20030512 Ver 1_Complete File_20030520

CF WATF?,Q
0 7
> =i
o ?
May 20, 2003
Mr.'Ron Ferrell
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan Klimek, PE
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Stream Restoration/Enhancement
Unnamed Tributaries to Marys Creek
Alamance County, NC
DW Q# 030512
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
This Office is in receipt of the revised plans for the stream restoration and enhancement project of
approximately 2084 feet of unnamed tributaries to Marys Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin submitted to this
Office on April 24, 2003 with revisions received May 12, 2003. DWQ Staff reviewed the plans and.determined
that stream restoration and/or enhancement would be achieved.
The stream impacts associated with the project may proceed without written approval from the Division. Please
be advised that seven copies of a complete, formal application and a $475.00 fee is required for projects
intended for compensatory mitigation credit (see General Certification No. 3399, issued March 2003). Any
request for mitigation credit shall be addressed under separate cover.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Todd St. John at [phone].
Sincerely,
John R ?Iomey
(
Wetlands Unit Supervisor
cc: Mr. Todd St. John, Wetlands Unit
Cherri Smith, W RP
Winston-Salem Regional Office
File
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
95491 rrnhtraP Blvd.. Raleioh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
.O ftl ld O y
C w w h h U
O O Y Y O O O O Y
3¢ o o o L0
toots N (M U0)
O Ur
r m Ch s) O W r
M 1Lc) 'T 0) U) Nj-1 ?Ni 1MI Oj q; 0) 0
Vi?3 IV O NV: IcD i? ICO; ?(c0
? mtm
M
'NI {
V(N
i
i
I
'IT11
N,C\j
^j0
j0
IO
L V ° L m o d m U -ii ?
0 0 m 6 "' ° li t m ° 2 E
m 9 0 t E 2 0° 0 0 U 3 y
m 3 E r-° E o u D o° n
= a ?
O r V ? O 'm n lC W ¢ y >
f
N l7 4 N 1° n m 6
.-
N
O
C
L
U
ttl
a m
E o ° L2
E ton m o
n o a
N M
t00 C o a N
ftl U d 'T cl)
w U m a Cl)
3 N
C
y
O
D OD
N m N N N
O N
? C
O
NO
O (V
C C--NE0 F E
Z' ?
m O Lo OD a
C O N(D.-
t > D c5
j
O D c p c
C N c
N
V
H m E L L
a and
N O 0 CL CL
01 E E D m o U N N
0
E E v? o c E¢ m?gg
wot°n.- ?aa E.m=
u) a"D I?Omm O Om 3 cm cnu)
9
m c m?
m d m R
m E oa
mm1.(oMto MmNNu?
O m to m(D ONO toN
W cm
N m w m umi O N O? M T
m MoM um '10 m ???
m O D M N N
N ?
?(NO7 rn - nO Otn) m
MOCOw w co Morn Lo M
go M1?Nw OmmMN OM
m c°ntOu`? 9 m a`OR 'tutn rooi -IT M O tO N M N mN M O N O 7
r r N ?
u) E N O V m a W tD co
O r- m M Z; N Lo , cm N O O m
(o M w w LoNMnMTO
L V u) M m N t CO O M M
V oOO N co U u) m0 r M
N u) M V
N n °D O
Onr2 2 N c4 OoO
M rvo atOo
.O V •p M
d d
a` a`
W n co n n o m m 't
W
It to
lo' WMmo?N d NnMo(°o r
K (h?9 u)M x W oMON r
y O'INoM 9 W oNm0 r
o; N'?NN N? o
W o 5 m
ib O E E c m 'm
'- a m oo a a
m ?
m
m 9' 0 o m
O 7 Q 2 0 U
Stream Restoration Plan Unnamed Tributary to Marys Creek
DWQ Review and Stantec's Response
K. McKeithan May 7, 2003 ` ENN40SXFrom: Todd St. John [[e-mail]] ?IGROOP
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 11:16 AM u
To: Jeff Jurek; Cherri Smith IA`' Ay ?003
Cc: Todd St. John
Subject: Mary's Creek 030512 ... l7 sc
4 C
Cherri and Jeff, iON
Hope you all are doing well...
As a general comment, it is not clear if theis is a ?priority 10 or a
?priority 20. If it is a ?priority 10 than it appears based on the
longitudinal profile that they want to excavate the flood plain. This
may not be appropriate for a ?priority 10. If it is a ?priority 20,
then they need to provide the excavation limits on the site plan. The
following request for information should answer these questions:
Response:
The site is a Priority 1 restoration. The existing rock outcroppings have kept the channel
from cutting down such that we are able to meander the proposed design across the
original/existing floodplain. The typical depicts the valley walls increasing in slope
outside the floodplain area, which was not intended to indicate extensive grading of the
floodplain, merely show a feature that already exist.
Plan Detail
Please provide complete typical plans for at least one pool and one
riffle cross section for each reach or at least provide the given
ranges for each reach. Currently the ranges apply to all of the reaches
together. In other words, it is not clear if the ranges apply to all of
the reaches.
Response:
The ranges placed on the typical do apply to the entire site not specific reaches. Refer
to the table below for each design.
Item Secondary
Channel Upstream Main
Channel Downstream
Main Channel
Flood lain-Width 36 ft 48 ft 54 ft
Bankfull Width 12 ft 16 ft 18 ft
Maximum' Riffle Depth 1.5 ft 2.0 ft 2.4 ft
Low Flow Channel Width 4 ft 4 ft 4 ft
Low Flow Channel Depth 0.5 ft 0.5 ft 0.5 ft
Bankfull Pool Width 15.6 ft 20.8 ft 23.4 ft
Maximum Pool Depth 3.0 ft 4.0 ft 4.5 ft
Please provide a more readable scale of the design longitudinal plan
profile that shows the elevations of the top of bank, bankfull, and
thalweg with the plan view stationing.
Please provide the stationing on the plan view. Please also indicate
the excavation limits on the plan view if applicable.
Response:
A longitudinal profile and a 50 scale plan view of the site is attached with the additional
information requested.
Morphological Measurements
The valley slopes, average slopes and sinuosities for both the existing
conditions and the design stream are not congruent. Please have them
submit the correct values.
Response:
The sinuosity given is calculated from the proposed pattern. The average slope
specified is the slope with the drop structures taken into account and thus is a reduced
slope. By formula, the slope will give you a higher sinuosity that is proposed when you
divide the valley and average slopes.
Sediment Transport Analysis
As usual, the bar samples are not acceptable for the sediment transport
analysis. They also need to provide the calculations on which the
analysis is based.
Response:
The channel has formed riffle sections primarily within the areas of large cobble
outcroppings. These areas were not considered to be indicative of the channel's bed
load, thus the samples were taken from a bar feature. The other areas that could be
considered riffles are either bedrock or have been ruined due to cattle crossing.
Equations:
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress [t*,;] t*c; = 0.0384 (D;/D50)-0.887
Required Depth dr = (t*.;gsD;)/Se
Required Slope Sr _ (f igsD)/de
Bankfull Shear Stress t,?= gRS (lb/ft2)
D; = Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
D50 = Riffle bed material (mm)
gs = Submerged specific weight of sediment
Se = Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de = Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
g = Specific weight of water (Ibs/ft3)
R = Hydraulic radius of riffle cross-section
S = Slope (ft/ft)
thanks, todd
Please contact me if you have any further questions. Katie McKeithan
kmckeithan cbstantec.com or 919-851-6866
ENTRAINMENT ANALYSIS
MARYS CREEK - DIXON PROPERTY
PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
EXISTING TRIBUTARY UPSTREAM MAIN
D50 Riffle bed material
(mm) 18.761663 18.76 18.76 18.76166304
D^50 Bar sample (mm) 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6
D, Largest particle
from bar sample (mm) 45 45 45 45
Se Bankfull water
surface slope (ft/ft) 0.0057 0.0044 0.0030 0.0031
de Bankfull mean
depth (ft) 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5
D1oo particle from bar
sample (mm) 45 45 45 45

., Critical
t r
Dimensionless Shear
Stress 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177
Required bankfull mean
depth ft 0.75 0.97 1.45 1.41
Bankfull mean depth (ft) 0.70 1.00 1.33 1.50
Existing Stream
Condition by Required
Depth Aggrading , Stable Stable Stable
Required bankfull water
surface slope (ft/ft)
0.0062 0.0043 0.0032 0.0029
S. Bankfull water 0.0057 0.0044 0.0030 0.0031
surface slope (ft/ft)
Existing Stream
Condition by Required
Slope Aggrading Stable Stable Stable
Bankfull Shear Stress
(lb/ft2) 0.25 0.23 0.26 0.28
Moveable particle size
(mm) at bankfull shear
stress 15 14 15 12
Stream Condition by
Bankfull Shear Stress Stable Stable Stable Stable
imap://todd.st.john%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @nplex l .ncmail.net:143/f...
Subject: Mary's Creek 030512...
From: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 11:15:56 -0400
To: Jeff Jurek <[e-mail]>, Cherri Smith <[e-mail]>
CC: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>
Cherri and Jeff,
Hope you all are doing well...
As a general comment, it is not clear if theis is a Opriority 10 or a Opriority 20.
If it is a Opriority 10 than it appears based on the longitudinal profile that they
want to excavate the flood plain. This may not be appropriate for a Opriority 10. If
it is a Opriority 20, then they need to provide the excavation limits on the site
plan. The following request for information should answer these questions:
. Plan Detail
Please provide complete typical plans for at least one pool and one riffle cross
section for each reach or at least provide the given ranges for each reach. Currently
the ranges apply to all of the reaches together. In other words, it is not clear if
the ranges apply to all of the reaches.
Please provide a more readable scale of the design longitudinal plan profile that
shows the elevations of the top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg with the plan view
stationing.
Please provide the stationing on the plan view. Please also indicate the excavation
limits on the plan view if applicable.
YY. Morphological Measurements
The valley slopes, average slopes and sinuosities for both the existing conditions
and the design stream are not congruent. Please have them submit the correct values.
¥¥. Sediment Transport Analysis
As usual, the bar samples are not acceptable for the sediment transport analysis.
They also need to provide the calculations on which the analysis is based.
thanks, todd
1 of 1 5/5/03 11:16 AM
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
To: Todd St. John
From:
Subject:
Cherri Smith (S
ApR ??, a X003
Permit Application for Unnamed Tributaries to Mary's Creek Stream
Restoration, Alamance County
Please find the enclosed permit application and design for a stream restoration project
on approximately 2,084 linear feet of Unnamed Tributaries to Mary's Creek in southern
Alamance County. The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has
negotiated a conservation easement that is at least 50 feet wide on either side of the stream.
If you would like to discuss this project or need additional information, please feel free
to call me at 715-3466. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
GNCDENR
April 24, 2003 080;,5 1 DS1401 S
N
E
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank. BUDS/401 GROUP
1. Processing
APR P, 4 2OQ.3
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
WATER n+,A'
Section 404 Permit ouAuTY SEGVON
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
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 (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
Mailing Address: 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleijzh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-3466 Fax Number: 919-733-5321
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent 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: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
Ak?
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 &sinclude 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 4s,.1he pr'6'p rty 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.
1. Name of project: Unnamed Tributary to Mary's Creek Stream Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Alamance Nearest Town: Eli Whitney
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take I-85 to the Town of
Graham. Go South on 87. Take a right onto Lindley_ Mill Rd. Take a left onto Dixon Lamb
Road and follow to the end.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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 water body.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Unnamed Tributary to Mary's Creek is located in an agricultural valley where cattle have
access to the creek, have trampled the banks, and have eliminated vegetation. The lack of
vegetation has resulted in accelerated erosion along the banks.
7. Property size (acres): Conservation easement is approximately 5 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Haw River
9. River Basin: Cape Fear 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 6 of 12

10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stabilize UT to Mary's Creek by restoring the
proper geometry of this creek to improve water quality and reduce sediment load generated
by eroding banks. Reduce nutrients to NSW waters by fencing cattle and restoring a
vegetated riparian buffer.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track-hoe and loader.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: A dairy farm comprises the majority of
the land use in the vicinity of this project.
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.
N/A
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:
No future permit requests are anticipated.
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.
Page 7 of 12
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* 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.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
N/A

* 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
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Page 8 of 12
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
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.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
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 temnorarv imvacts are unavoidable due the nature of stream restoration work. The
construction will be staged and performed in such a manner that the disturbance to the aquatic
system is minimal.
Page 9 of 12
G
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
hLtp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm)zide.html.
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
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/yM/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
3. Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Page 10 of 12

1
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 (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
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 (DWQ Only)
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
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 ?X 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 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
s
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.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
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.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) 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).
N/A
Applicant/Agent's Signature Bate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
F I
O
-a ?
f(n O O
CL O
CD O
CD
O
N
CL v,
00
cn
I a?
CD O
a) O
3
0-
a
v
O
o 0
C N'
O
CO
3 v
77 0o vs'
CD 0
c O
CD
(D N)
`{
(D
O
O
U:
c
@1 N)
0i
0
O
X N
N
O
O
(o
T
pl N
h W
O
O
I
0
_0 O
0I
0.
7' O
--- O
N
O
O
O
N
O
0
C
y
rMIL
M9
m
a1
ic
0
m
O
CQ,
rF
Q.
O
m
Elevation (feet)
c?D (D 0 0 0 0
(YI 00 O W O (D
1
0
C
E,
u
d
c
c
E
?c
a
T
!
d
V
C
d
C7
rrt
x
N
cc
rt
cc
d
c
0
0
0
a
d
T
M
0
N
A
Elevation (feet)
M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w h 0 .i 0 co
11

G

C

Stream Restoration Plan
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO
MARYS CREEK
Alamance County, NC
APRIL 2003

STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO
MARYS CREEK
Alamance County, NC
APRIL 2003
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Stantec
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606

Prepared by:
Stantec
*08/0 V* #
s
.Q
9<_
SEAL
28432 ?
M.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathleen M. McKeithan, PE
Project Engineer
Peter B. Colwell, PWS
Project Scientist
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE REPORT CONTAINED HEREIN WAS PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.
SIGNED SEALED, AND DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF APRIL 2003.
KATHLEEN M. MCKEITHAN, PE

11
0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) identified two Unnamed
Tributaries (UTs) to Marys Creek as a potential stream restoration site. The proposed site is on
the Dixon Farm, located southeast of Saxapahaw, in Alamance County, North Carolina.
The main channel running through the farm receives drainage from a second channel that will
also be restored. The completed length of the proposed stream restoration null be, ,Q844eef:
Cattle have heavily impacted the proposed restoration reach. Due to numerous cattle
crossings, the banks of both UTs are severely eroded and unstable with little or no riparian
buffer. Bank slumpage and sheared banks are evident along the reach. Bare soil is exposed in
many sections. The channels' riffle-to-pool sequences have been diminished, thus hampering
energy dissipation and causing the banks to become undercut in many areas. The riparian
vegetation has been altered by the harvest of large hardwood trees and from grazing cattle.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has classified Marys Creek as a
"Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW)" and a "Class C" waterbody. The creek is also included on the
North Carolina 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies (NCDWQ, 2000). The water quality of the
UTs has been severely affected by the presence of cattle within and around the streams. Urine
and manure odors were prevalent in the channels. Algal blooms were present at numerous
locations within the UTs.
The project can be divided into three segments: upstream main channel (MC), downstream
' main channel (MC), and secondary channel (SC), based upon differences in drainage areas
and topography. The downstream segment experiences greater amounts of runoff, which
influences design parameters. All of the segments will be designed as a C4 stream type. A
majority of this restoration plan consists of a Priority 1 restoration (Rosgen, 1997), in which the
restored channel meanders across the existing floodplain.
The c 0-wit a: mQdeate wi; thrto-depth radtio
o - .
' rosit?CiThe bankfull channe wi a meandering pattern on swell-developed
floodplain. A low flow channel is incorporated into the design to handle average daily flows.
' The bankfull channel is designed to handle larger flows. Flood flows will be able to access the
existing floodplain. The completed design profile will detail a riffle, run, pool, and glide
sequence.
' The proposed project provides an excellent opportunity for restoration of severely degraded
stream and buffer conditions. The goals of restoring the UTs to Marys Creek include improving
water quality and providing aquatic and terrestrial habitats through the stabilization of the UTs
and the creation of a riparian buffer. The following table summarizes acreages and footages for
the site.

