20041604 Ver 1_Approval Letter_20041014

Michael F. Easley, Governor
1
r William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
October 14, 2004
DWQ Project # 04-1604
Surry County
Colonel Charles R. Alexander, Jr.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC, 28402-1890
Subject Property: Section 14 Emergency Streambank Erosion Control Project
Sanitary Sewer, Mount Airy, North Carolina
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Colonel Alexander:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 0.25 acres of wetlands and waters along 250 feet of stream to be restored in
order to implement the referenced project, as described within your application materials received by the
N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on October 1 and 12, 2004. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3399
(GC3399). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other
required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited
to) Erosion and Sediment Control, Non -discharge, and other applicable regulations. Also, this approval
to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your
application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions: If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required -as described in 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) I Plan Location or Reference
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 .
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Intemet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NNaoe Carolina
turally

Colonel Charles R. Alexander, Jr.
Page 2 of 3
October 14, 2004
Stream
1250 feet restored
application materials
404/CAMA Wetlands
10.25 (acres)
Application materials
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind �.
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre -Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall. be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification, shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.

A
Colonel Charles R. Alexander, Jr.
Page 3 of 3
October 14, 2004
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), 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, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. 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 Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-
733-9721 or Daryl Lamb in the DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office at 336-771-4600.
AWKlcbk
Enclosures: GC 3399
Certificate of Completion
cc: USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office /,
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DLR Winston-Salem Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Filename: 041604USCOE(Surry)401
N.C. Dep. of ENR
OCT 1 8 Z004
WIM31en-Salem
Regional office

OCT -12-2004 1155 USAGE WILMINGTON IDui'�i
1
4®1 ISSUED
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1.. flgIE: 27 September.2004
2. NAMELADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 0 C 19 OMR p
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890 OCT 1 2 2004
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
P. 02/04
DENR - WATER QUALITY
3 Charles R. Alexander, Jr- WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
CEIVED
4- "AmFOF ORFSOFFNr=iNFFRScoNTAT; Jenny Owens/CESAW-TS-PE N.C.N:C
Dept. of ENR
JELFPHONE NLIMIRFR: [phone]
OCT 1 8 2004
5. TypF OF APPLICATION: New Application
Winston-Salem
6. IyRdJECT NAME: Section 14 Emergency Streambank Erosion Control Project,
Regional Office
Sanitary Sewer, Mount Airy,. North Carolina
7, nGargliplION OF PROPOSED VI[QRK: The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers proposes to implement a
natural -type stream restoration project to protect a 21 -inch sewer. line that is located adjacent to a highly
eroded streambank on the Ararat River. The work would involve the installation of two rock vanes in the
river and the removal and reuse of some of the point bar material (see Figure 2 of the attached EIR/EA).
The rock vanes would redirect flow away from the bank and reduce velocities at the bank- In addition,
material from the point bar would be used to form a small (5 -feet to 8 -feet) bench on the lower part of the
stream bank. The remaining bank would be sloped back to a 1.5:1 or flatter slope, and vegetated with
grasses and other native plants to provide bank protection. Stone size for the rock vanes would be in the
range of 30 -inches to 64 -inches. The sand bar that has formed on the opposite bank on the inside of the
bend (point bar) would be excavated to the stream invert (see Figure 2 of the EIR/EA) in order to maintain
a comparable flow area and stream bottom area.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Nationwide Permit #27 (NWP #27), Stream Restoration, is
applicable to the proposed work. A Section 401 (P -L. 95-217 and P.L. 92-500) water quality certificate,
#3399, has been issued for NWP #27. Concurrence from the NC DWQ is required and is requested via this
application.
g, pr 1gp1nr!bF OF PROPOs>Ea WORK: Bank erosion in the project area threatens to undermine an
existing 21" sewer line that runs adjacent and parallel to the Ararat River at Riverside Park in Mount Airy,
North Carolina. Without action, the bank will continue to erode and the sewer line will be washed out,
resulting in loss of service and a sewage release, estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of gallons,
into the Ararat River. The purpose of the proposed project is to stabilize the bank in order to protect the
sewer line. Other benefits of the proposed project include the reduction of turbidity in the Ararat River below
present conditions and the reestablishment and protection of existing shoreline vegetation.
9. onnoncen ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: FY 2005, during winter months (to avoid trout fishing season)
1 b- pt gATION OF ACTIVITY: Approximately 50 days

OCT -12-2004 11:55 USACE WILMINGTON P.03iO4
_. Dredged Material
-. Fill Material
12. I O -ATION OF DISCWA6G-E:
Municipality: Mount Airy, NC
County: Surry County
Drainage Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
Receiving Waters: Yadkin River
13. NATugg OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Inland
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: South
14 : Discharge will consist of point bar
sandy sediments and large rocks (30" to 54"); which will comprise the rock vanes.
16.
17. N M13ER 0F
Filled: 2,178 square feet (0.05 acre) (rock vanes in stream - no vegetated wetlands)
Excavated: 8,712 square feet (0.2 acre) (removal of point bar material — no vegetated wetlands
Total Impacted: 0.25 acre
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES 7HAT THIS ACTIVITY M1 11qj, BE CARRIED
Based on
otrr As P11 ANNEn_ A' A0
coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Regulatory Division of the Corps of
Engineers, the proposed natural -type stream restoration approach to bank stabilization was considered to
provide the most environmental benefit, while meeting the goal of protecting the existing sewer line and
preventing further erosion of the stream bank. Work will be done under NWP 27 and all conditions of that
permit will be followed to minimize impacts. Impacts to fisheries will be further minimized by performing the
work during the winter.
.� •. •� :a :AI• - rr •: •. 9. 1 P1
-••
_ YES _X_ NO IF Y S,X.�.IN:
2
nr"T-1a-PRR4 TIIF 1.0:26 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 3

OCT -12-2004 11:55 USACE WILMINGTON P.04iO4
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
(I ) DATE:
W. Coleman L
Chief, Planning Environmental Branch
Attachments
3
-rr�T ll 11 MA

T*
REPLY TO
.ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
Environmental Resources Section
Dear Sir or Madam:
September 30, 2004
Qr=c��oer��
OCT 0 1 204
DENR - WATER QUALITY
041604
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
On September 27, 2004, we submitted you a document entitled "Sanitary Sewer and
Fairway Lane, Mount Airy, NC, Integrated Planning and Design Documentation and
Environmental Assessment, Continuing Authorities Program, Section 14 Emergency Streambank
Erosion Control Project".. Figure 3 on page_26 in -the document is incorrect. Please, replace that
figure with this corrected page. We regret any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
? f t
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
PA
rl YMFAIT
RcCE1VFD

EJ

4
t _I
Figure 3
IR

n1�
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: 27 September 2004
2. NAMEIADDR S: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIB INDIVID IA : Charles R. Alexander, Jr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF FN('wFFRc rn SITAC : Jenny Owens/CESAW-TS-PE
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PRO 1FCT NAME: Section 14 Emergency Streambank Erosion Control Project,
Sanitary Sewer, Mount Airy, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOS D WORK: The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers proposes to implement a
natural -type stream restoration project to protect a 21 -inch sewer line that is located adjacent to a highly
eroded streambank on the Ararat River. The work would involve the installation of two rock vanes in the
river and the removal and reuse of some of the point bar material (see Figure 2 of the attached EIR/EA).
The rock vanes would redirect flow away from the bank and reduce velocities at the bank. In addition,
material from the point bar would be used to form a small (5 -feet to 8 -feet) bench on the lower part of the
stream bank. The remaining bank would be sloped back to a 1.5:1 or flatter slope, and vegetated with
grasses and other native plants to provide bank protection. Stone size for the.rock vanes would be in the
range of 30= s incheto 54=inches. _ The sand, bar that has formed..on. the opposite bank -on the inside of the
bend (point bar) would be excavated to the stream invert (see Figure 2 of the EIR/EA) in order to maintain
a comparable flow area and stream bottom area.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Nationwide Permit #27 (NWP #27), Stream Restoration, is
applicable to the proposed work. A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217 and P.L. 92-500) water quality certificate,
#3399, has been issued for NWP #27. Concurrence from the NC DWQ is required and is requested via this
application.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPORFD WORK: Bank erosion in the project area threatens to undermine an
existing 21" sewer line that runs adjacent and parallel to the Ararat .River at Riverside Park in Mount Airy,
North Carolina. Without action, the bank will continue to erode and the sewer line will be washed out,
resulting in loss of service and a sewage release, estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of gallons,
'into the Ararat River. The purpose of the proposed project is to stabilize the bank in order to protect the
sewer line. Other benefits of the proposed project include the reduction of turbidity in the Ararat River below
present conditions and the reestablishment and protection of existing shoreline vegetation.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: FY 2005, during winter months to avoid trout fishing
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Approximately 60 days

