTTINGS (WILLOW AND
SILKY DOGWOOD) IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS 6.0 x
O m
0N APPROX. r SPACING PROVIDE CONTROL
STRUCTURES WHERE
WILLOW BUNDLE
4' O.C. ALONG OUTSIDE
Dpp'
A
g
BOULDERS INDICATED ON GRADING
PLAN - x ,
"
i OF MEANDER BEND
CAP BOULDER 16° 70 24" 0. Co m
v m
ND BOULDERS (ONLY NEEDED IN FILL AREAS) AVG. DIAMETER ROCK
TZ
% ? INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER 0 0 E
E

BANKFULL ELEV. I N

FOOTER
PLACE BOULDERS
TD
SUPPORT CAP
p a Z
Z
? DITCH GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE SECTION
NOT To SCALE LDERS
I 1 I
BADNKOFURS ELEVATION 0 e g
t7f1
Tp
PLAN VIEW
N Vy L
N
I Q N
NOT TO SCALE P
V
T
INVER
FLOW
?
C
i
i ? l
I^ FOOTER BOULDER---" TOP OF
ROOTED CUTTINGS APPROX. 2' SPACING
' ?rA 2D 24" MIN. DIAMETER FOOTER BOULDER

SET AT INVERT

1
ROOT WAD J
'
i
tit `w FOOTER ROCKS SHALL BE EPLACED L- AN THEIR TOPS AT
THE INVERT OF THE CHANNEL. AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER
F ROWS OF BOULDERS SHALL THEN BE STACKED UPON 2
BOULDER
O A
n? O
BANKFULL
ELEVATION 12' MIN. DIA.-l6' LENGTH THE FOOTER BOULDERS SUCH THAT BANKFULL FALLS
(ABOVE ROOT COLLAR) WITHIN THE HEIGHT OF THE CAP BOULDERS.
USE END BOULDER ONLY WHEN
ROOT WAD PLACED IN FILL
/
DITCH GRADE CONTROL
STRUCTURE PLAN
BUNDLE TYPICAL PROFILE
STRUCTURE WILLOW

PROP. CHANNEL BED ? D
SCALE a

a
FOOTER LOG ©
MIN
14' DIA
END BOULDER m m
w
.
.
12 TO 14 FT. LENGTH
' ? • I
WHEN FEASIBLE, SHARPEN END OF BOLE 8.0
WITH CHAIN SAW TO ALLOW LOG TO BE U U
PUSHED INTO BANK, THEREBY MINIMIZING DITCHES TO BE LINED
4
0'
Z
.
WITH CURLED WOOD 0 N
STABILIZATION MATTING
2
0
LL -
TYPICAL SECTION .
UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED ON GRADING I WILLOW BUNDLE
4' O.C. ALONG OUTSIDE IL
d
NOT TO SCALE PLAN I OF MEANDER BEND 0 Q
NOTES:
VIEW SHOWN IS NOT NORMAL TO CHANNEL
1
r? CAP BOULDER Q
F
.
.
2. ALL BOULDERS ARE TO HAVE A MIN. DIA. OF 24 INCHES.
4 X
cc W 0
APPLY STABILIZATION SEED MIX AND 0 Y Z
PUCE AN B - FT. WIDTH OF
CURLED WOOD MATTING IN THE

ROOT WAD - INSTALLATION NOTES
DITCH BANKFULL LU
Z
. ELEVATION Q Q
1. Construct the root wad revetments from upstream to downstream. Cut the trench for the first footer log so - LL
< 0
that the top of the lag is at the invert of the proposed channel. Place a boulder on the downstream end of the TYPICAL DITCH SECTION -CURLED WOOD TOP OF FOOTER BOULDER
looter log so that it is leaning against the log on the side away from the channel. NOT TO SCALE SET AT INVERT AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF ROWS OF LU
BOULDERS SHALL BE STACKED UPON THE

/
0
2. Cut the trench for the upstream-most root wad log and lace the log in the trench on top of the boulder so
9 D 9 D J FOOTER BOULDERS SUCH THAT BANKFULL
/ co
that the root fan makes an angle of approximately 30 to 60 degrees to the channel center line and 90 degrees to
i
h
ll h
th
h
fl
Th
l
k
f th
l
h
l
th
t
h
t
d l
th INVERT-
FILL
FALLS WITHIN THE HEIGHT OF THE CAP
, s
en
ower
ow.
e (trun
) o
e root wad
og, w
en p
aced
n
e
renc
a
ave
e cu
an
t
e
e bo 80, BOULDERS.
the root end. The top of the bole should be immediately under the edge of the bank full limit
of the channel. A trench is not needed for root wad in fill areas. When feasible, sharpen the end of the bole with
a chain saw to allow the log to be pushed into the stream bank, thereby minimizing any disturbance. DITCHES TO BE LINED
4
0'
.
WITH RIPRAP ONLY
3. Cut the trench for the downstream footer log so that the top of the log is at the invert of the proposed WHERE INDICATED ON STRUCTURE WILLOW BUNDLE CROSS SECTION VIEW
channel. Place the footer log in the trench so that it is shingled (i.e., the downstream end of the upstream footer GRADING PLAN 20' _
log should extend beyond the upstream end of the downstream footer log). Place a boulder on the downstream f
I
(
% NOT TO SCALE W
end of each footer log so that it is leaning against the lag on the side away from the channel. 2.2 FT. CUSS I RIPRAP
j x vt`?
v..
4
t the trench for the downstream root wad lo
o that the s
ace between the two root fans is a
roximatel
C ^\
k` x -? r v} v
L %
.
g s
p
y
u
pp
one fan diameter and the angle of the root fan is approximately 30 to 60 degrees off the center line of the \ f
r
GEOTEXTUE FABRIC :I i \M1 it
channel and 90 degrees to the flow. The bole of the root wad la9, when placed in the trench, shall have the cut K Ir^N
KEY IN MIN 6" ? t I/ yr
end lower than the root end. The top of the bole should be immediately under the edge of the bank full limit of ( I( H
the channel.
"
'
5. Repeat steps 3 through 4 in a downstream direction until the meander bend is complete. TYPICAL DITCH SECTION - RIPRAP [(E
•I
NOT TO SCALE
6. Use rocks, brush, or logs to plug any holes between the logs to prevent the bockSlled earth from falling into
the channel. Backfill the area behind the root wad revetment and the trench in which the root wad log is placed.
Place a boulder on to
of the downstream side of the root wad
p
.
Note: The use of a back hoe or track hoe with o "live" hydraulic thumb opposing the bucket is recommended ?r /r
TYPICAL DITCH SECTION
?
for correct and efficient placement of all lags and boulders. The City shall be the sole nudge to the WITH GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES a
effectiveness of the installation equipment. If damage to the root wads occurs, equipment shall ll be corrected and Z
root wads replaced at no additional cost to the City.
?a
PLANTING NOTE J P
See "Plant Materials Detail" and "Planting Specifications" on Sheet 10. o
a'
CAD by
ROOT WAD TYPICAL DETAIL ° NTS
?.
MAY 7, 2002
Dp Pyd a
CWWrF
D-6V r N
DETAIL52
BM
2 a 2
02W7

BANKFULL WIDTH (12 FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (12 FT) V
4 FT 4 FT 4 FT
HEADER ROCKS A M
(24' TO 30' INTERMEDIATE .
DIAMETER)
PLACE GRAVEL SALVAGED
FROM EXISTING STREAM
ON UPSTREAM SIDE
OF WEIR
HEADER ROCKS
- EXTEND STRUCTURE INTO PLACE GRAVEL SALVAGED n

BANK AT LEAST 2'

EXISTING DREAM
FROM S
ON UP STREAM 9TR
O U
BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH OF VANE
EXTEND STRUCTURE INTO
BANK AT LEAST 2'

3D
BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH
3
FOOTER
ROCKS
A
? ? ?
1
1 HEADER ROCKS ?
tl
a ? gm

FLOW
ROOTED CUTTINGS ROOTED CUTTING
(SILKY DOGWOOD OR (SILKY DOGWOOD
AND/OR BLACK g
d Oi

OOTER ROCKS
ROOTED CUTTINGS

(SILKY DOGWOOD OR
BLACK
ON APPROX. 2' WILLOW) SPACING LOW) U a _

E

PEI

ROOTED CUTTINGS J
(24' MIN, ROCK DIAMETER)
BLACK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING
SILL WIDTH (MIN. 2 FT) ; yu
T ..
p
z
(SILKY DOGWOOD OR V
BLACK WILLOW) A
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING PLAN
PUN F
NOT TO SCALE NOTES:
7. ALL ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIA. OF APPROX 24 TO 30 INCHES
NOTE: ROCK WEIR IS TO BE CENTERED IN THE CHANNEL WITH HEADER ROCKS AS C LOSE TO EACH OTHER 2. TOP OF FOOTER ROCKS IS TO BE PLACED AT THE STREAM BED ELEVATION.
AS POSSIBLE AT THE UPSTREAM SIDE TO FORCE WATER OVER AND NOT AROU ND THEM
.
PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
BANKFULL WIDTH ROOTED CUTTING
ROOTED CUTTINGS (SILKY DOGWOOD
AND BUCK
(SILKY DOGWOOD OR
BLACK WILLOW) ? ROOTED CUTTINGS
W) 'In
WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING (SILKY DOGWOOD OR
BLACK WILLOW)
BANKFULL ON APPROX. 2' SPACING BANKFULL ELEVATION
GROUND ELEVATI ELEVATION
ROOTED CUTTINGS PROPOSED STREAM BED-P
4
0 GROUND ELEVATION (SILKY DOGWOOD OR
BLACK WILLOW) r' d
I ON APPRO%. 2' SPACING
MAX INVERT ELEVAT
N FOOTER
RO
,

FOOTER ROCK 4 FT 4 FT 4 FT
-I-

HEADER ROCK
TYPICAL SECTION o
Lu z
CROSS SECTION NOT To SCALE c ;3 d
o
NOT TO SCALE a nJ
II
FLOW C a

~ m w

STREAMBED
HEADER ROCK Y
FLOW O Y Z
GED TEXTILE FABRIC
/ STREAMBED -?
HEADER ROCK
W Z 2
Q Q
FOOTER ROCKS GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 0 LLO

SECTION "A-A"
FOOTER ROCKS Q
V
NOT TO SCALE
"
"
ROCK WEIR DETAILS SECTION
A-A
NOT TO SCALE
w
CROSS VANE DETAILS
a
SILL (MIN. 2 FT)
' INSTALL 8' STAPLES PER d
24
MIN. ROCK DIA. MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
14.2 FT ~
ROOTED CUTTINGS (SILKY DOGWOOD

69 BLACK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING
BANKFULL ELEV.
INSTALL ROOTED CUTTINGS S. 2'x2'
SPACING IN STAGGARED ROWS.
g5?GS10? PROP. CHANNEL BED -?
ppj?Q• /

(? ? ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ BANKFULL ELEVA-ION
_
'
ELp S 1.25
i ?
=
/
??i z
O'S ?ti?y R ,
?
•
/
10
`_ C
+
Jw
A USE LARGEST ROCKS AT BANK
AND TOE BEDDED 1/2 DIAM MIN \ W
/
UPPER LAYER FOOTER ROCKS S
/\ K\ \
DOWNSTREAM FOOTER ROCKS CAD by LAG D"br ply
24' MIN. ROCK DIA. NOTEt APPLY SOIL AMENDMENTS AND PERMANENT SEED MIX PRIOR TO
HEADER ROCKS MAT INSTALLATION. NO MULCH REQUIRED IN AREAS COVERED BY MAT. NTS
Us
MAY 1,1002
T A TYPICAL SECTION
°°'"°'°`?
P N VER
A PROFILE VIEIP gtlMIR

NOT
NOT TO SC
LE
TO SCALE

NOT 10 SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

°iYO ?DEfA1L5I

ROCK VANE
DETAILS
MATTING DETAIL ani
1 2
DaDOr
CREATE BERM TO MINIMIZE FLOW TO - ;
EXI5TING CHANNEL AND TO ENSURE THE CO DITCHES WITH GRAD_ GUEST
TRAN5ITION FROM EXISTING TO PROPOSED STABILITY OF THE PROPOSED ALIGN7NT ONTROe STRUCTURES, AS SHOWN, PER HOUSE
CP0555ECTION IN LI ANDCI. MINIMIZE t5ETAlLO'NSHEET 12. TEDlTCHI INTO,--
D15TURBANCE TO EXISTING RIPRAP AND - - - - EXISTING 61+ANNEL DITCH, 5TRUCTURE_
POOL USING 2:1 5LOPE5. " AND C ONTOUR LOCATIONS-ARE --? - \ Fcnlrc
7°59'30W
.05' oe`?