COMPONENT BEFORE REST ,QATION AFTER REST, TION
Stream (feet) "2,103 12,084
Riparian Buffer (acres) `- NA 5.5

u

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................4
2.1 WATERSHED ............................................................. ...........................................4
2.1.1 Hydrology ........................................................ ...........................................4
2.1.2 Soils and Geology ............................................ ...........................................4
2.1.3 Land Use .......................................................... ...........................................4
2.2 RESTORATION SITE .................................................. ...........................................4
2.2.1 Site Description ............................................... ...........................................4
2.2.2 Soils ................................................................. ........................................... 8
2.2.3 Macro-invertebrates .......................................... ...........................................8
2.2.4 Plant Communities ........................................... ........................................... 8
2.2.5 Fish and Wildlife ............................................... .........................................11
2.2.6 Endangered/Threatened Species ..................... .........................................11
2.2.7 Water Quality .................................................... .........................................11
3.0 STREAM RESTORATION .............................................................................................12
3.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. ....12
3.1.1 Stream Classification ............................................................................ ....12
3.1.2 Sediment Transport .............................................................................. ....13
3.1.3 Flood Analysis ...................................................................................... ....13
3.1.4 Discharge Analysis ............................................................................... ....14
3.1.5 Biotic Survey ........................................................................................ ....14
3.2 EXISTING STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND CONDITIONS ............................ ....14
3.3 STREAM REFERENCE REACH SITE SEARCH AND CLASSIFICATION ........ .... 18
3.3.1 Unnamed Tributary to Cabin Branch ..................................................... ....18
3.3.2 Landrum Creek ...................................................................................... ....22
3.4 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN ........................................................................ ....24
3.4.1 Proposed Channel Classification .......................................................... .... 24
3.4.2 Proposed Stream Description ............................................................... .... 25
3.4.3 Sediment Transport .............................................................................. ....31
3.4.4 Flood Analysis ...................................................................................... .... 31
3.4.5 Discharge Analysis ............................................................................... ....32
3.4.6 Structures Used for Natural Channel Design ........................................ .... 32
4.0 BUFFER RESTORATION ..............................................................................................34
4.1 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................34
4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 34

t

Ll
I

4.3 BUFFER REFERENCE REACHES ........................................................................34
4.3.1 Unnamed Tributary Cabin Branch ............................................................ 34
4.3.2 Landrum Creek .........................................................................................34
4.4 PLANTING PLAN ...................................................................................................36
5.0 MONITORING ................................................................................................................39
5.1 STREAM CHANNEL ............................................................................................. 39
6.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................40
7.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................41
TABLES
Table 3.2.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................15
Table 3.3.1 Reference Conditions ................................................................................ 20
Table 3.4.1 Morphological Characteristics ....................................................................30
Table 3.4.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ..................................................................... 31
Table 4.4.1 Planting Plan Summary Table ................................................................... 37
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.1.1 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................ 2
Exhibit 1.1.2 Project Location ........................................................................................ .. 3
Exhibit 2. 1.1 Watershed Area ........................................................................................ .. 5
Exhibit 2.1.2 Land Use ................................................................................................... ..6
Exhibit 2.2.1 Site Photographs ....................................................................................... ..7
Exhibit 2.2.2 Cattle Impacts at the Main Channel .......................................................... ..9
Exhibit 2.2.3 Soils .......................................................................................................... 10
Exhibit 3.2.1 Existing Stream Conditions ....................................................................... 16
Exhibit 3.3.1 Reference Reach Locations ...................................................................... 19
Exhibit 3.3.2 Unnamed Tributary to Cabin Branch ......................................................... 21
Exhibit 3.3.3 Landrum Creek ......................................................................................... 23
Exhibit 3.4.1 Plan View of Stream Design and Structure Layout .................................... 27
Exhibit 3.4.2 Typical Cross-Sections .............................................................................. 28
Exhibit 3.4.3 Longitudinal Profile .................................................................................... 29
Exhibit 4.3.1 Buffer Reference Reaches ........................................................................ 35
Exhibit 4.4.1 Planting Plan ............................................................................................ 38
APPENDICES
Appendix A Survey Data for Existing Conditions
Appendix B NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix C Survey Data for the Unnamed Tributary to Cabin Branch
Appendix D Survey Data for Landrum Creek
Appendix E HEC-RAS Data
Appendix F Structures Used for Natural Channel Design

' SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION
' The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) identified two Unnamed
Tributaries (UTs) to Marys Creek as a potential stream restoration site. The proposed site is on
the Dixon Property, located southeast of Saxapahaw, in Alamance County, North Carolina
' (Exhibit 1.1.1).
The main channel running through the property receives drainage from a second channel that
will also be restored. For the purposes of this report, the two UTs have been termed Main
Channel (MC) and Secondary Channel (SC), respectively. This mitigation plan also details
three separate designs for this restoration project, which are referred to as the upstream MC,
downstream MC, and SC designs. The NCWRP has determined that these UTs should be
f restored using natural channel design methods. The completed length of the stream restoration
will be 2,084 feet.
' 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Marys Creek restoration site is located off Dixon Lamb Road (SR 2336), east of Lindley Mill
' Road (SR 1003) and northwest of the Eli Whitney community (Exhibit 1.1.2). The entire site is
enclosed within the Dixon property.
' Cattle have heavily impacted the proposed restoration reach. The animals have unfettered
access to the UTs and have created numerous crossings through the stream channel. The
streambanks are severely eroded at these locations, adding to the degraded water quality
' conditions within the reach.
The location of this reach is strongly influenced by the local topography. "-
.pu "nvbe found within the channel and in,the adjacent riparian areas. The upper reach is
' more sinuous, slightly entrenched, and degrading. Valley walls and bedrock features confine
the middle reach, transitioning into a straight and wide lower reach with long pools. The riparian
vegetation has been altered by the harvest of large hardwood trees and from grazing cattle.
' 1.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
There are several goals and objectives for this stream restoration. The goals and objectives of
restoring the UTs to Marys Creek include:
' 1. Improve water quality;
2. Provide wildlife habitat through the creation of a riparian zone;
3. Improve aquatic habitat by the use of natural material stabilization structures and a
riparian buffer;
4. Prevent cattle from accessing the stream;
5. Reduce nutrient loads from entering the stream via the buffer acting as a filter and
the removal of cattle;
' 6. Enhance the function of the existing fioodplain; and,
7. Reduce erosion and sedimentation.
i?l

1 a
? e
N c °
1 o d
e
0
1 40
°
O
?. e O
0 0
N
0
O
1 0 04 v
i
m
° Z
HqR? d
1 k0 4A4,,
o e O
SHI fEA n
1
v
??G b ao
d e
Od EP
IFS 4 . (?
D O,?
1
1
1 Legend
Dixon Parcel Hydrography
Restoration Reach Roads
O
o ,F
o
0
0
o -.
GNV?GN
0 Q
Q
ae
F
L p
p
a d'
o a
O ?
Q 0 ,
0 0
0
N
O
?r 0
? v?
Q 'Q
`Q N e
? Q e
?7
U
o
EL WHITNE '
f GREENSBOR APEL HILL RA 00
pc ° p
p s O O
Q 0
eEWIS
o O ,
2
Ae o
?Q
{

V

eae s I A &
AmooaeQ# lph?
UT to Marys Creek
Restoration Plan
Dixon Property
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Vicinity
1" = 2500' Exhibit 1.1.1
a
1V F r , jI i
f
r _
.
t '
r
' r
.
s '
i ?[ 2 J ef.
-
r -
}
n ? ?(t
V `,,- „?, c r J
Downstream Main Channel (MC) ,
?v n
F
1
* '. i. +. .. •,. ...., .,? ......-' ? ,t r?,.'y \ ?' ?P ? is f+Y l
r
-
Secondary Channel (SC) ! r
Upstream Main Channel (MC)
v? . .F
t
,,? s :. _s.?'' _,.+'?'".• , _ :„ -w.. ?\y ....?r rr _ ?h ; I i .. F( ,. ,.r.. ?h a(? t ?e^- 1,;??,?,,?.
•. ?'' ?ti•???y? F??ry r , ? ` by ?,?F . ` } • _? rye 7 /[l ?- -
S ce ; kapak?aw 1977 Quadr Jg a opb r?phic (vlaap
(opyright(G) 1,1`Mpt ch, Inc:)

1
Legend
' Dixon Parcel - Secondary Channel (SC)
Downstream Main Channel (MC) - -"' Hydrography
Upstream Main Channel (MC)
Alml
Aeeafaaln# A"Paw
UT to Marys Creek
Restoration Plan
Dixon Property
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Location
1" = 1200' Exhibit 1.1.2

1

0
h

i

SECTION 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1

Ij
u

u

0

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 WATERSHED
The proposed restoration site is located within the northern portion of the Cape Fear River
Basin. The USGS has divided this river basin into six 8-dight Hydrologic Units (HUs). The
project is located within HU 03030002. Its main waterbodies are the Haw River and the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has further
divided the USGS HUs into smaller subbasins. Marys Creek and its tributaries are located
within NCDWQ Subbasin 03-06-04.
2.1.1 Hydrology
The MC originates at an elevation of 660 feet near the Chatham County line. At the restoration
site, the channel starts at an elevation of approximately 520 feet and ends near 490 feet. The
MC is a classified as a third order stream, which flows north into Marys Creek, joining the Haw
River and then the Cape Fear River. There are several small tributaries that enter the MC
upstream of the site. Several of these tributaries to the UTs have farm ponds on them. One
small UT joins the MC within the project reach. The drainage area for the entire site covers
1,145 acres. Exhibit 2.1.1 shows the watershed limits.
2.1.2 Soils and Geology
The proposed restoration project is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina, within the Carolina Slate Belt. This belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic
sedimentary rocks and was the site of oceanic volcanic islands approximately 550-650 million
years ago. The topography is predominantly rolling with some steep valleys that contain major
streams (USDA, 1960).
2.1.3 Land Use
The majority of the watershed is used for livestock and poultry operations. The remaining
portions are a combination of pasture, cropland, and forest. There are few roads within the
watershed and impervious surfaces comprise less than 5% of the watershed. Most of the land
within the Dixon property is currently used for a cattle operation. Approximately 90% of the land
use on-site consists of maintained pastureland. The Dixon residence and the buildings for
housing property equipment and animals occupy the remaining areas. The UTs enter the site
from a thin forest line that runs along the outside of the property. Exhibit 2.1.2 shows the
current land use within the Dixon property.
2.2 RESTORATION SITE
2.2.1 Site Description
The banks of both UTs are severely eroded and unstable with little or no riparian buffer. Bank
slumpage and sheared slopes are evident along the reach. The streambanks are exposed in
many sections; the MC has degraded to the natural slate bedrock substrate and has begun a
widening trend in response. A June 17, 2002 site visit revealed that the channels' riffle-to-pool
sequences had been diminished, preventing energy dissipation and causing the degrading
process. During the September 10, 2002 site visit, the deepest pools had water depths of 1 to 2
feet and there was evidence that the stream had recently peaked about 2 feet above its current
elevation. Photographs from the two site visits are shown in Exhibit 2.2.1.
4
? f
•
., d
21
f1
II1
Ilk /l:'.-?
•
1 - i Y
t r
t
?r
•
?_r•-,.J 4411 ?''?
.0 57
?. Y
' ?ourc , »aw 1 u gra&e SC Topr hic Map; \ 1 Yi ,
a?c?ap 1
Legend
' - Watershed Area
Restoration Reach
' - - - Hydrography

UT to Marys Creek
Restoration Plan
Dixon Property
Alamance County, North Carolina
Watershed Area
1" = 1700' Exhibit 2.1.1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
4
RIP
'R ? ?: P aaA
F
A
Legend
Dixon Parcel - Wooded Pasture
- Forest Restoration Reach
Pasture/Cropland - - - Hydrography
Residential/Structures Roads
Pond
Aadma,44 A' j,~
UT to Marys Creek
Restoration Plan
Dixon Property
Alamance County, North Carolina
Land Use
Not to Scale Exhibit 2.1.2

F

LI

r
r

H

0
Exhibit 2.2.1 Site Photographs

Cattle paths, undercut banks, and sedimentation in the channel.
Widened section of stream with undercut banks.

F
1

0
i

P

r

C

Severe bank degradation is evident on both the MC and SC. Bank degradation at this site can
be attributed to the unlimited access that the cattle have to the channel and to the lack of a
vegetated riparian buffer. During reach surveys, 30 cattle trails were observed crossing the
UTs. The cattle have repeatedly trod through these areas, destroying the vegetation and
causing gullies and ruts to form on the banks (Exhibit 2.2.2). These conditions have created
highly erosive areas where sediment can enter the channel and cover the natural substrate.
Additionally, numerous wading pools for cattle were also observed. These areas are low,
mucky depressions that host seasonal vegetation during summer droughts. Further, cattle have
urinated and defecated in the stream channel adding to the mucky conditions, increasing
nutrient levels and creating conditions for bacteria to flourish.
The lack of deeply rooted plants and trees on the streambanks has led to bank destabilization
during high flow events. Evidence of this can be seen on the banks where sheared walls, bank
slumpage, and bare soil are visible. The trees that are currently on the banks are being
undercut, leaving bare roots overhanging the channel. In many cases trees have collapsed into
the channel.
2.2.2 Soils
The Soil Survey for Alamance County North Carolina (USDA, 1960) identifies two soil series
along the stream restoration site (Exhibit 2.2.3). Starr loam is found throughout the site
primarily along the downstream MC. These are non-hydric soils found on gently sloping (2-6%)
bottomlands along streams and drainage ways. Soils of the Starr series are well to moderately
drained soils. They have a moderate water-holding capacity and are permeable.
The second soil series is local alluvial land is found along the upstream MC and SC. This soil
series generally has a high water table and is poorly drained.
2.2.3 Macro-invertebrates
Upon inspection, neither the main channel nor secondary channel produced many specimens.
Few dobsonflies (Corydalidae) and beetle larva (Coleoptera) were found under rocks and
undercut banks in the main channel and secondary channel. Other aquatic life identified was
one crayfish in the main stem, water snails (Gastropoda) in both the main channel and
secondary channel, and pockets of tadpoles throughout the main channel.
2.2.4 Plant Communities
The vegetated riparian community found throughout the site is dominated by red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) and is only one to two trees wide. Only one section of the main channel
exhibits a wide riparian community. Vegetation found in this section is almost entirely red
cedar, but is severely impacted by cattle. Other tree species found in the riparian community
include muscle wood (Carpinus caroliniana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
The dominant shrub is Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
8

L

F-1
L
CI

0
0

Exhibit 2.2.2 Cattle Impacts on the MC
1 9
Rut created by cattle with sediment deposition in channel.
Ruts created by cattle in and evidence of increased sedimentation.

G

Soils Within Project Study Area:
'
x DdB;.
l
oam
AcC3: Appling sandy clay
Ga62: Georgeville silt loam, 2-6% slope
GaC2: Georgeville silt loam, 6-10% slope
f GbD3: Georgeville silty clay loam, 10-15% slope
HdC2: Herndon silt loam, 6-10% slope
HcB' HdD2: Herndon silt loam, 10-15% slope
i Lc: Local alluvial land
Sb: Starr loam
a Hc
I
; ti s
.
d
C 2
Cb62

Ad C2;,
HbC2
B ` . °aAd 2
,r ,
.8, q2 CCB' ,.

r b
?N
4
?.
B

?? ?