a
_ Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DIS HAR :
Municipality: Mount Airy, NC
County: Surry County
Drainage Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
Receiving Waters: Yadkin River
13. NATURE OF RFCFIVINC WATERS.
Type: Inland
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: South
14. TYPE OF DISCHARrF INrL UpING QHEMIQAi QQMPO SITIO : Discharge will consist of point bar
sandy sediments and large rocks (30" to 54"), which will comprise the rock vanes.
15. PRO IECTEDFIT IR VARIATION IN THENAT IRF OF THE DISCHARrF: None
16. IS THIS PRO I T LOCATED IN A WAT RSH D A SIFTED AS SAS 'O . OR ORW?
_ YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR Vol-UMF OF WETLANDS ANDS IMPACTFn BY THF PROPORr,
Filled: 2,178 square feet (0.05 acre) (rock vanes in stream - no vegetated wetlands
Excavated: 8,712 square feet (0.2 acre) (removal of point bar material – no vegetated wetlands
Total Impacted: 0.25 acre
18
: Based on
_. coordination with ahe, Natural Resources Conservation Service -and the Regulatory Division of the Corps of
Engineers, the proposed natural -type stream restoration approach to bank stabilization was considered to
provide the most environmental benefit, while meeting the goal of protecting the existing sewer line and
preventing further erosion of the stream bank. Work will be done under NWP 27 and all conditions of that
permit will be followed to minimize impacts. Impacts to fisheries will be further minimized by performing the
work during the winter.
—YES _X_ NO IFAS, EXPI AIN.

I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
DATE:
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
3

US Army Corps
of Engineers (�)
Wilmington District
SANITARY SEWER AND FAIRWAY LANE, MOUNT AIRY, NC
INTEGRATED PLANNING AND DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
SECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
PROJECT
p@FMuwR I
OCT 0 1 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STQRMWATER BRANCH
September 2004

SANITARY SEWER AND FAIRWAY LANE, MOUNT AIRY, NC
INTEGRATED PLANNING AND DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
SECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Table of Contents
ITEM Page No.
1.0 STUDY INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
1.01 Study Authority........................................................................................ 1
1.02 Study Area............................................................................................... 1
1.02.1 Ararat River at Riverside Park ...................................................... 1
1.02.2 Fairway Lane................................................................................ 1
1.03 Purpose and Need for Action.................................................................. 1
1.03.1 Ararat River at Riverside Park ...................................................... 1
1.03.2 Fairway Lane................................................................................ 2
1.04 Integrated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA and Feasibility
Document................................................................................................ 2
2.0 PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................... 2
2.01 Formulation and Evaluation Criteria........................................................ 2
2.02 Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Plans .................................... 3
2.02.1 No Action Alternative.................................................................... 3
2.02.1.1 Ararat River.................................................................... 3
2.02.1.2 Fairway Lane................................................................. 3
2.02.2 Alternate Plans Investigated......................................................... 3
2.02.2.1 Ararat River.................................................................... 3
2.02.2.2 Fairway Lane................................................................. 4
3.0 THE RECOMMENDED PLAN............................................................................ 5
3.01 Ararat River............................................................................................. 5
3.01.1 Plan Description, Components, and Costs ................................... 5
3.01.2 Construction and Maintenance Considerations ............................ 7
3.01.3 Real Estate Considerations.......................................................... 7
3.02 Economics of the Recommended Plan ................................................... 7
3.02.1 Fairway Lane................................................................................ 7
3.02.1.1 Plan Description, Components, and Costs .................... 7
3.02.1.2 Construction and Maintenance Considerations ............. 8
3.02.1.3 Real Estate Considerations ........................................... 9
3.02.1.4 Economics of the Recommended Plan .......................... 9
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................... 9
4.01 Sediments............................................................................................... 9
4.02 Water Quality and Wetlands.................................................................. 10
i

Table of Contents (cont'd)
ITEM Page No.
4.03 Floodplains............................................................................................10
4.04 Hazardous and Toxic Waste................................................................. 11
4.05 Cultural Resources................................................................................ 11
4.05.1 Ararat River ............................................... .............................:. 11
4.05.2 Fairway Lane.............................................................................. 11
4.06 Air Quality........................................................ :..................................... 12
4.07 Noise..................................................................................................... 12
4.08 Benthic Resources................................................................................ 12
4.08.1 Ararat River................................................................................ 12
4.08.2 Fairway Lane.............................................................................. 12
4.09 Fisheries ........................ ............12
............................................................
4.09.1 Ararat River................................................................................ 12
4.09.2 Fairway Lane.............................................................................. 13
4.10 Terrestrial Resources............................................................................ 14
4. 10.1 Ararat River................................................................................ 14
_.. 4.10.2 Fairway Lane....:.................................`.:.-:.................................... 14
4.11 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................... 14
4.12 Wildlife...................................................................................................15
4.13 Aesthetic and Recreational Resources ................................................. 15
4.13.1 Ararat River................................................................................ 15
4.13.2 Fairway Lane.............................................................................. 16
4.14 Cumulative Effects................................................................................ 16
4.15 Executive Orders................................................................................... 17
4.16 Finding...................................................................................................18
5.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................ 18
5.01 Scoping.................................................................................. ........ 18
5.02 Fish and Wildlife Coordination............................................................... 18
5.03 Coordination of this Document (including local cooperation) ................. 18
5.04 Recipients............................................................................................. 19
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING...........................................20
6.01 Project Schedule............................................................. ... 20
...................
7.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................21
8.0 POINT OF CONTACT...................................................................................... 21
9.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................22
10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................... 22
ii

11.0 LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................ 22
12.0 LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................22
13.0 APPENDICES..................................................................................................23
Tables
Table 1 Alternatives Considered...................................................................................5
Table 2 Ararat River Project Cost................................................................................. 6
Table 3 Fairview Lane Project Cost.............................................................................. 8
FIGURES
Figure 1
Project Location Map...................................................................................
24
Figure 2
Ararat River Concept Plan...........................................................................
25
Figure 3
Ararat River Concept Details.......................................................................
26
Figure 4
Fairway Lane Concept Plan.........................................................................
27
Figure 5
Ararat River Photo #1.........................::......:..::........................................::.:
28
Figure 6
Ararat River Photo #2..................................................................................
28
Figure 7
Fairway Lane Photo.....................................................................................29
APPENDIX FOLLOWS REPORT
APPENDIX A -Construction Costs Details................................................................ 30
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment - Planting Plan........................................................................................ 33
iii

SANITARY SEWER AND FAIRWAY LANE, MOUNT AIRY, NC
INTEGRATED PLANNING AND DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
SECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2004
1.0 STUDY INTRODUCTION
1.01 Study Authority. Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act provides
authority for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to develop and construct
emergency streambank and shoreline protection projects to protect endangered
highways, highway bridge approaches, public works facilities such as water and sewer
lines, churches, public and private non-profit schools and hospitals, and other non-profit
public facilities. Each project is limited to a federal cost of $1,000,000 for planning,
design and construction.
1.02 Study Area. The study area is in Mount Airy, North Carolina, which is about
35 miles northwest of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Mount Airy is the only significant
urban area in Surry County. A location map is included as Figure 1.
1.02.1 Ararat River at Riverside Park. The Ararat River, a tributary of the Yadkin
River, extends in a north -south direction across the entire eastern portion of Surry
County. The proposed project area is along the outside bank of a bend in the Ararat
River at Riverside Park. This location is just downstream from a federal flood damage
reduction project, completed in the 1980's, which was described in the Detailed Project
Report and Environmental Impact Statement on Flood Damaae Reduction. Ararat River.
Mount Airy, Surry County, North Carolina.
1.02.2 Fairway Lane. A small, unnamed stream, which is a tributary of Lovills
Creek, runs parallel to Fairway Lane — a residential city street on the north side of town
— for about 600 feet. At the lower end of this reach, a larger tributary passes under the
road through a 42" culvert and joins the stream at almost a 90 -degree angle. The
drainage area is 31 acres, above this confluence and 141 acres below.
1.03 Purpose and Need for Action.
1.03.1 Ararat River at Riverside Park. In recent years, the bank has become
steeper due to erosion and is threatening to undermine the existing 21" sewer line.
Without action, the bank will continue to erode and the sewer will be washed out,
resulting in loss of service and a sewage release, estimated to be in the hundreds of
thousands of gallons, into the stream. Due to the likely large extent of a spill, it is
expected that the North Carolina Division of Water Quality would levy a severe fine on
1

