20160372 Ver 2_Mitigation Plans_20180529

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 5/29/2018 3:06:07 PM (Message Start Event)
Approve by Montalvo, Sheri A 5/30/2018 12:01:22 PM (Initial Review- Sheri Montalvo)
• The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A 5/29/2018 3:06 PM

D# * 20160372
Version* 2
Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal - 5/29/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands PF Buffer I— Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a a yes a No
New Site? *
Project Contact Information
Company/Owner:* KCI Associates, Inc
Contact Name:* Tim Morris
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................
Project Name:* Stony Fork
Project Type:* r DMS
f Mitigation Bank
County:* Johnston
Document Information
File Upload: StonyFork_97085_FDMP_2018.pdf 33.57MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:

MITIGATION PLAN 
Stony Fork Restoration Site 
Johnston County, North Carolina  
DMS Project Number 97085 
DMS Contract 6830
SAW-2016-00875
DWR #2016-0372
Neuse River Basin 
Cataloging Unit 03020201 
Prepared for: 
NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
1652 Mail Service Center  
Raleigh, NC 27699  
April 24, 2018 
Prepared by: 
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC 
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400 
Raleigh, NC 27609 
(919) 783‐9214
KCI Project Staff: Tim Morris, Alex French, Adam Spiller, Joe Sullivan, and Kristin Knight‐Meng 
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:  
Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through
(c)(14).
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In‐Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
NCAC Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015, for riparian buffer mitigation.
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation. 

Date:                   April 24, 2018 

To:    Lindsay Crocker, Project Manager 
DMS Review Team Members: Periann Russell and Greg Melia 

From:  Tim Morris, Project Manager 
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. 

Subject:  Stony Fork Restoration Site 
    Draft Mitigation Plan Review  
Neuse River Basin ‐ 03020201 
Johnston County, North Carolina 
Contract No. #6830 
DMS Project #97085 

Dear Ms. Crocker,  
Please see below our responses to your comments received January 12, 2018 on the draft of the Stony 
Fork Mitigation Plan. We have addressed your comments in the final report and have outlined our changes 
below. In addition, there are further changes we needed to make that are described after the DMS 
comments. We are including 3 hard copies of the final report along with a CD with a PDF of the plan and 
this letter.  
1. This Mitigation Plan is 82 SMU and 76,088 BMU under contract amounts.  Ensure that these 
amounts are correct as the future payments will be reduced accordingly (see notes below on 
new IRT policies). 
We have revised the final mitigation units to 6,682 SMUs and 482,608 BMUs. The stream credits 
are reduced from the proposal stage due to land title issues associated with the Critcher Farms 
subdivision at the bottom of the site and removal of a portion of T2 that was not jurisdictional. 
We also removed the additional stream credits calculated from extra buffer widths after Jeff 
Jurek indicated they would not be approved for this site. The BMUs were reduced due to the 
limitation on preservation credits that we didn’t originally take into account.  

2. Page 3, last sentence of first paragraph‐ this sentence is not clear.  Please revise to make more 
sense. 
We were trying to relay that problem areas throughout this CU outweigh assets in the most 
recent document. We have reworded it to say:  “The CU’s problem areas scored higher than the 
assets (98 compared to 36), indicating there is more disturbed land than intact resources 
(NCDENR, EEP 2015).” 

3. Page 8. Will the ponds above T2 be removed as part of the residential development? If so, do 
you know what stormwater BMPs will be installed with the development? 
No, the ponds will remain and be used as part of the residential development stormwater system. 
During the residential construction, additional sediment traps will be used to capture sediment.  

A note has been added about the ponds at the bottom of Section 3.1.2.  

4. Page 13, last paragraph, please add that DWR also provided a stream determination and the 
date. 
We added this note about the stream determination from July 8, 2016. 

5. Page 14, Table 3. The T1 and T2 drainage areas are very small, especially for a coastal plain  stream 
(even though it is western coastal plan).  Both streams may currently be intermittent due  to their 
depth, so are you sure you can maintain at least intermittent flow following restoration?  The DWR 
stream scores are very low and if the ‘strong” bed and bank indicators are the result of  mechanical 
straightening and cleaning, that strong indicator is misleading. 
The project streams were initially evaluated during a drier period, when all but a portion of the project 
streams were classified as intermittent. We believe these streams will have sufficient hydrology for 
intermittent status.  

6. Section 6‐ general comment: something is going on with your numbering in this section, it 
moves from 6.1‐6.7 and then goes backwards.  Check and update in text and table of contents. 
This has been corrected. 

7. Section 6.7, provide a discussion or clarification of why you chose the on‐site and nearby 
reference locations‐ are these cross sections reference quality for the stream design?  The 
selection of these four cross sections needs to be better justified. 
Yes, these reference cross‐sections exhibited stable bankfull indicators in the field that were used 
to determine bankfull area and discharge values. The design cross‐sections were developed using 
these values, but the exact shapes of the sections were dictated by other typical Piedmont and 
Coastal Plain reference values like those found in Harman et al 2011. A more detailed explanation 
has been added to this section.  

8. Section 6.7 Figure 8‐ provide a legend to label the red and blue regression lines.  It appears that 
these are only 3 cross sections on the red (reference sites).  Is the fourth included? 
Yes, References Cross‐Sections 2 and 3 have similar drainage areas, so they appear as one data point. 
We added a sentence explaining this in the first paragraph of this section.  

9. Table 8, SF1 sinuosity is showing 1.3 in pre‐condition, but I recall that area is very straightened. 
Double check this is correct. 
This value is correct. While the majority of the reach is channelized, there is a section in the middle 
that has unstable bends with high sinuosity that affects the overall average for the reach.  

10. Page 25, Section 6.5 Sediment. Please state clearly the intent for the sediment regime for the 
constructed channel. Since this project lies in the coastal plain, sand and/or sand bed channels 
are expected. Currently, these channels are receiving fine sediment, likely predominately sand, 
because of bank erosion, where the banks are dominantly sand (is this correct?). If the channel 

substrate is composed of silt and clay (as stated in the first paragraph), and excess shear is 
preventing deposition of the courser fraction of sediment (sand and small gravel), will your 
design and design discharge provide for sediment input, transport and deposition? 
Yes, we believe the channel will develop a stable sediment regime once the on‐site bank erosion is 
stabilized. The size of sediment input is not expected to change, but the quantity is expected to be 
less following restoration. The stable cross‐section will also be able to accommodate more sediment 
deposition on the floodplain. Some seeding is expected in the project riffles, but to ensure that riffle 
degradation does not occur in the period immediately following restoration, we will be adding the 
larger material to protect the riffle beds. 

11. Page 25. Reference to pebble counts and tables in section 12 – Were pebble counts used for 
determination of sediment > 2mm? How did you measure a sediment size of 0.091, 0.2, 0.39? 
Yes, pebble counts were the main source of sediment sampling. Sand is measured using a sand 
gauge card, which allows the user to calibrate their determination of sand size with provided size 
samples on the card (very coarse 1‐ 2 mm, coarse 0.5‐1 mm, medium 0.25‐0.5 mm, fine 0.125‐0.25 
mm, and very fine sand 0.0625‐0.125 mm, and silt less than 0.0625).  