?

tJ :;4
4t L' r;18 '' EaB2 ? :
+ T 4,
rf
4 ?
RT

TM GaC
: ,
?
H
Hd x
r

fi('J.. ?
\ dC °g ti
L A?*
4 EaB a
Sb
$
dD2 -

;
t.~.

dC
C2 w i
GIB2 GIiD ?" - HdC2'
< + dB2 '
GG?r
bC Lc , d62
bC AaB` 41
GaC2
Legend
Dixon Parcel Restoration Reach
Hydrography
Non-hydric Soils -• -• -•
Hydric Soils Roads
UT to Marys Creek
Restoration Plan
Dixon Property
Alamance County, North Carolina
Soils
Not To Scale Exhibit 2.2.3

' 2.2.5 Fish and Wildlife
' During all site visits, turbid water conditions greatly hampered observations of aquatic animals.
No minnows or fish were observed in the main channel or the secondary channel. Slow flowing
areas of the stream contained tadpoles.
2.2.6 Endangered/Threatened Species

0

11

0

0

No endangered or threatened species are listed for Alamance County. There are several
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) including: Carolina darter (Etheostoma collies lepidinion),
Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp.), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), Carolina creekshell
(Villosa vaughaniana), and sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata).
2.2.7 Water Quality
The water quality of the UTs has been severely affected by the presence of cattle within and
around the streams. Urine and manure odors were prevalent in and around the channels.
Algal blooms were observed during the summer site visits.
Marys Creek is classified by the NCDWQ as a "Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW)." These are
waters that experience, or are subject to, excessive growths of microscopic and macroscopic
vegetation. The creek is also classified as a "Class C" waterbody, which is considered suitable
for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
agriculture.
Marys Creek is also included in Part 2 of the North Carolina 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies
(NCDWQ, 2000). The sources of pollution for waterbodies listed in Part 2 are defined as "man-
made or man-induced" alterations and include sediment as a contributor to habitat degradation
through effects such as turbidity, channel erosion, and sediment deposition.
11

7

i

SECTION 3
STREAM RESTORATION

3.0 STREAM RESTORATION
' For a stream restoration project to be successful there are several key items that must be
included. It is important that the designer(s) understand the processes that are degrading the
stream, the characteristics of the stream and its watershed, and what design elements may be
' employed to repair the stream. This enables those involved to develop a plan for a holistic
approach to restoration of the system. The following sections detail the stream restoration
design process used for this project.
' 3.1 METHODOLOGY
The Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique, US Forest
Service General Technical Report RM-245 (Harrelson et al., 1994), was used as a guide for
taking stream survey measurements. Information and techniques on stream classification and
morphology in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen, 1996) were also used for classifying the
stream and reference reaches.
The existing conditions of the UTs and surrounding area were observed and analyzed to better
understand the behavior of the watershed. This allowed for the development of a restoration
plan that encompasses the entire system. The watershed area was delineated from the United
States Geological Society (USGS) Saxapahaw Quadrangle for North Carolina. Field verification
' of the watershed was conducted on September 10, 2002.
In addition to documenting the information contained in Section 2, quantitative measurements
' were taken for the existing conditions and reference reach conditions. These measurements
were used to determine the proposed conditions for the restoration. Elevation measurements
for the longitudinal profile survey and cross-sectional surveys (one pool and one riffle) included
' but were not limited to: thalweg, water surface, bankfull, low bank, and terrace elevation. The
bank slope, width of flood prone area, belt width, valley length, straight length, pool-to-pool
spacing, and composition of channel material were also measured and calculated.
' The survey also identified materials such as trees and boulders that could be used in
constructing in-stream structures for the restoration. Design constraints (e.g., existing bedrock,
crossings, and valley walls) were also identified during the survey.
3.1.1 Stream Classification
' The stream channel was classified by five criteria: width-to-depth ratio, entrenchment ratio,
slope, sinuosity, and channel materials. Width-to-depth ratio is the ratio of the bankfull width to
the mean depth of the bankfull channel. The width-to-depth ratio indicates the channel's ability
' to dissipate energy and transport sediment. The entrenchment ratio is the vertical containment
of the stream and the degree to which the channel is incised in the valley floor. The flood-prone
width divided by the bankfull width yields the entrenchment ratio. The entrenchment ratio
' indicates if the stream is able to access its floodplain. The slope of the channel is the change in
water surface elevation per unit of stream length. The slope can be analyzed over the entire
reach to determine if the slope is stable with the existing channel material, or the slope can be
calculated over sections, to determine the condition of pools and riffles. Sinuosity is the ratio of
stream length to valley length. Low sinuosity typically indicates that the channel has been
straightened. The amount and type of bed and bank material present indicate the channel's
resistance to hydraulic stress and its ability to transport sediment (Rosgen, 1996). All five
criteria are interrelated and were used to determine the current condition of the channel and for
12

L

I I

0

F

1
classifying the stream. These values were used in the design process. Once the values have
been determined, a design will be proposed based on the geomorphic processes occurring with
the channel.
3.1.2 Sediment Transport
A stream's stability is dependent upon its ability to transport sediment without aggrading or
degrading. A stable stream can transport both the suspended load and the bedload without
accumulating sediment or eroding sediment over long periods of time. The suspended load is
the fine sand, silt, and clay particles collectively found within the water column. The bedload is
comprised of the course sand, gravels, and cobbles along the stream bottom. The critical
dimensionless shear stress is the force required to initiate the general movement of particles in
a streambed. This entrainment of particles must have the ability to move the largest particle
from the bar sample (D;) to prevent aggradation of particles. In order to move the D; particle the
stream design must exceed a critical depth and slope. The critical dimensionless shear stress
analysis described above indicates whether a stream has the ability to move its bedload and
thus will not be susceptible to aggradation.
In conjunction with the aggradation analysis, a degradation analysis was performed to insure
the design parameters would resist scour and bed cutting. As mentioned above, the shear
stress is the force witch entrains and moves the particles. Here the boundary shear stress of
the proposed cross section is plotted on Rosgen's revised Shield's Curve to assure the stream
will not move too large a particle. If the shear stress has the ability to move the D,oo, a potential
for degradation exist. Existing and proposed grade controls bring further confidence to the
analysis.
3.1.3 Flood Analysis
With any modification to a stream channel, it is important to analyze the modification's effect on
flood elevations. Floodwater elevations were analyzed using the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC-RAS Version
3.01). This is a software package designed to perform one-dimensional, steady flow, analysis
of water surface profiles for a network of natural and constructed channels.
HEC-RAS uses two equations, energy and/or momentum, depending upon the water surface
profile. The site's model is generally based on the energy equation. The energy losses are
evaluated by friction (Manning's equation) and contraction/expansion (coefficient multiplied by
the change in velocity head). The momentum equation is used in situations where the water
surface profile rapidly varies, such as hydraulic jumps and stream junctions. The 100-year
discharges were taken from the USGS guidance document, Estimating the Magnitude and
Frequency of Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Revised (USGS, 2001).
Backwater analysis was performed for the existing and proposed conditions for both bankfull
and 100-year discharges. In addition to steady flow data, geometric data is also required to run
HEC-RAS. Geometric data consists of establishing the connectivity of the river system, which
includes: cross-section data, reach lengths, energy loss coefficients (friction losses, contraction,
and expansion losses), and stream junction information. The HEC-RAS model portrays how the
proposed conditions will accommodate bankfull and 100-year discharges.
13

3.1.4 Discharae Analvsis
' The hydrologic analysis of the existing conditions required the quantification of the bankfull
elevation and corresponding bankfull area. In degraded systems, bankfull indicators such as
the inner berm or top of bank are often absent or are unreliable. As a result, the existing
' bankfull elevations and bankfull cross-sectional areas were determined by evaluating the North
Carolina Rural Piedmont Discharge Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
' The HEC-RAS software was used to evaluate how the discharge flows within the proposed
channel geometry. This evaluation verifies that the proposed plan, dimension, and profile would
adequately carry the discharge at the bankfull stage, the point where water begins to overflow
' onto the floodplain (USACE, 2001).
3.1.5 Biotic Survey
' A survey of the biotic community was conducted prior to restoration. The surveys include
observations of macrobenthos aquatic life, terrestrial life, and plant community identification.
This information assists in the development of the restoration plan and may provide a means to
' measure the success of the restoration as it relates to aquatic, wildlife, and buffer habitat. For
life to flourish in streams, it is important that high quantities of sediment do not accumulate in
high amounts and that there is not a high amount of suspended sediment. The stream has to
' be able to move its sediment load without causing detrimental affects to living things.
Therefore, the proposed stream will greatly improve the biotic community
' 3.2 EXISTING STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND CONDITIONS
The existing conditions discussed below are also included in Table 3.2.1 along with additional
' morphological characteristics. Exhibit 3.2.1 shows photographs of the existing conditions. The
existing channel survey data is contained in Appendix A. NCDWQ stream classification forms
for the existing channel are contained in Appendix B.
' Upstream MC and SC
The upstream MC and SC sections both begin near the southern end of the site and end at the
confluence of the MC and SC. The drainage area for the upstream MC is 794 acres and the
' drainage area for the SC is 330 acres. Design constraints for these sections include initial
elevations approaching the site, valley slope and valley width at the confluence.
' Using Rosgen classification, the upstream channels were classified as a C4 stream type. The
relatively high entrenchment ratio, a moderate to high width-to-depth ratio, and moderate to high
sinuosity are characteristic of a C type stream. A typical C channel is one that is fairly wide,
' meandering through the valley with alternating point bars. The 4 in the classification indicates
that the channel is predominantly comprised of gravel.
Although the channels classify as a C channel, both systems are experiencing adjustments,
' which are indicative of unstable conditions. Erosion has down cut the channel and created
unstable, sloughing, and bare banks. Additionally, the channels' alternating point bars have
been eroded which has straightened the channels. This straightened pattern is not normally
' found in stable streams. These deteriorating processes are expected to continue unless
restoration practices are implemented.

14
1
Table 3.2.1 Existing Conditions

H

C!
C

k

r
f
0
Mitigation` Plan: UTs to Marys Creek Proposed Design
Design by. Ryan Smith
Checked by: Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC
R. Kevin Williams, PE; PLS, CPESC
PARAMETER' i UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
STREAM TYPE C4 F4
DRAINAGE AREA (acres) 794 813
BANKFULL WIDTH (ft) 15.7 34.5
BANKFULL MEAN DEPTH (ft) 1.4 0.7
WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO 11 50
BANKFULL X-SECTION AREA (ft2) 22.7 24.1
BANKFULL MEAN VELOCITY (ft/s) 4.6 4.4
BANKFULL DISCHARGE (cfs) 104 106
BANKFULL MAX DEPTH(ft) 2.1 1.0
WIDTH OF FLOOD-PRONE AREA (ft) 47 37
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO 3.0
MEANDER LENGTH (ft) 212 - 287 330 - 840
RATIO OF MEANDER' LENGTH TO BANKFULL WIDTH 13.5-18.9 10 - 24.3
RADIUS` OFCURVATURE (ft) 15.2-16.0 n/a
RATIO OF RADIUS OF CURVATURE TO BANKFULL WIDTH 1.0 n/a
BELT WIDTH (ft) 35 105
MEANDER WIDTH RATIO 2.2 /'3.0
SINUOSITY (K) 1.14 1.03
VALLEY SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0096 0.0096
AVERAGE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0026 0.0057
POOL SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0004 0.0018
RATIO OF POOL SLOPE TO AVERAGE SLOPE 0.0-0.3 0.2-0.4
MAX POOL DEPTH (ft) 2.7 2.7
RATIO OF POOL DEPTH TO AVERAGE BANKFULL DEPTH 1.9 3.9
POOL WIDTH (ft) 19.2 27.6
RATIO OF POOL WIDTH TO BANKFULL WIDTH 1.2 0.8
POOL TO POOL SPACING (ft) 16 - 64 28 - 148
RATIO OF POOL TO POOL SPACING TO BANKFULL WIDTH 1.0-4.0 0.8-4.3
15
f

Exhibit 3.2.1 a Existing Stream Conditions

LI

I

1 16
View of Upstream MC looking north (downstream).
View of SC looking south (upstream).

Exhibit 3.2.1 b Existing Stream Conditions

0

View of MC.
The survey of the upstream section of the MC determined that the average bankfull width is
15.7 feet with a mean depth of 1.4 feet. Based on these numbers, the width-to-depth ratio is
10.9. The bankfull cross-sectional area is 22.7 square feet (ft2). Bankfull mean velocity is 4.6
feet per second (ft/s) and the bankfull discharge is 104 cubic feet per second (cfs). The bankfull
maximum depth is 2.1 feet and the width of the flood-prone area is 47 feet.
Downstream MC
This reach, which represents the bulk of the project, begins at the confluence of the MC and SC
and extends northeast to the end of the property. The drainage area for this section is 1151
acres. Constraints for this section of the design include the confluence and downstream
elevations, valley slope, valley width, and bedrock outcroppings.
The lower section of the MC is classified as a F4. The entrenched channel with a moderate to
high width-to-depth ratio, moderate sinuosity, and low slope signifies an F type stream. A
typical F channel is wide and deep (Rosgen, 1994).
The average bankfull width for the downstream reach of the MC is 34.5 feet. The bankfull mean
depth is 0.7 feet. From this data, the width-to-depth ratio is calculated to be 49.5. The bankfull
cross-sectional area is 24.1 ft2 and the bankfull mean velocity is 4.4 ft/s. The bankfull discharge
is 106 cfs. The bankfull maximum depth is 1.0 foot. The width of the flood-prone area for this
reach is 37 feet.
The channel has down cut to bedrock and large cobble outcrops and has begun overwidening
the channel's dimensions. These processes are expected to continue unless restoration
practices are utilized.
17
1
3.3 STREAM REFERENCE REACH SITE SEARCH AND CLASSIFICATION
' Restoration designs use reaches of stable channels and buffers within the same physiographic
region for design guidance. These reference reaches provide natural channel design
dimensionless ratios that are based on measured morphological relationships from stable
channels. A search for suitable reference reaches was conducted based upon specific criteria
between the UTs and the reference reach. The criteria for a reference reach include: the
current land use, drainage area size, stream order, the absence of man-made alterations within
' the immediate reach, absence of beaver dams, stream classification, and current stream
condition. Additionally, visual inspections were conducted along each potential reference reach
and notes were taken on the vegetative cover, bank stability, and channel condition. The
' inspection is performed to ensure that the contributing watershed was not adversely affecting
the condition of the reach. A biotic survey is also conducted.
' Using the above criteria, suitable reference reaches were identified for this project. Once sites
were identified, survey teams performed longitudinal profile and cross-sectional surveys. The
data discussed in Section 3.1 were also surveyed. The data were then used to calculate
dimensionless ratios that were utilized in the design.
' Due to an unstable geometry the upstream and downstream portions of the MC, the channel
does not provide a stable dimension, pattern, and profile that can be used to design the
' proposed channel. Reference streams in the area were found in order to provide guidance in
designing a stable stream with proper dimensions, patterns, and profiles based on the bankfull
stage (Rosgen, 2001). The two streams identified as reference reaches for the MC and SC are
' an UT to Cabin Branch in Durham County and Landrum Creek in Chatham County. Exhibit
3.3.1 shows the locations of the two streams. Table 3.3.1 contains the morphological
characteristics of the reference reaches. Appendix B contains the NCDWQ stream
classification forms for the reference reaches.
3.3.1 UT to Cabin Branch
t Stream Conditions
The UT to Cabin Branch, which flows east into the Eno River, is located approximately four
miles north of Durham at the end of Earl Road (SR 2625). This stream is a second order
stream with a watershed area of 806 acres. Photographs of the UT to Cabin Branch are
presented in Exhibit 3.3.2.
' The stream channel is 8 to 15 feet wide with 2-foot high banks. At the time of the site survey
(August 6, 2002) there was water only in the deepest pools due to an extended drought during
the summer of 2002. The channel substrate is gravel, with a considerable amount of bedrock.
The channel meanders through a well-established buffered floodplain within a U shaped valley.
Although the floodplain is not extensively wide and the sinuosity is not extremely high, the
' floodplain, valley structure, and sinuosity provide a template of a system which can be
constructed within the constraints of the project site. A WRP and a DWQ representative
inspected and approved the site as a reference reach.
The reference reach survey was initiated near the end of Earl Road (SR 2625). The stream
reach used for the survey totaled 397 feet. The survey included a longitudinal profile, cross-
sections, bed material evaluation, buffer assessments, and system stability evaluation. The UT
18

?. y4 f
` q
Q

White g D
m;th Rd C

0

- fD

Lindley Mill Rd
r
O
4 J
N

d Q:
''
Ti
_ .
•.4
t ?rk ? V

-;

31
(n

a'

C

Ct) X 3
0 CDC w
n

CD

N TI
CD
N
n CD
X C

t
L

CD O
O ? O ,

,.
3 Z 0 O
O

O CD C7
=3 CD

N o_
w
w D
?
CID
Z co
!. n
CDC
f /n
(D
(D

I Table 3.3.1 Reference Conditions

0

Mitigation Plan: UT's to Marys Creek Proposed Design
Design by: Ryan Smith
Checked by: Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC
R. Kevin Williams, PE, PLS, CPESC
PARAMETER REFERENCE
REACH REFERENCE
REACH
LOCATION UT Cabin Branch Landrum Creek
STREAM TYPE C4b C4
DRAINAGE AREA (acres) 806 1619
BANKFULL WIDTH (ft) 14.3 27.6
BANKFULL MEAN DEPTH (ft) 1.5 1.2
WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO 10 23
BANKFULL X-SECTION AREA (ft) 21.4 33.5
BANKFULL MEAN VELOCITY (ft/s) 4.9 5.2
BANKFULL DISCHARGE (cfs) 105 174
BANKFULL MAX DEPTH (ft) 2.2 2.0
WIDTH OF FLOOD-PRONE AREA (ft) 47 140
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO 3.3 5.1
MEANDER LENGTH (ft) 32 - 92 94 - 100
RATIO OF MEANDER LENGTH TO BANKFULL WIDTH 2.2-6.4 3.4-3.6
RADIUS OF CURVATURE (ft) 9.3 - 29 10 - 13
RATIO OF RADIUS OF CURVATURE TO BANKFULL WIDTH 0.7-3.0 0.4-0.6
BELT WIDTH (ft) 80 77
MEANDER WIDTH RATIO 5.6 2.8
SINUOSITY (K) 1.20 1.12
VALLEY SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0169 0.0080
AVERAGE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0149 0.0077
POOL SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0000 - 0.0011 0.0000
RATIO OF POOL SLOPE TO AVERAGE SLOPE 0.0-0.1 0.0
MAX POOL DEPTH (ft) 2.5 2.8
RATIO OF POOL DEPTH TO AVERAGE BANKFULL DEPTH 1.7 2.3
POOL WIDTH (ft) 14.7 27.4
RATIO OF POOL WIDTH TO BANKFULL WIDTH 1.0 1.0
POOL TO POOL SPACING (ft) 9-49 25 - 104
RATIO OF POOL TO POOL SPACING TO BANKFULL WIDTH 0.6-3.4 0.9-3.8
20
Exhibit 3.3.2 UT to Cabin Branch
View of Downstream Section (Looking Upstream)