the city. Note that the quantities and options analyzed for this project are based on
1990 topographic maps provided by the city that do not reflect the recent erosion. New
surveys will be acquired for preparation of final plans and scope of work for construction
contract advertisement.
1.03.2 Fairway Lane. In recent years, the stream has deepened and the bank
adjacent to the roadway has become near vertical due to erosion. The situation
appears to be worse at the 90 -degree confluence, which creates a turbulent condition.
The road is frequently overtopped due to an undersized culvert. In some areas the top
of bank has eroded to within a foot of the edge of pavement and threatens to undermine
the pavement and a parallel sanitary sewer. Attempts to slow this process by dumping
concrete rubble along parts of the stream have not been effective. Note that. -the
quantities and options analyzed for this project are based on topographic maps
provided by the city that do not reflect the recent erosion. New surveys will be required
to complete a construction document.
1.04 Integrated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA and Feasibility
Document..
The Council- on Environmental --Quality -Guidelines encourages -the integration of ..,
NEPA reports with other documents, such as planning reports, in order to reduce paper
work and to present information in a concise manner. The Corps strongly supports this
approach. Therefore, this document integrates the NEPA Environmental Assessment
with the Feasibility (Planning and Design Analysis) Documentation
2.0 PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Federal planning guidance and NEPA require that alternative plans be formulated
in a systematic manner to insure that all reasonable alternatives are evaluated. A
number of alternatives are usually identified early in the planning process, and their
number is reduced by screening, evaluation, and comparison in an iterative sequence to
lead to identification of the recommended plan. Plan formulation and evaluation of
alternatives are discussed below.
2.01 Formulation and Evaluation Criteria
Alternative plans are evaluated through application of numerous, rigorous criteria.
These include basic, general criteria as well as four categories of technical criteria,
including (1) engineering, (2). economic, (3) environmental, and (4) institutional items.
These include the following:
o Must comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations
o Must comply with applicable State and local laws and regulations, to the
maximum extent practicable
o Must comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations.
01

o Must represent sound, acceptable, and safe engineering solution
o Benefits of a plan must exceed economic costs
o May not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment
o Must satisfactorily address the identified needs and concerns of the public
o Must be implementable with respect to financial and institutional capabilities
o Must be implementable with regard to public support
2.02 Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Plans
2.02.1 No Action Alternative. The no action alternative could result in significant
adverse social, economic and environmental impacts to the local communities and the
Town -of Mount Airy.
2.02.1.1 -Ararat River. Continued erosion of the Ararat River bank would cause
damage to the sewer line. In its present condition, even a minor flood event could result'in
a line break and significant discharge of raw sewage into the Ararat River. If the sewer
line were to wash out or break, the resulting sewer spill would be in the hundreds of
thousands of gallons. The resulting environmental damage could be catastrophic,
extending many miles downstream, and could result in fines of $100,000 or more. In
addition;"nurnerous-"residents "and businesses would be without ` -sewer ser=vice'untii
repairs could be made.
2.02.1.2 Fairway Lane. Continued bank erosion. along the stream paralleling the
existing street would ultimately result in failure of the street and a potential break in the
sewer and water lines, which could have significant environmental and economic
consequences. The existing street provides the only access for 38 residences in the
development.
2.02.2 Alternate Plans Investigated. Alternate plans for both the. Ararat River
site and Fairway Lane were considered and are discussed below and are summarized
in Table 1.
2.02.2.1 Ararat River. Initially grading of the bank to a more stable slope and
protecting it with rip -rap was considered; however, to avoid impacts to the sewer this
would have required extending the toe of the bank into the stream a significant distance.
Although the Ararat River in the project vicinity is somewhat degraded, it is designated
by the State of North Carolina as a trout stream. The placement of riprap in the stream
could further degrade the value of the stream as trout habitat and is therefore
considered environmentally unacceptable where an alternative plan could result in the
enhancement of the stream as habitat for trout and other aquatic species. Relocation of
the sewer away from- the bank was also considered, but. would require clearing of
existing mature vegetation and significant excavation into a high bank that parallels the
sewer line. Due to potential environmental impacts and project costs, this alternative
was not deemed the preferable alternative.
3

Other alternatives that were considered included stabilizing the bank with gabions,
a segmental block wall, or a sheet pile wall. These alternatives were not considered
feasible, due to cost. In addition to being the highest cost alternative, the sheet pile wall
would likely encounter construction difficulties due to bedrock.
A final alternative that was considered involved protection of the bank with rock
vanes to redirect the flow away from the bank and thus reduce erosion. Also included
would be removal of a sand bar in the river to maintain a comparable flow area and
provide material to partially restore the eroded bank. This plan would also provide
environmental benefits and is the recommended plan described in paragraph 3.01.1.
2.02.2.2 Fairway Lane. Relocation of the street away from the stream was
considered. This would require road relocation, a sewer line and a water line relocation,
and permanent right of way. Due to impacts to adjacent landowners and project costs,
this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
Two other alternatives considered at Fairway Lane included biotechnical erosion
control and placement of riprap. However, due to the steep bank and the close
proximity of the stream to the road, space is too limited to accommodate either of these
;.--alterrnatives
A final alternative considered included piping of a portion of the stream adjacent to
the road, realigning the stream under the road, increasing culvert capacity, and grading
and stabilization of the bank. This is the recommended plan and is described in more
detail in paragraph 3.02.1.1.
0

TABLE 1
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
STREAM
ALTERNATIVE
FIRST
COST
$1000's
REMARKS
Ararat River
Riprap sloe
137
Not environmentally acceptable
Ararat River
Gabions
217
Higher costs
Ararat River
Segmental Block Wall
308
Higher costs
Ararat River
I Sheet pile Wall
389
Construction difficulties and high costs
Ararat River
Relocate sewer line
163
Potential environmental impacts and
higher costs
Ararat River
Install rock vanes
115
Redirects flow away from channel bank,
cost effective alternative
Fairway Lane
Relocate street, water
and sewer line
300
Impacts to adjacent landowners; higher
costs
FairwayLane .
Biotechnical erosion
control
Not feasible due to steep bank and
space limitation
Fairway Lane
Riprap slope
Not feasible due to steep bank and
space limitation
Fairway Lane
Piping adjacent
stream, realigning and
increased culvert
capacity, stabilize
banks
216
Minimizes environmental damage and
implementable; most cost effective
alternative
3.0 THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
The Recommended Plan is discussed below in terms of (1) Plan Description,
Components, and Costs, (2) Construction and Maintenance, (3) Real Estate
Considerations, and (4) Economics.
3.01 Ararat River
3.01.1 Plan Description, Components, and Costs. Protection of the bank by
installing rock vanes in the river as indicated on the attached drawing (Figure 2.) is
proposed. The vanes would redirect flow away from the bank and reduce velocities at
the bank. In addition, a small (5' to 9') width bench would be formed on the lower part
of the streambank. The remaining bank would be sloped back to a 1.5:1 or flatter slope,
and vegetated with grasses and other native plants to provide bank protection. Stone
size for the vanes would be in the range of 30" to 54". The sand bar that has formed on
the opposite bank on the inside of the bend (point bar) would be excavated to the
stream invert (bottom of the stream channel) (see Figure 3) in order to maintain a
5

comparable flow area and stream bottom area. The estimated cost of this option is
shown in Table 2, and construction details are included as Appendix A.
Cost
Acct Description
TABLE 2
ARARAT RIVER PROJECT COSTS
(SEPTEMBER 2004 PRICE LEVELS)
Cost
28
Planning and Design Analysis*
48500
55,000
Total - Planning & Design Analysis Phase*
48500
01
Lands & Damages - Non Federal
1,000
02
Relocations
0
06
Construction Contract - Federal
52,000
30
O&M Manual
1,500
30
Engineering and Design During Construction
2,000
31
Construction Management
5,000
31
Project Monitoring
1,000
31
Project Coordination Team -Federal
1,500
31
Project Coordination Team -Non-Federal
1,500
31
Project Management
2,500
31
Programs Management
1,500
Total Construction Phase
69,500
Contingency Total
6,500
55,000
6,500
55,000
0
1,000
0
0
13,000
65,000
500
2,000
500
3,000
1;000
:.• 6,000 _..
0'
1,000
500
2,000
500.
2,000
500
3,000
500
2,000
17,500
87,000
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $118,000 $24,000 $142,000
*EXCLUDES INITIAL $40,000 OF
FULLY FUNDED FEDERAL PDA COSTS
TOTAL EXCLUDING PLANNING
PORTION OF PDA COSTS(SUNK COSTS) $ 96,000 19,000 $ 115,000
FOR BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
0