STATE!

a
\ TP ? C
- ?..
h
?"/' ,i
0-
., r
x
-72 max} gF ., / ` SF ti?69 x + o °°??
TP
L C6
69 STOCKPILE
A STGCKPI E- SF AREA
FEA T
TP SF h +
Q TP67 O
Q F ? __ TP
N TP 4y O
X05
? . ? LANDSCAPED AREA - - ,
C4 TP fl REATE BERM TO MINiM jF2W TO

- EX15TINGCHANNELAND 0 SURETHE'
? 5TA51LITYOf THE PfZ(?P05ED-ALIGNM€NT
P
O
T
W
TH
ADE

O CHES
I
GR
L DI
STRUCTURES AS SHOWN, PER(
CONTRO
DETAILONSHEET 12 TIEDITCH'fNTO
EX15TING CHANNEL DITCH, 5TRUCT
AND CONTOUR LOCATIONS ARE.
APPROXIMATE:
CE
r34 -

-- -- W
' - -
INV 42" CVP=69.70 TOP=78.11
QO Z
J
?
ti

Se LLI I-)
Ro
o
w

NOTES:
L COIR MATTING IS TO BE PLACED ALONG BANKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANTING ZONE DETAIL
ON SHEET 10.
2. BANKFULL ELEVATIONS ARE LISTED IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON
THIS SHEET.
3. WHEN GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION, THE BANKS MUST BE SLOPED TO ACHIEVE THE
MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION. THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WIDTHS AND FLOOD
20 0 10 20 40 80
PRONE ELEVATIONS FOR EACH LINE AND CURVE SEGMENT OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ARE LISTED
IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON THIS SHEET.
4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. TO HELP
ACCOMPLISH THIS, GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATIONS SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM WHILE
STILL ACHIEVING THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL DICTATE
WHICH TREES CAN BE SAVED AND HOW THE BANKS SHOULD BE GRADED. THE MAXIMUM SLOPE
BETWEEN THE BANKFULL AND FLOOD PRONE ELEVATIONS SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 3:1. ABOVE
THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION, A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 3:1 CAN BE USED ALONG BOTH BANKS TO
TIE OUT.
5. IF THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT GRADING TO THE FLOOD
PRONE ELEVATION, TIE TO EXISTING GROUND AT A SLOPE BETWEEN 2% (MIN) AND 3:1 (MAX).
6. CONTOURS BELOW BANKFULL STAGE ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. WHEN
GRADING THE CHANNEL BELOW BANKFULL STAGE, REFER TO THE APPROPRIATE CROSS SECTION
(SHEET 9) AND PROFILE (SHEETS 7-8).
GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION

LINE/CURVE
NUMBER

REACH
UPSTREAM
BANKFULL
ELEVATION UPSTREAM
FLOOD
PRONE
ELEVATION MIN. WIDTH
® FLOOD
PRONE
ELEVATION
L1 72.77 74.52 26.4
Cl 1 72.29 74.04 26.4
L2 1 72.17 73.92 26.4
C2 1 71.17 73.22 26.4
1-3 1 71.16 72.91 26.4
C3 1 70.76 72.57 26.4
L4 1 70.43 72.18 26.4
C4 1 69.94 71.69 26.4
1-5 1 69.33 71.08 26.4
C5 1 68.81 70.56 26.4
L6 1 68.39 70.14 26.4
C6 1 67.87 69.62 26.4
L7 1 67.46 69.21 26.4
C7 66.83 68.58 26.4
LB 1 66.36 68.11 26.4
_
C8 1 65.79 67.54 26.4
L9 1 65.43 67.18 26.4
C9 1 64.87 66.62 26.4
10 2 64.43 66.18 26.4
CIO 3 62.86 64.61 26.4
L11 4 62.50 64.25 26.4
C11 5 58.01 59.76 26.4
L12 6 57.58 59.33 26.4
C12 7 45.91 47.66 26.4
L13 7 45.09 46.84 26.4
D S LIMIT 7 44.44 46.19 26.4
PLAN SHEET LEGEND
4
a
m
N
0
A
W
01 1
O x
N LL
m
a "
d a
-0 U 4c
N ? G
` CC4 W
3 ? N?
3 Z?
A N cc

W Z
tt Q O_
IL d
2
w
Y
o w i
co 0 O
LLI Q ¢
<0 O
LLI
U
co
or-
W
5
L
J
?c
CROSS VANE ROCK VANE IL °
tld M LAG ?4? Ph
sow
AS SHOWN

aro

0 MAY 7.2=
c ogRItC
CWMIF
a..wo a. rw?.
PLAN)
ROCK WEIR STEP POOL east
a 2
DO NOT D15TURB GRAVE 51TE
\
NI 1
w
0 ?
_ J
sQ
mE
W
LLJ
N NC
V /0
C ble

1
1 \
\ \ \ 1 , l 1 \ I x
4y , ? x
\ , 1
UR
?`i If „fir
\ 1( I? J 1 \` ? 1 I I
11( J ? S >?It 11
P 6
` r?J r
J C f ) pii ,
4 " m
L "?- -//"/

NOTES
ELV 20 5-
EL. 56.21 6. a1?
\ p f. 1
Q
2\?
\ ° ??\ ^O f 7
,P ho 9
1 0
S M
o , ? °a
" G
\
3
?
?
b ,?? 6 i
% \
0
?0 @
\ X 7
?Q a ?> o
1 i'? 6Q.
r
r r
I

rr v?\
NW;
IN i \\ \
?Sr
I \v
P \ ?
1% \ k
' FILL ABANDONED CHANNEL WITH MATERIAL
EXCAVATED ON SITE. THE FILL SHALL BE ??? ???_ ??

GRADED TO DRAIN.
J
x

CREATE BERM TO MINIMIZE FLOW TO
EX15TING CHANNEL AND TO ENSURE THE ?
+
Roanoke Conal Trail 5TAILITY OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT. \
(Approximate Boundary)
v l
? DO INION INC POWER
19.9kV 1/0 PRIM.
U/G Cable
1. COIR MATTING IS TO BE PLACED ALONG BANKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANTING ZONE DETAIL
ON SHEET 10-
2. BANKFULL ELEVATIONS ARE LISTED IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON
THIS SHEET.
3. WHEN GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION, THE BANKS MUST BE SLOPED TO ACHIEVE THE
MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION. THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WIDTHS AND FLOOD
PRONE ELEVATIONS FOR EACH LINE AND CURVE SEGMENT OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ARE LISTED
IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON THIS SHEET.
4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. TO HELP
ACCOMPLISH THIS, GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATIONS SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM WHILE
STILL ACHIEVING THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL DICTATE
WHICH TREES CAN BE SAVED AND HOW THE BANKS SHOULD BE GRADED. THE MAXIMUM SLOPE
BETWEEN THE BANKFULL AND FLOOD PRONE ELEVATIONS SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 31. ABOVE
THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION, A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 3:1 CAN BE USED ALONG BOTH BANKS TO
TIE OUT.
5. IF THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT GRADING TO THE FLOOD
PRONE ELEVATION, TIE TO EXISTING GROUND AT A SLOPE BETWEEN 2% (MIN) AND 3:1 (MAX).
6. CONTOURS BELOW BANKFULL STAGE ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. WHEN
GRADING THE CHANNEL BELOW BANKFULL STAGE, REFER TO THE APPROPRIATE CROSS SECTION
(SHEET 9) AND PROFILE (SHEETS 7-8).
55
?- 58 59
3 I
1
J
S84'51'O1"E
77.96'
I
\
.x r
CON5T CT DITCHES WITH CURLED
WOOD 5 CTION, A5 SHOWN, PER DETAIL
ON SHE 12. 71E DITCH INTO EXISTING
CHANNE . DITCH AND CONTOUR
LOCATI 5 ARE APPROXIMATE.
20 0 10 20 40 00
END CONSTRUCTIDI
STATEN
NOTE: THESE SYMBOLS ARE NOT TO SCALE. THEY MERELY
REPRESENT THE QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURES. SEE
THEIR DETAILS ON SHEETS 11 6 12 FOR SPECIFICATIONS.
GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION

LINE/CURVE
NUMBER

REACH
UPSTREAM
BANKFULL
ELEVATION UPSTREAM
FLOOD
PRONE
ELEVATION MIN. WIDTH
C@ FLOOD
PRONE
ELEVATION
L1 1 72.77 74.52 26.4
C1 1 72.29 74.04 26.4
L2 _
1 72.17 73.92 26.4
C2 1 71.17 73.22 26.4
L3 1 71.16 72.91 26.4
C3 1 70.76 72.51 26.4
L4 1 70.43 72.18 26.4
C4 1 69.94 71.69 26.4
L5 1 69.33 71.08 26.4
C5 1 1 68.81 70.56 26.4
L6 1 68.39 70.14 26.4
C6 1 67.87 69.62 26.4
L7 1 67.46 69.21 26.4
C7 1 66.83 68.58 26.4
L8 1 66.36 68.11 26.4
C8 1 65.79 67.54 26.4
1 1 65.43 67.18 26.4
C9 1 64.87 66.62 26.4
LID 2 64.43 1 66.18 26.4 1
C10 3 62.86 64.61 26.4 I
L11 4 62.50 64.25 26.4
C11 5 58.01 59.76 26.4
L12 6 57.58 59.33 26.4
C12 7 45.91 47.66 26.4
L13 7 45.09 46.84 26.4
D /S LIMIT 7 44.44 1 46.19 26.4
PLAN SHEET LEGEND
V 4a
M -wp s?
1t N
A
m
o X
? LL
m
N ?
M d W
?V o m
¢N?O
p t0 W
? u
ENOOr
U V pLD
W Z
cc j3 N C3
IL d 3
0 Q
O CC W
0 Y
w ZQ 2
0 0
03 U
or-
W
5
a

CROSS VANE
ROCK VANE Wg
a
? b' LAG ?? PM
sm
AS SNONN
MAY T, 2002
Op ReIrA cab
CNAdfF
ua?v w. rage
PLAN2
ROCK WEIR STEP POOL ShM _

i
i
i
Individual Pebble Counts - Existing Conditions
Max
Particle MM R1 PI 2 P2 R3 P3
Silt/ Clay 0.061 IC 2 4 3 1 2
Very Fine 0.125 1 3 1 3
Fine 0.25 1 2 _2 2 1
Medium 0.5 u 3 3 1 2 5
Coarse 1 cn 1
Very Coarse 2 1 1
Very Fine 4 3 1
Fine 5.7 2
Fine 8
Medium 11.3 2 1
Medium 16 m
Coarse 22.6 2 2
Coarse 32 4
Very Coarse 45 4 1 1
Very Coarse 64 3 1 2 4
Small 90 1 12 3
Small 128 9 1 2
Large 180 0 1
Large 256
Small 362 L
Small 512
Medium 1024 0
Large - V Lrg 2048 m
Bedrock 2100 Roc 2
Total 23 11 22 11 22 11
Dib_ 0.85 mm
DSO= 4.9 mm
D84= 71 mm
100%
90%
80%
s
i 70%
d
60%

50%
40%

30%
V
0 20%
10%
Reference Reach 2 Pebble Count
0
0.0
-- -- -- ------- - -- - - ---
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Particle Size (mm)
1000.0 10000.0
TYPICAL SECTIONS
0.00 2.00 6.00 10.00 1200
.1.75
LULL
DEPTH
1.2
0
D.7s
>o
wD
0
0 0,00
-- --- z
Stw- (W)
RIFFLE
f
DIMENSIONS FOR STEP POOL
AT MA% POOL DEPTH
2.50
w 125
0.00 2.50 5.00 77S 1)m

3.0 I
- 4-
I
I I
-- -?
I
I I
- 4---
I
I I I
--4--------4 ----
I I
I I
I I I I I
I
I I
I I
I I I
I I DEPT
I I I
1.0 ----- -1-
I -----1---
I --L-- ---1-------L------
I I I
-------i-
I ----
I I I
I I I

00 H
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
St.u- (n)
RIGHT MEANDER
REACH 2
STA 6+41.27
TO STA 6+70.83 REACH 4
STA 7+09.66
TO STA 7+65.84 REACH 6
STA 8+12.84
TO STA 9+16.85
L- 14.73 9.36 7.43
L- 3.68 234 1.86
W_ 23.45 22.85 24.25
1/5 w- 11.73 11.42 12.13
w- 12.00 12.00 12.00
'hw_ 6.00 6.00 6.GO
BOULDER
SIZE 24" TO 30'
INTERMEDIATE
DIA. 24" TO 30"
INTERMEDIATE
DIA. 24' TO 30'
INTERMEDIATE
DIA.
W~
/wW.. S4w.w„
D?
BANKFULL VATION
BOULDERS
STEP POOL PROFILE DIMENSIONS
2.500
2.0
I I
P ---- --
I
---- ----
I
---- ---- --
I
-- NIl /

w
000 4.75 7.00 9.50
. I I DEPTH

I I
I I
I I

I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I

I I I I I p
I I
1.a ------1----?-- --L---
I
I
I
-----
---1I
-----
-
I I
I I
I I I

0.D 1.25
-
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.00
St.t- (N)
LEFT MEANDER
REACHES 1, 3, 5 & 8
REACH 1 - STA 0+00 TO STA 6+41.37
REACH 3 - STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+09.66
REACH 5 - STA 7+65.84 TO STA 8+12.84
REACH 7 - STA 9+16.85 TO STA 10+41.02
L-
Lpwy
BANKFULL LEVATION FLM-
D. o4
BACKFlLL 6' DEEP WITH POOL INVERT GEOTEXTILE (2 LAYERS INSTALLED
GRAVEL & COBBLES PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER)
3 TYPICAL STEP POOL CROSS-SECTION AT BPIM
0
J NOT TO SCALE
L?
BOULDERS
DIMENSIONS FOR STEP POOL
AT POOL BRINK
REACH 2 REACH 4 REACH 6
STA 6+41.37 STA 7+09.66 STA 8+12.84
TO STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+65.84 TO STA 9+16.85
w- 12.00 12.00 12.00
%w,„, 6.00 6.00 6.00
0- 1.75 1.75 1.75