View of Upstream Section
21

1

I

to Cabin Branch reference reach was classified as a C4b stream type based upon the survey
data (Appendix C) (Rosgen, 1994). The C indicates a meandering channel with a moderate
width-to-depth ratio and sinuosity. The b designates that the channel has characteristics of a B
type channel such as: increased slope and less distinguished point bar features. The reach is
transporting its sediment supply without aggrading or degrading while maintaining its dimension,
pattern, and profile. Bankfull width of the reach is approximately 14.3 feet and bankfull depth is
approximately 1.5 feet. The reference reach has a sinuosity of 1.2 and a radius of curvature of
9-29 feet. The width-to-depth ratio of 10 is on the low borderline for a C type stream; however,
the stream portrays many C features such as the moderate to high sinuosity, meandering
pattern, and the entrenchment ratio. The streambed material for both the UT to Cabin Branch
and the site are dominated by gravel. Within the constraints of the project site, the proposed
design will portray these same features.
Wildlife and Aquatic Life Observed
A preliminary biological survey using a dip net and visual observation was made of the
reference reach. Due to the extended drought conditions, no flow was observed in the channel.
However, aquatic life was observed in the water remaining in the deepest pools. Numerous
crayfish (Order Decapoda), tadpoles, and minnows (Gambusia sp.) were observed. Aquatic
snails (Class Gastropoda), small bivalve shells (Class bivalvia), and one-dragonfly larva
(Suborder Anisoptera) were also found, but very few other macro invertebrates were observed.
Wildlife or wildlife sign observed along the reach included raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Since the deepest pools were holding aquatic life
through the season, species diversity and richness is expected to increase dramatically outside
of drought conditions.
3.3.2 Landrum Creek
The reference reach on Landrum Creek is located approximately seven miles east of Siler City
near Pleasant Hill Church Road (SR 1506) in Chatham County. This site was surveyed on
September 30, 2002. The creek flows northwest to southeast crossing Pleasant Hill Church
Road and flows to the Rocky River several miles below the reference reach. The reference
reach is located approximately 200 feet east (downstream) of Pleasant Hill Church Road. A
large pond is located within the watershed. The channel substrate is very rocky through the
riffles with medium to large coble and some boulders; however, gravel dominates the substrate.
The pools along the reach have a silt/sand bottom. The banks are two to three feet high and
fairly stable. A number of fallen trees bridge the channel. There is also woody debris and leaf
litter in the channel. Exhibit 3.3.3 contains photographs of Landrum Creek.
Landrum Creek is a 2rd order stream with a watershed of 1619 acres. The reach used for the
detailed survey totaled 369 feet. The survey length of this reference reach was shortened due
to the presence of a maintained power line easement. The survey included a longitudinal
profile, cross-sections, bed material evaluation, buffer establishment, and system stability
evaluation. Four riffle and pool sequences were surveyed within this reach The Landrum Creek
reference reach was classified as a C4 stream type based upon the survey data (Appendix D).
The reach is transporting its sediment supply without aggrading or degrading, while maintaining
its dimension, pattern, and profile. Bankfull width of the branch is approximately 28 feet and
bankfull depth is 1.2 feet. The reference reach has a sinuosity of 1.12 and a radius of curvature
of 10 to 13 feet. Due to limited topographical data, the valley slope of 0.0074 ft/ft was calculated
from the USGS quadrangle.
22
Exhibit 3.3.3: Landrim Creek Reference Reach
Facing downstream

Ik-

71

? ,-.,
c, Kam'

r
JJ
it ol_
?C'?"a"•
1' 1 '?i." 'Y
j2

Facing Upstream
23

The width-to-depth ratio of 22.8 is moderate and the entrenchment ratio of 5.1 is slightly
entrenched as expected for a C type stream. The streambed material for Landrum Creek and
the site are both dominated by gravel.
Wildlife and Aquatic Life Observed at Landrum Creek
A number of small fish were observed in the stream. Although none were captured for positive
identification, it is likely that the population contains creek chubs (Semotilus atromaculatus) and
other small minnows (Gambusia sp.). Several crayfish (Order Decapoda) were found in the
rocky substrate. Brief sampling for benthic macroinvertabrates found only scattered individuals
including caddisfly larvae, mayfly larvae, dragonfly larvae, and fishfly larvae. Wildlife or wildlife
signs observed along the reach included raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
3.4 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN
The stream channel was designed using Rosgen's Natural Channel Design principles and
practices (Rosgen, 1996). Typical morphological characteristics were obtained from stable
reference reaches and used for designing the streams dimension, pattern, and profile. Using
information from the reference reach surveys, dimensionless ratios were calculated in order to
determine stable dimension, pattern, and profile ranges for the stream restoration site. The
stream design parameters also include the stream's ability to transfer sediment through the
reach without aggrading or degrading. The longitudinal profile was prepared using slopes from
the reference reach's features. To make sure that the design is constructible, the existing profile
was compared to the proposed profile. Flood analysis was conducted to ensure that the stream
restoration project would not increase the flood stage following construction. Instream and bank
stabilizing structures were added to the design layout.
Structures, matting, and plantings will be used to stabilize the restored channel. Structures may
include rock cross-vanes, rock-vanes, j-hook vanes, root wads, and floodplain interceptors.
These structures are described further in Section 3.4.6. Grade control structures such as rock
cross-vanes will be placed at the top and bottom of the mitigation reach. Additional structures
will be used to stabilize the streambank and form the channel's pattern, profile, and dimensions.
These stabilization structures will also provide habitat within the stream. In addition, the
streambanks will be stabilized with matting material and tree/shrub plantings. Matting will be
composed of material that withstands the maximum shear stress at bankfull velocity and is
biodegradable. Plantings will be placed on the outside of meander bends and along the sides of
riffle areas. Plant material will be comprised of native tree/shrub species that will provide long-
term bank stabilization and enhance ecological value.
In addition to detailing the proposed restoration, this section also contains the results of the
sediment analysis, flood analysis, discharge analysis, and the structures used in the channel
design.
3.4.1 Proposed Channel Classification
The restoration project was divided into three segments: upstream MC, downstream MC, and
SC, based upon differences in drainage areas and topography. The downstream MC segment
experiences greater amounts of runoff, which influences design parameters. All of the
segments will be designed as C4 streams. A majority of this restoration plan consists of a
24

' Priority 1 restoration (Rosgen, 1997), in which the restored channel meanders across the
existing floodplain.
3.4.2 Proposed Stream Description
The UTs will be restored from the southern boundary of the property to the eastern boundary of
the property. The total length of the restoration will be 2084 feet. The restoration and
' establishment of hydraulic geometry, floodplain, and riparian buffer will contribute to water
quality improvements within the watershed. Design aspects considered in this design were the
location of the existing channel (to minimize cut and fill) and the elevations at the upstream and
' downstream control points, valley slope width, and bedrock outcroppings.
The restoration will include establishing the proper dimension, pattern, profile, riparian buffer,
' and floodplain. The appropriate hydrologic geometry will be constructed for the reach along
with a more natura,, variable sinuosity. The stream channel's dimension, pattern, and profile
design is based upon morphological parameters of the reference reaches.
' The proposed channel will have an entrenchment ratio greater than 2.2 with a moderate width-
to-depth ratio and a moderate sinuosity. The bankfull channel will have a meandering pattern
on a well-developed floodplain. Based on the designed sinuosity, the new channel will have a
total length of 2084 feet. A low flow channel is incorporated into the design to handle average
daily flows. The bankfull channel is designed to handle larger flows. Flood flows will be able to
access the floodplain. The completed design profile will detail a riffle, run, pool, and glide
' sequence. Exhibit 3.4.1 shows the plan view sheets for the entire proposed restoration. Exhibit
3.4.2 shows a typical cross-section of a riffle and pool for the designed channel. The three
different sections for restoration are discussed in the following paragraphs. Table 3.4.1 shows
' each reach's design parameters and dimensions. This data is also included in the
morphological characteristics table contained in Section 3.2.1.
Upstream MC
' The upstream MC reach is entrenched due to the downcutting and straightening of the unstable
reach. The channel also exhibits vertical streambanks. There is evidence of the stream's
historical channel existing to the east of the current channel. To remove the channel from the
' existing sheared bank, the design will mimic the historical pattern and provide an appropriate
floodplain; the channel's proposed pattern deviates from the existing alignment. Due to
previous downcutting and the horizontal realignment of the channel, the floodplain will be
constructed through the middle section of the reach; however, grade control downstream has
allowed the channel to continue to use its floodplain. Rock cross-vanes will provide further
grade control at the top and bottom of the reach. These structures, along with several rock
' vanes, provide horizontal alignment, a riffle-pool sequence, habitat diversity, and channel
stability with an aesthetically natural appearance.
Downstream MC
The MC begins with several natural bedrock grade control structures that will be utilized within
the proposed alignment. A rock cross-vane is proposed below the confluence to provide grade
control below this feature and above the 60-foot break in the conservation easement requested
' by the landowner for a possible future road crossing. Below the break, another rock vane will
be installed for grade control and to direct the alignment over the naturally occurring bedrock
features. Bank stabilization will be added to this section as well. Below the bedrock reach, the
alignment will dramatically deviate from the existing alignment in order to remove shear stress
25,

' from an eroding valley wall and to provide an area for treatment of runoff before it enters the
stream. Runoff from the adjacent agricultural land, which currently flows directly into the
stream, will be filtered by a substantial buffer. A permanent stream crossing for cattle and
equipment will be provided within this reach. Below the crossing, the channel will be removed
from the existing alignment for variability and to increase the floodplain area. The final section
of the reach will be aligned over natural occurring bedrock and large cobble features with rock
cross-vanes, providing grade control at the downstream end of the site.
' SC
The SC's length will be substantially increased by bringing the channel further down the valley
before joining the MC. Sinuosity will be increased and a riffle-pool sequence established. The
' SC and the upstream section of the MC create a triangular piece of property that will be isolated
following the completion of the project. This triangular piece of property will be included in the
conservation easement. This property will be reforested and will provide both floodplain and
' upland habitat.

u

26

} '.3B
1 /
U
7? 4y+ J .: ? IY '' I x
. \\ _ -? yy Imo;/ I ? /]/I?Ir
OR"
'C
J
r
CD
I
? . f
1 ?}; ,t) (J\ /m fir` ?\
2 / v
D
? C
0
CD ?
CD r+
n ° CD O
o N. cn
.0 c x r+
F- o o
=3
rr7 'D r+
-3 FI-
x o o N z 1 9
3 CD o °
m
-3 cn
-0
rt -3 r N S
r+ N n z 9 A T
z $ x x z
r+ c7 n g g o p
W A
N c N y
_S N s !F
o CD 0 m m
Fl- CD a
o ? ?

'X?
Z z Z Z
vC) 0G)
I I I
mo I I
0 i I
m ?
;o -V
n 0 ? I ?° I
Mm v I m I
O C) O
O I =n I
=n n D I m I
-n 0
oz m I
„rn I m I
?? I I
zr < I I
m?
c ?.
Cam Z m*ODg
op
D ?
-0 v I a z D
==-n m? v - r
-n c ? rc?r,o0-?, _- r ?
r
I-„io m H
0
r- ?
< Z d z?i < m ?
?la D O D p - r
O X O -n m
CO) Cl) r
m D
T Z N)
Z z
v
C-) OD
-n -n
o j ° Cl)
_ C _ I
D U' D . m
cl) C7 C
m m m H r
n °
o H o
z 0
OX I o z ?OX I CD
m co Xm? moo=n o
X m=j m Cn
m-nz d m,iz d cn
'DarrO
- -0m 0
rOD2 rp2D cn
0
D Z D Z m
a) m co m n
m r m '-
H
°
n z
2)
N
=D
z
--I
Gn
D
C
sv
? I I
r. cu v m r+ I I
n0 nX' ? I
o ~ C O O Xx \ ?X 1\
cn m = c -3 O C/)
\ O =n
En H_ r+ N c '4 c ? \
M r+ zz ; zz
X m N 'S p G7 \?A\ v O
3 n CD z O O '
Fi. r+ 0-0 lxl?
P_ 0) -3 CD U)
n ? X ? \RII c g s
-0 (-)I< 2)?
o
GO ?
>\ 50, -

177
L

F

1

Cl)

? M
O
to_
d V
i t4 Q - O W
V a o o p
.
y c z
?, o ca
M [2 N c =

O Cl) -C U
a- 0) B
)
U C
O
Co

_co
Q

L
2

-j LD

CL

V

CD

S
N
S
o

i N

s
N
O
N
d
Q
o d
0 0,
N r
Q

d
-_ Iw
N I
W
O
L U

a ?
f0
C 3
w

C g ? E

? ?
d
C ?
C
?p ?
o
L °m
U 5 a
? = a

v

E
? E
m
L S ?
?p
n
++
v
? I
g
°o a
0
S
8
°o
°o

i
o
n
?
u? i
o
n i
Ileeil u
°o
n
cllenal3
rn
e
rn
a 0
rn
v
O
O
r
?
O
I

d
W

C
O h

r W

3

L
O .?r w
d N
O 1p
l
G
? ? 3
c

L
a

v
c
c I +° c
N_ f0

0 0 3
.c
O
?

7 i
? i
H !k
! d

!6
d
L

0 ?

r 3
a

N

O
`
a
O
1
0

0
10
D htD
Yf
•1'
M
N r T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 n I n 49 Y7 O ? O O
( ;a a;) u oi; en 01 3

11

??
LJ?

u
Q
R
X
L
C
C
X
L
c
G
' d
or,
a
s
F

Z Y
O

. .
P
U

8

O
_

o

N

O

M

m

N

v

r

O

O
o0
0
M
<°
o

r

N

N
o
w

ti
CC??
o
v

0
o
0
O

O

M

M

a

O
o
c+i
O 2 O N N M M N O O r (V Gj
O 0
O 0 (V N N to 0
,.Z..
O= .o
c M M O W uu N 0
_ U co

U

LU
' V c
L°
m

m

Co

M

?

O

O

't

o

O

N

r-

M

O
v
0

N 0)
o

M

O

o

N

7

c)
m
°o,

0

O

n

n

r

O
rn

a
v,

M
W ?.,._' • (? co 0 N o N M N N M h M M O O O N
M f0
LL M N M O O O O O
2 _ O
E c
c
` .C U

O
M

0

O

N

O

N

V

O

I
o
0
0
0

O

N

O
Cl)
O

O

O

M

N

d

tvf
it
c U N N M O
M O
M O
N 0 0
O 0
O 0
Q f m
M
Z C n

z
E
co
O
N
7
co
0 M O
W M
7 O
M O D
m
N
O• N
O O
O
O
O
O
M
M

M
M
O N m r N M W N M M N ro 0 0 0 0 M N I
:.. Z j U M
0 .,
.
M
W

y_
ca
C
N

a?

>

M

0

N

0

0

N

0

V

M

-

M

n

0

M

O

h w

O)
0

w

I

M
0

M 'N

r
0

m

N

S

)l

O

O

O

O

O

O

N

o

o

N

M
o
N C
C
(J
p
j
f
(
O
M O
V
N
O
N
O
M
";q'
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
In
U

Z co
e?
y
M
Ma
r
O
O
V
D
O
r- M
N
T
N
0
O
Cl)

$
O M
N M
O
O
I`
O
M aJ M
V
O C
; LL co M N y M O I
0 C c c) O'
0 O
0 O
0 N N M N O I
N W
F-
0 O
0 m 0 O
U
O
co
?!
O

L(j
n
N
0
.
7
O
r
N
r
a
O
M
N
I ad

I co

I
O
O
M
N
V tp
OD t?pp
N e?
N v
00
O
I
r-
N
O
N
Oi
N

I
0
v
I
'X
LLl
D
r
N a N O
i N
0 N O
O O
0 O CO O
N v O
2
?
a
o

_
O

W
? .