12. Page 26, table 7.  All the predicted grain size movement values (in the proposed sections) are 
much greater the D84 values.  Is this intentional and if so, please explain how this condition will 
not result in total bed scour during effective discharges (based on the proposed D50 and D84 
values). 
  Given the small sediment sizes in this system, there is a discrepancy between the D84 and the predicted 
grain size movement in the restored channel. This is a frequent occurrence with projects of similar 
sediment regimes. To accommodate for this condition, the riffles will be stabilized with material large 
enough to withstand channel stresses. This means that sediment transport will occur as the natural 
sediment washes in to seed these riffles and is then transporte d through the system. As this occurs, both 
the riffle bed features and the transport of fine sediment through the system will be maintained as the 
project matures.  

13. Page 26.  The explanation of need for ‘riffle reinforcement’ suggests that all sediment sizes less 
than the grade control material will be moved at all effective discharges as well as .5 to 1 year 
frequency discharges.  Does this mean the constructed channel bed will be composed of silt and 
clay, retaining little to sand or gravel?  This section is not clear and the discussion is not consistent 
with the data you have provided. 
We do expect a large portion of the sand and gravel material inputs from upstream to be mobilized 
during stream events. However, over time this material should accumulate within the gaps of the 
larger riffle grade control material.  

14. P. 26, text indicates that all riffles are rock.  Will you incorporate wood here? 
We have added in wood into our detail for the riffles. The use of wood will be balanced against the 
expected flow duration in each location, since embedded wood is prone to rotting if it experiences 
frequent wet/dry cycles.  

15. P. 31, DMS recommends limiting black willow, or more heavily relying on other lives stakes as it 
tends to become dominant in a system and could clog channel. 
We are proposing a mixture of species including two willows and one dogwood. In addition, we 
strategically place live stakes such that they will not overwhelm the channel (eg minimal to no live 
stakes on inner meander bends). 

16. P. 35, 8.0, text states monitoring UT West Branch…do you mean this to say Stony Fork? 
Yes, this has been corrected.  

17. P. 36 top paragraph‐ must have year 4 monitoring for vegetation to receive riparian buffer credit 
(required Monitoring in years 1‐5).  Also need to update last sentence on page 37 and Table 20 
(Vegetation Monitoring frequency) to reflect this update.  Might want to add a separate section  for 
Riparian Buffer monitoring to clarify? 
We have added that Year 4 monitoring will take place for riparian buffer mitigation. 

18. Page 37, Table 20 – Believe it is intended to be 0.02 acres for vegetation; also add visual 
assessment parameter to include the occurrence of bank erosion, beaver, etc. 
This has been corrected to state 0.02 acre plot. Also, we added in Year 4 for vegetation monitoring 
as well as the visual assessment.  

19. Please provide a brief narrative in the document that describes what changes occurred from the 
Technical Proposal IRT site visit and the Mitigation Plan stages.  Specifically, describe the  additional 
jurisdictional stream features added (T3). There appears to be a loss of stream in the  upper section 
of tributary T2 from the mitigation plan (in addition to the eastern section of the  project area).  Can 
you provide a brief description of why those areas were dropped to insert in  the mitigation plan? 
Please also provide description of if buffers were widened from the  Technical proposal stage and 
justify use of this methodology, if applicable.  Of relevance, KCI was  encouraged to increase the 
buffer  in  some  areas  if  possible during  the  IRT  post‐contract  review;  consider  including  in 
justification. 
We have added the following to Section 6.11, Project Assets. “The total stream mitigation credits 
(SMCs) are slightly different than those outlined in the initial proposal. SMCs were removed at the 
bottom of the site due to land title issues associated with the Critcher Farms subdivision. The upper 
portion of T2 was eliminated from the project, since it was not a jurisdictional stream, but an additional 
tributary, Tributary 3, was added to the project once it was determined it was jurisdictional. The buffer 
mitigation  credits  (BMCs)  were  reduced  from  the  contracted  amount  due  to  the  limitation  on 
preservation credits once the final restoration, enhancement, and preservation BMCs were tabulated.” 
Plan Sheets: 
 Sheet 7 of 15: what is the future right of way depicted here? 
This refers to the subdivision road that will be constructed through here to support a proposed 
development. The first phase will be on the northern side of Stony Fork, which will be built soon. 
The second phase will be on the southern side of Stony Fork and will be constructed at a later 
date to be determined.  

 Plan Sheet Legend. Please clarify why ‘riffle enhancement’ is being used in a newly constructed 
stream. 
We have found that riffle enhancements are necessary in many newly constructed streams with 
fine‐grained material to prevent bed degradation shortly after construction. Many new riffles are 
not seeded quickly enough with incoming sediment to protect them from the stresses experienced 
from large flow events. Over time, natural sediment (sand and fine gravels) will fill in the void 
space in the enhancement rock.  
 Please justify the need for step‐pool features adjacent to enhance riffle features. 
The step pools are used to both provide a stable grade transition in steeper sections and to 

create pool habitat.  
 Please justify the need for size and frequency of rock/boulder structures. 
These structures are needed to provide additional stability wit hin the channel, generally in sections 
where the site conditions dictate a steeper slope or where further bed or bank protection is needed. 
We will incorporate as much wood as we can, although as mentioned above, we will be selective 
where we place it, since wood can be prone to rotting if it experiences frequent wet/dry cycles 
(such as in an intermittent channel). 

Additional Changes by KCI 
Since the draft mitigation plan submittal, several items in the mitigation plan were changed based on 
developments in the project.  
‐ We removed the extra credit calculations based on stream buffer widths beyond 50’ following 
feedback from Jeff Jurek and revised the total credit to 6,682 SMCs.  
‐ NCDOT unexpectedly installed a new culvert under Federal Road at the beginning of the project. 
As a result, we recently resurveyed this area and adjusted the profile slightly in the first reach 
(SF1) to 0.9% slope from 1.0% slope. The new culvert also starts further back than the prior one, 
so the stationing was adjusted to 9+93 instead of 10+00 for the beginning of the project.  
‐ We also adjusted the riparian buffer mitigation amounts. KCI performed additional GPS 
mapping on‐site following privet removal to determine the boundaries of buffer restoration 
versus enhancement on T2‐2. I met Katie Merritt from NCDWR for a field visit at the site to 
confirm these boundaries on 3/29/2018, and they issued a letter on 4/16/2018 confirming the 
revised buffer calls.  

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.  