3.01.2 Construction and Maintenance Considerations. Construction of
this concept will require in -stream excavation to remove the . sandbar and
construct the vanes. It is planned that the material from the sandbar would be
placed along the bank to partially restore the eroded bank prior to constructing
the vanes. (A nearby disposal area is available in the event more material is
removed than is needed to partially restore the bank.) This would require some
form of sandbag diversion, or turbidity curtain to reduce turbidity. Since the area
affected is less than one acre, an erosion control permit will not be required.
Maintenance of the vanes is not expected to be significant. Mowing of the
grassed area is already accomplished, since it is part of a city park.
- 3.01.3 Real Estate Considerations. Since the work area is contained
in a city park, no real. estate acquisition should be required, and only minor
administrative costs are shown for lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
and disposal areas (LERRD's).
3.02 Economics of the Recommended Plan
The without project condition is that the sewer line along the Ararat River
would 'be 'highly"subject 'io"washout with''tlie ensuing 'environmental `darnage and -- "
disruption of service to a significant population within the city. The City of Mount
Airy would then relocate the line. Without considering the environmental or loss
of use costs, the cost of emergency relocation of the sewer line is estimated by
the Wilmington District to be $163,000 with an average annual cost of $12,300
under the without project conditions.
The with -project conditions will result in constructing the recommended
plan, which has an initial cost of $115,000 and an average annual cost of $8,678.
This will eliminate the need for emergency relocation of the sewer line, for an
average annual savings (benefits) of $12,300. The average annual benefits of
$12,300 verses the average annual costs of $8,678 results in a benefit to cost
ratio of 1.4 for the recommended plan..
3.02.1 Fairway Lane
3.02.1.1 Plan Description, Components, and Costs. Piping of part of the
stream adjacent to Fairway Lane, realigning the stream under the road to
improve alignment and reduce channel scour at the confluence, increasing the
capacity of the culvert under the road, and grading and stabilization of the banks
were evaluated. The plan includes piping about 250 feet of the stream (station
5+20 to 7+60 on attached plan, Figure 4). The plan also includes replacing the
existing 42" culvert under the road with two 42" pipes skewed to the road. Riprap
will be used at pipe outlets to reduce scour as well as headwalls for the 42"
pipes. The channel downstream of the confluence will be graded to provide a
1.5:1 or flatter side slope and the area over the new pipe will be graded to
provide a swale for flows exceeding the capacity of the culverts.
7

The estimated cost of this option is shown in Table 3, and construction details
are included as Appendix A.
TABLE 3
FAIRWAY LANE PROJECT COSTS
(SEPTEMBER 2004 PRICE LEVELS)
Cost Description Cost Contingency Total
Acct
28 Planning and Design Analysis* 88,300 13,700 102,000
Total - Planning & Design Analysis Phase" 88,300 13,700 102,000
01
Lands & Damages - Non Federal
1,000
0
1,000
02
Relocations
0
0
0
06
Construction Contract - Federal
75,200
18,800
94,000
O&M Manual
5,000
0
5,000
Engineering and Design During Construction
2,500
1,000
3,500
Construction Management
12,000
3,000
15,000
_ . ..- ..... - _3.1...
- .. .... -: - - Project Monituring
- 1;000 -
.. -.-.....0 .
11000
Project Coordination Team -Federal
1,500
500
2,000
Project Coordination Team -Non-Federal
1,500
500
2,000
31
Project Management
5,500
1,500
7,000
Programs Management
3,500
2,000
4,500
Total Construction Phase
108,700
27,300
136,000
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST
$197,000
$41,000
$238,000
*EXCLUDES INITIAL $40,000 OF
FULLY FUNDED FEDERAL PDA COSTS.
TOTAL EXCLUDING PLANNING $175,000 $41,000 $216,000
PORTION OF PDA COSTS(SUNK COSTS)
FOR BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
3.02.1.2 Construction and Maintenance Considerations. Because the
street is the only access to the residential areas beyond, the Contractor will be
required to keep one lane of traffic open during construction. This will require
construction of a temporary, detour or jacking of the new pipe under the street.
About 50' of 12" water line will have to be relocated vertically to allow installation
of the 42" culverts. General maintenance of the area would include mowing and
occasional repair of erosion ruts and repair of turf. The 42" culverts would have
the capacity to carry an estimated 17 -year flood event before overtopping.
Considering a 25 -year project life, some overtopping would be expected with the
project in place. An estimated annual maintenance cost of $500 has been
�3

included in the total average annual costs to cover this expense, which would be
the responsibility of the City.
3.02.1.3 Real Estate Considerations. This concept will require no new
permanent right-of-way, but could require a temporary construction easement for
the detour and Contractor work area.
3.02.1.4 Economics of the Recommended Plan
The without project condition is that Fairway Lane would be subject to wash
out as well as the possibility of a sewer line and water line break with the ensuing
environmental damage and disruption of service to a significant population within
the city. (The sewer line serves the local area, but the water line is a main line
serving a much larger population). The City of Mount Airy would then likely
relocate the road and water and sewer lines. Without considering the
environmental or loss of use costs, the cost of emergency relocation of the sewer
line is estimated by the Wilmington District to be $300,000 with an average
annual cost of $22,600 under the without project conditions.
'The with -project c6iiditi6hs will `result in constructing the recommended
plan, which has an initial cost of $216,000 and an average annual cost of
$16,800, including $500 in maintenance costs. This will eliminate the need for
emergency relocation of the sewer line, for an average annual savings (benefits)
of $22,600. The average annual benefits of $22,600 versus the average annual
costs of $16,800 results in a benefit to cost ratio of 1.3 for the recommended
plan.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.01 Sediments. Streambed material at the Ararat River site is a tan, fine
to medium sand with a large amount of gravel (SP). Bank material is light brown
sandy silt with gravel and some mica (ML). Material at the Fairway Lane site is
sandy silt with some gravel.
Construction impacts to sediments would result from removal of vegetation along
the eroded bank of the Ararat River and from removal of a portion of the point bar
material in the River. At the Fairway Lane site, a minimal amount of grassy
vegetation along the road right-of-way would be disturbed; however, impacts
would be temporary. Removal of vegetation at both project locations may result
in temporary, short-term increases in erosion and sedimentation, however,
impacts would be minimized by implementing appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices and all impacts would be temporary. Following construction, all
disturbed areas would be revegetated with native plants.
6