BOU
BOULDER
LD 24' TO 30" 24" TO 30" 24" TO 30
'
5 INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE
DIA. DIA. DIA.
REACH 2 REACH 4 REACH 6
STA 6+41.27 STA 7+09.66 STA 8+12.84
TO STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+65.84 TO STA 9+16.85
w„,w 23.45 22.85 24.25
Vow- 11.73 11.42 12.13
D- 3.91 3.81 4.04
BOULDER 24' TO 30" 24" TO 30" 24" TO 30"
SIZE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE
DIA. DIA. DIA.
BOULDERS - ---GEOTEXTILE (2 LAYERS INSTALLED
BACKFlLL 6' DEEP WITH POOL INVERT PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER)
GRAVEL & COBBLES
TYPICAL STEP POOL CROSS-SECTION PROFRZ AT POOL MAX DEPTH
NOT TO SCALE
STEP POOL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
NOTE, IN THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM
STEP POOLS OCCUR WITHIN THE SAME STEP POOL REACH.
1. STARTING AT THE FURTHERMOST DOWNSTREAM STEP POOL AND MOVING IN AN
UPSTREAM DIRECTION, EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL THE CHANNEL TO TWO FEET BELOW
FINAL GRADE.
2. INSTALL THE FIRST LAYER OF GEOTE%DLE IN THE MOST DOWNSTREAM
STEP POOL, LAYING SHEETS PARALLEL TO THE PROPOSED CENTERLINE AND
OVERLAPPING SEPARATE SHEETS A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET. INSTALL THE
SECOND LAYER OF GEOTENTILE PERPENDICULAR TO THE FIRST LAYER,
STARTING FROM THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE REACH AND WORKING
UPSTREAM, OVERLAPPING ADJACENT SHEETS A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET.
3. STARTING AT THE DEEPEST POINT IN THE FURTHESMOST DOWNSTREAM STEP
POOL, BACKFlLL THE AREA FOR THE FIRST ROW OF BOULDERS WITH SIX INCHES
MINIMUM OF ON-SITE GRAVEL AND COBBLES AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
PLACE FIRST ROW OF BOULDERS. BACKFlLL FOR SECOND ROW OF BOULDERS
AND PLACE BOULDERS. REPEAT STEP 3 UNTIL STEP POOL IS COMPLETE.
4. FILL THE SPACES BETWEEN THE BOULDERS WITH EXCAVATED ON-SITE GRAVEL
5. REPEAT STEPS 1 THROUGH 4 FOR THE REMAINING UPSTREAM STEP POOLS.
REACH 2 REACH 4 REACH 6
STA 6+41.27 STA 7+09.66 STA 8+12.84
TO STA 6+70.83 TO STA 7+65.84 TO STA 9+16.85
L- 14.73 9.36 7.43
L- 3.68 2.34 1.86
0. 2.36 2.25 2.50
D. 0.79 0.75 0.83

B 24' TO 30" 24' TO 30' 24° TO 30'
SIZE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE
DIA. DIA DIA.
BOULDERS
POOL INVERT CEOTEXTILE (2 LAYERS INSTALLED
BACKFlLL 6' DEEP MATH PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER)
GRAVEL & COBBLES
STEP POOL PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
W?
LL
A ? fr
?? ppad
2 b
V V
W Z
(3
'a
Z
Q W
0Y
Go p
2
< LL
20 0
W
O[
?Q V
i
z
O A
p?q a
00 O
y? a
?g
J;
a8
VARIES
MAY 7.2002
NCOr
faNITF
SECTIONS
I d
.02007
STEP POOL PLAN
STEPPOOL PLAN DIMENSIONS
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
TPAN51TION PROM EXI5TING TO PROP05ED
CP055 5ECTION IN L I AND C I. MINIMIZE
D15TURBANCE TO EXISTING R PRAP AND
POOL U51NG 2:1 5LOPE5. 1
7°59'30"W
.05'

16
CREATE BERM TO MINIMIZE FLOW TO
EX1511NG CHANNEL AND TO EN5URE THE CO DITCHES WITH GRADE
STABILITY OF THE PROP05ED ALIGNMENT. TRO 5TR SAS 5
HOSE VALVE
\ C
'L T ? r? n
4g 1 4i 4
t` q ...7,
72?

L UCiURf HOWN,PER
DETAIL ON SHEET 12. TIE DITCH INTO
EXI5TING CHANNEL. DITCH, 5TRUCTURE
AND CONTOUR LOCATIONS ARE
PROXIMATE.
FILL A;4NDONED CHANNEL WITH MATERIAL
EXCAUarED ON SITE. THE FILL SHALL BE
W GRADED TO DRAIN.
TRV--19- _
DEL 71.47
GEUST
HOUSE
?CE
L II q \
ME EXPO ... .. ... `_?.. .___68 6?6
? w `I ti069

0
734
U
o
q4 m
© RfATE BERM TO MINIMIZE FLOW TO -
FXI5TING CHANNEL AND TO EN5URE THE
5TABILITY Of THE PROP05ED ALIGNMENT.
CONSTRUCT DITCHES WITH GRADE
CONTROL STRUCTURES, AS SHOWN, PER
DETAIL ON SHEET 12. TIE DITCH INTO
EXISTING CHANNEL. DITCH, STRUCTURE
AND CONTOUR LOCATION5 ARE
APPROXIMATE.
.. I( INV 42• CMP=69.70 ` TOP=79.11
Q?\v
00?
NOTES: 00
1. COIR MATTING IS TO BE PLACED ALONG BANKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANTING ZONE DETAIL
ON SHEET 10.
2. BANKFULL ELEVATIONS ARE LISTED IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON
THIS SHEET.
3. WHEN GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION, THE BANKS MUST BE SLOPED TO ACHIEVE THE
MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION. THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WIDTHS AND FLOOD
PRONE ELEVATIONS FOR EACH LINE AND CURVE SEGMENT OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ARE LISTED
IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON THIS SHEET.
4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. TO HELP
ACCOMPLISH THIS, GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATIONS SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM WHILE
STILL ACHIEVING THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL DICTATE
WHICH TREES CAN BE SAVED AND HOW THE BANKS SHOULD BE GRADED. THE MAXIMUM SLOPE
BETWEEN THE BANKFULL AND FLOOD PRONE ELEVATIONS SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 3:1. ABOVE
THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION, A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 3:1 CAN BE USED ALONG BOTH BANKS TO
TIE OUT.
5. IF THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT GRADING TO THE FLOOD
PRONE ELEVATION, TIE TO EXISTING GROUND AT A SLOPE BETWEEN 2% (MIN) AND 3:1 (MAX).
6. CONTOURS BELOW BANKFULL STAGE ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. WHEN
GRADING THE CHANNEL BELOW BANKFULL STAGE, REFER TO THE APPROPRIATE CROSS SECTION
(SHEET 9) AND PROFILE (SHEETS 7-8).
set
?O
/ ax),
I
45 ?G
? n

N
20 0 10 20 40 60
tL
0 w
N Z
J
wu
? Q
w ?
1n
GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION

LINE/CURVE
NUMBER

REACH
UPSTREAM
BANKFULL
ELEVATION UPSTREAM
FLOOD
PRONE
ELEVATION MIN. WIDTH
0 FLOOD
PRONE
ELEVATION
Lt 1 72.77 74.52 26.4
Cl 1 72.29 74.04 26.4
L2 1 72.17 73.92 26.4
C2 1 71.17 73.22 26.4
L3 1 71.16 72.91 26.4
C3 1 70.76 72.51 26.4
L4 1 70.43 72.18 26.4
C4 1 69.94 71.69 26.4
L5 1 69.33 71.08 26.4
C5 1 68.81 70.56 26.4
L6 1 68.39 70.14 26.4
C6 1 67.87 69.62 26.4
L7 1 67.46 69.21 26.4
C7 1 66.83 68.58 26.4
L8 1 66.36 68.11 26.4
C8 1 65.79 67.54 26.4
L9 1 65.43 67.18 26.4
C9 1 64.87 66.62 26.4
L10 2 64.43 66.18 26.4
CIO 3 62.86 64.61 26.4
L11 4 62.50 64.25 26.4
C11 5 58.01 59.76 26.4
L12 6 57.58 59.33 26.4
C12 7 45.91 47.66 26.4
L13 7 45.09 46.84 26.4
D S LIMIT 7 _ - 44.44 46.19 26.4
r
jal
e
wsro
n
S
m
e
LL
N a°o
N?4k4k
It
11?
W Z
3 0) C6
IL a
O
F
O Y 0
Z 0
isMo
U
5
Q
AS SOWN
MAY 7, 20Q7
da
CWWF
• 1r.
PLANT
? e 2
r 02M

a ? _ /o •
STOCKPILE 6g 69 r
11

I

I

TRV 20 L u
- DO NOT D15TURB GRAVE SITE EL. 56.21 6,21
z ? 1
N
N NC PO R
V /0 PRIM
C ble I r
1 ? II
? OI
r?
r /
05
11 N,?
i_ '[\ VJ+
\?\ ) D
`r

NOTES

h I
f
\1 I ?'
00 a A
a ? •,\Cq?, 7 P
\? F9
V P,
'
-

FILL ABANDONED CHANNEL WITH MATERIAL
EXCAVATED ON SITE. THE FILL SHALL BE
GRADED TO DRAIN.
Roanoke Canal Trail
(Approximate Boundary)
Of?ON NC POWER
19.9kV 1/0 PRIM.
U/G Cable

?61?

S84°51'01"E
77.96'
I ` FA NSINA:101
a l SrATM

r
q ? \ o•
P \
rSAN.TOP= 59.31
CREATE BERM TO MINIMIZE FLOW TO
EXISTING CHANNEL AND TO ENSURE THE
STABILITY OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT.
1. COIR MATTING IS TO BE PLACED ALONG BANKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANTING ZONE DETAIL
ON SHEET 10-
2. BANKFUIL ELEVATIONS ARE LISTED IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON
THIS SHEET.
3. WHEN GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION, THE BANKS MUST BE SLOPED TO ACHIEVE THE
MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION. THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WIDTHS AND FLOOD
PRONE ELEVATIONS FOR EACH LINE AND CURVE SEGMENT OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ARE LISTED
IN THE TABLE LABELED 'GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION' ON THIS SHEET.
4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. TO HELP
ACCOMPLISH THIS, GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATIONS SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM WHILE
STILL ACHIEVING THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL DICTATE
WHICH TREES CAN BE SAVED AND HOW THE BANKS SHOULD BE GRADED. THE MAXIMUM SLOPE
BETWEEN THE BANKFULL AND FLOOD PRONE ELEVATIONS SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 3:1. ABOVE
THE FLOOD PRONE ELEVATION, A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 3:1 CAN BE USED ALONG BOTH BANKS TO
TIE OUT.
5. IF THE MINIMUM FLOOD PRONE WIDTH CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT GRADING TO THE FLOOD
PRONE ELEVATION, TIE TO EXISTING GROUND AT A SLOPE BETWEEN 29 (MIN) AND 3:1 (MAX)-
6 - CONTOURS BELOW BANKFULL STAGE ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. WHEN
GRADING THE CHANNEL BELOW BANKFULL STAGE, REFER TO THE APPROPRIATE CROSS SECTION
(SHEET 9) AND PROFILE (SHEETS 7-8).