Sincerely, 

Tim Morris 
Project Manager 

Draft Mitigation Plan    Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018        DMS Project Number 97085 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0  PROJECT INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 
2.0  WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION .......................................................................... 3 
3.0  BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 6 
3.1   Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions ........................................................................ 6 
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 6 
3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover and Chronology of Impacts ................................................................ 8 
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response ............................................................................... 12 
3.1.4 Site Photographs ................................................................................................................. 17 
4.0  FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL .............................................................................................. 20 
5.0  MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................... 21 
6.0  DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN................................................................. 22 
6.1   Stony Fork (SF) .......................................................................................................................... 22 
6.2   Tributary 1 (T1) ......................................................................................................................... 22 
6.3   Tributary 2 (T2) ......................................................................................................................... 22 
6.4   Tributary 3 (T3) ......................................................................................................................... 23 
6.5   Riparian Buffer Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 23 
6.6   Crossings ................................................................................................................................... 23 
6.7   Design Discharge Determination .............................................................................................. 24 
6.8  Sediment ................................................................................................................................... 25 
6.9   Morphological Essential Parameters Tables ............................................................................. 27 
6.10  Planting ..................................................................................................................................... 30 
6.11  Project Assets ........................................................................................................................... 31 
7.0  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 35 
8.0  MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................................................. 35 
9.0  ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................... 39 
10.0  LONG‐TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................... 39 
11.0  REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 40 
12.0  APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 43 
12.1  Plan Sheets................................................................................................................................ 45 
12.2  Data Analysis/Supplemental Information and Maps................................................................ 63 
12.3  Buffer Mitigation .................................................................................................................... 113 
12.4  Site Protection Instrument ..................................................................................................... 131 
12.5  Credit Release Schedule ......................................................................................................... 135 
12.6  Financial Assurance ................................................................................................................ 139 
12.7  DWR Stream Identification Forms .......................................................................................... 143 
12.8  Approved Jurisdictional Determination .................................................................................. 153 
12.9  Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form ......................................................................... 161 

Draft Mitigation Plan             Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                         DMS Project Number 97085
ii 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 2 
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Maps ........................................................................................................ 4 
Figure 3. Project Site / LWP Watershed Map ............................................................................................... 5 
Figure 4. Soil Survey Map .............................................................................................................................. 7 
Figure 5. Land Use/Land Cover Map ............................................................................................................. 9 
Figure 6A. Historic Aerials ........................................................................................................................... 10 
Figure 6B. Historic Aerials ........................................................................................................................... 11 
Figure 7. Current Conditions Plan View Map .............................................................................................. 16 
Figure 8. Local Regional Curve for Stony Fork ............................................................................................ 24 
Figure 9. Project Asset Map ........................................................................................................................ 34 
Figure 10. Proposed Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................................... 38 

TABLES 

Table 1. Credit Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 
Table 2. Existing Stream Bank Height and Entrenchment Ratios ............................................................... 12 
Table 3. Project Attribute Table .................................................................................................................. 14 
Table 4. Project Goals, Objectives, and Functional Outcomes ................................................................... 21 
Table 5. Local Regional Curve Data ............................................................................................................. 24 
Table 6. Local XS Flow Compared to USGS Regression for North Carolina................................................. 25 
Table 7. Sediment Summary for Project Reaches ....................................................................................... 26 
Table 8. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF1 ................................................................................ 27 
Table 9. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF2 ................................................................................ 27 
Table 10. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF3 .............................................................................. 28 
Table 11. Morphological Essential Parameters for T1 ................................................................................ 28 
Table 12. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2‐1 ............................................................................. 29 
Table 13. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2‐2 ............................................................................. 29 
Table 14. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2‐3 ............................................................................. 30 
Table 15. Morphological Essential Parameters for T3 ................................................................................ 30 
Table 16. Project Asset Table ...................................................................................................................... 32 
Table 17. Length and Summations by Mitigation Category ........................................................................ 33 
Table 18. Overall Assets Summary .............................................................................................................. 33 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
1 

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION 

The Stony Fork Restoration Site (SFRS) is a full‐delivery stream and riparian buffer mitigation project being 
developed for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in the Neuse River Basin (03020201 
8‐digit cataloging unit) in Johnston County, North Carolina. The site’s natural hydrologic regime has been 
substantially modified through the relocation and straightening of the existing stream channels and 
clearing of riparian buffer. This site offers the chance to restore impacted agricultural lands to a stable 
stream ecosystem with a functional riparian buffer and floodplain access. 

The SFRS is situated in southwestern Johnston County. SFRS is located approximately 5.5 miles north of 
Benson,  NC  in  Johnston  County.  Specifically,  the  site  is  0.2  mile  west  on  Elevation  Road  from  its 
intersection with Federal Road (SR‐1331). The center of the site is at approximately 35°26'55.0"N and 
78°31'18.5"W in the Benson USGS Quadrangle. The site location is shown in Figure 1. 

The SFRS will restore a stable stream ecosystem along Stony Fork and five of its tributaries (T1, T1A, T1B, 
T2, and T3) with a combination of stream restoration and enhancement with primarily a Priority 1 
approach to reconnect the streams with an active floodplain. Riparian buffer restoration, enhancement, 
and preservation under the Neuse Buffer Rule (NCAC Rule 15A NCAC 02B .029) will also take place at the 
site. Invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and kudzu will be both physically cleared and chemically 
treated from the project site as part of the stream and buffer mitigation. Once site grading is complete, 
the riparian buffer will be planted with native tree species. The site will be monitored for seven years or 
until the success criteria are met. 
Table 1. Credit Summary 
Stony Fork Restoration Site, Johnston County 
DMS Contract 6830; DMS Project Number 97085 
Mitigation Credits 
 Stream Riparian 
Wetland 
Non‐
riparian 
Wetland 
Buffer 
Nitrogen 
Nutrient 
Offset 
Phosphorous 
Nutrient 
Offset 
Type  R  RE  R  RE  R  RE  R  RE   
Linear 
Feet/Acres 6,501 lf  405 lf  452,362 sf  537,208 sf   
Credits  6,501  181  427,635  54,973   
TOTAL CREDITS  6,682    482,608   
R=Restoration  RE=Restoration Equivalent        

o
o
o
ooo
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
oooo o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ooo o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
ooo
o
o
o
oooo o
o
o oo
o
ooo
o
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oooo o
o
oo
o
oo
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
oooooooo ooo oooooo oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o
oo o
o o
oo
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
ooo
o
oo o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o o
oo
o
o
ooo
o
oooo
o
o
o
o
oo
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o ooo
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ÊÚ
§¨¦40
§¨¦95
50
27
242
242
£¤301
BENSON
B l a c k Creek
ÊÚ
WAKE
JOHNSTON
WAYNE
NASH
SAMPSON
HARNETT
WILSON
ÊÚ Project Site Location
County Boundary
Major Roads
Minor Roads o Airports (none within a 5-mi radius)
Major Rivers and Streams
Cities and Towns Elevation RdFederal RdÜ 0 10.5 Miles
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
2

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
3 

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION 
The SFRS is located within the Upper Neuse River Basin (03020201), where population growth and rapid 
development have produced a significant need for restoration projects. DMS updated the priorities for 
the Neuse 01 cataloging unit (CU) in 2015 due to extensive mitigation needs and changes in watershed 
conditions since the 2010 report. The project 14‐digit CU is included as a targeted local watershed (TLW), 
which  faces  challenges  such  as  a  high  percentage  of  agricultural  land/animal  operations,  disturbed 
riparian buffer, and increasing impervious surface from development. The amount of problems identified 
were scored higher than the amount of assets available in the most recent 14‐digit CU ranking (NCDENR, 
EEP 2015). 

The Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities are maintaining and enhancing water quality, restoring 
hydrology, and improving fish and wildlife habitat (NCEEP, 2010). The project will support the following 
basin priorities: 
‐ Managing stormwater runoff 
‐ Improving/restoring riparian buffers 
‐ Reducing sediment loading 
‐ Improving stream stability 

The project watershed for the SFRS is comprised of 0.79 square mile (497 acres). The project aims to 
uphold the goals consistent with several CU‐wide watershed improvement objectives by restoring stream 
hydraulics,  improving/restoring  riparian  buffers,  improving  stream  stability  and  reducing  sediment 
loading (NCDENR, EEP 2010). Stony Fork (27‐52‐6‐2) has been rated by Division of Water Resources (DWR) 
as Class C, Nutrient Sensitive Waters, and is not on the 2016 303(d) list. However, Hannah Creek (27‐52‐
6a), 4.2 miles downstream of the site, is listed as impaired for dissolved oxygen. There are no other DMS 
mitigation projects currently located in the 03020201150010 watershed cataloging unit. The project 
watershed is shown in a map in Figure 2, and another map illustrating the project’s watershed location in 
relation to the 03020201150010 watershed identified in the TLW is shown in Figure 3. 

There are no conservation or protected areas located adjacent to the project site, but it will connect with 
the forested buffer immediately adjacent to the project and improve and restore the existing forested 
buffer on the site itself. The site is approximately 4.5 miles upstream of the Hannah Creek Swamp Natural 
Heritage Area. 

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Ü 0 2,0001,000 Feet
FIGURE 2. PROJECT WATERSHED, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Proposed StreamsProposed EasementProject Watershed (497 ac)Source: USGS DRG,Benson Quad (1973).
4
HU03020201150010
HU03030006020010
HU03020201130030
HU03020201150030
HU03020201150020
HU03020201130020
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, OrdnanceSurvey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Ü 0 21Miles
FIGURE 3. PROJECT SITE/LWP WATERSHED, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Proposed Easement Project Watershed (497 ac) 14-digit HUC Boundaries HUC
03020201150010 (TLW)
5

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
6 

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 

3.1   Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions 

3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics 
The site lies within the Rolling Coastal Plain (Level IV 65m) ecoregion of the Southeastern Plains. The 
Rolling Coastal Plain is mostly irregular plains with broad interstream areas and a mosaic of cropland, 
pasture, woodland, and forest. While the natural vegetation was historically longleaf pine, oak‐hickory 
and mixed pine forests are more abundant now. The geology of this area is typified by Cretaceous or 
Tertiary‐age sands, silts and clays (Griffith et al 2002).  

Many of the stream reaches have been ditched to a clay bottom and are overlaid with a sediment 
transport regime of sand and small gravel. While gravel is the predominant bed material, sand is entering 
the system from bank erosion both upstream and on‐site. The floodplain for Stony Fork is unconfined in 
most areas, although it is currently disconnected from the existing stream.  

According to the Soil Survey of Johnston County, all of the project streams and floodplain areas are 
underlain by Bibb sandy loam (Bb). The official Map Unit Name is Bibb sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, 
frequently flooded. These soils are poorly drained floodplain soils that are usually linear, associated with 
streams, and frequently found along the toe of slopes. The soil survey for the project area is shown in 
Figure 4. 

BbGeB
GeD
FaB
UcB
FaA
CoC
CoB
GeB
Ra
GeD UcB
GeB
NoA
FaB GeB
UcB
MaB
NoB
GeB
GeD
FaA
GeD
Bb UcC
W
NoB
GeB
CoC
FaB
FaB
FaA FaB
GeB
WaB
W
CoC
GeB
UcC
FaB
NoA
Ü 0 1,000500Feet
FIGURE 4. NRCS SOIL SURVEY, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
NRCS Soil SurveyProposed Easement
Bb - Bibb sandy loam, 0-2%
FaB - Faceville sandy loam, 2-6%
GeB - Gilead sandy loam, 2-8%
Ged - Gilead sandy loam, 8-15%
UcC - Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6-12%
Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey; NCOneMap Orthoimagery 2013
7

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
8 

3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover and Chronology of Impacts 
The project watershed for the SFRS is comprised of 0.78 square mile (497 acres). Current land use in the 
project watershed (Figure 5) was derived from the 2013 orthoimagery and consists of agriculture/open 
space (53% / 262 ac), forest (31% / 150 ac), rural development (9% / 42 ac), residential (5% / 24 ac), and 
roads/impervious (3% / 13 ac), and water. The current adjacent land use has a negative impact on water 
quality of the project streams. This is evidenced by direct run off from agricultural open space along parts 
of the stream where there is no riparian buffer. The top of T2 will receive stormwater from a residential 
development currently being constructed. Impervious surfaces within the project watershed include 
Federal Road, which is immediately adjacent to the project, and I‐40, which is just 1,400 linear feet 
upstream  of  the  project.  KCI’s  measurement  of  the  total  impervious area for the watershed is 
approximately 5%, which is based on the land use delineated from the 2013 orthoimagery and based on 
published average impervious values for land use categories (Center for Watershed Protection 2003). 
Development pressure in the watershed is high as evidenced by the new development mentioned above 
that is being constructed to the northeast and southeast of the project streams. The existing ponds above 
T2 will remain and be incorporated into the stormwater system o f the new development. A new aluminum 
arched culvert will be installed across Stony Fork to access th e southeastern part of the development and 
will be incorporated into our project design in the existing easement exception.

The SFRS has undergone significant modifications that have altered the site hydrology and vegetation. 
Historic aerials were examined for any information about how the site has changed over recent history. 
Historic aerials were obtained from the NRCS, USGS EarthExplorer, and Google Earth for 1938, 1949, 1960, 
1972, 1980, 1998, 2005, and 2013. Selected historic aerials are presented in Figures 6A and 6B. 

The site was systematically impacted over the twentieth century with channelization and clearing. In the 
earliest aerial photo from 1938, the upstream part of the project appears forested, but the channel is 
straight, indicating that it had been ditched prior to this photo. Also, the nearby Federal Road is on a 
different alignment, which suggests that when it was realigned to its current position, there may have 
been further manipulation of Stony Fork. The ponds upstream of T2 had not been built yet in this photo. 
Additionally, the portion of Stony Fork that currently flows through an existing dense stand of kudzu is 
flowing south of that area. In the 1949 aerial, there has been more clearing along the periphery of the 
project area and the straightened streams are easily identifiable throughout the site. Stony Fork at the 
downstream end of the project has been ditched between two fields.  