Photographs of the Ararat River site are shown as Figures 5 and 6, and a
photograph of the Fairway Lane site is shown as Figure 7.
4.02 Water Quality and Wetlands. The North Carolina water quality
classification assigned to the Ararat River from the Town of Mount Airy proposed
water supply intake to a point 0.1 mile upstream of Surry County SR 2080 is "C"
(15A NCAC 2B .0309). All unnamed tributaries, such as the one at Fairway Lane
are also classified as Class "C." Class "C" waters are freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life, including propagation and survival;- and
wildlife. The projects are expected to have a favorable long-term effect on water
quality, since bank erosion results in increased sediment and debris in the
waterways, thereby increasing turbidity and restricting flow. The projects are
expected to reduce long-term turbidity below present conditions; however, it is
expected that during construction a short-term temporary increase in turbidity may
occur. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices, which equal or exceed
those outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual" shall be designed, installed and
maintained properly to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity standards.
Nursuantto Section 404 of -the Clean Water -Act, Nationwide Permit #27 (NWP
#27), Stream Restoration, is applicable to the proposed work at the Ararat River. A
Section 401 (P.L. 95-217 and P.L. 92-500) water quality certificate, #3399, has
been issued for NWP #27. Concurrence from the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Planning, Raleigh, N.C., is required and has been requested.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Nationwide Permit #3 (NWP
#3), maintenance, is applicable to the proposed work at Fairway Lane. A Section
401 (P.L. 95-217 and P.L. 92-500) water quality certificate (WQC), #3376, has been
issued for NWP #3. All conditions of NWP #3 and WQC #3376 will be met,
therefore, concurrence from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Planning, Raleigh, N.C., is not required.
A public notice will be sent.out for a 30 -day review concurrent with the public
review for the EA.
No adverse impacts to groundwater resources are expected to occur as a
result of the proposed activity.
4.03 Floodplains. There is no viable plan at the Ararat River site, other than
construction within the flood plain. The City of Mount Airy is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance Program. Ararat River is a detailed study stream with
100 -year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. Since the proposed
project for the river includes placement of construction material within the floodway,
it is required that an engineering analysis be accomplished to show that there will
10

not be any increase in the 100 -year flood elevations due to the implementation of
the project. This analysis will be accomplished prior to construction.
The site at Fairway Lane does not have an identified flood plain or floodway
designated on the pertinent Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood
Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, a no -rise analysis would not be required for this
site.
4.04 Hazardous and Toxic Waste. A field inspection of the project area
was made by personnel from the Environmental Resources Section, Planning
and Environmental Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
on May 26, 2004. This site visit focused on the areas that would be impacted by
the proposed project. Based on this site visit, an investigation of aerial photos,
and a search of known HTRW databases, no evidence of hazardous and toxic
wastes was found. Therefore, it is not expected that any hazardous and toxic
waste sites. would be encountered during construction or maintenance of the
subject project.
4.05 Cultural Resources
4.05.1 Ararat River. The proposed project alternatives are federal
undertakings as defined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
as codified at 36CFR 800, Protection of Historic Properties. In general, the
Mount Airy vicinity represents a typically disturbed urban environment with only a
low to moderate potential for yielding significant historic properties.
Nevertheless, numerous prehistoric and historic sites are known to occur and
can be expected near undisturbed watercourses.
The Ararat River portion of the project was addressed in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Ararat River
Flood Damage Reduction study (USAGE 1983). The DPR contained the text of
the archaeological survey for the project area (Baker 1981). The archaeological
survey report recorded no sites in the project area and recommended no further
survey. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with
that recommendation (USAGE 1983:H-40). No further cultural resources
investigations are warranted for the Ararat River portion of the project.
4.05.2 Fairway Lane. The Fairway Lane project area is limited to the
intersection of an unnamed intermittent stream (tributary to Lovills Creek) and
Fairway Lane: The eroded streambed has the appearance of a gully, and
adjacent areas are likely to have been disturbed by initial road construction,
construction and operation of a pumping station, construction and operation of a
golf course, and excavation for water and sewer lines. Given the limited extent of
the project and the extent of past disturbance, significant cultural resources are
not likely to be encountered and no further cultural resources investigations are
warranted.
11

4.06 Air Quality. The only potential impact to air quality as a result of the
proposed action would be increases in dust emission; however, this impact would
be temporary, and occur only while construction is ongoing. No other adverse
impacts to air quality are expected as a result of the proposed project.
4.07 Noise. During construction, heavy equipment would produce
noticeable increased noise levels in the immediate vicinity of project activity;
however, all work must comply with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), standards for the construction industry. All noise
increases resulting from project construction would be temporary and of relatively
short duration. No long-term adverse noise impacts are anticipated as a result of
the proposed project.
4.08 Benthic Resources
4.08.1 Ararat River. The placement of the rock vanes and the associated
tapered fill upstream of the vanes would cover approximately 2,178 square feet
(0.05 acre) of stream bottom habitat; however, the removal of material from the
point bar would-resIdlf iii an increase in'the"area"of'stream bottom iabitat`V-
approximately 8,712 square feet (0.2 acre), thus resulting in an overall increase of
6,534 square feet (0.15 acre) of stream bottom habitat. Benthic organisms in the
Ararat River would be expected to inhabit the stream bottom habitat that would
result from project construction. The hard substrate that would be provided by the
rock vanes should become inhabited by organisms adapted to hard substrate.
4.08.2 Fairway Lane
Past attempts to stabilize the stream by using various types of broken
concrete and other debris have covered much of the streambank and the very
narrow (approximately 2 -feet wide) stream bottom. The proposed action would
result in the removal of much of this debris and would include the installation of a
36" pipe in portions of the existing stream channel (see plans). Placement of the
pipe would result in the covering of approximately 500 square feet (0.011 acre) of
stream bottom habitat. However, placement of the pipe would result in a
reduction of stream bottom erosion and bank erosion thereby decreasing
turbidity, which should benefit downstream benthic habitat.
4.09 Fisheries.
4.09.1 . Ararat River. The Ararat River is designated as Public Mountain
Trout Waters by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
The Ararat River is further designated as Hatchery Supported Trout Waters,
which means it must be stocked periodically with trout to sustain fishing.
Catchable sized brook, rainbow, and brown trout are stocked by the NCWRC
during March, April and May, as follows:
12

Type March April May
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) 40 40 30
Rainbow trout (Oncorhychus mykiss) 40 40 30
Brown trout (Salmo trutta) 20 20 15
Besides brook, rainbow and brown trout, other species that have been
collected in the project vicinity include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and black crappie (Pomoxis
nigromaculatus) (USACE 1982). The most common species found in the Ararat
River today, besides trout, are common bream (Abramis brama), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and a small number of smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieui) (Ken Hodges, NCWRC, Personal Communication, July 26, 2004).
Although the Ararat River is designated as a trout water, conditions are so
degraded that trout do not reproduce in the Mount Airy area, and are stocked
only for recreational purposes, i.e. managed as a "Put and Take" stream
(Personal Communication, Ken Hodges, NCWRC on July 26, 2004). The project
would be constructed in the fall or winter to avoid impacts to the recreational
fishing season of March through June.
The proposed installation of rock vanes and modification of the point bar to
mimic a more natural stream channel should benefit fishery habitat by creating a
pool around and downstream of the end of the rock vanes, providing channel
diversity, providing cover, capturing fine sediment and providing a more stable
area for riparian vegetation to grow. The proposed riparian vegetation would
provide shading, protective cover, and an important food source for aquatic
species.
As stated previously, the project is expected to reduce long-term turbidity
below present conditions; however, it is expected that during construction a short-
term temporary increase in turbidity may occur. Appropriate sediment and erosion
control shall be designed, installed and maintained properly to assure compliance
with the appropriate turbidity standards.
4.09.2 Fairway Lane
The unnamed streams that are at the Fairway Lane site are very narrow,
shallow, and highly disturbed and therefore, probably provide very little, if any,
fishery habitat. The proposed project should have negligible effect on the fishery
habitat at the site; however, downstream habitat would be expected to improve
due to decreases in long-term sedimentation and erosion. During construction, a
short-term temporary increase in turbidity may occur; however, impacts would be
temporary and of short duration.
13