D
J J
LL
w
LL

F-

z

LL

co O zQ °-
m

y
U) m O
m W O O LL.
Z
a
Q
a
:O

?~ v w

Z
Z c

O ¢
O O m
O vi'
F'
w zz
O O
w W
w 2
m O 0
~ W O W
p _
a =
p Z
Q
a
v U Q
2 D O D > p
V) 7- E W O U) O'

W
? ZQ
W U
FL
2
W zQ
W
(n
8
W
Z
Q
D F-
0
W IL
O
W J M J J J J
LL a M: 3:
- , Z
O W

Q J
J J
J AY
Z
f W J
J ' J
J J
J J
J LL

O
U
Z
LL
O
O
LL
O
0

W }}
I_ J
(n
W
C9 J O

w
LL
O J

8
LL D
ll
O a
LL
O
-F-
Q
LLJ -z LL
Y LL
Y ¢
m
F- IL
Y LL
Y LL
Y LL
Y =
F W o
Z .
O O
O . > O
Z
O
z }
W W
J
J.
O
a O
O 3
J
O
J
O ,
L

> Q Q i Q W ? > LL 8 8 8
11
'
I J '
? .'O co - m J > m m co co W ¢ CL lL 00 55 Q LL d
p
O
co

H
3.4.3 Sediment Transport
The proposed stream design must be able to transport its sediment load without aggrading or
degrading. The critical dimensionless shear stress is the force required to initiate the general
movement of particles in a streambed. To prevent aggrading of particles, the entrainment of
' particles must be able to move the largest particle from the bar sample (D;). In order to move
the D; particle the stream design must exceed the critical depth and slope, thus the proposed
depths will allow the stream to move its bedload and not be susceptible to aggradation.
' The degradation analysis was performed to insure the design parameters would result in scour
and bed cutting. As mentioned above, the shear stress is the force that entrains and moves the
particles. Plotting the boundary shear stress of the proposed cross section on Rosgen's
Revised Shield's Curve helps ensure the stream will not move too large a particle. Existing
grade control including bedrock and large cobble outcroppings will be reinforced with grade
controls structures at the upstream and downstream end of the project, and around the
confluence of the two channels. The design for each reach has the ability to transport the
sediment load without aggrading or degrading. Table 3.4.2 contains the results of the sediment
transport analysis.

D
Table 3.4.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Sc
MC MC
LARGEST PARTICLE FROM BAR SAMPLE [D; ] 45 45 45
(mm)
PARTICLE FROM BAR SAMPLE [Dloo] (mm) 45 45 45
zo
F- CRITICAL DIMENSIONLESS SHEAR STRESS [t c;] 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177
o J EXISTING STREAM CONDITION BY REQUIRED Stable Stable Stable
? DEPTH
z
a Q EXISTING STREAM CONDITION BY REQUIRED
Stable
Stable
Stable
SLOPE
p BANKFULL SHEAR STRESS (Ib/ft2) 0.26 0.28 0.23
F
o
} BANKFULL SHEAR STRESS MOVEABLE
15
17
14
w ¢
z PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
(D
W a
W STREAM CONDITION BY BANKFULL SHEAR Stable Stable Stable
STRESS
' Particle samples were taken from bar features rather than riffle features due to the presence of
large cobble outcroppings within the riffle sections. These areas were not considered to be
indicative of the channel's typical bed load.
3.4.4 Flood Analysis
' The HEC-RAS model was used to evaluate the effect of the design on flood elevations and to
ensure that the project would not increase flooding. For the study reach, 14 geometric cross-
sections were modeled along the length of the existing and proposed channels. Two models,

31

1

i

one for existing conditions and one for proposed conditions, were developed and executed to
determine the water surface elevations for both the bankfull and 100-year events. The results of
the analysis are contained in Appendix E. It was determined that the proposed channel will
adequately carry the bankfull stage.
The analysis also indicates that the proposed channel geometry will not increase the 100-year
flood elevations within the project area. In fact, the water surface elevation will be reduced at
the downstream end of the project for the 100-year flow. Section 3.4.5 contains further
discussion of the calculated discharge values.
3.4.5 Discharge Analysis
The discharge analysis required the evaluation of the existing stream's watershed area, bankfull
area and corresponding bankfull discharge. Discharge rates for the bankfull event used in the
design of this project were calculated using the North Carolina Rural Piedmont Discharge
Curve.
Qbkf = 89.04x0.72 ; (R2 = 0.97) (Harman et al., 1999).
The bankfull discharge for the site is approximately 112 cfs. The existing bankfull velocity is
approximately 4 ft/s. The proposed design will not reduce the velocity; however, the proposed
geometry, pattern and profile will reduce the shear stress and stream power from the existing
condition. The existing and proposed geometries were evaluated at the bankfull discharge rates
to determine if the bankfull discharge can be carried in the proposed channel's geometry. This
evaluation verifies that the proposed plan, dimension, and profile would adequately carry the
discharge at the bankfull stage, the point where water begins to overflow onto the floodplain.
3.4.6 Structures Used For Natural Channel Design
A number of different structures and methods will be used to control grade and stabilize the
channel. These structures and methods may include, but are not limited to: rock cross-vanes,
rock vanes, j-hook vanes, root wads, floodplain interceptors, matting, and planting materials.
These structures provide grade control and bank stabilization; such that the proper dimension,
pattern, and profile is maintained while providing various habitats for aquatic organisms.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are able to feed on, hide under, and attach to these structures.
They also provide shelter and create eddies for fish to rest and feed near. The majority of the
materials for the structures will come from off site. Diagrams of these structures are located in
Appendix F.
Rock cross-vanes, rock vanes, and j-hook vanes will be utilized to direct the flow away from the
bank and toward the center of the channel. Root wads will be used for bank stabilization and to
introduce woody material into the channel. Without this introduction it would be many years
before the planted saplings would be able to provide the stream with this habitat feature.
Rock Cross-Vanes - Rock cross-vanes direct the flow away from the streambanks into the
middle of the channel. The structure creates a scour pool below, while maintaining the grade
for the upstream portion. These structures will also provide a stable drop in the stream profile
' throughout the Site. Boulders are used to build these structures and filter fabric and smaller
rock will be used to further strengthen it by solidifying gaps between the boulders.

32

Rock Vanes - The rock vane directs the flow away from the stream bank and into the center of
the channel. The rock vane structure creates a scour pool immediately downstream which
' provides a habitat feature. Boulders are used to build these structures and will be used
throughout the Site on the outside meander bend.
J-Hook Vanes - J-hook vanes are built with boulders and placed in the stream to direct flow
away from the streambanks. The structure has the appearance of a "J" since it consists of one
rock vane with boulders placed in the center of the channel curving back around to form a hook.
In addition to the vane's scour pool, the openings between the extra boulders create a variety of
flow patterns. These flow patterns help move insects that fish feed on and the fish and aquatic
organisms hold in the calm water behind the boulders to catch food.
Root wads - Root wads will be utilized for streambank protection, habitat for fish and terrestrial
insects, cover, and introduction of woody material into the stream. Root wads act as a
deflection device to the stream's flow. The roots buffer the streambank and aid in turning the
' stream's erosive forces away from the streambank.
Floodplain Interceptor - Floodplain interceptors will provide water on the floodplain with a
stabilized access point to flow back into the channel. The floodplain interceptors shall be placed
in low swale type areas on the floodplain where floodwater is expected to re-enter the stream
channel.
Matting and Planting - Matting, live staking, and vegetation planting will be utilized to stabilize
the project. Matting will provide immediate protection to the streambanks while the plantings
develop a root mass and aid in protecting against shear stress. Vegetation transplanting will not
' be used on the Site due to the lack of existing appropriate plant materials. The plantings will
develop into mature trees that will be capable of providing the stream with shade and wildlife
habitat. The streambed and point bars of the stream channel will not be matted or planted. The
' detailed planting plan is discussed in Section 4.2.

I!

1
33

[,I

G

0

SECTION 4
BUFFER RESTORATION
1

11

E

u

4.0 BUFFER RESTORATION
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The buffer along Marys Creek will be restored to a typical Piedmont mixed hardwood/floodplain
forest. The riparian buffers along the reference reaches were used to help guide in the
development of a planting plan. The dominant species from the canopy , understory, shrub,
and herbaceous layers of each buffer reference site were identified their landscape position
noted. The planting plan is a combination of these species in accordance with their position
along the streambank, within the floodplain, or the adjacent upland forest.
4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing riparian buffer along much of Marys Creek consists of pasture dominated by
fescue (Festuca spp.) and scattered red cedars and an occasional red maple or sweetgum. As
described earlier, much of the streambank is unstable and some of the larger trees along the
creek have fallen in. Only the middle portion of the project reach has much of a riparian forest
remaining, and it has been grazed and trampled by cattle.
4.3 BUFFER REFERENCE REACHES
Once the existing conditions of the site had been assessed, appropriate buffer reference
reaches were located. The stream reference reaches had suitable buffer communities that
could also be used as buffer references. Information was collected from these buffer reference
reaches as to the type of forest community and vegetation present. This information was used
as guidance for the planting plan. Exhibit 4.1.1 shows the buffer reference reaches.
4.3.1 UT to Cabin Branch
The riparian buffer consists of a well-developed Piedmont hardwood forest as defined by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). The canopy is dominated by mature yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), American beech, white oak (Quercus alba), green ash, red maple, sweetgum, and
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa). The understory consisted of the above species as well
as sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), flowering dogwood (Cornus f/orida), and ironwood
(Carpinus carolineana). The shrub layer contained tag alder (Alnus serrulata), silky dogwood
(Cornus amonum), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), and witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Herbaceous species included Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis), clearweed (Pilea
pumila), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and panic grass (Panicum sp.). This reference buffer
is good example of an upland riparian zone in the Central Piedmont. The degree of underlying
rock and other features of the reference reach are very similar to the riparian conditions at the
UTs to Marys Creek.
4.3.2 Landrum Creek
A typical Piedmont mixed hardwood forest comprises most of the riparian zone along this
reference reach. A fenced pasture is located 20 to 60 feet off the stream channel on the north
side. The forest on the south side has been partially cleared and has a dense herbaceous
coverage. Vegetation along the banks and bankfull benches of the stream are dominated by
clearweed (Pilea pumila), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
and Polygonum species (P. sagittatum, tearthumb, and P. persicaria). Cardinal flower (Lobelia
34

Exhibit 4.3.1 Buffer Reference Reaches

1

7
1

1

n
1

1 35
UT to Cabin Branch Buffer
Landrum Creek Buffer

1

1

cardinalis) and Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) were also observed. The forest
vegetation between the stream channel and the pasture on the north side consisted of the
following canopy trees: swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), chestnut oak (Quercus
prinus), willow oak (Quercus phellous), white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), American elm (Ulmus americans), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash, sweetgum, box elder (Acer negundo), pignut hickory
(Carya glabra), and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). The understory contained many of the
canopy species along with ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Cornus florida), and
redbud (Cercis canadensis). The shrub layer consists of scattered spicebush (Lindera benzoin),
buckeye (Aesculus pavia), and small thickets of multilora rose. The vines and sparse
herbaceous cover contained Christmas fern, (Polystichum acrostichoides), microstegium spp.,
poison ivy (Rhus radicans), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
The cleared forest area south of the stream channel is dominated by herbaceous species such
polygonum sp., microstegium sp., wingstem (Actinomeris alternifolia), large-flowered leaf cup
(Polymnia uvedalia), and various grasses such as bottle-brush grass (Hystrix patula).
The riparian forest on the north side of Landrum Creek is more of typical Piedmont floodplain
forest with somewhat "wetter" species than was found along the UT to Cabin Branch.
Therefore, the Landrum Creek buffer provides a good reference for the floodplain forest in the
planting plan.
4.4 PLANTING PLAN
The planting plan is divided into three zones. Zone 1 is along the streambanks and Zone 2 is
the floodplain. Zone 3 is the upland area outside the floodplain. Exhibit 4.2.1 shows the
planting plan as it will be implemented along the channel. Table 4.4.1 summarizes the
vegetation discussed in the following paragraphs. It should be noted that it may be necessary
to control fescue prior to or following the planting of the buffer.
Zone 1 consists of a mix of fast growing woody shrubs that will quickly stabilize the streambanks
and begin to provide some shade to the stream. These shrubs may include silky dogwood
(Cornus amonum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), Virginia willow (Itea virginica), silky willow (Salix
sericea), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
' Zone 2 will be planted with a mix of tree species that will provide future shading for the stream
as well as food, cover, and habitat for wildlife species. Zone 2 may include river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash, American sycamore, willow oak (Quercus phellos), and overcup oak
(Quercus lyrata). Zone 2 may also be enhanced by typical floodplain shrubs such as elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris),
inkberry (Ilex glabra), and male-berry (Lyonia ligustrina).

L'
Zone 3 will consist of disturbed upland areas outside the floodplain. Trees and shrubs that may
be planted in this zone include American elm (Ulmus americana), American holly (Ilex opaca),
white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), highbush
blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.), and beautyberry
(Callicarpa americana).
36

l

A

7

1
Table 4.4.1 Plantinq Plan Summary Table
ZONE1:STREAMBANK
SHRUBS TREES
Silky dogwood (Corpus amonum) ---
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) ---
Virginia willow (Itea virginica) ---
Silky willow (Salix sericea) ---
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) ---
ZONE 2: FLOODPLAIN FOREST
SHRUBS TREES
Elderberry (Sambucus Canadensis River birch (Betula nigra)
Red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Doghobble (Leucothoe axillaries American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Inkberry (Ilex glabra), Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Male-berry (Lyonia ligustrina) Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
ZONE 3: UPLAND FOREST
SHRUBS TREES
Winterberry (Ilex verticillata) American elm (Ulmus americana),
Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) American holly (Ilex opaca)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.)
[ White oak (Quercus alba)
Bea utybee ry (Callicarpa americans). Chestnut oak (Quercus prinus)
37

a,.. \
10
i
S
I
\ t
4
CD g
.. '1 3 \ .?,\:•???:? - r? "•-S t ".? ?, .elf
yy?
D
w
O O O
z z z
n r.F, m m m
cD w N)
C-) v CID O
X ri-
=3 =3 o 0
rF r+
m =3 -v r+ C T cn
? `Q z 0 o ? m
-0 0 ? o \
r+ T 5.
r+ D
i
z z
C')
PO A
p w m T
-s
.p , Cl) p
° CD <
CD m
Cl)

SECTION 5
MONITORING

1
1
1
1
5.0 MONITORING
5.1 STREAM CHANNEL
The stability of the stream channel will be monitored according to the current regulatory
guidelines.
39

1

7
u

SECTION 6
SUMMARY

' 6.0 SUMMARY
' The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has identified two Unnamed
Tributaries (UTs) to Marys Creek as potential stream restoration sites. The proposed site is at
the Dixon Property, located southeast of Saxapahaw, in Alamance County, North Carolina.
The main channel running through the property receives drainage from a second channel that
will also be restored. The completed length of the stream restoration will be 2,084 feet.
' Cattle have heavily impacted the proposed restoration reach. Due to numerous cattle
crossings, the banks of both UTs are severely eroded and unstable with little or no riparian
' buffer. Bank slumpage and sheared walls are evident along the reach. Bare soil is exposed in
many sections of the UTs and much of the natural substrate has been covered by sediment that
has been washed into the channels. The channels' riffle-to-pool sequences have been
eliminated, preventing energy dissipation and causing the banks to become undercut in many
areas. The riparian vegetation has been altered by the harvest of large hardwood trees and
from grazing cattle.
' The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has classified Marys Creek as a
"Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW)" and a "Class C" waterbody. The creek is also included on the
North Carolina 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies (NCDWQ, 2000). The water quality of the
' UTs has been severely affected by the presence of cattle within and around the streams. Urine
and manure odors were prevalent in the channels. Algal blooms were present at numerous
locations within the UTs.
' The proposed stream conditions are divided into three segments: upstream MC, downstream
MC, and SC, as based upon differences in drainage areas and topography. The downstream
segment experiences greater amounts of runoff, which influences design parameters. All of the
segments will be designed as a C4 stream type. A majority of this restoration plan consists of a
Priority 1 restoration (Rosgen, 1997), in which the channels meander across the floodplain.
The proposed channel will be slightly entrenched with a moderate width-to-depth ratio and
moderate sinuosity. The bankfull channel will have a meandering pattern on a well-developed
floodplain. A low flow channel is incorporated into the design to handle average daily flows.
' The bankfull channel is designed to handle larger flows. Flood flows will be able to access the
constructed floodplain. The completed design profile will detail a riffle, run, pool, and glide
sequence.
The proposed project provides an excellent opportunity for restoration of severely degraded
stream and buffer conditions. The goals of restoring the UTs to Marys Creek include improving
water quality and providing aquatic and terrestrial habitats through the stabilization of the UTs
and the creation of a riparian buffer. The following table summarizes acreages and footages for
the site.
i
COMPONENT BEFORE RESTORATION AFTER RESTORATION
Stream (feet) 2,103 2,084
Riparian Buffer (acres) NA 5.5
40

7-j

1
1

SECTION 7
REFERENCES

7.0 REFERENCES
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen
and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
' Harrelson, Cheryl, C.L. Rawlins and John Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. General Technical Report RM-245.
Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils List for North Carolina.
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/hydric/nc.html.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2000. North Carolina 2000 303(d) List. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, David L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs Colorado.
Rosgen, Dave. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.
Wildland Hydrology. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes
and Disturbed by Channel Incision.