55
--
58
,K 59 6Q. - - -
CONSTRUCT DITCHE5 WITH CURLED
WOOD SECTION, AS SHOWN, PER DETAIL
ON SHEET 12. TIE DITCH INTO EXISTING
CHANNEL. DITCH AND CONTOUR
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
20 0 10 20 40 80
NOTE: THESE SYMBOLS ARE NOT TO SCALE. THEY MERELY
REPRESENT THE QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURES. SEE
THEIR DETAILS ON SHEETS 11 k 12 FOR SPECIFICATIONS.
GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION

LINE/CURVE

NUMBER

REACH
UPSTREAM
BANKFULL

ELEVATION UPSTREAM
FLOOD
PRONE

ELEVATION MIN. WIDTH
® FLOOD
PRONE

ELEVATION
Li 1 72.77 74.52 26.4
C11 1 72.29 74.04 26.4
L2 1 72.17 73.92 26.4
C2 1 71.17 73.22 26.4
L3 1 71.16 72.91 26.4
C3 1 70.76 72.51 26.4
L4 1 70.43 72.18 26.4
C4 1 69.94 71.69 26.4
L5 1 69.33 71.08 26.4
C5 1 68.81 70.56 26.4
L6 1 68.39 70.14 26.4
1 67.87 69.62 26.4
L7 1 67.46 69.21 26.4
1 66.83 68.58 26.4
M 1 66.36 68.11 26.4
1 65.79 67.54 26.4
1 65.43 67.18 26.4
1 64.87 66.62 26.4
L
0 2 64.43 66.18 26.4
C10 3 62.86 64.61 26.4
L11 4 62.50 64.25 26.4
C11 5 58.01 59.76 26.4
L12 6 57.58 59.33 26.4
C12 7 45.91 47.66 26.4
L13 7 45.09 46.84 26.4
DJS. LIMIT 7 44.44 46.19 26.4
i 19
W
h21
n
A
m
LL
S?4 1
U ¢ d O
W 2
a0) d
za
2
F Cr. w
O Y O
UJI Z 0
< LL.
20 r
6 U
5
a
AS SHOWN
YAY 7,1402
m-w-
CtYM1P
arc mr
PLAN2
I
i

I
I
I
I

N

i 00
1
I
1
io
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

80 80

? w
u
ro
i I ( I I I ,
i M

8

i
i

?

I

I I I

I I i

, I I I

,

?

I

I

I

8

I I
I 1 , I
'
I ; I I I I I j , I ? i I I N
78
I 78 S

?
I m

i ?

i
I
I

I
I I

I

I

I m

b

74 isTA. +s .7 74 a
I
I
I

72

I

i

I

1

?

I

2

z

o
P
d
S
I

I

/
?
U

Q m

E
N

I I

I

i

1
I I

I

BOB1ulcmi

?

I

y

k
Q
_L L .1. IM a

0 I
1

I I

J

4I

8

6

i

7

I

?

pp

2
' P OSE BPJ E m I I 70 a
6 •
? . 51 A. 17+ 10.4 I ! o I I I I I I Q g
?(

I I i I ! i I i
I
?O
W
I
I
i
o.
a
a
I
I
I I
I Qp
W

.I 7t

W W

-- i '

I ax o'

64 - 84
I
' I I I I I

82

,
a_
I
a:
aw

'

I 82
i A( a s a s A I s
1
+ a
I
80 60
F

! P 1.
c 1::: 1
! 9z SO
U V
I
W
2
a?
58 n
a p
g
_
0 < a
I
i

n

W
F
l W
56 /Ij 56

54

-
° I t\

n
54

s 0 0

if )
n
n n n n.f n n a s Q F
-

I

I in iz

i

I
0

f
U

I I
,

n

52
0
0
00 00 00
0 w RKF eAT
T
S
l I
52
PL PONE
AG
I n as , _
1 9
I
'BAN 5T

50 ki .4

I !

?

50

N
:

m . +
?
n n
?
i?

I
? a )
n h
I
I

n I "DI
ATER I
, I
I
I
1_1 E(AD?N
n_ n_ I n. 'n I TIE NTO ISTI G 48 Q
I, T

? GRIDE
a

I

9 I i I

I ?

I a

'
?
?
' 4e
1 ; l a ? ? I I Pv - 4 .8'. to d
I I I 5ur ey 21 210
_ I
J )N
C I
j WATE MAI
o
i I I I I I I I I cc
is
42
44 00 0+ 00 7+ 00 7 440 8 440 N 00 9 144 0+ 00 10 100 10 !!0 114 40 W s

SUB-REACHES 1 3 5§ 8
SUB-REACH 7
SUB-REACH 4

SUB-REACH 6

SUB-REACHES 7 § 9

PROFILE NOTES

n
4 a?

lr

r? Ph
1. The
ll elevations shorn for the typical riffle and meander sections (Sheet 9) comspoM with the
®01 AS SHOWN

= Rock Weir Location el
bankfull full elevation 9hom on this stream profile. These typical sections ukicale the bankfull area at the
center of the meander and riffle segments. Sections are to be with a gradual trarad'an.
or`
Riffle Bankfull Depth = 1.75 It Step Pool Bankfull Depth = 1.75 R Step Pool Bankfull Depth = 1.15 It Step Pool Bonkfull Depth = 1.75 It X = Cross Vane Location 2. The channel is to be graded using the bankfull profile (this sheet the typical sec6ans (Sheet 9), and the
geometry
lan (Sheet 6)
The
radin
within the bankfull area (as shown on Sheet 9) will tie into MAY 7,7002
aOPNp Cadr
Meander BanklWl De - 250 It
Depth Ste Pool Slope
p = 0.05330 Step Pool Slope = 0.08000 Meander Bonkfull Depth = 2.50 ft Step Pool Slope ' 0.11220 p
.
g
g
proposed grades outside the bankfull area to create the required entrenchment. CWWrF
Riffle Slope = 0.01840 ft/ft
M Slope = 000920 ft/ft Meander Sk>pp = 0.00920 ft/ft
Facet Sape = 0.7000 ft/ft 3. The flood one stage is t.ice the bankfull stage.

m1u
Facet d Slow = 0.1000 ft/ft 4. Facet slope is the invert slope at the entrancand exit of a pool (Meander). PROFILE2
er
2 a 2
Fft-
0'10.0

I

r

M

u
L
I

i
Q*

BANKFULL WIDTH (12 FT)
HE KS
", iAMETER)RMEDIATE
PLACE GRAVEL SALVAGED
FROM EXISTING STREAM
ON UPSTREAM SIDE
OF WEIR
EXTEND STRUCTURE INTO
BANK AT LEAST 2' /
BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH
EXTEND STRUCTURE INTO
BANK AT LEAST 2'
BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH
/
F<?
ROOTED CUTTINGS
FOOTER ROCKS cSILKY DOGWOOD OO
(24' MIN. ROCK DIAMETER) BLACK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING
ROOTED CUTTINGS
(SILKY DDGVOOD OR
BLACK WILLOW) Pi m
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING Pim
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: ROCK WEIR IS TO BE CENTERED IN THE CHANNEL WITH HEADER ROCKS AS CLOSE TO EACH OTHER
AS POSSIBLE AT THE UPSTREAM SIDE TO FORCE WATER OVER AND NOT AROUND THEM.
ROOTED CUTTINGS
(SILKY DOGWOOD IR
BLACK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING
BANKFULL
GROUND ELEVATI TELEVATION
HEADER ROCKS V
ROOTED CUTTINGS
(SILKY DOGWOOD OR
BUCK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING
NOTES
1. ALL ROCKS MUST HAVE AM INTERMEDIATE DA' d-^
2. TOP OF FOOTER ROCKS IS TO BE PLACED AT THE
PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
ROCKS
ROOTED CUTTINGS
(SILKY DOGWOOD OR
BLACK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING
WIDTH
ELEVATION
MAX INVERT ELE
FOOTER ROC
HEADER ROCKS-/
CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
FLOW
STREAMBED ~
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCKS
SECTION "A-A"
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK WEIR DETAILS
24' MIR ROCK DIA.
TED CUTTINGS (SILKY DDGVWD
BLACK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPACING
14.2 FT
BAN FULL ELEV.
PROP. CHANNEL BED
ROOTED CUTTINGS
(SILKY DOGWOOD O
BLACK WILLOW)
ON APPROX. 2' SPAC'.
PUCE GRAVEL SALVAGED
FROM EXISTING STREAM
ON UPSTREAM SIDE
OF VANE I
1 CUTTING
DOGWOOD
R BLACK
ROOTED CUTTING
(SILKY DOGWOOD
AND/OR BLACK
WLLDW)
FLOW
STREAMBED \ -y
HEADER ROCI(
FOOTER ROCKS
SECTION "A-A"
NOT TO SCALE
CROSS VANE DETAILS
24' MIN. ROCK DIA.
HEADER ROCKS
--?-USE LARGEST ROCKS AT RAW
AND TOE BEDDED I/2 DIAM MIN
LAYER FOOTER ROOKS
AM FOOTER ROCKS
PROFILE VMW
NOT TO SCALE
INSTALL ROOTED CUTTINGS ON 2'x2'
SPACING IN STAGGARED ROWS.
BANKFULL ELEVATION
_? -_-_-- 1.25E
INSTALL 8' STAPLES PER
MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
NOTE, APPLY SOIL AMENDMENTS AND PERMANENT SEED MIX PRIOR TO
MAT INSTALLATION. NO MULCH REQUIRED IN AREAS COVERED BY MAT.
TYPICAL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
ROCKS
ry ?
e
?? LL
m
W z
¢p_0g_
a a d
z
2
W
oY
wZ
0 0
W 0
P
a
U
J;
NT5
m
MAY 7.2002
TYPICAL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
.; e
W
111
\ BAN(FULL ELEVATION LIMIT

g
I ? FOOTER LOG

INSTALL ROOTED CUTTINGS (VILLDV AND
'
SILKY DOGWOOD) IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS
IN APPROX. z' SPACING
O? 6.0
PROVIDE CONTROL
LL
/
STRUCTURES ES WHERE
WHERE
INDICATED ON GRADING
WILLOW BUNDLE
WILLOW BUNDLE
4' O
ALONG OUTSIDE
C

g
TIERS

PUN
.
.
OF MEANDER BEND
CAP BOULDER
TO 24"
Q

D BOJLOERS (OLY NEEDED IN FILL AREAS) f I
12"
G
R ROC
T q y
AV
. DIAME
K
E
F LAM
INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER b
? $ ?
? V
O
BANKFULL ELEV. O
FOOTER N
LOG PLACE BOULDERS S
Z

PLAN j DITCH GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE TO SUPPORT CAP
BOULDERS AT
, BANKFULL ELEVATION Z LG

NOT TO SCALE a

Y
1
FOOTER BOULDER T
'
n
0'
2. OP OF
'
?ROOTED CUTTINGS APPROX. 2
SPACING 24
MIN. DIAMETER FOOTER BOULDER
RO FOOTER ROCKS SHALL BE PLACED WITH THEIR TOPS AT SET AT INVERT $
E
THE INVERT OF THE CHANNEL. AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER d
BANKFULL BOULDER OF ROWS OF BOULDERS SHALL THEN BE STACKED UPON
12' MIN. DI A-16' LENGTH U J THE FOOTER BOULDERS SUCH THAT BANKFULL FALLS
(ABOVE ROOT COLLAR)
J WITHIN THE HEIGHT OF THE CAP BOULDERS.
USE END BOULDER ONLY WHEN
ROOT WAD PLACED IN FILL
DPfCH GRADB CONTROL STRUCTURB PLAN WILLOW BUNDLE TYPICAL PROFILE
PROP. CHANN
EED NOT ro SCALE NOT TO SCALE

FOOTER LOG 8
MIN. 14' DIA. END BOULDER
12 TO 14 FT. LE 8
0
WHEN FEASIBLE, SHARPEN END OF BOLE .
WITH CHAIN SAW TO ALLOW LOG TO BE F
PUSHED INTO BANK, THEREBY MINIMIZING (ITCHES TO BE LINED 40' U 0
DISTURBANCE WITH CURLED WOOD W 2
3

TYPICAL SECTION STABILIZATION MATTING
UNLESS OTHERWISE L2-
WILLOW BUNDLE o 0
C
NOT TO SCALE INDICATED ON GRADING )
PLATT 4' O.C. ALONG OUTSIDE
OF MEANDER BEND Z a QJ
a
NOTES: X CAP BOULDER 0
1. NEW SHOWN IS NOT NORMAL TO CHANNEL.
r
<
2. ALL BOULDERS ARE TO HAVE A MIN. DIA. OF 24 INCHES. ?
W 0
APPLY STABILIZATION S® MIX AN) 0 Y
PLACE AN 8 - FT. WIDTH OF
WOW MATTING
THE 0
ROOT WAD - INSTALLATION NOTES ?
N BANKFULL 2 Z 00