In 1960, there was more clearing just downstream of Federal Road. This cleared field borders the ditched 
portion of Stony Fork to the north. Also, the ponds upstream of T2 have been built by this point. In the 
1972 aerial, some fields south of the project have reforested, and other areas north of the project that 
have been cleared. The 1980 aerial looks similar to the previous aerial, with some minor changes to the 
clearing limits. By 1998, there has been extensive clearing throughout the middle of the project along the 
southeastern side of Stony Fork. Also, the previously cleared fields on the north side of Stony Fork at the 
downstream end of the project have revegetated. The 2006 aerial looks similar to conditions today. The 
area of Stony Fork around T1 has been cleared and is revegetating, likely with the kudzu present today, 
and the previously large cleared area that appeared in the 1998 photo has been planted with loblolly pine. 
The most recent aerial (2013) shows the rows of pine trees in the plantation and area of kudzu around T1. 

NCCGIA
Ü 0 2,0001,000 Feet
FIGURE 5. PROJECT LANDUSE, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Land UseAgriculture/Open Space (52.7%)Forest (30.3%)Roads (2.5%)Residential (4.8%)Rural Development (8.4%)Water (1.3%)
Source: NCOneMap Orthoimagery 2013.
Project Watershed (497 ac)Project Easement (24.4 ac)
9
Image Sources: Johnston County NRCS; USGS Earth Explorer.
1938
1960 1972
1949
Ü 0 2,0001,000 Feet
FIGURE 6A. HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed Easement (24.4 ac)
10
NCCGIANCCGIA
Image Sources: USGS Earth Explorer; Johnston County Orthoimagery; NC OneMap.
1980
2005 2013
NCCGIA
1993
Ü 0 2,0001,000 Feet
FIGURE 6B. HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed Easement (24.4 ac)
11

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
12 

3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response  
The project has experienced significant landscape and vegetative modifications to allow for agriculture 
and timber management along the project streams of Stony Fork (SF), Tributary 1 (T1), Tributary 1A (T1A), 
Tributary T1B (T1B), Tributary 2 (T2), and Tributary 3 (T3). The measured bank height ratios along the 
project streams are all greater than 1.5 and the reaches have been altered through channelization as seen 
in Table 2. Additional existing conditions data are included in Section 12.2. 

Table 2. Existing Stream Bank Height and Entrenchment Ratios 
Stream  Existing Bank Height Ratio Existing Entrenchment Ratio 
SF  1.6‐2.9 1.2‐1.5
T1  4.5 1.3
T2  1.5‐4.1 1.3‐5.4

The primary hydrologic feature at the site is SF, which has been impacted by channelization and riparian 
vegetation removal or alteration. This stream enters the projects from a 48”‐diameter concrete pipe from 
under Federal Road. SF flows in a general west to east direction until flowing off of the project site. The 
first 450 linear feet (lf) are incised with steep vertical banks, a narrow channel, and intermittent headcuts. 
The channel likely was relocated, because there is no existing floodplain connection. The canopy is mostly 
composed of a dense midstory of invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). 

After about 450 lf, SF begins to flow northeast; the condition changes, and the channel becomes less 
incised and wider. A distinct floodplain is not actively connected to the existing channel, but is present in 
this landscape position. However, the channel is still narrower than a natural system and the banks are 
vertical. Chinese Privet and kudzu dominate the riparian buffer. Downstream of this point, SF channel has 
been mechanically ditched in the past.  

After the confluence with T2, SF continues to flow northeast until it comes along a field edge. Similar to 
most other parts of SF on this project, the stream is not in the correct position in the valley and is 
disconnected from the former floodplain. In some instances, the channel has one dramatically higher 
bank, while the other bank is significantly lower. This is evidence of the channel having been moved to its 
current location to the side of the valley. The stream continues to flow in this condition off of the project 
site to the southeast. 

T1 flows north to south before flowing into SF. The stream originates from one distinct seep/spring in the 
hillslope to the north of SF and receives additional hydrology from degraded seeps (T1A and T1B) at the 
base of the slope to the east of T1 that are currently impacted by vegetation removal and land clearing. 
This tributary has been moved out of the natural position in the low point of the valley to the base of the 
slope to drain the seepage from the hill slope. The riparian buffer is currently a monoculture of kudzu. 

T2 begins at a headcut and is bordered by a narrow buffer of brush and trees before it meets the wood 
line. Upstream land clearing, agriculture, and farm ponds have altered the hydrologic regime of the stream 
and caused the tributary to become unstable. After the wood line, there are several small headcuts, and 
after a larger headcut 345 feet into the wood line, the stream becomes more incised as it flows southeast 
to its confluence with SF. This lower portion of T2 is disconnected from its historic floodplain. 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
13 

T3 flows north to south until it meets SF near the beginning of the project. This stream flows in and around 
a breached farm pond. It has incised through accumulated pond sediment until it meets SF.  

The riparian buffer at the SFRS has been colonized by a dense layer of invasive Chinese privet, especially 
along SF. In addition, kudzu dominates the middle portion of SF and T1. There is existing native forested 
buffer near the bottom of SF and at the outer margins of the easement, which consists of tulip poplar 
(Liriodendron  tulipifera),  sweetgum  (Liquidambar  styraciflua), white oak (Quercus  alba),  American 
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica).  

A jurisdictional determination was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers on July 12, 2016 and was 
approved July 13, 2016. The approved jurisdictional determination is included in Section 12.7. NC Division 
of Water Resources also provided a stream determination on July 8, 2016, which is provided in Section 
12.3 in the appendices. An updated site assessment of the stream buffer along T2‐2 was completed by 
DWR on March 29, 2018 and is included in the appendices as well.  

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
14 

Table 3. Project Attribute Table 
Project Name   Stony Fork Restoration Site  
County   Johnston County 
Project Area (acres)   24.4 ac 
Project Coordinates (lat. and 
long.)   35°26'55.0"N, 78°31'18.5"W 
Planted Acreage (Acres of 
Woody Stems Planted) 12.1 
Project Watershed Summary Information 
Physiographic Province   Coastal Plain 
River Basin   Neuse 
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit   03020201 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit 03020201150010 
DWR Sub‐basin   03‐04‐04 
Project Drainage Area (acres)   497 acres 
Project Drainage Area 
Percentage of Impervious Area   5% 
CGIA Land Use Classification 
Managed Herbaceous Cover 53% (262 ac), Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers 31% (150 ac), Low 
Density Developed 9% (42 ac), Medium Density Residential 5% (24 ac), 
Transportation/Impervious 3% (13 ac) 
Existing Reach Summary Information 
Parameters   Stony Fork  T1, T1A, and T1B  T2 T3 
Length of reach (linear feet)  3,141  365  1,433  154 
Valley  Confinement  Unconfined  Confined 
Confined, then 
unconfined Unconfined 
Drainage area (acres)  497 acres  12 acres  150 acres  29 acres 
Perennial, Intermittent, 
Ephemeral Intermittent  Intermittent 
Intermittent/ 
Perennial Intermittent 
NCDWQ Water Quality 
Classification C; NSW  C; NSW  C; NSW  C; NSW 
Rosgen Classification 
(Existing/Proposed) G4c  G4  G4  G4 
Evolutionary trend (Simon)  Channelized, Stage III 
 Channelized, Stage 
III Channelized, Stage III Modified with pond, 
Stage III 
FEMA classification  None  None  None  None 
Existing Wetland Summary Information 
Parameters      
Size of Wetland (acres)    0.33 (WA and WE)  0.06 (WB) 
0.14 (WC and WF) 
Wetland Type   Headwater Forest 
Bottomland Hardwood 
Forest Non‐Tidal Freshwater Marsh 
Mapped Soil Series    Gilead sandy loam  Bibb sandy loam  Bibb sandy loam 
Drainage class    Moderately Well Drained  Poorly Drained  Poorly Drained 
Soil Hydric Status    Non‐Hydric  Hydric  Hydric 
Source of Hydrology    Surface Water  Stream Floodplain  Stream Floodplain 
Restoration or Enhancement 
Method N/A  N/A  N/A 
**Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix. 