4.10 Terrestrial Resources
4.10.1 Ararat River
Erosion along the Ararat River bank has destroyed much of the streambank
vegetation, leaving an eroded, steep dirt slope (Figures 5 and 6). Vegetation at the
top of the river bank consists of grasses that are frequently mowed as part of
Riverside Park maintenance. A 5' to 9' bench would be constructed near the
bottom of the streambank and the remaining bank would be sloped back to a
1.5:1 or flatter slope, which would result in approximately 0.18 acres of ground
clearing of 0.18 acre of grasses on the top of the bank. No other impacts to
terrestrial resources are expected, and all disturbed areas, including the bench,
would be vegetated with grasses and other native plants. The streamside
herbaceous vegetation specifications and streamside woody vegetation
establishment that would be used for this project were provided by the National
Resources Conservation Service and are included as Attachment 2.
4.10.2 Fairway Lane
Vegetation at Fairway ' Lane consists of mowed ' grasses on the -top _ of" the
bank, adjacent to the road (Figure 7). The bank opposite the road contains some
herbaceous plants and grasses, but the streambank is mostly denuded of
vegetation by erosion and the concrete debris that has been used in the past in
attempts to slow erosion. The proposed project construction would disturb
approximately 0.35 acre in the grassed right-of-way and along the streambank.
However, all disturbed areas would be planted with native vegetation
immediately following construction, so impacts would be minor and temporary.
4.11 Endangered and Threatened Species
The proposed work has been reviewed for compliance with the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. The following species may occur in the project
area and must be considered:
SPECIES
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower
Small -whorled pogonia
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Helianthus schweinitzii
Isotria medeoloides
STATUS
T(Similarity of Appearance)
Endangered
Threatened
The bog turtle is generally found in open, early successional types of
habitats such as wet meadows or open boggy areas generally dominated by
sedges (Carex spp.) or sphagnum moss. A site visit conducted by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on May 26, 2004 revealed that the project sites offer very poor
habitat for the species. As no conclusive evidence of bog turtles was found, the
14

species is believed to be absent from the project area; therefore, the proposed
action would not affect this species.
Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on
moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have high gravel
content. It usually grows in open habitats not typical of the current general
landscape in the piedmont of the Carolinas
(http://nc-es.fws..qov/plant/schwsun.hsml). Habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is
absent from the project areas; therefore, the projects would not impact this species..
Small -whorled pogonia is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods
with acid soil. It occurs in habitat where there is relatively high shrub coverage or
high sapling density. Since this habitat is absent from the project sites, the
project would not impact this species.
4.12 Wildlife. Wildlife expected to occur in the project areas are various
waterfowl, songbirds, migratory birds, raptors and small mammals. The planting
of native vegetation would provide a more diverse vegetative cover, which would
enhance habitat for wildlife by providing cover and food near a water source.
Wildlife using the project areas may be minimally affected by noise and
other activities associated with construction work; however, impacts would be
temporary and species that avoid the areas during construction- would be
expected to return to the project areas following construction. Some wildlife
would likely become habituated to the noise and activity and may remain in the
area.
During the site visit on May 26, 2004, bank swallows were seen using the
bank at the Ararat River. The proposed project would remove a vertical bank
approximately 250 linear feet in length, which would make it undesirable for bank
swallows. However, bank swallows are opportunistic species and will search for
other suitable nesting sites, which are available just downstream of the project
area. Project construction is planned for the winter when bank swallows are in
the tropics; therefore, construction would not impact bank swallows during
nesting season.
4.13 Aesthetic and Recreational Resources
4.13.1 Ararat River. The Ararat River project area is adjacent to Riverside
Park, which is a public park. Visual quality at the project site has been degraded
by the eroded streambanks and loss of vegetation. However, plans to lessen the
steep bank slope, install a bench on the streambank and plant vegetation should
greatly improve aesthetics of the area.
As stated previously, trout are stocked in the river at Riverside Park
specifically for recreational fishing. The proposed project should improve trout
15

habitat, which has the potential to improve fishing conditions and the bank
protection would provide a more stable bank for fishermen.
4.13.2 Fairway Lane
Aesthetics at Fairway Lane have been negatively impacted by past attempts
to stabilize the area using various shapes and sizes of concrete and riprap and
recent actions taken to mark the dangerous stream crossing using a metal barrier
and orange cones. The proposed project at Fairway Lane would remove the
debris that has been placed in the stream in the project reach, would revegetate
disturbed areas and would alleviate the need for protective barriers and safety
markers, thereby, improving aesthetics.
Since Fairway Lane is a fairly narrow residential street, recreational ,
activities in the road right-of-way are probably -limited to walking and jogging by
nearby residents. The proposed work at the stream crossing should improve the
stability of the road shoulder and increase the width of the shoulder at the stream
crossing, thereby, improving safety and aesthetics for those pursuing recreational
activities. No negative impacts to aesthetics or recreational activities would be
expected:M .... +
4.14 Cumulative Effects. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
defines cumulative impact as: the impact on the environment which results from
the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -
Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result
from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).
The geographic boundaries that were evaluated for this cumulative effects
analysis include the City of Mount Airy and adjacent outlying areas. Past actions
that have affected the Ararat River are predominantly associated with the
urbanization of the City of Mount Airy. Current census data (2000) indicates that
the population of Mount Airy is approximately 8,484. According to 1997 data
there were 55 manufacturing facilities, including numerous textile and apparel
knitting mills, in Mount Airy, as well as many other wholesale and retail
businesses. This urbanization has impacted the landscape in many ways, but in
general, the large-scale land clearing has resulted in increases in pollution,
sedimentation and erosion in nearby streams and rivers.
One project that directly affected the Ararat River was a flood damage
reduction project constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the early
1980's. The project consists of 5,100 feet of dike to protect industrial sites in the
flood plain and channel improvements that were 6,700 feet in length that were
constructed contiguous to and downstream of the diked area.
71

The purpose of the proposed projects is to protect existing threatened
infrastructure at the Ararat River and at Fairway Lane. Since project impacts are
limited to a small area and the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on
the environment, the action, when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions would be minor.
4.15 Executive Orders
Executive Order 11990 -Protection of Wetlands
Requires federal agencies to avoid undertaking or providing assistance for
new construction located in wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative,
and all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands have been
implemented. Also precludes GSA from leasing space in wetland areas unless
there are no practicable alternatives. There are no potential alternatives which
would avoid impacts to wetlands; however, all work is covered by existing
Nationwide Permits (NWP's) and impacts to wetlands will be minimized by strictly
meeting the conditions of those NWP's.
Executive Order"11983 -`Flood Plain Management
Requires federal agencies to avoid the adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid floodplain development
whenever possible. Additionally, it requires federal agencies to strive to 1) reduce
the risk of flood loss, 2) minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety,
and welfare, and 3) preserve the natural beneficial value of floodplains. There is
no viable plan other than construction within the flood plain. An engineering
analysis will be accomplished to ensure that there will not be any increase in the
100 -year flood elevations due to the implementation of the.projects. This analysis
will be accomplished prior to construction. Additionally, the projects will minimize
the impact of floods on human health by protecting .a sewer line that is being
undermined. by streambank erosion at the Ararat River site and by protecting a
sewer line, water line, and road at the Fairway Lane site.
Executive Order 13045 - Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks
This order addresses the disproportionate impact environmental hazards
have on children due to their small size and developing bodies and the greater
safety requirements necessitated by children's general behavior patterns. The
order requires Federal Agencies to make children's health and its protection a
high priority and ensure that their "policies, programs, activities, and standards
address disproportionate risks to children..." The order requires agencies to
further evaluate the health and safety risk to children posed by each regulation.
The projects would not adversely -affect the health and safety of children and has
the potential to improve health and safety of children by improving water quality
17

in the Ararat River and by providing a safer, more stable streambank for
Riverside Park visitors. At the Fairway Lane site, water quality is also expected
to be improved and the road shoulder stabilized, thus providing a safer, healthier
environment for children.
Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations
This Order focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human
health conditions in minority and low-income communities with the goal of
achieving environmental justice. In addition, this Order requires federal agencies
to provide minority and low-income communities access to public information on,
and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human health or
the environment. The proposed project would not adversely impact minority
populations or low-income populations and this document will be circulated to the
public for 30 -day review, thereby providing the opportunity for public participation.
4.16 Finding. The Proposed Action is not expected to significantly affect
the quality of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement would' not be prepared. If this opinion is upheld following circulation of
this EA, a FONSI will be signed and circulated.
5.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
5.01 Scoping. Informal scoping was conducted by phone, emails and site
visits with the City of Mount Airy, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. All input received on the
proposed project was considered and addressed in this report.
5.02 Fish & Wildlife Coordination. Existing project conditions, potential
project impacts, construction methods and time of year for construction were
coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The'
endangered and threatened species list that is included in this document was
obtained from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service web page at: http:Hnc-
es.fws..qov/es/countydr.htmI.
5.03 Coordination of this Document (including local cooperation).
Please see above 2 paragraphs for environmental coordination.
Informal contacts were made by phone, emails, and/or site visits with the
City of Mount Airy, -both before and during the development of this document.
18