L
Construct the root wad revetments from upstream to downstream. Cut the trench for the first footer log sou ELEVATION
U.
that the lap of the log is at the inrert of the proposed channel. Place a boulder on the downstream end of the
TYPICAL DITCH SECTION - CURLED WOOD
TOP OF FOOTER BOULDER f 0 0
footer log so that it is leaning against the log on the side away from the channel.
NOT TO SLUE
SET AT INVERT AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF ROWS OF <
W
2. Cut the trench for the upstream-most root wad log and place the log in the trench on top of the boulder so BOULDERS SHALL BE STACKED UPON THE F U
that the root fan makes an angle of approximately 30 to 60 degrees to the channel center line and 90 degrees to INVERT FOOTER BOULDERS SUCH THAT BANKFULL
the flow. The bale (trunk) of the root wad log, when placed in the trench, shall have the cut end lower than FILL FALLS WITHIN THE HEIGHT OF THE CAP
the root end. The top of the bale should be immediately under the edge of the bank full limit 8.0 BOULDERS.
of the channel. A trench is not needed for root wad in fill areas. Men feasible, sharpen the end of the bole with
a chain saw to allow the log to be pushed into the stream bank, thereby minimizing any disturbance. DITCHES TO BE LINED
WITH RIPRAP ONLY 4.0'
3. Cut the trench for the downstream footer log so that the top of the log is at the invert of the proposed
Channel. Place the footer log in the trench so that it is shingled (i.e., the downstream end of the upstream footer WHERE INDICATED ON
GRADING PIN! 20' ?w 1ieTn?f w
W=W BUNDLE TMICAL SIMON ?y
?i
log should extend beyond the upstream end of the downstream footer log). Place a boulder an the downstream h NOT TO SCALE F
end of each footer log so that it is leaning against the log on the side away from the channel. L? r 22 FT. CLASS I RIPRAP
?\ l
A
4. Cut the trench for the downstream root wad log that the space between the two root fans is approximately mil` ?I v
vy ROCK REVETMENT WITH WILLOW BUNDLES
one fan diameter and the angle of the root fan is approximately 30 to 60 degrees off the center line of the ?
GEOIDGILE FABRIC I vtJ
channel and 90 degrees to the flow. The bole of the root wad log, when placed in the trench, shall have the cut KEY IN MIN 6"
end lower than the root end. The top of the bole should be immediately under the edge of the bank full limit of (,)
the channel. 0.4
Q
5. Repeat steps 3 through 4 in a downstream direction until the meander bend is complete. ]RAP ono
TYPICAL DITCH SECTION - RD' [
w
;
?
i
6. Use rocks, brush, or logs to plug any holes between the logs to prevent the Dackfilled earth from idling into
NOT TO SCALE '
T
!
the channel. Backfll the area behind the root wad reretmenl and the trench in which the root wad log is placed.
Place o boulder on top of the downstream side of the root wad.
Note: The use of a back hoe or track hoe with a 'live" hydraulic thumb opposing the bucket is recommended TYPICAL DITCH SECTION
for correct and efficient placement of all logs and boulders. The City shill be the sole judge as to the
effectiveness of the installation ation e
If dama
ui
ment
e to the ro
r
t
d
i
t
h
ll b
t
d
d WITH GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES a
q
p
g
wa
-
o
s occu
s, equ
pmen
e correc
s
a
e
an
t
d
l
d
t
d Z
roo
wa
s rep
ace
no ad
a
itional cost to the City.
PLANTING NOTE
J"
"
"
"
"
See
Plant Materials Detail
and
Planting Specifications
on Sheet 10. a S
IL
cmby urse
ROOT WAD TYPICAL DETAIL ? NTS
as
MAY 7, 70Dz
m aww Dee
CWMW
ow.wm Ns
DETAIL52
eww
2 w 2
Pi Mud
02W
0'40? \ NA
T ?9pG
r
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
May 21, 2003
Rick Benton, City Manager
City of Roanoke Rapids
PO Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Subject: Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke River
DWQ Project No. 030367
Halifax County
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Benton:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to relocate 946 linear feet of unnamed tributaries to
the Roanoke River in order to restore 600 feet of stream and stabilize approximately 450 feet of stream and the associated
riparian buffers as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality on March 26, 2003 and
modifications received May 14, 2003. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this relocation and
stabilization are covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3399. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Numbers 27 and 13 when issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification and the additional conditions listed below:
1) Standard Condition for Stream and Wetland Projects Approved Under GC 3353 (fee paid)
Based on the information provided this Office considers that all of the conditions of General Certification (GC) No.
3399 have been met and that no additional written approval is required in order to construct the above project. If the
project design changes or if the project is not constructed according to the design then the approval is no longer
valid and the plans must be resubmitted per GC 3399. If the project is to be used for compensatory mitigation credit
in the future then additional written concurrence by this Office is required. Also, additional information may be
required to complete a review for compensatory mitigation purposes. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is a
participant in the Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT) established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
DWQ's approval of a Mitigation Banking Instrument shall be the sole approval for compensatory mitigation banking
credit for the State as long as the proper 401 Water Quality Certification approvals have been obtained. Please be
advised that the additional information may require that the project be redesigned and/or that the project not be used
for compensatory mitigation credit.
2) The stream and buffer restoration must be constructed and maintained according to the approved plans in the
application and application modifications. Any repairs or adjustments to the site must be made according to the
approved plans or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Page 2 of 2
3) In order for this project to be used as compensatory mitigation for other specific projects you must obtain written
approval from this Office. The request should include the amount of stream length and buffer area credit requested
for accounting purposes. Please specify DWQ project No. 030367 when making your request.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
any questions, please telephone Todd St. John in this Office at 919-733-9584.
Sincerely,
olx? 'A?4
Alan Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Kenneth W. Ashe, PE, Dewberry, 5505 Creedmore Road, Raleigh, NC 27612-6352
Raleigh Regional Office
Todd St. John
File
Central Files
wAT?!4 l F
E
l
Mi
h

PG
A .
c
ae
as
ey
Governor
r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary

FIL E

1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality

May 21, 2003
To: Triagers 401 ISSUED'
From: Todd St. John y r *`
Re: CW MTF Project No. 2000B - 409A Stream Restoration
DWQ# 030367
Halifax County
I have reviewed the project and make the following recommendations:
1) The stream itself is very small with an approximately 75 acre watershed. It is not clear if the stream is even perennial.
2) The upper portion which is approximately 600 feet in length would likely meet our definition of restoration, although it
does include an abundance grade control structures.
3) The remaining stream (about 450 feet) drops down a terrace and would likely be naturally unstable anyway unless
controlled by bed rock. This portion of the stream will be very heavily engineered with bank to bank armoring;
however, with step pool features will be incorporated. Due to the extreme slopes this may be a prudent course of
action. I do not recommend that we oppose it.
Because this is a very small urban stream, the heavily engineered portions of this proposed design will likely not remove
any uses. The greatest actual benefit will likely be the stabilization that should result. It is an acceptable stream
stabilization project and a less engineered proposal would probably be very risky. As such, I recommend we approve the
project as a restoration/stabilization project.
, ?#/ '4id *f#&41 It,"
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
5505 Creedmoor Road 919 881 9939
Suite 150 919 881 9923 fax
Dewberry Raleigh, North Carolina 27612-6352 www.dewberry.com
C,3 cc