Draft Mitigation Plan     Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018   DMS Project Number 97085
15 
Table 3, continued 
Regulatory Considerations 
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting 
Documentation 
Waters of the United States – 
Section 404 Yes Applying for 
NWP 27 JD has been obtained. 
Waters of the United States – 
Section 401 Yes Applying for 
NWP 27 
Endangered Species Act** Yes Yes USFWS 
Historic Preservation Act** No Yes NCSHPO 
Coastal Zone Management Act ** 
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area 
Management Act (CAMA) 
No  N/A  N/A 
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No Yes N/A 
Essential Fisheries Habitat** No N/A N/A 
**Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix. 
WC
WE
WB
WF
WA
WD
T1
Stony Fork
T2
XS1
XS7
XS2 XS3
XS4
XS5
XS9 XS6
XS8
Ü 0 1,000500Feet
FIGURE 7. CURRENT CONDITIONS, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Stream TypeIntermittent (5,481 ft)Perennial (691 ft)Outside Project
Cross Sections
Project Easement
Jurisdictional Wetlands Orthoimagery Source: NC OneMap (2013)
16

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
17 

3.1.4  Site Photographs 
Photo 1: Head of project at exit from culvert at Federal Rd.  Photo 2: Typical view of Stony Fork near top. 
Photo 3: View of eroding banks on Stony Fork on Reach 1. Photo 4: View of 2‐acre kudzu monoculture near confluence 
of T1 and Stony Fork. 
Photo 5: View of flowing seep near head of T1. Photo 6: View of clay channel bottom on Stony Fork along 
channelized stream. 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
18 

Photo 7: View of 18” headcut on Stony Fork. Photo 8. View of accelerated erosion and undercut banks on 
Stony Fork. 
Photo 9: View of T2 bed erosion and incision. Photo 10: Typical view of upper portion of T2 above headcut 
Photo 11: View of Stony Fork downstream of mid‐project 
culvert. Photo 12: View of upstream portion of T2. 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
19 

Photo 13: Top of T3. Photo 14. T3 as it becomes incised. 
Photo 15: Another view of T3 with incised banks. Photo 16: T3 as it goes through the pond bottom near the 
end of the stream near SF.  

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
20 

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL 

Based on the current stream and watershed conditions at the SFRS, there is a high potential for functional 
improvements at this site. Channelization, incision, riparian vegetation removal, and invasive species 
monocultures have resulted in a local system with lack of floodplain connectivity, high shear stress, 
minimal bedform variation, and high amounts of sediment inputs from bank erosion and a degraded 
riparian buffer.  

The primary uplift for the SFRS will be achieved at the hydraulic and geomorphological functional levels. 
Reestablishing floodplain connectivity with a Priority 1 Restoration will allow stream flows to access the 
floodprone area more frequently, providing uplift of hydraulic functions within this system that will 
distribute flood flows through a wide area instead of within a confined channel. Geomorphological 
functional uplift will be achieved through channels sized to the bankfull flow, a planform and profile design 
emphasizing bedform variation, and the reestablishment of a native riparian corridor with invasive species 
removed. As a result, bank migration and lateral stability will be restored to a sustainable level and the 
banks and bed will accommodate design flows in a stable manner. Sediment inputs will decrease due to 
reduced  bank  erosion  and  sediment  transport  can  return  to  a  stable  level  that  will  accommodate 
watershed inputs. Riparian plantings will further support geomorphological functionality by increasing 
bank stability. 

Consideration of future impacts to the area that could limit functional uplift opportunities is important 
when assessing project potential. The upstream watershed is agricultural, but the vicinity is experiencing 
development  pressure.  A  new  residential  development  is  being  constructed  to  the  northeast  and 
southeast of the project. The project streams are sized such that the floodprone areas will accommodate 
changes in hydrology as needed. The table below summarizes the project goals and objectives that will 
lead to functional improvements and the monitoring tools that will be used to track these changes to the 
site. 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
21 

5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

Table 4. Project Goals, Objectives, and Functional Outcomes 
Goals  Objective   Functional Level 
Function‐Based Parameter 
Effects 
Monitoring 
Measurement Tool 
Restore an incised 
stream to a stable 
stream system with 
an active floodplain 
Relocate streams to 
a meandering 
landscape position 
Hydraulics  Floodplain Connectivity 
Flood Frequency 
Bank Height Ratio and 
Entrenchment Ratio 
Install a cross‐
section sized to the 
bankfull discharge 
Geomorphology Bank Migration/Lateral 
Stability 
Cross‐Sectional 
Survey 
Visual Inspection of 
Bank Stability 
Create bedform 
diversity with pools, 
riffles, and habitat 
structures 
Geomorphology  Bed Form Diversity 
Percent Riffle and 
Pool 
Visual Inspection of 
Feature Maintenance 
Restore a forested 
riparian buffer to 
provide bank 
stability and shading 
Plant the site with 
native trees and 
shrubs. 
Geomorphology  Vegetation 
Density 
Species 
Composition/Diversity 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
22 

6.0  DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN 

The project streams were designed using a modified reference reach approach using a local regional curve 
developed from stable reference cross‐sections (see Section 12.2 for reference data). In addition to the 
data from the on‐site references, common reference values from Harmon et al. 2011 were also used to 
aid the development of the design criteria. The proposed channel design values have been adjusted as 
necessary to fit the existing site conditions based on these sources. Stable pattern data were taken from 
the UT Fisher River reference in Surry County as needed. 

6.1   Stony Fork (SF) 
Stony Fork will be broken into three separate reaches: Stony Fork Reach 1 (SF1) from the western edge of 
the project until the confluence with T1, Reach 2 (SF2) from SF1 until the confluence with T2, and Reach 
3 (SF3) from SF2 until the end of the project. The first reach, SF1, begins at the culvert under Federal Road 
and is 1,155 linear feet. Since the elevation of this reach is controlled by this culvert, this reach will be a 
transition part of the project where the design will follow more of a Priority 2 approach. The design will 
raise the channel elevation to match the channel grade with the invert of the culvert. In the lower third 
of this reach, the channel will be meandered to the south of its current location and into the former 
floodplain location. Invasive privet, which is extensive throughout Reach 1, will be removed from the 
buffer.   