1
r.
Rosgen, Dave. 2001. The Reference Reach: A Blueprint for Natural Channel Design.
Proceedings of the Wetlands and Restoration Conference.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997. HEC-RAS River Analysis System,
Version 2.0. USACE, Hydrologic Engineering Center. Davis, CA.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County,
North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Revised. Water Resources Investigations
Report 01-4207. Raleigh, NC.
41
APPENDIX A
MAIN CHANNEL SURVEY DATA
FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
1

r'

J

UT to Marys Creek (Upstream) Longitudinal Profile Data
Basin: Cape Fear Channel Slope: 0.257444%
Reach: Marys Creek (Upstream) Stream Length: 322.4 ft
Observers: RKW, KMM, SNR, RVS Valley Length: 284 ft
Channel Type: C4 Sinousity: 1.14
Drainage Area (sq mi): 1.24 Meander Length: 212 ft
Belt Width: 35 ft
Radius of Curvature: 15.225 ft

Elevation Top o Top of
Elevation Water Elevation Bank Bank
Station Streambed surface Bankfull (RT) (LT) Terrace
2.0 93.15 93.49 96.88
8.1 92.90
14.8 93.04 93.54
22.8 93.00 93.54
33.1 93.15 93.54
43.5 93.37 93.58
52.5 93.06 93.55
61.6 93.17 93.57
76.8 93.32 93.56 96.93
87.7 93.35 93.55
91.6 93.50 93.58
97.0 93.40 93.53
106.1 92.90 93.54
112.0 93.33 93.53
124.0 93.92
130.0 93.58 95.96
132.7 93.17
136.4 93.17
140.0 93.45
145.5 93.55
151.5 93.52
156.4 92.93 95.72 96.99 98.72
162.2 92.70
166.8 92.79
167.0 93.09
172.6 93.12
176.2 93.07
177.8 92.72
182.2 92.68
187.3 92.44
190.2 92.55
197.0 92.81
200.3 92.92
207.0 92.75 95.19 97.57 96.27
211.0 92.41 92.65
214.5 92.04 92.68
218.9 92.46 92.66
225.1 92.13 92.64
228.5 92.21 92.63
232.9 92.51 92.65
244.9 92.79
249.9 92.15 92.65
256.3 92.28 92.61
259.2 92.76
260.0 92.95
262.1 92.84 95.08 96.43
269.5 92.78
274.3
279.3
289.0 92.52 94.67
294.1 92.36 92.26
296.3 91.47 92.26
301.0 91.63 92.25
306.7 91.50 94.24 95.95
310.9 91.52 92.25
313.5 92.03
316.3 92.20 92.27
319.0 92.29
321.0 92.53
324.4 92.1 92.4
11

1

1

UT to Marys Creek (Upstream) - Cross Section Data
Basin: Cape Fear
Reach: Marys Creek (Upstream)
Observers: RKW, KMM, SNR, RVS
Channel Type: C4
Drainage Areas mi : 1.24
Riffle
UT to Marys Creek
Elevation Elevation
Station Streambed Bankfull
0.9 96.46 93.80 Bankfull Area 22.7 sq.ft
7.0 96.11 Bankfull Width 15.7 ft
11.6 95.31 Max depth 2.1 ft
12.2 94.65 Mean depth 1.4 ft
14.2 94.04 Width/Depth Ratio 10.9
14.6 93.78 Flood Prone Width 47.0 ft
15.1 93.60 Entrenchment Ratio 3.0
15.3 93.15
16.6 92.88
17.3 92.56
18.7 92.30
19.6 92.08
20.6 91.95
22.7 91.89
23.8 91.74
24.3 91.69
25.8 91.69
27.0 92.02
27.4 92.23
28.0 92.18
28.1 92.51
28.4 92.52
28.6 92.86
29.0 93.27
29.2 93.41
30.3 93.80
32.3 94.06
43.0 94.03
44.0 94.18
48.7 95.35
55.8 95.56
Pool
UT to Marys Creek
Elevation Elevation
Station Streambed Bankfull
7.6 95.45 93.37 Bankfull Area 33.3 sq.ft
15.5 94.78 Bankfull Width 19.2 ft
16.7 91.69 Max depth 2.7 ft
17.8 91.30 Mean depth 1.7 ft
20.0 90.80
22.9 90.65
25.5 90.82
27.3 91.33
28.8 91.24
29.8 92.66
32.4 92.82
35.2 93.37
39.4 94.89
51.0 95.42
67.8 94.93

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
d
LO
a
J
k
W
E
m
i
w
C.
Y
d
V
R
I ,I I p I
?+ ? a
i
LO
M
O
M O
N
O
U
4
m
m
L ~
N
w
Y
C
co
m
o
N d
v Y
v m
? O
w n
N_
0
d +
C
C
L ?
U
O
O
r
O
U)
O
1 4'
0) W 0) m 0) 0) 0) 0)
(4081) u01;Bna13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c
O
r
v
d
U)
N
N
O
U
m
m
L
V!
Q
Y
d
U
CR
G
0

0
0
ca
LO
d
d
°v d
V
C
w
G
ea
r+
CD O
M O
0
2
0
N
O
O
co LD O)M O M Cl) O) 04 M O)
(1aa=1) U014en013
c
O
V
d
CO)
N
N
O
U
O
O
IL
L
N
CL
Y
d
d
U
cc
2
r
F-
0
0
m
Lc)
d
d
LL.
°v d
V
C
'c
M =
N
0
2
0
N
O
O
0) W ON7
(;aazi) u01.1ena13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e ee 9 e e e e e e 00 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
O 0 wm N
U r-84co LO I�r I JOuld W8318d
----------------
------ I ----------- ----------- I ------------------------------
11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----------------------------
10
-------------------------------------------------------------
------------------- --- -----------------------------------
----- ----- -------- ----------- --------
---- ----- --- - -----------------------
------ -----------
----- ----- ----- -----------------------------------------
---- ----- ----- ----------------------------- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- -----------------------------------------
----- ----- ----- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
CD
... ..................
----------- ----- ----- ----------------- --- ------------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- f ------------
•
----- ----- --- •-- -------------
. 0 c
----------- -- a)
--- ----- ----- i — ----- ------- * -------- 2
o (D
----- ----- ----- ----- -------------- ::A- --:::: ----- ---- 0-
::::: ::::: ----- ----- ----------------- ---- (D
----- ----- - - ::::: .?:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ------ cu
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- -------- ---- 75
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -------------------- E
m
----- ----- ----- ----------- ----------------------
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------------- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------------- -----
I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------------- -----
I I I I 1 11
----- ----- ----- -- --------- C-
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------
E
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ a)
---- - --- ----- ----- - ---- ------------------ N
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----------------
-
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------------
IL
O
.-0 -1 -0 -.0 -0 0-0 0-0 -OR 104Z -0 R
O0)oCO r- oc>C)(D LO "T CO aOCDCDC*4 OO
Ue4.L JGUI:J WOOJOd

UT to Marys Creek (Downstream) Longitudinal Profile Data
Basin: Cape Fear Channel Slope: 0.572634 %
Reach: Marys Creek (Downstream) Stream Length: 412 ft
Observers: RKW, KMM, SNR, RVS Valley Length: 400 ft
Channel Type: F4 Sinousity: 1.03
Drainage Area (sq mi): 1.27 Meander Length: 333 ft
Belt Width: 105 ft
Radius of Curvature: 0 ft

Elevation Top of Elevation
Elevation Water Elevation Bank Elevation Water Elevation Top of
Station Streambed surface Bankfull (RT) Station Streambed surface Bankfull Bank (RT)
2.0 92.08 93.41 3481 91.7 91.7
6.0 92.02 93.41 96.41 355.8 91.7 91.7
10.2 92.17 93.42 359.0 91.4 91.5
13.6 91.98 93.43 362.7 91.1 91.5
22.2 91.94 93.44 368.0 90.8 91.5
26.3 91.98 93.47 372.3 90.7 91.5
31.9 91.70 93.42 378.8 90.8 91.5
38.5 91.86 93.40 96.64 386.3 91.0 91.5
49.0 91.79 93.42 394.0 91.2 91.6
55.5 91.86 93.40 400.0 91.2 91.5
64.0 92.14 93.42 408.0 91.2 91.5
73.2 92.51 93.43 95.61 414.0 91.4 91.5
78.9 92.99 93.42
82.2 93.25 93.43
88.7 93.30 93.33
94.7 93.07 93.32
100.9 93.03 93.32
104.7 93.11 93.32
108.9 93.09 93.31
111.0 93.09 93.30
116.2 93.02 93.32
124.6 93.07 93.33
128.0 93.10 93.32
131.1 93.08 93.32 95.23
132.9 93.09 93.31
139.0 93.09 93.30
147.0 93.02 93.33 95.00
148.9 93.02 93.32
152.8 92.87 93.31
157.4 92.80 93.32
160.4 93.11 93.32
163.9 92.98 93.30
170.0 92.90 93.23
174.9 92.74 93.24
177.7 92.79 93.23
182.7 92.70 93.24
187.4 93.20 93.22 94.76
192.5 92.00 93.01
194.9 92.15 93.00
198.0 91.86 93.00
204.4 92.21 93.01
210.5 92.22 93.02
216.0 92.14 92.99 94.32
223.0 92.60 93.01
229.8 92.82 93.01
235.4 92.93 92.96
241.5 92.09 92.71
246.1 92.34 92.71
251.2 92.34 92.71 93.95
257.7 92.55 92.67
265.7 92.43 92.53
270.8 92.32 92.56
275.7 91.71 92.53
279.0 91.42 92.52
281.6 91.72 92.52
288.0 92.32 92.54
294.0 92.35 92.53
298.8 91.90 92.33
303.0 91.54 91.99
310.6 91.45 91.97
317.0 91.55 91.99
329.6 91.52 91.72
340.2 91.44 91.72

UT to Marys Creek (Downstream) Cross Section Data
Basin: Cape Fear
Reach: Marys Creek (Downstream)
Observers: RKW, KMM, SNR, RVS
Channel Type: F4
Drainaqe Area (so mi) 1.27
Riffle
UT to Marys Creek
Elevation Elevation
Station Streambe Bankfull
1.0 99.24 94.63 Bankfull Area 24.1 sq.
4.8 97.79 Bankfull Width 34.5 ft
6.6 94.49 Max depth 1.0 ft
10.1 94.63 Mean depth 0.7 ft
14.2 94.13 Width/Depth Ratio 49.5
16.1 93.82 Flood Prone Width 36.5 ft
17.2 93.71 Entrenchment Ratio 1.1
19.5 93.68
21.8 93.70
24.9 93.76
28.2 93.75
31.3 93.70
33.5 93.67
35.0 93.72
37.9 93.81
39.3 93.85
40.9 94.56
43.8 96.00
48.7 96.46
53.0 96.30
61.0 96.54
71.4 97.05
87.3 98.15
Pool
UT to Marys Creek
Elevation Elevation
Station Streambe Bankfull
1.8 99.24 94.35 Bankfull Area 59.6 sq.ft
4.0 97.69 Bankfull Width 27.6 ft
6.2 96.99 Max depth 2.7 ft
8.1 96.08 Mean depth 2.2 ft
10.2 95.35
13.8 94.35
15.6 93.90
16.6 92.30
17.5 92.15
19.6 91.62
22.0 91.75
24.0 92.10
26.4 91.88
28.3 91.82
31.3 91.92
31.9 91.81
34.1 92.08
35.2 91.96
38.4 92.11
40.2 92.35
41.6 94.75
45.9 95.28
50.6 95.74
57.0 95.68
67.0 95.39
82.0 95.28
90.5 95.57
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

CD
A
?a
c
:a
3
C
O
J
!0
H
C
3
O
0
m
m
U
O
r
H

I; I I _ I I
r

0
0
0
v
c
O
U
N
cn
C N
M W
O
U
4
w
0
O Y
M ?
m
•
Y
w C
CD IL m
N p
W CL
C H
r
0 +
d
0
N
U ?
m
0
a?
m
a?
c
c
m
L
U
00
0
M
0
00 h (0 LO ? M N O
m O O O O O O O O
(40GJ) U014BA013
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
O
N
N
O
L
V
d
R
E
N
L
N
C
O
Y
d
d
L
V
CR
G
0
0
0
O
0
r
d
d
COG v
d
c
?a
w
o N
C
O
?o N
.O
2
M
O
N
O
O
O M O m m m c2 c) O
(106j) UOl;eA013
0
N
N
O
L
V
O
O
a
L
N
C
O
G
Y
d
d
V
C?
G
O
0
O
-co
O
r
d
c
L N
-
w
CD O
v N
L
O
0
C7
O
N
O
O
O rn rn 00 rn rn rn a) rn CD fP
(100:1) uOIJBAeJ3

' -

----
-----
----- -----
----
-- -
---- -----
-----
-----
°--- -----
-'-
-----
---- ----
---'-
-----
'---
----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-?--
-----
----
---- 41
-----
----40

---
----
---
-----
------
-- -
- -
-- -
- --
----
----
----
----
-- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
---
---- ---
-----
-----
-----
-----

-----
-----
----
----
-----

-----
-----
-----

-----

-----
------
-----
-----
------

-----
----
----
--
----
W

?
--
-----
-----
-----
-
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- - ---
- ---
- ----
-- --
--- -

- )"
-----
--- -

-----
-----
----
- --- -----
-

----
--- -
--- - ------
------

------
------
------ -----
-----

-----
-----
----- -----
------

------
-----
----- ----
----

-----

--- -
------
------

----
------

---- -----
-----
---
---
-----
-----

----- ----

-----
-----
------
----
------
------ --

--
--

--
-- -
-----

---

-----

----- -

-----
----
-----
----

---- ---
-----
----
-----
---
- -

--- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----

- -- --

-----
-----
-----
---?
-----
-----

---
--
-----
-----
-----
*--it

-----
----
----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---
--
----
---
--- ----
----
----
----
----

-----
-----
----

-----
-----
-----
------
-----
-----
----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
------
------
----
------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
- ---
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o-I
w
C
7
O
V
N
.Q
d
IL
E
R
d
r
N
C
O
D
Y
d
V
to
O
r
F-
m
°
o p
° O
o a..
°o
o ?
c
c?
N
o ? y
o E
m CO)
CL L
0) ?
M
O Y
:3 d
CD j
U U
R
O
H
0
E
E
U)
U)
?
U_
C
a
0
O ? a°D ? t°O ? d°' M N O O
UEU JaUN IUaaJad
----
-----
------
----- ------
-----
------
----- ------
-----
------
---- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----40
-----
----40
--
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
------
-----
-----
-----

-----
----
----
-----

-----

-----
---

-----

------
----

------ ------

--
------

------ ------

--------

------

------
---

-----
-----

-------
---- ----

--------
-----

------ ------

-?-

------ -----

__-
-----
--- -

_--
-----
-
-----
40
------
-----
-----
-----
----- ------
------
------
------
------ -----
--
------
------
------

-----
-----
-----

----
-----
-----

----
-----

----
-----

----
------
------

------
---
----

------
-----
----
------
-----

----- -----
-----
-----

-----
------
-----

-----
-----
-----

-----
-----
-----

-----
-----
-----

----- -----
-----
-----

----- ------
-----
-----

----- --- -
----
----
11
---- -------
-----
-----
40
-----
-----

-----
----- -----

------
------ -----

------
------ -----

------
------
---
------
------
------
------
------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
E
C
U
N
d
C
U
N
N
co
7
E
U
O
O
O
o E
N
N
0)
75
r-
_ f0
O d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O M 0000 1- COO M M N O O
Ue41 JOUIJ;UGDJGd

0

APPENDIX 6
NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
0

i
C

0

7

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: UT to Marys Creek (Main Channel) River Basin: Cape Fear County: Alamance
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Marys Creek Latitude: 35 54 54.75
Date: 9/10/02 USGS QUAD: Saxapahaw Longitude: 79 20 12.16
Evaluator: RVS
Signature:
Location/Directions: Dixon Property - East of Lindley Mill Road off of Dixon Lamb Rd (short private drive), and
approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Saxapahaw.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not. be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
' (*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0 *)
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O
' PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 16
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
' Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 2
' III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I
' 3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3

1

PRIMARYBIOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS: 6
1. Geomornholosy Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
' II. Hydrolo2y Absent Weak Moderate Stronn
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? 15
1
.5
0
' 2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 .5 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5

' 4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5
Last Known Rain (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) 1 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0
Conditions Or In Growing Season)? .5 1 1.5
6 Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 75
III. Biolou Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strom
' 1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
3 Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 11, 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
' 8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SA 17 Present*). Mostly FACW
.75 Mostly FAC
.5 Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
0 0
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 3
' TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= 37.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At
Least Intermittent)

I1

0

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: UT to Marys Creek (Secondary Channel) River Basin: Cape Fear County: Alamance Evaluator: RVS
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Marys Creek Latitude: 35 54 54.75 Signature:
Date: 9/10/02 USGS QUAD: Saxapahaw Longitude: 79 20 12.16
Location/Directions: Dixon Property - East of Lindley Mill Road off of Dixon Lamb Rd (short private drive), and
approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Saxapahaw.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
(*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O
' PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 14
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
' Flow/Discharge Present? 0 '1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 1
Absent Weak
III. Biology Moderate Strong
^ T M1
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMAR Y BIOL OG Y INDICA TOR POINTS: 4

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
' I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1'c
3) Does Topography Indicate A
' Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 l`5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3

1

1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
' II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? 15 1 .5 0