May 13, 2003 401 1SSUJ WETLANDSI401 GROUP
Mr. Todd St. John MAY ! 4 %'lll! I
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center ?1 TER QUALITY SECTION
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 ??????11
RE: City of Roanoke Rapids
CWMTF Project Number 2000B-409A - Reach 1 Stream Restoration
Dewberry Project No. 02007
Mr. St. John:
Dewberry has reviewed your comments regarding the DWQ Project Number 030367 Unnamed Tributary
to the Roanoke River, Halifax County (referenced above) stream restoration Preconstruction Notification
and has prepared responses, which are attached.
Please contact me at 919.881.9939 or by email at kasheCU,_clewbei7y__?om if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Ashe, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer/Project Manager
Enclosures
Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
A0? WAr?Rpc
r
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
April 7, 2003
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
Rick Benton, City Manager ,,t/
City of Roanoke Rapids ' AI
PO Box 38 ?II?S/4pr GROUP
n
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 ?qY ?
Subject: Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke
DWQ Project No. 030367 GG A/ r
Halifax County a?nL'I Ys?
CT?oN
Dear Mr. Benton:
The Wetlands Unit staff reviewed the stream work plans for the subject project and determined that additional information
is necessary to complete the technical review process. It appears that an "E" type channel is proposed for this project for
subreach 1. The approach and design basis for subreaches 2-9 is not clear. It is certainly understandable that building an
E type channel on valley and channel slopes of over 2% would be problematic, and that providing a more gently sloped
"E" channel followed by a step pool type system would be a more conservative design approach. Based on the plans, the
latter appears to be the approach; however, the supporting information such as the Morphological Measurements Table
and reference stream information does not seem to support or describe the approach used. As such, the information used
to design the subreach 1 may not be appropriate, and the design for subreaches 2-9 is not described or explained by any
of the supporting information provided. As such, it will be necessary to provide adequate information to indicate the
restoration and/or enhancement as defined in General Certification no. 3399 (formerly 3353) shall be achieved. The
required additional information is as follows:
Reference Stream
2.
Reference stream 2 (assumed to be the primary reference stream since many of the parameters of reference reach
1 were not measured) appears to be like the stream proposed in the morphological measurements table, but is not
like the design streams shown in the plans, especially for subreaches 2 to 9. Please explain these differences and
how the reference stream was used in the channel design. Please provide a column in the Morphological
Measurements Table for each stream type designed.
Plan Detail
Please provide a key for all symbols used for the structures and revetment types shown on the site plans. Also, it is
not clear whether or not bank to bank armoring is proposed for the entire length of subreaches 2-9. It is also not
clear if subreaches 1-9 would meet the definitions of enhancement and/or restoration.
The longitudinal profile seems to show sections of steep cataracts with sections of featureless channel in between.
It is not clear how this corresponds to the reference stream conditions or why this approach is being used in this
manner.
3.
In Stream Structures and/or Channel Blocks
The stone sizes proposed for the weir, cross vane and step pool structures may be too small based on the given
conditions. One of the cataracts has an average slope of approximately 16%. Please provide documentation to
show that the proposed stone sizes are adequate.
The cross vanes should be lined with geotextile fabric, or other measures should be taken to prevent piping through
the structures.
Please provide the arm angles for the weir structures on the typicals.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Page 2 of 2
The structure typicals do not provide for greater than bankfull events. The average valley slope is given as over 3%.
High flows may compromise the structures along the bank and overbank areas. Please provide adequate detail that
shows how structures will be designed to prevent failure of the bank and overbank areas. For instance, will the
structures be adequately "keyed" into the banks?
The typical and the design strategy for the cataracts is not clear. Please provide the typical step heights and typical
pool lengths. Please provide a typical longitudinal profile view and a complete step and pool plan view out to the
flood prone elevation.
4. Bank Stabilization
Please specify the location where the toe hardening or rock revetments are proposed on the site plans.
5. Morphological Measurements
The morphological measurements provided do not appear to be congruent with the proposed stream type/plan.
Please provide a column for each proposed stream type designed as the parameters in the table to not seem to
match any of the sub reaches in the plans.
Sediment Transport Analysis
The sediment transport analysis does not appear to be appropriate for the substrate indicated. Please clarify.
Additionally, bar samples have not been established as an accurate substitute for pavement and subpavement
sediment analysis in North Carolina, especially in streams where bars have not formed. Also, it is not clear what is
meant by estimating the subpavement sediment using the Halifax County Soil Survey. In any event, it is not clear
how the analysis could be applied to the various sub reaches in the plans.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this project, please contact me at [phone]. Also, please note
that the Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, April 2001, and other documents and information can
be downloaded from the Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/restore.htmi.
This information is needed by the Division in order for us to decide whether this project is approvable.
Please call Todd St. John at 919-733-9584 if you have any questions. Until this information is received, I will place this
project on hold due to incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)).
Sincerely,
L
J R. DoOy?
at r Quality Certificatio Program
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Regional USACE Office
Kenneth Ashe, PE, Dewberry and Davis, Inc., 5505 Creedmore Road, Ral igh, NC 27612
Todd St. John
File
Central Files
Dewberry
May 13, 2003
5505 Creedmoor Road 919 881 9939
Suite 150 919 881 9923 fax
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612-6352 www.dewberry.com
Mr. Todd St. John
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: City of Roanoke Rapids
CWMTF Project Number 2000B-409A - Reach 1 Stream Restoration
Dewberry Project No. 02007
Mr. St. John:
Dewberry has reviewed your comments regarding the CWMTF Project Number 2000B-409A Roanoke
Rapids Reach 1 stream restoration Preconstruction Notification and has prepared responses, which are
presented below.
Comment: The Wetlands Unit staff reviewed the stream work plans for the subject project and
determined that additional information is necessary to complete the technical review process. It
appears that an 'E" type channel is proposed for this project for subreach 1. The approach and
design basis for subreaches 2-9 is not clear. It is certainly understandable that building an E type
channel on valley and channel slopes of over 2% would be problematic, and that providing a more
gently sloped "E" channel followed by a step pool type system would be a more conservative design
approach. Based on the plans, the latter ("It is certainly understandable that building an E type
channel on valley and channel slopes of over 2% would be problematic, and that providing a more
gently sloped "E" channel followed by a step pool type system would be a more conservative design
approach") appears to be the approach; however, the supporting information such as the
Morphological Measurements Table and reference stream information does not seem to support or
describe the approach used. As such, the information used to design the subreach 1 may not be
appropriate, and the design for subreaches 2 - 9 is not described or explained by any of the
supporting information provided. As such, it will be necessary to provide adequate information to
indicate the restoration and/or enhancement as defined in General Certification no. 3399 (formerly
3353) shall be achieved. The required additional information is as follows:
Response: A Sub-reach by Sub-reach morphological table is attached.
Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
1. Reference Stream
Comment: Reference stream 2 (assumed to be the primary reference stream since many of the
parameters of reference reach 1 were not measured) appears to be like the stream proposed in the
morphological measurements table, but is not like the design streams shown in the plans, especially
for subreaches 2 to 9. Please explain these differences and how the reference stream was used in the
channel design. Please provide a column in the Morphological Measurements Table for each stream
type designed.
Response: As per our phone conversation, the project site has a series of natural terraces that are
part of the Roanoke River floodplain. Step pools were utilized to step down the steep face of the terraces
and all other reaches were designed as Rosgen E reaches based on Reference. Reference Reach 2 data
was utilized for design of Sub-Reaches 1, 3, S, 6 and 8. Sub-reaches 2, 4, 7 and 9 are the reaches with
step pools on the terrace faces. The step pools are designed based on engineeringjudgment and
published design guidelines.
A profile of the existing ground is attached.
The morphological table and design description has been amended (attached) to reflect the two stream
sub-reach types described above.
2. Plan Detail
Comment: Please provide a key for all symbols used for the structures and revetment types
shown on the site plans.
Response: A key has been provided for all structure types on the Plan View Sheets I and 2
(attached).
Comment: Also, it is not clear whether or not bank to bank armoring is proposed for the entire
length of subreaches 2-9. It is also not clear if subreaches 1-9 would meet the definitions of
enhancement and/or restoration.
Response: Sub-Reaches 2 - 9 are not receiving bank armoring. Sub-reaches 3, S, 6 and 8 are
Rosgen E reaches and Sub-reaches 2, 4, 7 and 9 are step pool sequences. The step pool sequences have
been used to step down natural terraces for elevation change and grade control.
Comment: The longitudinal profile seems to show sections of steep cataracts with sections of
featureless channel in between. It is not clear how this corresponds to the reference stream
conditions or why this approach is being used in this manner.
Response: The "cataracts " are step pools used in the locations of existing steep terrace slopes. The
amended morphological table and description for Comment 1 addresses this comment. The step pools
are separated by short reaches designed as Rosgen E stream type.
9 Dewberry
3. In-Stream Structures and/or Channel Blocks
Comment: The stone sizes proposed for the weir, cross vane and step pool structures may be
too small based on the given conditions. One of the cataracts has an average slope of approximately
16%. Please provide documentation to show that the proposed stone sizes are adequate.
Response: The structure stone sizes have been checked with shear stress estimates and guide curves
based on design stone size for given velocities (based on the Lshbash equation). The cross-vane stones in
Sub-Reaches 1, 3, S, 6 and 8 have been amended to 24 " to 30 " intermediate diameter stones.
The stone sizes in the step pools have also been checked and the step pools in Sub-Reaches 7 and 9 have
been amended to be 30" to 36" intermediate diameter. Amended detail sheets are attached.
Comment: The cross vanes should be lined with geotextile fabric, or other measures should be
taken to prevent piping through the structures.
Response: Geotextile fabric has be added to the typical structure details (see attached Typical
Details Sheet 1). Please note the step pool details in Appendix G include geotextile.fabric.
Comment: Please provide the arm angles for the weir structures on the typicals.
Phone conversation clarification: DWQ's main concern is vertical angles.
Response: Arm angles were not provided to avoid confusion for the contractor, which typically
prefer dimensions to angle specifications. Vertical arm angles for each structure type have been added to
the Typical Details Sheet 1.
Horizontal angles are as follows:
The cross vane and rock vane designs have arm angles gf'approximately 20 degrees.
The rock weirs are designed to have arm angles of 30 to 45 degrees, depending on the stone selected and
used in each weir structure (the downstream length is 3 times the intermediate stone diameter - or 6 to 9
feet as shown in the plans). The arm angles have been added to the Details.
Comment: The structure typicals do not provide for greater than bankfull events. The average
valley slope is given as over 3%. High flows may compromise the structures along the bank and
overbank areas. Please provide adequate detail that shows how structures will be designed to
prevent failure of the bank and overbank areas. For instance, will the structures be adequately
"keyed" into the banks?
Response: As-per our phone conversation, "key-ins " or "buried sills " with minimum length of 2'
have been added to the rock vane and cross-vane details (see Typical Details Sheet 1). The rock weir
details show a 2 ' minimum key into the bank. The step pool details show the width of the boulder
protection to be S' to 6' wider than bankfull on each bank.
41 Dewberry
Additionally, the Typical Details in Appendix J show willow anchoring at the ends of each structure type.
The floodprone width of each reach is 3 or more times the bankfull width, which will allow for a
substantial increase inflow area for greater- than bankfull flow rates.
Please note the average valley slope is over 3%, however the reaches were rock weir, rock vane and
cross vane structures are utilized have slopes of 1.8% in riffles and 0.9% in meanders, as shown on the
Profile Notes on Profile I and 2 in Appendix L Reaches that fall on the natural terrace slopes, have step
pool structures that have boulder protection that extends 5' to 6 'beyond bankfull.
Comment: The typical and the design strategy for the cataracts is not clear. Please provide the
typical step heights and typical pool lengths. Please provide a typical longitudinal profile view and a
complete step and pool plan view out to the flood prone elevation.
Response: As per our phone conversation, the Details for the step pools are provided in Appendix G
"Typical Section and Step Pool Details". The step pool details and specifications include the plan view,
profile view, step heights, pool lengths, pool depths, the width of the pool, the width of the brink, and
depth of brink.for the step pools. Please note the step pool length decreases with increasing slope and
that the step pools were only used on the natural terraces that occur on-site. The Details for the step
pools are attached as Typical Section and Step Pool Detail Sheet 1.
4. Bank Stabilization
Comment: Please specify the location where the toe hardening or rock revetments are proposed
on the site plans.
Response: As discussed during our phone conversation, no rock revetments or toe hardening is
proposed for this project. The rock revetment detail is shown to provide cross-sectional and profile views
of willow bundle planting details for the ends of structures. The details for the rock weirs, cross vanes,
and rock vanes do not provide details for the plantings. Please note, Rock revetments and toe hardening
are not called for in this design and are not shown on the PLAN VIEWS. The "WILLOW BUNDLE
TYPICAL PROFILE " and "ROCK REVETMENT WITH WILLOW B UNDLE " details will be renamed to
"STRUCTURE WILLOW BUNDLE TYPICAL PROFILE "AND "STRUCTURE WILLOW BUNDLE
CROSS-SECTION VIEW" to clam their intended use (see Typical Details Sheet 2 attached).
5. Morphological Measurements
Comment: The morphological measurements provided do not appear to be congruent with the
proposed stream type/plan. Please provide a column for each proposed stream type designed as the
parameters in the table to not seem to match any of the sub reaches in the plans.
Response: As discussed in our phone conversation and above, an amended morphological table and
description has been prepared (attached) as described in the response to Comment 1.
10 Dewberry
6. Sediment Transport Analysis
Comment: The sediment transport analysis does not appear to be appropriate for the substrate
indicated. Please clarify. Additionally, bar samples have not been established as an accurate
substitute for pavement and subpavement sediment analysis in North Carolina, especially in
streams where bars have not formed. Also, it is not clear what is meant by estimating the
subpavement sediment using the Halifax County Soil Survey. In any event, it is not clear how the
analysis could be applied to the various sub reaches in the plans.
Response: Pavement and sub pavement sediment analysis has been completed on Reach 1. The
amended data is provided as pages 26-27.for the Restoration Plan (attached).
The pavement and sub -pavement sieve analyses are attached. The pavement Ds„ was determined to be 20
mm and the sub pavement D50 was determined to be 2.6 mm. The largest particle found in the stream bed
was 362 mm. The depth offlow needed to mobilize the largest particle in the bed was determined to be
1.5 feet, which compares favorably to the bankfull depth of 1.75 feet in Sub-Reaches 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8. The
shear stress is not great enough to move the stones within the structures. The stones in the cross-vanes
have been increased to 24 " to 30 " to allow,for a factor of safety.
Dewberry
DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN
The existing topography of the Reach 1 stream restoration includes three (3) natural terraces, which
are part of the Roanoke River's floodplain. The proposed restoration design is based on a reference
Rosgen E stream type and has four (4) reaches of step pools which have been utilized to step the
proposed stream down the existing terraces (A profile of the existing topography is attached as part of
this response to comments). The proposed Rosgen E stream type was not feasible given the overall
slope of the project site unless step pools were used along the terraces for elevation change.
The design approach utilized a stable Rosgen E stream on the relatively gentle slope on the upstream
project reach (Sub-Reach 1), with a series of step pools at the natural terraces (Sub-Reaches 2, 4, 7
and 9) separated by short reaches of Rosgen E stream reaches (Sub-Reaches 3, 5, 6 and 8) with
relatively gentle slope.
The proposed design for Sub-Reaches 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 is based on a Rosgen E reference site and the
step pools designed for Sub-Reaches 2, 4, 7 and 9 were designed using engineering judgment and
design guidelines. Sub-Reaches 3, 5, 6 and 8 are located between the terrace step pools and are too
short to provide stable feature development. Because of the short length of Sub-Reaches 2, 5, 6 and 8,
limited pattern and profile data can be computed.
Table 5.1 provides the Dimension Morphological Table for all Sub-Reaches. Tables 5.2 a-d provide
the Pattern Morphological Tables for Sub-Reaches 1, 3, 5 & 6, and 8. Tables 5.3 a-d provide the
Profile Morphological Tables for Sub-Reaches 1, 3, 5 & 6, and 8. Design information for the step
pools is provides on the Typical Sections and Steep Pool Details Plan Sheet.
As can be seen in the Morphological Tables, Sub-Reach 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 is designed according to the
reference data. Due to the existing topography, Sub-Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 8 are relatively short in
length and limited pattern and profile date can be compiled for the reaches. However, the
Morphological Tables indicated Sub-Reaches 3, 5, 6 and 8 are designed according the reference
Dimension data and have appropriate slopes and radii of curvature.
Table 5.1 Dimension Morphological Table
Dimension Parameter Units Reference
Reach 2 Existing Proposed

Reach Name UT to
Lower Barton
Creek
Falls Lake
State Park
UT to Roanoke
River
REACH 1
UT to Roanoke
River
Reach l
AulskaROW
Stream Type E4b Fob E4b
Drainage Area mil 0.057 0.12 0.12
Bankfull X-Sec. Area, ABKF ft2 3.3 16.6 13
Bankfull Width, W8KF ft 5.1 17.4 12
Bankfull Mean Depth, DBKF ft 0.7 1.0 1.08
Width/De th, WBKF/DBKF 7.3 17.4 11.1
Bankfull Max Depth, DMAX ft 0.75 1.3 1.8
DMAX/ DBKF 1.07 1.3 1.6
W. Flood Prone Area, WFPA ft 10.5 22.3 > 26.4
Entrenchment, WFPA/WBKF 212 1.28 >2.2
Bank Height Ratio, BHR 1 5.3 1.0
Bankfull Discharge, QBKF cfs 11.3 62 62
Bankfull Velocity, VBKF fUs 3.4 3.73 4.77
Table 5.2a Pattern Morphological Table
Pattern Parameter Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed

Reach Name UT to
Lower Barton Creek
Falls Lake State Park UT to Roanoke River
REACH 1 LIT to Roanoke River
Sub-Reach 1
Units Min Max Min Max Min Max
Meander Length, LM ft 18 32 60 400 54.7 76.3
LM. Ratio, LM/ WBKF 3.8 6.8 3.9 25.7 4.6 6.4
Radius of Curvature, RC ft 3.5 23.6 21.3 45.1 35 60
RC Ratio, Rc/WBKF 0.8 5.0 1.4 2.9 2.92 5
Belt Width, WBLT ft 62 62 12 120 31.9 67.9
BW Ratio, WBLT/ WBKF 13.2 13.2 0.8 7.7 2.7 5.7
Table 5.2b Pattern Morphological Table
Pattern Parameter Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed*

Reach Name UT to
Lower Barton Creek
Falls Lake State Park UT to Roanoke River
REACH 1 LIT to Roanoke River
Sub-Reach 3
Units Min Max Min Max Min Max
Meander Length, LM ft 18 32 60 400 -
LM. Ratio, LM/ WBKF 3.8 6.8 3.9 25.7 i
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 3.5 23.6 21.3 45.1 40 - 40
RC Ratio, Rc /WBKF 0.8 5.0 1.4 2.9 3.3 3.3
Belt Width, WBLT ft 62 62 12 120 - -
BW Ratio, WBLT/WBKF 13.2 13.2 0.8 7.7
* - Sub-Reach 3 is only one curve, so belt width and meander length can not be measured.
Table 5.2c Pattern Morphological Table
Pattern Parameter Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed*

Reach Name UT to
Lower Barton Creek
Falls Lake State Park UT to Roanoke River
REACH 1 UT to Roanoke River
Sub-Reach 5 & 6
Units Min Max Min Max Min _ Max
Meander Length, LM ft 18 32 60 400 -
LM. Ratio, LM/ WBKF 3.8 6.8 3.9 25.7 - -
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 3.5 23.6 21.3 45.1 50 50
RC Ratio, Rc/WBKF 0.8 5.0 1.4 2.9 4.2 4.2
Belt Width, WBLT ft 62 62 12 120
BW Ratio, WBLT/ WBKF 13.2 13.2 0.8 7.7
* - Sub-Reaches 5 & 6 have only one curve, so belt width and meander length can not be measured.
Table 5.2d Pattern Morphological Table
Pattern Parameter Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed*