From the T1 confluence, SF2 will continue with Priority 1 restoration down the valley in the historic 
floodplain location. This is the longest reach on Stony Fork at 2,707 linear feet. The first half of this reach 
has a narrower valley width and as a result, the proposed stream will follow along the general path of the 
existing channel, while increasing the sinuosity and raising the bed elevation. The second half of this reach 
will be relocated to the north of the existing channel where the valley is broader. Every effort will be made 
to work around trees in this area that can provide shade to the restored stream. 

After the confluence with T2, SF3 will continue to be restored by moving the stream back to the relic 
floodplain in the center of the valley. The proposed stream (694 linear feet) will remain to the north of 
the existing channel before tying back into the existing thalweg at the end of the project. The stream will 
be remeandered around significant trees that will provide shade to the restored channel.  

6.2   Tributary 1 (T1) 
T1 will be restored using a Priority 1 approach for approximately 510 linear feet. The design will move the 
channel west to its historic floodplain away from the toe of the hill slope. The stream will originate from 
the primary spring/seep that emerges from the base of the hill and provides the hydrology for the stream. 
T1 will then join Stony Fork to the west of the current location of the confluence. In addition, two 
additional streams driven by seep flow will be redeveloped through restoration: T1A at 159 linear feet 
and T1B at 26 linear feet. 

6.3   Tributary 2 (T2) 
T2 has been divided into three reaches: T2‐1 (334 linear feet of EII), T2‐2 (337 linear feet of restoration), 
and T2‐3 (885 linear feet of restoration). Enhancement II for T2‐1 will involve installing a step pool to 
stabilize a headcut, planting the riparian buffer with native vegetation, and removing and controlling 
invasive vegetation within the easement. T2‐2 begins where several headcuts cause the stream to rapidly 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
23 

incise. The restoration will maintain the landscape position of the stream, but add appropriate sinuosity 
and restore the streambed morphology by raising the elevation of the streambed to regain floodplain 
connection. T2‐3 will continue this approach, but with a larger cross‐section to accommodate additional 
drainage area.  

6.4   Tributary 3 (T3) 
T3 has been divided into two reaches: T3‐1 (71 linear feet of Enhancement I) and T3‐2 (58 linear feet of 
restoration). The top reach will be enhanced along its existing planform up until the pond bed. After this 
point, T3‐2 will be restored by constructing a stable channel and eliminating spoil piles in this area.  

6.5   Riparian Buffer Mitigation 
Riparian buffer mitigation will take place across the site in the form of restoration (382,463 sf / 382,463 
credits), enhancement (142,777 sf / 71,388 credits), and preservation (463,565 sf / 17,508 credits) and 
adhering to the Neuse Buffer Rule (NCAC Rule 15A NCAC 02B .029). The preservation area has been limited 
to 25% of the total area for crediting purposes as mandated by the rule, but will still be protected as part 
of the conservation easement. The calculations and maps showing the riparian buffer mitigation are 
included in Section 12.3.  

6.6   Crossings 
There are three easement exceptions for crossings on Stony Fork.  The first culvert will be installed as part 
of the current development being constructed to the southeast of the site. The second crossing will be a 
rock ford crossing; this landowner will use this crossing infre quently and there are no livestock in this area. 
The third crossing is an existing culvert pipe that will stay in place.  

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
24 

6.7   Design Discharge Determination 
KCI developed the design discharge values for the proposed streams by using four stable reference cross‐
sections located in the vicinity of the project: two on‐site (Ref XS1 and 4) and two downstream (Ref XS 2 
and 3) from the project  on Stony Fork (see Section 12.2 for locations and  cross‐sectional data). In 
comparison to other impaired portions of the site, these four reference cross‐sections have stable bankfull 
features that allowed for the cross‐sectional area and discharge to be linked to the drainage area. Based 
on these values, we developed a local regional curve using these cross‐sections. The rural Piedmont 
regional curves were used to as a comparison for the on‐site relationships (Harman et al 1999) (although 
the site is in the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont curve was deemed more suitable based on the watershed’s 
characteristics). The local curve showed a linear power relationship lower than the Piedmont curve as 
shown in Figure 8 and Table 5 below (Reference Cross‐Sections 2 and 3 have similar drainage areas, and 
appear as one data point on the curve).  

Figure 8. Local Regional Curve for Stony Fork 

Table 5. Local Regional Curve Data 
Cross‐Section Location Drainage Area 
(Sq. Miles)
Reference XS 
Area (sf)
XS Area 
Estimate (sf) 
from Piedmont 
Regional Curve 
Q (cfs) 
from Ref XS 
Q (cfs) from 
Piedmont 
Regional Curve 
Onsite T1  
(Ref XS 4) 0.23  5.0  7.9  19.5  30.9 
Stony Fork Upstream  
(Ref XS 1) 0.41  9.3  11.7  30.0  46.9 
Onsite Stony Fork  
(Ref XS 2) 0.84  17.0  19.0  51.2  78.5 
Stony Fork Downstream 
(Ref XS 3) 0.84  24.8  19.0  52.2  78.5 
y = 89.039x0.7223
R² = 0.9069
y = 58.915x0.7535
R² = 0.9997
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
0.1 1 10 100Discharge (cfs)Drainage Area (Square Miles)

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
25 

To further evaluate the field measurements taken within the project, we compared the flow results for 
the four cross‐sections to two different hydrologic methods. First, we compared our results to the 2‐year 
recurrence interval flow calculations using the USGS Rural Peak‐Flow Regression Equations for North 
Carolina in the USGS National Streamflow Statistics Program (USGS 2016). Bankfull values in the North 
Carolina Piedmont average a 1.4‐year recurrence interval (Harman et al. 1999), and as such should be 
lower than the 2‐year recurrence interval USGS values. Our field results are lower than the USGS values 
as expected. The effective discharge equation for a 1.2 recurrence interval for the Southeastern Plains 
Ecoregion (Simon et al. 2004) was also used as a comparison tool; in general, the Q1.2 values are close in 
range to the reference cross‐section flow values. This comparison shows that our field calculations are 
within the range of other established discharge estimates. In addition to the field‐acquired reference data, 
we also used common reference values from Harman et al. 2011 as mentioned previously. 

Table 6. Local XS Flow Compared to USGS Regression for North Carolina 
Cross‐Section 
Location 
Drainage 
Area (Sq. 
Miles) 
Field 
Q 
(cfs)1 
USGS 
Regression 2‐
year Q (cfs)2 
USGS Regression 
Low Prediction 
(cfs) 
USGS Regression 
High Prediction 
(cfs) 
Effective 
Discharge3 (cfs) 
Onsite T1 (Ref XS 4) 0.23  19.5 
32.5  14.8  71.4 18.0 
Stony Fork 
Upstream (Ref XS 1) 0.41  30  45.7  20.9  99.0  26.8 
Onsite Stony Fork 
(Ref XS 2) 0.84  51.2  69.9  32.1  152  43.8 
Stony Fork 
Downstream 
(Ref XS 3) 
0.84  52.2  69.9  32.1  152  43.8 
1. Calculated using field bankfull dimensions and Manning’s formula. 
2. Calculated using USGS NSS, North Carolina Region 4 Equations assuming impervious percentage of 5%.  
3. Simon et al. 2004 equation for Southeastern Plains (Ecoregion 65) for 1.2 Recurrence Interval.  