5.04 Recipients of this Document.
This PDA/EA is being circulated for a 30 -day review to the following agencies
and individuals.
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Center for Environmental Health
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Park Service
Postmasters
State Agencies
NC Department of Administration
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Commission of Indian Affairs
NC Department of Transportation
Elected Officials
North Carolina United States Senators and Local District Congressmen
Local State Senators and Representatives
Surry County Commissioners
Mayor, City of Mount Airy
Local Agencies
Surry County Manager
Mount Airy Chamber of Commerce
Mount Airy City Manager
Conservation Groups
National Audubon Society
Sierra Club
Environmental Defense Fund
Tar River Land Conservancy
Nature Conservancy
19

Libraries
Roanoke Public Library
Randall Library, UNC -Wilmington
State Library of North Carolina
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING
6.01 Project Schedule
It is anticipated that the time required for NEPA coordination, execution of the
Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA), preparation of final plans, solicitation of
bids, and award of the contract can be accomplished by late fall 2004, with
planned construction to begin in late fall or early winter. The proposed schedule
is:
Submit PDA Documentation/EA to SAD for Approval,
Request project approval and use of model PCA w/o Deviation 27Sep 04
Complete Plans to ITR1 15 Oct 04
SAD Approve Report, Approve Project 30 Sep 04
Commit Construction Funds 30 Sep 04
Execute PCA 30 Sep 04
Advertise Construction Contract 18 Oct 04
Award Contract 1 Dec 04
Substantially Complete 1 Jun 05
Below is a preliminary estimate of the funding stream needed for planning,
design, and construction.
a. Project Implementation Costs ($1,OOOs):
Federal Funding Needs
Phase Totals Non -Fed Fed Thru FY04 FY05 FY06 BTC
Planning, Design,
and Analysis 157 0 157 26 131 0 0
Construction 223 133 90 48 42 0
Totals 380 133 247 26 179 42 0
Note: The Planning and Design Analysis phase is initially Federally financed,
and the non -Federal share is distributed as part of the non -Federal share of
project costs during implementation. Funding above does not include the first
$40,000 of the PDA phase, which is full Federal funding, and is not included in
the implementation costs. The non -Federal sponsor must provide all LERRD
20

necessary for the project. The required cost -share ratio is 35 percent non -
Federal and 65 percent Federal, of which a minimum of 5 percent of the non -
Federal share must be cash. All operation and maintenance costs are a non -
Federal responsibility.
b. Non -Federal Requirements:
LERRD
$2,000
Cash
$129,000
PCT
$2,000
Annual OMRRR
$500
c. Federal Allocations to Date: $ 68,000
7.0 CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings in this report, it is considered in the
Federal interest to implement the recommended plan for emergency streambank
erosion control. The plan will meet the objective of protecting both the sewer line
at Ararat _River -and theroad, water line, and sewer line at Fairway Lane at a' ___
benefit -to -cost ratio of 1.4 for the Ararat River site, 1.3 at the Fairway Lane site,
and 1.3 overall.
Environmental portion of conclusion - Project construction may result in
increases in noise, turbidity and sedimentation, however, impacts would be
temporary and of short duration. The project is expected to have long-term
beneficial effects on turbidity, sedimentation and erosion, thereby improving
terrestrial and aquatic habitat at the project sites.
8.0 POINT OF CONTACT
Bobby L. Willis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, P.O.
Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Phone — [phone]
E-mail — [e-mail]
21

9.0 REFERENCES
36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic Properties
Baker, Michael C. 1981 Archaeological Survey of Areas Bordering the Ararat
River, Mount Airy, Surry County, North Carolina. Report prepared by
Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC, for the US
Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Contract DACW54-81-C-
0002.
Hodges, Ken, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, personal
communication, July 26, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1982. Draft Detailed Project
Report on Flood Damage Reduction and Environmental Impact Statement,
Ararat River, Mount Airy, Surry County, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District 1983 Final Detailed Project
Report_ and Environmental Impact Statement on Flood Damage Reduction,
Ararat River, Mount Airy, Surry County, North Carolina. Re- port'prepared by
the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC
10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Bobby L. Willis — USACE Wilmington District
Jenny Owens — USACE Wilmington District
Garry Pennington — USACE Wilmington District -
11.0 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Alternatives Considered
Table 2
Ararat River Project Costs
Table 3
Fairway Lane Project Costs
12.0 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Figure 2
Ararat River Concept Plan
Figure 3
Ararat River Concept Details
Figure 4
Fairway Lane Concept Plan
Figure 5
Ararat River Photo #1
Figure 6
Ararat River Photo #2
Figure 7
Fairway Lane Photo
22

13.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A Construction Costs Details
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment Planting Plan
23

a
r `J.EWCT ul
�?t �,�-,�r�—�� (r3xsaaGtnt oa f ^ 'Y•L_- � , i�� f +. �� x
',{ t i♦,Y.�y
Wm
'Al
PH V11
� a�wayl Site
et
�d
�+ d
T}ZaYt�r: herr• ;rrr �rt'. alt
u a izf 1
ya
� � �ti '' �, x ,� � t� � � � ,"ro A tia"` G gni t � $.•x F 1d � r
m,t y''
'�� i 4�a ' �.+ � t •^^ �' r. 1 #? s Aw � P � �, kz cV l�e��,Yr
`a!�'t'�
te,
{ �p Hs7 axtit at"�R"'1YC11S S 4, 4.s q "r�.3,e x
k`�'
�5
4e,
,
tktJ e�QYy ¢ yrs<�r� ktq y'' v
ac 4 Nz � r e `4d ✓ a `�"�` i 1%��'�
i s w , d w 7 QST• t �` � � ° d � �"° �"�` � � sua 1�� ; g
°S� 4
'
y'
SANITARY SEWER AND
FAIRWAY LANE
s 4 �� b '� `^ t •, `Tt s ..r �. � y z � tt�»�s�+ s `4SM f
h "rkY a`+k `�- td �N}. q r S Y"x rqy •k, ,y�b �:a''#)4'! i b� Y"{
MOUNT AIRY, IVC
CAP SECTION 14
-
»,x,a
+.-e - i� ,., . u.. � .. '>• to � 2�P0�1 ..,
�? 1PP/./1ol.rwyao. 51,ac1 Agar 11yAaM i1.76ua.c, C:IXC, Mc., lie/, P.1/SPOt 'i�.w"¢ ..__5 2���„ � i
9'nl.atal: 1311 Ifr/Rw�a�.:: Wt..'
Figure 1
I

o
O
• N
U
z wa
> /J
H LL
r
Ld F- p
> a o
Q Q W t-
Ldz
5 Q U
w O
m �
.lID, O
\Y O
W Ix
Z Q
Q 00
> M
F- Z
Q
N
Q Q
W >
Ix
N U
� O
J
J_
LL \
i
i
Li.l
Z_
J
[r
Ld
Lil
N
H
Figure 2
25

Figure 3
V)
LLJ
F-
LLJ
------------------
Ld
ir
0
........ ........ OS+ L M
Ln
CD
LLJ
..............
0
........ :.zo 00+1
0
0 <
_j LLJ
L'i
0
LL- F-
............ 0
0
co
rr,
CL
-j a_ L
X
:D � L.Li
V) V) CL
LLJ:
2
>
Z
000<
X 0 Of
LLJ
0 L.LJ Ld
C� V) �n F-
Ld:
--------------
co C) LLJ
C)
LL- L)
JI
.... 00+0 co<
I LL
Y
U
0 -C W0 CO
UO! �-DA913
WIN

Figure 4
27

APPENDIX A
CONSTRUCTION COST DETAILS
g•

ARARAT RIVER SITE
CONSTRUCTION COST DETAILS
(SEPTEMBER 2004 PRICE LEVELS)
RIVERVIEW PARK BANK STABILIZATION
ITEM
QUANITY
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
REMOVE BAR FROM INTERIOR OF BEND
500
CY
$ 12
$6,000
riprap min dimension 30" max dim 54
placed with backhoe with knuckle
500.0
TON
$ 35
$17,500
excavate in -stream for vane footing
200
CY
$ 12
.$2,400
cut bench and bank back to 2:1
350
CY
$ 10
$3,500
Fill vein with on-site material
80
CY
$ 6
$480
FILTER FABRIC BEHIND & UNDER ROCK
EI N
150
SY
$ 5
$750
GRADE & SEED AFFECTED AREA
0.5
AC
$ 3,000
$1,500
TEMPORARY STREAM. DIVERSION.-..
..
2X5X10' SANDBAGS HYDRAULIC FILL
70
EA
$ 200
$14,000
SUBTOTAL
$46,130
MOB/DEMOB 10% OF TOTAL JOB
1
LS
$4,613
BONDS
1
LS
$1,015
TOTAL
$52,000
CONTINGENCY
25%
$13,000
TOTAL W/CONTNG
$65,000
31