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
' Last Known Rain? I-NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=L5 No=O
SECONDAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 7
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
' 2 Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Are AguaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0 5 1 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*). SAV Mostly OBL
2 1 Mostly FACW
.75 Mostly FAC
.5 Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
0 0

' SECONDAR Y BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 25
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= 31.5
Least Intermittent)
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At

11

i

1

1

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: UT to Cabin Branch River Basin: Neuse County: Durham Evaluator: PBC
Reference Reach
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Cabin Branch Latitude: 36°6' Signature:
Date: 8/6/02 USGS QUAD: NW Durham Longitude: 78°53'
Location/Directions: End of (SR 2625) Earl Road in Durham
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0
1
2
3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0
1
2
3
6) Is The Channel Braided? Q 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3'
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1
(*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*) 2
10) Is A 2°d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On TODD Man And/Or In Field) Present?
Yes=3
No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 19
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2
HL Riolouv Absent Weak Moderate Strom

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
PRIMARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 5' 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 L,5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural DIainaee Wav? 0 .5 1 15
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 15

II. Hvdrolosy Absent Weak Moderate Strops
' 1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? 1:5 1 .5 0
m Are WraCK Lmes Fresentf U J 1 1:J
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=U
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 5.5

Weak Moderate

TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) =:L2.-25 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent)
1

8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 `' .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SA VPresent*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 4.25
I NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
' Project Name: Landrum Creek River Basin: Cape Fear County: Chatham Evaluator: PBC
Reference Reach
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Landrum Creek Latitude: 35°43' Signature:
' Date: 9/30/02 USGS QUAD: Siler City NE Longitude: 79°21'
Location/Direction: Pleasant Hill Church Rd.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
' I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0
1
2
3'
' 3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3

' 5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0
1
2
3
6) Is The Channel Braided? a 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
' 9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1
(*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused ByDitchinvAnd WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*) 2 151
10) Is A 2°d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On TODD Man And/Or In Field) Present?
Yes=3
No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 22

H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: i
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:

PRIMARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 7
' II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1' .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris Present? 0 5 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 L.5
Last Known Rain (*NOTE.- If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above &p This Step And #5 Below*)
' 5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 7
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strona

1-11
L1
SECONDAR YBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary= 42 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent)

11

8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).

n

F
APPENDIX C
SURVEY DATA FOR THE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
TO CABIN BRANCH
I

0

u

0

1

11

Unnamed Tributary to Cabin Branch Longitudinal Profile Data
Basin: Neuse Channel Slope: 1.49 %
Reach: LIT to Cabin Branch Stream Length: 397 ft
Observers: KMM, PBC , JRR, SNR Valley Length: 330 ft
Channel Type: C3 Sinousity: 1.20
Drainage Area (sq mi): 1.26 Meander Length: 52 ft
Belt Width: 80 ft
Radius of Curvature: 15.2 ft

Elevation Top of Top of Elevation Top of
Elevation Water Elevation Bank Bank Elevation Water Elevation Top of Bank
Station Streambed surface Bankfull (RT) (LT) Terrace Station Streambed surface Bankfull Bank (RT) (LT) Terrace
4.0 93.94 180.6 91.1
7.0 93.46 187.7 91.1
9.5 93.36 192.4 91.0
10.5 93.15 94.32 94.84 95.33 197.0 90.9
11.0 93.19 93.25 200.0 90.8 90.8
13.0 93.03 93.23 203.9 91.0 92.6 94.1
14.0 93.08 93.23 207.1 91.1
17.0 92.87 93.27 208.7 90.9
19.8 92.85 93.24 94.76 95.60 210.2 90.9
23.0 92.56 93.26 214.2 90.7
24.9 92.48 93.26 221.0 90.6
27.5 92.57 93.27 226.0 90.5 91.4 93.7
29.4 92.44 93.25 237.7 90.3
31.4 92.57 93.25 241.0 89.8 90.1
33.0 92.78 93.25 94.29 95.49 243.4 90.0
35.2 93.07 93.23 247.0 89.9 90.1
38.0 93.01 93.22 249.6 89.7 90.1
39.6 93.04 93.25 251.0 90.0 90.1
42.5 92.90 93.24 255.2 90.0
44.4 93.03 93.25 258.7 89.8 90.0
47.0 93.24 263.6 90.0
49.4 93.30 268.1 90.1
52.5 92.90 271.2 89.8 91.3 92.8
56.0 92.62 92.67 277.0 89.9
58.7 92.57 92.58 282.4 89.8 91.3 92.5
60.6 92.38 92.48 289.2 89.7
64.4 92.27 92.49 296.8 89.4
67.4 92.39 92.47 93.92 94.80 304.0 89.3
70.4 92.37 92.52 308.0 89.1
73.7 92.31 92.46 313.0 89.0 89.0
79.3 92.36 92.47 319.0 89.5 92.3 90.7 91.6
82.7 92.36 92.47 320.7 89.3
87.3 92.51 326.0 89.2
92.8 92.66 332.0 89.1
98.6 92.31 337.8 89.0
104.0 91.99 343.3 89.1
108.4 91.86 349.0 89.0
113.5 91.75 91.85 353.0 89.1
118.6 91.58 91.59 359.2 89.1
125.5 91.53 94.41 94.05 364.0 88.9
130.4 91.71 367.1 88.9
136.0 91.71 370.8 88.8
140.8 91.31 91.45 373.4 88.8
144.1 91.28 91.42 374.6 88.6
147.0 91.21 91.41 93.22 94.05 376.3 88.5
149.5 91.40 91.41 378.0 88.4
153.6 91.46 380.0 88.1
155.5 91.71 383.6 87.8 88.3
158.6 91.15 385.4 87.8 88.4
160.4 90.81 90.94 386.7 87.7
162.8 90.67 90.93 388.0 87.7
164.6 90.49 90.91 390.0 87.7 88.3
167.4 90.69 90.93 397.0 88.4
171.0 90.79 90.93
175.3 90.85 90.91
179.4 91.03 93.47 94.06

C

11

1

I1'
1

1
Unnamed Tributary to Cabin Branch - Cross Section Data
Basin: Neuse
Reach: UT to Cabin Branch
Observers: KMM, PBC, JRR, SNR
Channel Type: C3
Drainage Areas mi : 1.26

Riffle
Elevation Elevation
Station Streambed Bankfull
1.6 96.00 93.83
3.0 95.86
5.0 95.63
6.5 95.51 Bankfull Area 21.4 sq.ft
8.5 95.21 Bankfull Width 14.3 ft
9.9 95.15 Max depth 2.2 ft
15.5 94.79 Mean depth 1.5 ft
16.8 94.65 Width/Depth Ratio 10
17.7 93.83 Flood Prone Width 47.0 ft
18.6 93.23 Entrenchment Ratio 3.3
19.3 92.97
19.8 92.63
20.3 92.38
20.7 91.99
22.3 91.94
23.5 91.78
24.1 91.64
25.9 91.76
28.4 91.77
29.0 91.87
29.3 92.81
30.5 93.22
Pool
Elevation Elevation
Station Streambed Bankfull
2.0 95.30 93.62
3.8 95.06 Bankfull Area 27.2 sq.ft
5.0 94.93 Bankfull Width 14.7 ft
6.5 94.97 Max depth 2.5 ft
8.6 95.08 Mean depth 1.8 ft
10.0 94.34
11.0 93.92
12.6 92.11
14.0 91.45
16.0 91.11
17.0 91.26
19.0 91.26
20.5 91.37
21.5 91.40
22.0 91.51
23.2 91.76
24.0 92.29
26.0 93.62
28.0 94.08
30.0 94.37
32.0 94.47
11
1
d
4=
O
L.
C
V
3
C1
c
O
J
L
V
C
R
M
S
R
U
w
H

i i
ix

? I a

0
0
Y
O C
M m
O
m
f3
N
J
C.
O
co
0
LO
N
w
d
V
C
O rM„
N Q
d
C
C
m
L
U
0
O
O
O
LO
C
O
U
0
U
d
a?
U
N
O
H
X
w
Y
C
f6
m
i
Uri
ca
CD
m
C
C
ca
L
U
0
rn rn rn Cl m rn m OD 000 000
(;aa=1) UOl;ena13

V
N
LO
t
V
L
m
Z
V
O
H
D
0
,It
LO
M
O
Cl)
c
V

N d

"
Y
u N
N

V
I O
L
O
N AA

0

? O
a
r
o
N W
m
ll =
L
m
LO r
T
?
c?
V
O

o
LO
0
rn rn rn rn M m rn
(;aa=1) UOIIBA013
0
?t
LO
M
O
co

N 4)
LL
d
V
N N
C
O
N
Lo O
2
0
LO
0
rn m m rn rn M M
(}aa=1) UOl;ena13
Y
C
f0
m
I
C
O
N
N
W
N
co
t
°o

--
---

---
--- --
---
----
----

--- --
---
----

---
--- --
----
----

---
--- ---
----
----

----
---- ---
---
-
---
---
--- ---
---

---
---
--- --

---
---
---

--
---
---

--
---
---40 °
--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- ----
0
0

---
___ ----
----- ----
----- ----
----- ----
----- ----
---- ---
___ -----
___ ----
___ ---
___
O

-- -- --- --- --- ----- ---- -- a
- -- -- -- ---- --- -- --- -- l

? o 5E
W+ O w
-'- --- --- -- -- --- --- --' ---- ---
-- --- --- --- '- --- --- -

p --
---
---
--
- ' -- - a
_
--
-- --- --- ----
--- --- --- ---- ---
w L

---
---
---
---- -
---
----
--
a p m

v
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
----
__ - -
-
----
--
---
-
- --
c
--- --- --- --- ---- --- --- -- -- ? c
a
---- --- --- ---- ---- ---- --- - -- L
m m
-- - --- ---- ---- -- - - c
---- --- --- ---- ---- ---- --- -- - - ---
•?
U
? --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- - - -? a? to
?a a V

c o

___ ___ ___ __ _
--- --- --- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --

----
----
-- --
---
---
---
--- -
----
---- ---
----
---- ----
----
---- ---
---
--- ---
---
--- ---
---
--- - --
--
--

T
0
E
E
--- --- --- -------- --- --- --
--- --- --- -------- --- --- --- --- ---
d
C
co
o a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
O W W r- Co LO R co N O O
Ueyl JOUld IUawad
------
------ ------
------ -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ------
------
-----
-----
-----

-----
----- ------
------
------

------
------ -----
--- -
-----

-----
----- -----
-- -
-----

-----
----- -----
------
------

------
------ ------
------
------

------
--- - -----
-----
-----

-----
----- -----
-----
-----

-----
----- -----
-----
-----

-----
----- -----
-----
-----
, 0
-----
------

-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----- ----

-----
----- - ---

-----
----- -------

--
------ -

-----

-----

-----

------
- ---
------
------

------
-- ---
------
------

--
-----
-----
-----

----
-----
-----

----
-----
-----

----
-----
------

-----
-----
-----
-----

---
-----
-----
-----

------
-- ---
---
-----

----
------
------
-----
-----
-----
----- ------
------
------ -----
-----
----- -----
--
----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- ----

-----
I I
-----
-----
-----

----- ------
------
------
-
------ -----
-----
-----
-- --
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ------
------
---
------
------ ------
------
---
------
------ -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ------
-----
------
------
------ -----
------
------
------
------
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
E
N
c
O U
O y
r a
?
C
U
N
O d
>
co
m
E
U
r
o E
N
N
CU
U
N
r ?
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O ? GOD ? COO ? ? M N O O
UOU JGUid ;UGDJGd

d

11

1

APPENDIX D
SURVEY DATA FOR LANDRUM CREEK

i
7

I

1

Landrum Creek Longitudinal Profile
Basin: Cape Fear Channel Slope: 0.77%
Reach: Landrum Creek Stream Length: 369 ft
Observers: KMM, PBC, AJT JRR Valley Length: 330 ft
Channel Type: C4 Sinousity: 1.12
Drainage Area (sq mi): 2.53 Meander Length: NA ft
Belt Width: 77 ft
Radius of Curvature: 12 ft

Elevation Elevation Elevation Top of Elevation Elevation Water Elevation Top of
Station Streambed Water surface Bankfull Bank Station Streambed surface Bankfull Bank
25.5 95.16 95.28 196 93.75 93.92
29 94.85 95.30 200 93.46 93.94
32 94.83 95.29 96.64 97.56 204.4 93.68 93.93 95.27
35.5 94.98 95.30 207.6 93.80
38.5 94.75 95.30 214 93.57 93.84
41 94.78 95.29 96.46 97.18 216 93.50
44 94.93 95.34 226 93.15 93.48
48 94.93 95.30 234.4 92.51 93.51
50 94.72 95.30 240 92.53 93.48
56 95.08 95.14 243 93.01 93.49
62.5 94.95 95.10 249 93.20 93.50
67 94.91 95.07 257 93.25 93.47 95.16
76 94.61 94.68 96.72 271 93.14 93.31
85 94.37 94.61 279 93.04 93.17 94.55
86.2 94.22 94.60 286 92.66 92.95
91.5 94.06 94.61 292 92.57 92.97
107 93.97 94.61 300 92.46 92.94
117.7 94.05 94.60 313 92.25 92.96
124.6 93.98 94.60 321 91.83
128 94.07 94.58 326 91.66 92.96
133.3 94.38 94.60 95.52 96.36 331 92.02 93.00
141 94.38 94.53 336 92.25 92.94
170.5 93.87 94.18 343 92.33
178.3 94.13 94.32 348 92.03 92.95
185 93.85 94.01 351 92.04 92.96
190 93.76 93.95 357 92.40 92.94
192.3 93.66 93.94 362 92.60 92.92
195 93.70 93.94 95.34 363 92.64 92.95
369 92.78 92.93

Landrum Creek Cross-Sectional Data
Basin: Cape Fear
Reach: Landrum Creek
Observers: KMM, PBC, AJT JRR
Channel Type: C4
Drainage Area (sq mi): 2.53
Riffle
Elevation
Station
Streambed
Bankfull Area
33.5
sq.ft
1 99.02 Bankfull Width 27.6 ft
3.7 98.61 Max depth 2.0 ft
8.5 98.24 Mean depth 1.2 ft
12 97.93 Width/Depth Ratio 22.8
15 97.75 Flood Prone Width 140.0 It
18 97.51 Entrenchment Ratio 5.1
19.5 97.64
20.8 97.28
21.8 96.55
22.8 96.18
23.5 95.58
24 95.17
26 95.07
27.3 94.95
29.5 94.89
31.2 94.86
33.4 94.8
36.5 94.61
37.4 94.51
39 94.53
40.7 94.77
41.6 96.03
42.5 96.38
44.3 96.45
45.6 96.31
47 95.99
49 96.34
52 97.78
59 97.8
76 97.9
140 98.59
Pool
Elevation
Station Streambed
2 95.98
7 95.69
15 95.26
21 94.89 Bankfull Area 37.9 sq.ft
23.3 94.66 Bankfull Width 27.4 ft
24.2 92.48 Max depth 2.8 ft
25.2 91.43 Mean depth 1.4 ft
27 90.8
29 90.56
31.5 90.46
33 90.59
35 90.84
36 91.26
38.5 91.5
40.2 92.54
42 92.87
46 93.17
50 93.08
55 93.76
60 94.17
65 94.2
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
d
O
a
A
C
V
C
J
t
V
d
Q'
V
C
d
w
Y
U
E
L
V
C
!C
J

,

,

1
1 ,

i 1

LO
M
LO
M
N
M
00 O
M U
O)
co
y
O
LO U
N
4
0
LO
N
LO
N
N
d
d
N V
C
w
L O
ti d
C
C
t6
t
V
O
0
N
r
N
O m
O y
? C
C
f6
L
U
LO
O
LO
to
N
i -I I I i F O
OD f- CD LO Cl) N
m O O O O O O O
(100:1) UOIJBn813
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c
O
V
N
N
to
N
0
d
Y
m
L
7
L
V
J
O
r
0
co
0
O
O
LL
D
ea
co O
O
¦¦
O
N
O
0
(100:1) U014BA013
Y
C
co
m
I
c
0
W
N
m
c
V
d
co
N
N
O
V
O
O
CL
Y
L
ca
J
0
0
CO
0
LO
d
d
C) d
V
c
D
r
M ?
N
O

0
N
O
r
0
(1aa=1) UOl}en013
c
(4
m
II,
c
0
a?
W
m
m

O
d
CL
Y
d
L
V
L
C
m
J
0
0
-----
---- -----A 0
----------
---------
°o
O
1a
I
?I
lam:
fly
c
m
L
a
C
a?
L
a
a?
7
E
U
0
E
E
---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- m
N
----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----------
---------- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- - ----- v
C
aL
0
0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 o O
O 001 000 ? (OD U) OV M 04 O O
Ueyl JODU IUaaJad
d
C.
E
N
L
m
Y
m
L
V
G
L
C
e?
J
------
------ -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ------
------ ------
------ ------
------ ------
------ -----
----- -----
-----