Reach Name UT to
Lower Barton Creek
Fails Lake State Park UT to Roanoke River
REACH 1 UT to Roanoke River
Sub-Reach 8
Units Min Max Min Max Min Max
Meander Length, LM ft 18 32 60 400 - - r - r.. , -
LM• Ratio, LM/ WBKF 3.8 6.8 3.9 25.7 ' - t -
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 3.5 23.6 21.3 45.1 75 75
RC Ratio, Rc/WBKF 0.8 5.0 1.4 2.9 6.25 6.25
Belt Width, WBLT ft 62 62 12 120
BW Ratio, WBLT/ WBKF 13.2 13.2 0.8 7.7 - + > -
* - Sub-Reach 8 has only one curve, so belt width and meander length can not be measured.
Table 5.3a Profile Morphological Table
Profile Parameter Reference Reach 1 Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed
UT to UT to Roanoke UT to Roanoke
UT to Roanoke River Lower Barton Creek River River
Reach Name Smith Park Falls Lake State Park REACH 1 Sub-Reach 1
Units Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pool Spacing, L 5 ft 17.4 35.1 72.9 341.8 55.7 94.6
P.S. Ratio, Lp.
WBKF 3.7 7.5 4.7 22 4.64 7.9
Pool Width, W ft 3.4 4.9 7 14.1 12 12
P.W. Ratio, Wp,
WBKF 0.8 1.0 0.45 0.91 1 1
Pool Depth, D ft = .4 .8 1.67 1.88 2.5 2.5
P.D. Ratio,
D /DBKF 0.9 1.9 1.67 1.88 2.31 2.31
Valle Slope, Sva 1.6% 3.40% 1.55% 1.55%0
Channel Slope,
Sch 1.48% 2.42% 3.41% 1.28%
Sinuosity, K 1.149 1.397 1.15 1,21
Table 5.3b Profile Morphological Table
Profile Parameter Reference Reach 1 Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed
UT to UT to Roanoke UT to Roanoke
UT to Roanoke River Lower Barton Creek River River
Reach Name Smith Park Falls Lake State Park REACH 1 Sub-Reach 3
Units Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pool Spacing, L 5 ft 17.4 35.1 72.9 341.8 -
P.S. Ratio, Lps/
WBKF 3.7 7.5 4.7 22
Pool Width, W ft 3.4 4.9 7 14.1 -
P.W. Ratio, WP,
WBKF 0.8 1.0 0.45 0.91
Pool Depth, D ft .4 .8 1.67 1.88 -
P.D. Ratio,
D /DBKF 0.9 1.9 1.67 1.88
Valle Slope, Seal 1.6% 3.40% 21.8% 21.8%
Channel Slope,
Sch 1.48% 2.42% 6.9% 1.18%
Sinuosity, K 1.149 1.397 1 1.1
* - Sub-Reach 3 does not contain any pools as the length of the reach is prohibitive to feature spacing.
Table 5.3c Profile Morphological Table
Profile Parameter Reference Reach 1 Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed
UT to UT to Roanoke UT to Roanoke
UT to Roanoke River Lower Barton Creek River River
Smith Park Falls Lake State Park REACH 1 Sub-Reach
Reach Name 5&6
Units Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pool Spacing, L 5 ft 17.4 35.1 72.9 341.8
P.S. Ratio, Lp,/
WBKF 3.7 7.5 4.7 22 -
Pool Width, W ft - 3.4 4.9 7 14.1 - -
P.W. Ratio, Wp,
WBKF 0.8 1.0 0.45 0.91 -
Pool Depth, D ft .4 .8 1.67 1.88 -
P.D. Ratio,
D /DBKF 0.9 1.9 1.67 1.88
Valle Slope, Sva, 1.6% 3.40% 4.73% 4.73%
Channel Slope,
SCh 1.48% 2.42% 2.94% 1.184%
Sinuosity, K 1.149 1.397 1 1.05
* - Sub-Reaches 5 & 6 do not contain any pools as the length of the reaches is prohibitive to feature
spacing.
Table 5.3d Profile Morphological Table
Profile Parameter Reference Reach 1 Reference Reach 2 Existing Proposed
UT to UT to Roanoke UT to
Roanoke
UT to Roanoke River Lower Barton Creek River ,
River
Reach Name Smith Park Falls Lake State Park REACH 1 Sub-Reach 8
Units Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pool Spacing, L ft 17.4 35.1 72.9 341.8
P.S. Ratio, Lp.,
WBKF 3.7 7.5 4.7 22
Pool Width, W ft 3.4 4.9 7 14.1 -
P.W. Ratio, WP,
WBKF 1 0.8 1.0 0.45 0.91 --
Pool Depth, D ft .4 .8 1.67 1.88 y -
P.D. Ratio,
D /DBKF 0.9 1.9 1.67 1.88 - -
Valle Slope, Sv., 1.6% 3.40% -3.7% -3.7%
Channel Slope,
Sch 1.48% 2.42% 1.92% 0.92%
Sinuosity, K 1.149 1.397 1.15 1.12
- Sub-Reach 8 does not contain any pools as the length of the reach is prohibitive to feature spacing.
Roanoke Rapids Pavement Sample Sieve Results
100°x°
90%
80%
C 70%
w
60%
U
L
U
50%
40%
r-
30%
0
20%
10%
0%
i
i
i
0.01 0.10
Sieve # mm in. grams % %Cum
-- 76.2 3 563 42.4% 100.0%
-- 25.4 1 286.5 21.6% 57.6%
-- 12.7 0.5 242.5 18.3% 36.0%
5 4.000 0.1574 197.10 14.8% 17.7%
10 2.000 0.0787 19.40 1.5% 2.9%
35 0.500 0.0197 13.10 1.0% 1.4%
60 0.250 0.0098 2.40 0.2% 0.4%
120 0.125 0.0049 1.50 0.1% 0.3%
230 0.063 0.0025 1.45 0.1% 0.1%
Pan 0.010 -- 0.50 0.0%
Total 1327.45
1.00
Particle Size (mm)
D16 = 2.40 mm
Dw 20 mm
Daa = 50 mm
10.00
100.00
Roanoke Rapids Sub-Pavement Sample Sieve Results
100°i
°

90%
-
- - -
?-i ,
- --F- -- ---
80%
---'

w
70%

y
QI
50%

-- -
- - -
------ - --
40
%

30%
A
20% -
T - - -- - --
-

0%
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Particle Size (mm)
Sieve # mm in. grams % %Cum
5 4.000 0.1574 1729.60 75.9% 100.0%
10 2.000 0.0787 212.80 9.3% 24.1% D16 = 0.25 mm
35 0.500 0.0197 322.40 14.2% 14.7% 1350 = 2.6 mm
60 0.250 0.0098 13.20 0.6% 0.6% D64 = -3.4 mm
120 0.125 0.0049 0.00 0.0% 0.0%
230 0.063 0.0025 0.00 0.0% 0.0%
Pan 0.010 -- 0.00 0.0% 0.00%
Total 2278.00
Dewberry
Sketch Sheet
Job Name l?oa,?10kF ?Qp?dS--- Project Name I??QL'? I ICTU/C(^t?rJt!)
- Date - _-
(r?
Notes- ex?S CheW / -
-- - \ J - No.
_ S eet No. / of
Q \
Rr
Q ?
6
ro S
0.J
-o
as rb
Ci

a
1 11
rtl
A
c
t" 0
'Y
G
W
Sy
N
Z*l
`b
V
U -?
o iD

S
f
'O
O
n
CAI
d'
n
o f?
1
F,
d
b
T`
V
`d\l
V
U
S
S'
v
P
F--
l
L)
r0
W
D
"V
A
n
0
e
i
/ 41
[A
L%
0\i
r
o?
y ? .
to
t o? cI
r ? A
S n
9 ?
s N
S
S
n
? 0 9
1? 1'
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
MAP LOCATION IFORMATION
Vicinity/Location Map - Map 1.1 page 3, Reach 1 Restoration Plan
USGS Topo - Map 1.1 page 3, Reach 1 Restoration Plan
NRCS Soils - Exhibit 2.1 page 6, Reach 1 Restoration Plan
Site Plan Drawings - Plan Sheets 1 - 2, Appendix H, Reach 1 Restoration Plan
1. Name of project: CWMTF Project No. 2000B-409A Reach 1 Stream Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): Not Applicable
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Multiple - 4908.14-33-2147; 4908.14-33-1910;
4908.14-33-2913; 4908.14-33-3913; 4908.14-33-4913; 4908.14-33-7099
4. Location
County: Halifax County Nearest Town: Roanoke Rapids
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Not Applicable
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Interstate 95 in Roanoke
Rapids, West on NC 158 to North on Old Farm Road. Parcel is located between
Rollingwood Road and Dunshill Road on the north side of Old Farm Road. Project Reach
begins downstream of a private driveway bridge and continues to the Roanoke River.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long Coordinates in NAD83 State Plane feet
Upstream Project limit: 2403096.4415 (E) & 984068.0453 (N)
Downstream project limit: 2403865.7321 (E) & 984122.8361 (N) (approximate)
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists
the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 16.016 +/- (multiple parcels with same owner)
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Roanoke River
8. River Basin: Roanoke River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 9
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project site is located on a private parcel in a residential
neighborhood. The Roanoke Canal Trail runs through the project site parallel to the Roanoke
River and crosses Reach 1 near the confluence with the Roanoke River. The project site
lacks a riparian buffer and alternates between grass overbanks and overbanks covered in soil
with substantial areas of landscaping. The project reach is incised and is experiencing
streambank erosion. Because of the level of degradation Reach 1 lacks a riffle-pool sequence
and has little habitat value. Reach 1 contributes an estimated 525 tons per year of sediment
to a portion of the Roanoke River that contains State-status Threatened mollusks and is a
spawning and feeding ground for anadromous fish species. Photographs of the project site
are provided in the Reach 1 Restoration Plan CD-ROM (Appendix F) under the folder
Reach 1 Project Site.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This project
is being constructed at the request of the City of Roanoke Rapids and is a stream restoration
using natural channel design of approximately 1,041 linear feet and restoration of the riparian
buffer (30 feet from the top of banks). The restoration is a Priority 1 restoration which
involves relocation of the channel, and the use of in-stream structures including rock vanes,
cross-vanes and step pools. Types of construction equipment to be used include backhoe
loader, loaders, earth movers, dump trucks, crane, and hand tools such as spades, shovels etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: This stream restoration project will provide a
stable channel and reduce sedimentation to the Roanoke River. The sediment load to the
Roanoke River from Reach 1 has been estimated as 525 tons/year. Reach 1 discharges to a
portion of the Roanoke River known to have occurrences of State-status Threatened mollusks
and is a spawning and feeding ground for anadromous fish, including the striped bass. The
protect will avoid impacts to the Roanoke River and will benefit mollusks and anadromous
fish within the Roanoke River by reducing sediment loads to the river. The project will
restore a native riparian buffer and provide improved aquatic habitat with the introduction of
riffle-pool sequences. Additionally, the stable channel will reduce public and private
property loss along the stream banks. These goals are consistent with the CWMTF's goals of
enhancement of degraded waters and contribution toward a network of riparian buffers.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
The drainage way upstream of the project was previously stabilized as part of several City of
Roanoke Rapids stormwater improvement projects. A Department of Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit 26 with reference CESAW-0090-J-042 (attached) was issued for
Page 3 of 9
improvements associated with placing fill in an open drainage and construction of a detention
facility. No known permits have been issued for the Reach 1.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
A permanent conservation easement, 30 feet wide from each top of bank, will be established
along the restored Reach 1 per the Clean Water Management Grant agreement, therefore no
future projects or permits are expected.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The project is restoration of a degraded
stream and buffer and will result in net gains in aquatic resources and function. Construction
associated with the project and directly related to the restoration of the stream reach and buffer
will result in 1,041 feet of stream restoration and approximately 2.39 acres of buffer. As a part
of the restoration, fill will be placed in approximately 948 feet of the old (existing) channel. The
Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke River is an intermittent stream not shown on the USGS
Roanoke Rapids Quadrangle. However, the USGS Roanoke Rapids Quadrangle is provided as
Map on page 2 in the Reach 1 Restoration Plan. Plan sheets are provided in Appendix H of the
Reach 1 Restoration Plan. Photographs of the existing project site are provided in the Reach 1
Restoration Plan CD-ROM in the folder Reach 1 Project Site.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on ma) (acres) (es/no) (linear feet)
NA NA NA NA NA NA
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fcma.gov.
Page 4 of 9
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acres - NA
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres - NA
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Site Type Impact* Length of Average Width Perennial or
Number ea
(linear feet) Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact (leases ecif )
Reach One Relocation as part of 948 Before Unnamed
Map 1.1 pg. 3 restoration. Cross- 1,041 After Tributary to the 20 Intermittent
Restoration Plan vanes and step pools 93 Net GAIN Roanoke River
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tot)ozone.com,
www.mgpgucst.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 93 linear feet net gain
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbod
y Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
if construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
Page 5 of 9
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The project is a stream restoration of an actively eroding, degraded reach and will result in net
gains in aquatic resource and function. Additionally, the results of a recent City survey of eroded
streams indicate that Reach 1 is a primary contributor of sediment to the Roanoke River,
depositing an estimated 525 tons of sediment annually. This portion of the Roanoke River is an
important spawning and feeding grounds of several anadromous fish populations including the
striped bass. Also, this portion of the Roanoke River has several occurrences of State-Status
Threatened mussel species. Estimates indicate a successful restoration of Reach 1 may reduce
sediment loading rates by 75% or approximately 400 tons per year.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htmi.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
Page 6 of 9
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The project is a restoration of a degraded stream reach and mitigation is not required,
however, the Reach One Stream Restoration Plan is included in support of this document.
The project includes restoration of a 30-foot wide (from each top of bank) riparian buffer
along the Unnamed Tributary to be donated as a conservation easement. Also, the project
includes a 100-foot wide conservation easement to be donated along the Roanoke River for a
reg enway. In total, approximately 2.39 acres of riparian buffer along Reach 1 will be
restored and placed in easement and over 9 acres adjoining the Roanoke River will be placed
in easement. The CWMTF model conservation easement was used as a guide in producing
the each of the described easements.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at httl2:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N.A.
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N.A.
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N.A.
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N.A.
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N.A.
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Page 7 of 9
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 NA 3 0
2 NA 1.5 0
Total NA 0
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone I.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
No impacts to the riparian buffer will occur as the proiect site lacks a riparian buffer. However
the project includes restoration of a 30-foot wide (from each top of bank) riparian buffer along
the Unnamed Tributary to be donated as a conservation easement. Also, the project includes a
100-foot wide conservation easement to be donated along the Roanoke River fora rely. In
total, approximately 2.39 acres of riparian buffer will be restored and placed in easement and
over 9 acres of land adjoining the Roanoke River will be placed in easement.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Construction is limited to stream and buffer restoration, therefore, no chances in impervious area
are proposed for this project and no additional stormwater will be generated by this project. The
existing_ impervious area is comprised of an existing driveway, the private residence, a private
guest house, a "garage', and a shed. The existing _parcels are approximately 16 acres, of which
the existing ig_mpervious is 10% or less of the total acreage.
Page 8 of 9
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
There are no proposed or existing wastewater discharges for this project.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The project is a stream restoration and riparian buffer restoration funded by the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund and includes additional funding from public and private matching
funds. The matching funds, which are in addition to the funding from the CWMTF, will be
contributed by the City of Roanoke Rapids and the homeowner and total $120,500. The Reach
One Stream Restoration Plan is included in support of this document, which includes
descriptions of State-Status Threatened mollusks and anadromous fish spawning areas in the
Roanoke River downstream of the project site. Construction is not scheduled to commence
before June 30'h to avoid impacts to the anadromous fish species. The project will significantly
reduce sediment loads to the Roanoke River, which will help provide protection to State-status
Threatened mollusks species found in the Roanoke River downstream of Reach 1. No impacts to
the Roanoke River are anticipated as construction will be limited to the Unnamed Tributary to
the Roanoke River.
kii.
31-16w 3
applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
City of Roanoke Rapids
Office of the City Manager
= '? P. O. Box 38 1040 Roanoke Avenue
Roanoke Rapids, N. C. 27870
[phone] [phone] Fax
email: [e-mail]
March 7, 2003
I ?nn7
Mr. Kenneth W. Ashe, P.E.
Dewberry
5505 Creedmoor Road
Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
Re: Agent Authorization Letter
Dear Mr. Ashe:
The City of Roanoke Rapids is constructing a stream restoration project within the City
of Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. The project, referred to as "Reach 1", is funded by
the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, CWMTF project number 200013-409A,
and will be constructed on private property.
In effort to expedite permitting, the City is assigning signatory authority to Dewberry for
this project. Section 11 2. Agent/Consultant Information of the Preconstruction
Notification should be completed to read as follows:
Name: Kenneth W. Ashe, P.E.
Company Affiliation: Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
Sincerely,
1(2c L, ? 4X , "?" -
Rick Benton
City Manager