FAIRWAY LANE SITE
CONSTRUCTION COST DETAILS
(SEPTEMBER 2004 PRICE LEVELS)
ITEM Quantity Unit Cost Total
unit
24" RCP
100
LF
40
$4,000
36" RCP
250
LF
101
$25,250
42" RCP
140
LF
151
$21,140
CONC FOR 2 ENDWALLS FOR 42" PIPE
12
CY
350
$4,200
CONC. DROP INLET 4X4X4.5
1
EA
1000
$1,000
RIPRAP CLASS 1
112
TONS
35
$3,920
FILTER FABRIC UNDER RIPRAP
111
SY
5
$556
EXCAVATE & BACKFILL FOR PIPES
15
Cy
20
$308
GRADE BANK
3
CY
20
$52
REMOVE EXIST PVMT
89
SY
8
$711
NEW PVMT 6" abc & 4" ASPHALT
89
SY
20
$1,778
TEMPORARY 42" PIPE EXTENSION FOR
15
LF
151
$2,265
DETOUR
r.. TEMP FILL: FOR -DETOUR,
5. ..
..._. _. ._ CY_ ...
15
$74...
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
133
SY
4
$533
SEEDING
0.344352617
ACRE
3000
$1,033
TRAFFIC CONTROL INCLUDES
1
2MEN-9HR X
3740
$3,740
BARICADES, LIGHTS, FLAGMEN ETC
$15/HR X 12 DAYS
TO ALLOW 1 LANE TRAFFIC DURING
PLUS $500
CONSTRUCTION (2 WEEKS)
SUPPLIES
SUBTOTAL
MOB/DEMOB 10% OF TOTAL JOB 1 LS
BONDS 1 LS
TOTAL
CONTINGENCY 0.2
TOTAL
W/CONTINGENCIES
32
$70,560
$7,056
$1,552
$75,168
$18,832
$94,000

ATTACHMENT
PLANTING PLAN
33

Streamside Woody Vegetation Establishment
This work consists of securing and planting permanent woody vegetation using rooted stock, unrooted stock and on
site transplants.
Care and Handling
Planting stock should be stored in a cool moist environment or heeled in. Roots of bareroot stock shall be kept moist
during planting operations. Container or potted stock shall be kept moist at all times. The root balls of transplanted
stock must be kept moist.
Site Preparation
Desirable trees and shrubs on the construction site should be dug and stored. On recently graded sites use temporary
seedings, anchored mulch or erosion control fabrics to provide surface protection until woody vegetation becomes
established. Sod may be killed by non-selective herbicides the year previous to planting stock (follow all federal,
state and local regulations in the use of herbicides). When hand planting; scalp an area at least 3 feet in diameter and
2-4 inches deep. Place plant in the center of the scalped area. On sites where equipment cannot be operated safely
and there are concerns about potential erosion use a non-selective herbicide to kill vegetation in a 36 -inch wide circle
or 36 inch wide strip and -plant in the center of the killed vegetation. If the site is a row crop site, reasonably free of
weeds, plant stock in the stubble without prior preparation. Sites with undesirable brush will need initial treatments
to facilitate planting and follow-up treatments to prevent reencroachment.
,Planting. .. 31- . - .. ._ ,
Transplants should be.replanted.to.the same -depth they were -originally. growing... Plant rooted.stock in a.vertical ... _ .
position with the root collar approximately ''h inch below the soil surface. The planting trench or hole must be deep
enough and wide enough to permit roots to spread out and down without J -rooting. Insert dormant cuttings to the
depth required to reach adequate soil moisture, leaving 2 to 3 buds above ground. After planting pack soil around
each plant firmly to remove air pockets.
Plant List
Plant Types/
Plant to Plant Spacing
Plant List
Mature Height
# Per Acre
#Per 1000 Sq. Ft.
Shrubs, less than 10
3 to 6 feet
*Buttonbush, *#`Bankers' Dwarf Willow
Feet in height
1210-4840
*Elderberry, Highbush Blueberry,
28-110
Hazelnut
Shrubs and trees from
6 to 8 feet
Alder, Deciduous Holly, Crabapple,
10 to 25 feet in height
680-1742
Red Chokeberry, *Silky Dogwood,
15-28
*Silky Willow, Spicebush,
*#`Streamco' Willow, Serviceberry,
Washington Hawthorne, Witch Hazel
Trees greater than 25
8 to 12 feet
Black Cherry, *Black Willow,
Feet in height
302-680
Green Ash, Red Maple, River Birch
7-15
Sycamore, Yellow Poplar, Black Walnut
Persimmon
NOTES: * = Plants suitable for use as dormant cuttings, space
cuttings 1.5-2.5 feet apart, 160-
445 cuttings per 1000
sq. ft. or 6970-19360 cuttings
per acre;
# = Non-native plants;
Plants listed in bold have
wildlife value
W

Streamside Herbaceous Vegetation Specifications
The work shall consist of preparing the area, furnishing and placing seed, sprigs, sod mats, mulch, fertilizer, inoculate, soil
amendments and anchoring mulch in the designated areas as specified; streambanks, access areas and other areas disturbed
by construction activities.
Seedbed Preparation
On sites where equipment can be operated safely the seedbed shall be adequately loosened and smoothed. Disking or
cultipacking or both may be necessary. On sites where equipment cannot operate safely, the seedbed shall be prepared by
hand scarifying to provide a roughened surface so that seed will stay in place. If seeding is done immediately following
construction, seedbed preparation may not be required except on compacted, polished or freshly cut areas.
Fertilizing
Evenly distribute lime and fertilizer over the area to be seeded. Uniformly mix lime and fertilizer into the top 3 inches of
the soil. Where surface materials are predominately gravel and/or cobble, no incorporation is required. Apply lime and
fertilizer according to soil test results or at the following rates.
Per 1000 sq. ft. Per Acre
Lime 50-100 lbs. 1-2 tons
10-10-10 Fertilizer 9-12 lbs. 4-500 lbs.
Sod Mats
- Strip and -stockpile mats of existing desirable herbaceous vegetation.. Insure that several inches of -sod remains attachedto
the vegetation. The root systems must remain moist while the- vegetation is stockpiled. Place the mats on the lower bank - -
slopes and anchor in place.
Seeding
Temporary Seeding - Use where needed for erosion and pollution control, when permanent vegetation cannot be
established due to planting season and where temporary ground cover is needed to allow native or woody vegetation to
become established.
Fall, Winter, SpringSeeding
Per 1000 sq. ft.
Per Acre
Oats
2 lbs.
3 bu.
Wheat
2 lbs.
3 bu.
Summer Seeding
Sudangrass
l lb.
35-45 lbs.
Browntop Millet
1 lb.
30-40 lbs.
Permanent Seeding — Use in combination with woody plantings on the upslope side of the riparian planting.
Spring planting time is ideal for native perennial warm season grasses. These grasses should be used when enhancing
wildlife habitat is a goal of the riparian planting. Spring planted seed should be treated with a cold wet chill process to
maximize germination. Fall plantings should be planted with a lightly sowed cool season annual to hold the soil and do not
need the wet chill process. To improve wildlife habitat existing stands of fescue can be killed using an appropriate herbicide
and warm season grasses can be no -till planted into the sod. Omit fertilizer when establishing native grasses, fertilizer can
be applied the second year to improve the stand.
Fall, SpringSeeding eeding Per 1000 sq. ft. Per Acre
Tall Fescue, Orchard Grass 1 lb. 50 lbs.
-Native warm season grasses -
Big, Little or Broomsedge Bluestem 0.2 lbs. PLS (pure live seed) 5 lbs. PLS
Eastern Gamma Grass or Switchgrass 0.5 lb. PLS 10 lbs. PLS
Mulching
Mulching should be performed within 48 hours of seeding. Grain straw mulch should be applied on seeded areas at a rate
of 3 bales per 1000 square feet or 1.5 tons per acre. Apply mulch uniformly. Anchor mulch with a mulch crimper, asphalt
tackifier or appropriate mulch netting.
35