-----
----
-----
- -
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
------ ---
------
------
------
------
------ ------
------
------
------
------
------ ------
------
------
------
------
------ -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
------ ------
------
-----
-----
------
----
---
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
- --
-----
-----

------

----- ------ ------

- ------

------
------ ---

------

------
------

------ ------

------ ------

------ -----
--
------ ------
------
------ ------
------
------ ------
------
------ ---- -

------ ------ ------
------
------
----- ------
------
------ ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
-----
-----
-----
-----
0
0
0
0
0
°o
E
U
L
a
c
U
L
a)
a
W
C5
G
7
yU
T
o E
E
---- - a)
---- ---- ----- ------------------------ ----- ----- --- N
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- CO
-----
N
------ ----- ----- ------------------------ ----- ----- R
m
?a
0
M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O M MM ? M M ? M N O O
Uey.L JGUI J }UGDJad
G

I

APPENDIX E
HEC-RAS DATA
n
= r r= m == w= w= w
r
d
0o
??, l 235
a?
\ 4:
i
TC 2
\ rl `\ t
? N
;? SB
F? O -A,' y
CD _
5
N a
= D
m
C••) Q, C
D
Cl) 0
C') CD r+
'5 Cl m O
0
Cl) o N cn
x , +
cn c
=3 o o
r-F =
Cn -v r-F
CD -3 F-'• ERs
r- O O O v u ?oo
rF
-a =3
(Da
y a
o r 3 -a Cn
-< ^~^``
C-) 0
Or
0
rF O? CD m
o ~ CD ?S
O ?
O O

F
APPENDIX D
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS

STATION
STORM
DISCHARGE
(cfs) EXISTING
WATER SURFACE

ELEVATION ft PROPOSED
WATER SURFACE

ELEVATION ft
BACKWATER
(ft)
Downstream Main Channel
600 Bankfull 112.3 494.93 494.93 0
600 100 r 1049 499.17 499.17 0
800 Bankfull 112.3 495.53 495.53 0
800 100 r 1049 499.77 499.77 0
1000 Bankfull 112.3 496.19 496.34 0.15
1000 100 r 1049 500.38 500.36 -0.02
1231 Bankfull 112.3 498.42 498.84 0.42
1231 100 r 1049 502.15 502.13 -0.02
1429 Bankfull 112.3 500.53 500.5 -0.03
1429 100 r 1049 503.8 503.71 -0.09
1689 Bankfull 112.3 501.63 501.58 -0.05
1689 100 r 1049 505.84 505.19 -0.65
1869 Bankfull 112.3 502.63 502.78 0.15
1869 100 r 1049 506.11 505.97 -0.14
2045 Bankfull 112.3 504.25 504.35 0.1
2045 100 r 1049 507.31 507.25 -0.06
2224 Bankfull 112.3 504.94 505.1 0.16
2224 100 r 1049 509.04 508.91 -0.13
U stream Main Channel
2345 Bankfull 80.6 505.18 505.52 0.34
2345 100 r 826 509.03 509.01 -0.02
2456 Bankfull 80.6 505.7 505.9 0.2
2456 100 r 826 509.9 509.9 0
2689 Bankfull 80.6 507.37 506.85 -0.52
2689 100 r 826 510.03 510.02 -0.01
Seconda Channel
60 Bankfull 36.9 505.26 505.59 0.33
60 100 r 470 509.52 509.5 -0.02
170 Bankfull 36.9 505.84 505.81 -0.03
170 100 r 470 509.63 509.59 -0.04

APPENDIX F
STRUCTURES USED FOR NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN

1

ROCK CROSS VANE
NOTES: SCALE:NTS
1. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONE.
2. GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED
BY FITTING BOULDERS TOGETHER, PLUGGING
WITH STRUCTURE STONE CLASS A AND NO.57
AND LINING WITH FILTER FABRIC.
3. DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES MAYBE ADJUSTED TO
FIT BY THE ENGINEER.
4. A DOUBLE FOOTER BOULDER SHALL BE UTILIZED
IN SAND BED MATERIAL.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM
SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF
SEDIMENT THROUGH BOULDER GAPS. FILTER FABRIC
SHALL EXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER
BOULDER TO THE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION AND
SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF STRUCTURE.
1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED
BANKFULL WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH
FILTER
2(
BACKFIL
NO.57
TOP OF I
1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED
BANKFULL WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH
TOP OF STONE SHALL BE SET A MINIMUM OF 0.5 FT.
ABOVE BANKFULL ELEVATION AS SHOWN ON X-SECT.
NO GAPS
BETWEEN
BANKFULL STONES
ELEVATION
ii
i / ------------ -'?7--- -----?---- --- /
TOP OF CENTER 1/3 STONES
SET AT ELEVATION SHOWN /
ON LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
STREAMBED
ELEV.
FOOTER STONES
WILL BE PLACED INTO
THE EXISTING SUBSTRATE
CROSS SECTION A MINIMUM OF THE ROCK
DIAMETER

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ROCK VANE
SCALE: NTS
NOTES:
1. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONE.
2. GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED
BY FITTING BOULDERS TOGETHER, PLUGGING
WITH STRUCTURE STONE CLASS A AND NO.57
AND LINING WITH FILTER FABRIC.
3. DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES MAYBE ADJUSTED TO
FIT BY THE ENGINEER.
4. A DOUBLE FOOTER BOULDER SHALL BE UTILIZED
IN SAND BED MATERIAL.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM
SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF
SEDIMENT THROUGH BOULDER GAPS. FILTER FABRIC
SHALL EXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER
BOULDER TO THE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION AND
SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF STRUCTURE.
SLOPE OF VANE FROM CENTERLINE
TO TOP OF BANK SHALL BE 2-7%
TOP OF BANK EDGE OF WATER
/ f
/
1/3 TO Lj! WIDTH OF
PROPOSED CHANNNEL
/
BACKFILL WITH 20°-30°
NO.57 STONE /
VANE BOULDERS /
FILTER FABRIC /
/
ROCK SILL /
P
SCOUR TOP OF BANK
FOOTER BOULDERS C POOL I
EDGE OF WATER
PLAN VIEW
STREAMBANK
Yi K BANKFULL ELEVATION
---- ------- -?- ------------------------------
FILTER t _
FABRIC
FOOTER BOULDERS--`
WILL BE PLACED INTO
THE EXISTING SUBTRATE
A MINIMUM OF THE BOULDER
STREAMBED
ELEVATION
SECTION A-A

7

0

Q ~ LL } H
¢Q¢ QMz F-w¢mm"
w o W¢LLN¢ZO Qa=)NrccA I
H-C -J2W JWOW 0UlA=)7 LL
O '
OQQJF-OOJpNU • ^JWCAF- O Z
OW>Q QWMQ F--Q ZZ Cl) CA OCAO W N
LLQQSLL WOLLw Q...i oo aNw MF- ¢
JUCAOxQYx>LLNNQO OO Q:)U m
Z
WOX JU w F- F- ww W WON QF- ; / O O
SOW ^Z¢dQ wJWQQF-Nx Jw SS2 ZU J
F-m m00 mSWm»QF-F-"m F-Nm¢Q7 W mM
ZSNLLW F- WW O CAQQW S J MF-
F-=<DW MO OJJJZwwww CL I--z F- W i I QQ
QW =NCA F- ^W JWWOmW M OOCA W>
SQ •F->ZJ ?+ I-Y F-¢ON J ¢W
F-QQZ ¢O J¢W xJOF-JQZJ WZLLJ LL J F-J
W W O OWNQOZWWJWQ J ZQJCA SWF- QO ? i ( I CAW
¢xNMG.CA2NZS m>QN p F>J W > ;
Z O
Q W F-JD"WW<F-YLLWSJ 1O WN2W Y
= Z
> ZWQ=)CA> d2 ZYW JOAN •Cqx Z¢LL F-J F- J
Z3:>¢ OCA UWQZSW Jm F- 00.. WZ m I
Y F-WQW¢¢OL >mQF- WWWOW
J O . LL Z I
O =CLWOW0 M J¢ xWSp OOWOWW
O LL W}F- OF-xmW 2JLLI Z WF-CL OJ
2 QO S JJ F-Qx000pQ QC7 U Q?Q
W xQ:)Z F-Z¢LLJ20>Z QW 02W
SWUQF-NOOLLF- QLLY=F-Z N J¢ F- C7¢
U-Q Nom Owz ZO OYO a0¢O N I 1
U. ONLLW3:w O 000wQm}0Uw F- wmOF-
0 w ¢z LL¢W¢n Wam Q¢ow won wz
LL:DNCACAwUW 0 23Q¢v? m7 J wSW
Z ZOW. F-QF-O¢J JOW ¢Z2 CA
O N -WWOJZwwlwF-F-<OLLF- JF-OF-NW /
N MOZQWOCLWUO O ZOZ JCAm 22 0a? / z
F- C70WOJCALL UQJF-J ^OSN Q M-+- ' ¢
' y
:)M MUM co JO LL C.) Lzu SW20LL O
J ON O ¢ W CLOW J Q W Z 7¢Z CA Z C9¢ O '
J ZWF-m •WS mS2000AWW9 Q7LLWW ' H
Q WN2j¢CAQF-W F-W>Z >M¢ U>O SU ' op \ W
H MM F- WWZJ m¢ QZNww ?-+ 2OF-Q Q
CA F-UWoOZ wzww NOUR OCw2Z J <
Z -J<= ZNONJOW¢S¢ m=F-W OCL 'cp p
N J F-F-SNCAm JQWWF-WY;3O QF- F- F- ?N /
lOQW6. C7Z A0 p pZOZ LL F-x W ¢ W
Z W Y Z W¢ J LL Q Q J Q LL Z W¢ m '^
CAQZUF- OWMWWOOWmLLW ¢OW W 0 V!
WO "Co Wm0 S xY W xJOJ
SCAmm F-OQZCAS mQ W<F-¢ F-WNJ _j _j Fj
U¢ QZ WW¢F-Y Q 2W * JOOQOQ O? m
zwQQwW¢x¢w Q¢w F-¢C7 NNwxox ' I
WOW Cn QW F-Qw W=dP F-ZO LLwWVJ mCA
¢J,=mV F 2 -j -i L? hOCA Nd ' HmW
F-O¢F- CAOF-WONJQW F- 1=2 '
O m N W W O N S O S Q WS ar Z LL O W ¢OyH
Qmm3m¢LL3F-m3xxF-NNOQF- z /
Q J OJ OQ Z O
M
a 0 I- =
w V) m
¢ ¢ m x H
F
LLI U) w w Z
Z ONx2
Q LL 3 F-Q
W
Z
z \ F 2
?
Y w
a U.
O
O "
F J
LL
Y.
Z
Q
m
a
w z
¢w
Q O ¢
F'?I a -1 ¢ o 3-0
LLl O
O
o
z W
,
C-) D
3 I L'U^ l CL ?
Om w cr cc
ILU-
3LL
?I r -s I I O ?o W
(/?) L U O O Y Q1
U) LL -JZ
m O b \ m2 CL
l \ \ ? m
U \ N
j L N
L
1 ?y
J I mo I
J \Il N J
Y w> y
Z J
M CC in W m 2 F- w
W N Z J
M W J 300 H
co QJ O J O fA
FQL O M N t` y
M ¢ YN U
CC 1 2 O m Z ¢
N Q O
LL W LL
S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
00
aZ OJw QF-
15 J UQj
W
01P, °
~¢
Ja
.8z °¢
.5 °y
irz

W
\ O' M, N Z \ ¢20

m NF- ` \ pp
a?Se 02m12-
0L=

O
toW

R \ 307

1-?1?i

c
W _ Q
Q
W
mW p

J
ZC'3 Q !-
LL Q
OZ F sss °O-w W
H H 0 1 O o. ~
0
QV ¢Q . 1 m00? LL
J z J CWC

-Jul
zy I
Q °
F-F- ° ¢2

cl) F- (D
Z i? Rw
H / Q J LL C]
i
coo = az
S

LU=
°
02
W m00 Z
uj z w
W :E CL LU
mFQQ" wa
NW 3
Fp fDW I,
m o >

Z LL O
ao0 O O
0
V
¢
z O 2 ° J2 H m

LL
3 1-
O F ¢c
of-o
C
0' J
zw co LL O

w <.i

w
m
m
0 mj3
Q Zw o°CLLWO O H
m
?W cc w°Q(~o
U
1¢-HWJ
. QmQF- oOw
i! no 7 z
H
1 LL
o LU

Q W WF- QzVmm
3N
O W O
W
pmF WWWWWZ
OO H

Z
~J¢N
0Y rQg W2m
C W
¢ Q3WW 77aoo
za¢(( CO
° z O
O o waic ?(
m(
m
}}LL¢0

zo_
ONO Q
p
Q
p
Ii J1°-ZhC7WQ

U

N U m H•
w a
wm V) Z
w
m3Q Ua (na
g
oo

a
o;zww
wc¢ GJ
Qzw
i
.?
? xx
3cc<0> vwi Q3F OS` 30> CO
(
c J
W
O F-Hrzi
w
3
m
C Q,
0 m WOF-
CC (/) N Z \ 000
¢SF- ?j
7
O=W rx
m2
~
afW
QU mw
W O
LL
DO O
rN
m°F-yN /
to

Y 3 \` 15 N

z

tT E
z W
H < m LL S?g
\ s r 0
m
w ?
` N
H? NIx
- \
\
?¢
ZZ gs
?w m m
az
3a
mcj) 1 J a ZN
0H I C, ? W
Zo s? CC 0cr CL p W
OZ ? , ap
L 3
?
I 1-? w
F-H <i / Cp mm ?, o >
ZO ¢
JQ I ?~ LL o

? H J
Q Z w
Y JO O m
ZO o °C JQ Y> °m U,
O
Hcc ( w
3m o Q? ¢w
mW O
NW z ED
z0
rx a 0
a H
OO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
w c7 Z
Z w
co
LLJ
F-
z \ z
U W W J LL
W CJ O Z
O H
WJ I dW \\ O 00 O
O U. I ax Z \\ w G C7
am i a? \\ Z \ M
\ H
I \/ z z
\i a \\?
<
z C13
O z \\, w
z \\/\ z
W U- z Li O
U cr) \? O LU H
?i o (-
W U Z U
W
?? I \ W W
Z z Cn cr. Cn
H w I 30 \ z z
-j _j Z I `L <
H CO w Q \\
a
?
0
o z Z
o \\?
W ' \i
P
W
P H
a
J
CL
.1 t 9 ~ ,~4,~ f~,'.,3d~if"~ fSfM~~w
€ia~"3,
0
~ ~ t ~ he
~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ l ~ I
~ l:. . ~ ~ / I
t ~
~ I ~ i \ ~ \ ~
~ ~ I ~ ~
t
~ _ A ~ ww~ 1 ~ \
1 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ I \ ~ 4, _ ~ "e \ ~ y.
1 1 \ y \ °v~ /
^t
\ _ ~ 1 ~ 1
I g El ~ ~ 1
~ ~ ~ y Ji
~ ~
~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ i _ ~ 11
r- --__._•_r - - _ _ I ~
~
,,mow - ~ ~
r ~ . _ ~ =r~ ~ ~
a ~ i-si'- ~ / ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , y~ y, ~ . _ ~ 1
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ i v . A ~ ~ / ~f ~ ~ r ' = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~ ~ I
~ / /
~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ' , ~ ~
~l ~ \ i-~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L ` ~ ~ . 2 ~ ~ _ i~
~ , /
~ ~ r /
/ \ ~ /
~ / /
l ~ „r ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~
mac.`: ~ / _ ~ ~ \ ~ ~
I ; / V r~r
~ f / ~ ~ ,y-- _
1 / ~ ~.ti:
r` ~ ~ { ~
i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
i~ it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~t ~ I ~ A I
~ I ~
~ ~ I~ i ~ / ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ LEGEND
r ~ ~ i ~ ~ , i ~ ~ i i
ii ~ ~ ~ / 1 ~ ) ~ i ~ 3
~ ~ / , / / ~ ROCK CROSS-VANE i ~ I
O' i / / / ~ / / ~ ~ ~ I z
_ 1 / ~ ~ ROCK VANE - ~ t
~ / ~ ~ ~
\ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J-HOOK VANE / I
~
_ ~ / ~ i l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ROOTWAD / ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ i / ~ - ® CHANNEL PLUG i l
i ~
~ r r'~ ) i ~ i
' / ~ ` j STREAM CROSSING
i ~ / i
_ / ~ ~ / ~ of ~ / / I
l ~ i ~ l ~ ~ a s ~
~ iff ~ / ~r
/ e ~ ~ ~ ~

/ i
r,, ~ i \ _
d _ - - / ~ , ~
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
rf I i ` ~ ~ `
/ /i
~ ~ f ~
i v~~ 1 I ( ~ ( l
~1 I 1 r
_ ~ I ~ ~ r m
, ~ ~ -~...~.i \ l
~4:..
u
s
rr r