i
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
September 12, 1990
SUBJECT: CESAW-C090-J-042 and NWP 26
Mr. Christopher H. Brown, P.E.
Dewberry and Davis
8601 Six Forks Road, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Brown:
2 D
0
DEWBERRY & DAVIS
Reference is made to your meeting of July 25, 1990, with Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
of my staff on the city of Roanoke Rapids' Roanoke Park property at 14th
Street and Carolina Avenue, in Roanoke Rapids, Halifax County, North Carolina.
The purpose of that meeting was to discuss fill activities proposed on the
property in association with the proposed replacement of the existing open
drainageway with a closed drainage system and a detention facility. The
waters of the United States, including wetlands, on the property comprise less
than one acre and the project is located adjacent to, and above the headwaters
of, an unnamed tributary to the Roanoke River.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330, published in the Federal Register
on November 13, 1986, lists nationwide permits. Authorization was provided
for discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal rivers, streams, and
their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located
above the headwaters and other non-tidal waters of the United States,
including adjacent wetlands, that are not a part of a surface tributary system
to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States.
Your proposal, involving adverse modification to less than an acre of
waters and wetlands, is authorized by nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued,
or revoked. All nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or
revoked prior to January 13, 1992. It is incumbent upon you to remain
informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public notice
announcing changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you commence, or are
under contract to commence, this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have 12 months from the date of the
modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present terms
and conditions of this nationwide permit.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
Please be aware that this authorization does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval.
if
-2-

If you have questions, please contact Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
o e WtiW
hief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
City of Roanoke Rapids
c/o Richard Parnell
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Post Office Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 28805-0038
Mr. Robert F. McGhee, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Health, Environment and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Health,
Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Or
CONDITIONS
a. Any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the
proximity of a public water supply.
b. The activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species as
identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or adversely modify
the critical habitat of such species.
C. The activity will not significantly disrupt the movement of those
species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary
purpose of the fill is to impound water).
d. Any discharge of dredged or fill material will consist of suitable
material free from toxic pollutants.
e. Any structure or fill will be properly maintained.
f. If the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the
National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for listing on,
the National Register of Historic Places, or if significant historic
properties are encountered before or during work, the permittee will notify
the District Engineer.
g. An individual state water quality certification must be obtained or
waived. Conditions of certification will be considered to be special
conditions of the Federal nationwide permit.
h. The following management practices will be followed to the maximum
extent:
(1) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States will be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical
alternatives.
(2) Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons will be
avoided.
(3) Discharges will not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic
species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high
flows or cause the relocation of the waters (unless the primary purpose of the
fill is to impound water).
(4) If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts
on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the
restriction of its flow will be minimized.
(5) Discharge in wetland areas will be avoided.
(6) Heavy equipment working in wetlands will be placed on mats.
(7) Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl will be
avoided.
(8) All temporary fills will be removed in their entirety.
O?O? W AT ?qQG
Cif r

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Certified Mail Return Receipt Reauested
Rick Benton, City Manager
City of Roanoke Rapids
PO Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Subject:
Dear Mr. Benton:
April 7, 2003
Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke River
DWQ Project No. 030367
Halifax County
The Wetlands Unit staff reviewed the stream work plans for the subject project and determined that additional information
is necessary to complete the technical review process. It appears that an "E" type channel is proposed for this project for
subreach 1. The approach and design basis for subreaches 2-9 is not clear. It is certainly understandable that building an
E type channel on valley and channel slopes of over 2% would be problematic, and that providing a more gently sloped
"E" channel followed by a step pool type system would be a more conservative design approach. Based on the plans, the
latter appears to be the approach; however, the supporting information such as the Morphological Measurements Table
and reference stream information does not seem to support or describe the approach used. As such, the information used
to design the subreach 1 may not be appropriate, and the design for subreaches 2-9 is not described or explained by any
of the supporting information provided. As such, it will be necessary to provide adequate information to indicate the
restoration and/or enhancement as defined in General Certification no. 3399 (formerly 3353) shall be achieved. The
required additional information is as follows:
Reference Stream
2.
Reference stream 2 (assumed to be the primary reference stream since many of the parameters of reference reach
1 were not measured) appears to be like the stream proposed in the morphological measurements table, but is not
like the design streams shown in the plans, especially for subreaches 2 to 9. Please explain these differences and
how the reference stream was used in the channel design. Please provide a column in the Morphological
Measurements Table for each stream type designed.
Plan Detail
Please provide a key for all symbols used for the structures and revetment types shown on the site plans. Also, it is
not clear whether or not bank to bank armoring is proposed for the entire length of subreaches 2-9. It is also not
clear if subreaches 1-9 would meet the definitions of enhancement and/or restoration.
The longitudinal profile seems to show sections of steep cataracts with sections of featureless channel in between
It is not clear how this corresponds to the reference stream conditions or why this approach is being used in this
manner.
3.
In Stream Structures and/or Channel Blocks
The stone sizes proposed for the weir, cross vane and step pool structures may be too small based on the given
conditions. One of the cataracts has an average slope of approximately 16%. Please provide documentation to
show that the proposed stone sizes are adequate.
The cross vanes should be lined with geotextile fabric, or other measures should be taken to prevent piping through
the structures.
Please provide the arm angles for the weir structures on the typicals
Nortn Uarolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Page 2 of 2
The structure typicals do not provide for greater than bankfull events. The average valley slope is given as over 3%.
High flows may compromise the structures along the bank and overbank areas. Please provide adequate detail that
shows how structures will be designed to prevent failure of the bank and overbank areas. For instance, will the
structures be adequately "keyed" into the banks?
The typical and the design strategy for the cataracts is not clear. Please provide the typical step heights and typical
pool lengths. Please provide a typical longitudinal profile view and a complete step and pool plan view out to the
flood prone elevation.
4. Bank Stabilization
Please specify the location where the toe hardening or rock revetments are proposed on the site plans.
Morphological Measurements
The morphological measurements provided do not appear to be congruent with the proposed stream type/plan.
Please provide a column for each proposed stream type designed as the parameters in the table to not seem to
match any of the sub reaches in the plans.
6. Sediment Transport Analysis
The sediment transport analysis does not appear to be appropriate for the substrate indicated. Please clarify.
Additionally, bar samples have not been established as an accurate substitute for pavement and subpavement
sediment analysis in North Carolina, especially in streams where bars have not formed. Also, it is not clear what is
meant by estimating the subpavement sediment using the Halifax County Soil Survey. In any event, it is not clear
how the analysis could be applied to the various sub reaches in the plans.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this project, please contact me at [phone]. Also, please note
that the Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, April 2001, and other documents and information can
be downloaded from the Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/restore.htmi.
This information is needed by the Division in order for us to decide whether this project is approvable.
Please call Todd St. John at 919-733-9584 if you have any questions. Until this information is received, I will place this
project on hold due to incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)).
Sincerely,
0??6
J R. Dor y
at r Quality Certificatio Program
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Regional USACE Office
Kenneth Ashe, PE, Dewberry and Davis, Inc., 5505 Creedmore Road, Rai igh, NC 27612
Todd St. John
File
Central Files
Dewberry
March 26, 2003
5505 Creedmoor Road 919 881 9939
Suite 150 919 881 9923 fax
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612-6352 www.dewberry.com
Mr. John Dorsey
Supervisor
North Carolina DENR
Division of Water Quality 401 / Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Reference: City of Roanoke Rapids
CWMTF Project No. 2000B-409A -Reach 1 Stream Restoration
Dewberry Project No. 02007
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
WETLANDS/ 401 GgOUP
M.AR `l, , ?OiJ3
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Dewberry is pleased to submit a Preconstruction Notification (PCN) on behalf of the City of Roanoke
Rapids for a stream restoration project within the City of Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. The project,
referred to as "Reach 1", is funded by the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, CWMTF project
number 2000B-409A, and will be constructed on private property.
Seven (7) copies of the PCN form are enclosed. Additionally, seven (7) copies of the Reach 1 Restoration
Plan are provided as support documentation.
Please forward any comments and / or questions to my attention at the address provided on the PCN form.
Sincerely, QQ
Kenneth W. Ashe, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer/Project Manager
Enclosures
W\projects\Ronoake Rapids\pjmgt\DWQ PCN Submittaldoc
cc: Rick Benton, City Manager, City of Roanoke Rapids
Kenneth A. Carper, P.E., Senior Associate, Dewberry

Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Rick Benton, City Manager
Mailing Address: City of Roanoke Rapids
P.O. Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Telephone Number: 252-533-2840 Fax Number: 252-533-2809
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kenneth W. Ashe, P.E.
Company Affiliation: Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
Mailing Address: 5505 Creedmoor Road
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone Number: 919-881-9939 Fax Number: 919-881-9923
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 9
¦ Complete Rams 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
¦ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to., 1 55U c.
City of Roanoke Rapids
Post Office Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
DWQ#03-0367 - Halifax County
A. Signature
X ? Agent
? Addressee
B. Received by (Anted Name) C. Date of Delivery
574C.-ko'l C ?? A-- I
D. Is delivery add6w different from Rem 1? ? Yes
If YES, enter deo pryl?(idrp?s below: ? No
/ 4?
yt
.

8.
? Registered ?lietGm
? Insured Mail ? C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? Pdra Fee,
Receipt for Merchandise
? Yes
2. Article Number 7002 3150 0004 9315 2950
(Transfer from service label)
2S Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1541
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
LISPS
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
Permit No. G-10
a,