6.8  Sediment 
The on‐site streams have sediment with a mixture of small gravel and sand. The project streams have a 
silt/clay bed underneath the active sediment where excessive shear stresses from the confined channels 
have removed existing bed material and created an unstable condition.  
In order to analyze the existing sediment conditions within the project streams, two pavement samples 
and nine pebble counts were performed for trend analysis. These data are provided in Section 12.2. Based 
on the existing conditions data, the project sediment sizes range from sand up to small gravels. Bank 
erosion is currently contributing excess sand to the system. Following project completion, the amount of 
sand being contributed from on‐site erosion is expected to decrease. However, a sand component is still 
anticipated for the sediment regime given that upstream agriculture and development will continue in 
the upper watershed and move through Stony Fork.  
Based on the collected sediment and cross‐section data, shear stress values were calculated using both 
average channel boundary shear stress and a modified critical shear stress (USDA, Forest Service 2008). 
The modified shear stress was calculated using the D84 values from field samples and compared to the 
average channel boundary shear stress based on the existing and proposed channel dimensions and 
slopes. The results are shown in the table below.   

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
26 

Table 7. Sediment Summary for Project Reaches 
XS Reach Avg Shear 
Stress (lb/sf) 
D50 
(mm) 
D84 
(mm) 
Sample 
Type 
Modif. 
Critical Shear 
Stress (lb/sf) 
Predicted Grain 
Size Movement 
(mm) 
Existing XS1 SF1  0.45  2.2  7.5 PC 0.042  
Existing XS2 SF2  0.42  0.57  8 PC 0.015  
Existing XS3 SF2  0.49  0.062  4.7 PC 0.007  
Existing XS4 SF2  0.40  0.093  0.14 PC 0.001  
Existing XS5 SF2  0.47  4.1  12 PC 0.080  
Existing XS6 SF3  0.39  8.3  12 PC 0.137  
Existing XS7 T1  0.54  0.062  0.062 PC 0.001  
Existing XS8 T2‐2  0.60  0.062  0.062 PC 0.001  
Existing XS9 T2‐3  1.00  0.21  2 PC 0.005  

Proposed  SF1 0.39 2.2  7.5  PC  0.042  29 
Proposed  SF2 0.40 0.57  8  PC  0.015  30 
Proposed  SF3 0.45 8.3  12  PC  0.137  34 
Proposed  T1 0.45 0.062  0.062  PC  0.001  34 
Proposed  T2‐1 0.27 0.062  0.062  PC  0.001  20 
Proposed  T2‐2 0.41 0.062  0.062  PC  0.001  31 
Proposed  T2‐3 0.43 0.21  2  PC  0.005  32 

Based on the calculated average channel boundary shear stress for the proposed channels, the stream 
will have adequate stream power to transport the existing D84 material as shown by the critical shear 
stress values. Due to the small size of existing site sediment, the average channel boundary shear stress 
is higher than that needed to move the existing D84 (critical shear stress). While we do anticipate that 
native small gravels and sand will move into the restored reaches, the results indicate the need for riffle 
reinforcement to protect the newly constructed riffles from excessive scour. Proposed riffle grade control 
structures have been designed with a mix of Class A, B, and 1 stone with 10% ABC stone; Class A (the 
smallest among Classes A, B, and 1) has a modified critical shear stress that is large enough to withstand 
all of the predicted average channel boundary stresses. The last column in the table above provides a 
predicted grain size that will move at the calculated modified critical shear stress for the proposed 
channel. The largest grain size predicted to be mobilized is 34 mm (1.3 inches). Given the mix of the 
constructed riffle, 106 mm equates to the midrange of the Class A Stone (approximately 4 in.). It can be 
expected that approximately 85% of the constructed riffle stone will be greater than this diameter. 
Additionally, our experience has revealed minimal movement of constructed riffle material when it is well 
mixed and placed in the stream bed in similar design conditions.  

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
27 

6.9   Morphological Essential Parameters Tables 

Table 8. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF1 
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 90‐210  N/A  90‐210 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 175  Variable  175 
Channel/Reach Classification  G4c  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  7.2  N/A  9.7 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  0.9  N/A  0.7 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  6.4  N/A  7.0 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  3.5  N/A  3.2 
Design Discharge (cfs)  22  N/A  23 
Water Surface Slope   0.009  N/A  0.009 
Sinuosity  1.3  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  8.1  10‐15  13.5 
Bank Height Ratio  2.9  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  1.2  2.5+  10.3 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  0.15/1.2/2.2/7.5/11/‐0.4/7.1  Gravel  Gravel 

Table 9. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF2 
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 45‐130  N/A  45‐130 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 264  Variable  264 
Channel/Reach Classification  G4c‐G5c  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  5‐10  N/A  11.3 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  1.0‐1.4  N/A  0.8 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  6.9‐8.9  N/A  9.4 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  3.3‐3.8  N/A  3.2 
Design Discharge (cfs)  24‐30  N/A  30 
Water Surface Slope   0.008  N/A  0.008 
Sinuosity  1.1  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  3.7‐11.2  10‐15  13.5 
Bank Height Ratio  1.6‐2.1  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  1.4‐1.5  2.5+  8.8 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  0.33/0.61/1.2/6.2/9.8/0.3/5.5  Gravel  Gravel 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
28 

Table 10. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF3 
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 180‐230  N/A  180‐230 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 497  Variable  497 
Channel/Reach Classification  G4c  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  10.5  N/A  12.6 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  1.2  N/A  0.9 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  12.5  N/A  11.8 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  3.4  N/A  3.6 
Design Discharge (cfs)  42  N/A  43 
Water Surface Slope   0.006  N/A  0.008 
Sinuosity  1.1  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  8.9  10‐15  13.5 
Bank Height Ratio  2.0  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  1,4  2.5+  7.9 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  1.1/6.0/8.3/12/15/‐0.7/3.3  Gravel  Gravel 

Table 11. Morphological Essential Parameters for T1 
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 40‐70  N/A  40‐70 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 12  Variable  12 
Channel/Reach Classification  G5  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  3.4  N/A  5.0 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  0.3  N/A  0.4 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  0.9  N/A  1.9 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  3.2  N/A  3 
Design Discharge (cfs)  3  N/A  6 
Water Surface Slope   0.035  N/A  0.020 
Sinuosity  1.0  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  12.7  10‐15  13.5 
Bank Height Ratio  4.5  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  1.3  2.5+  10.0 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  Silt‐Clay  Gravel Gravel 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
29 

Table 12. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2‐1 
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 30‐100  N/A  30‐100 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 93  Variable  93 
Channel/Reach Classification  G5c  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  4.4  N/A  5.0 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  0.8  N/A  0.4 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  3.6  N/A  1.9 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  3.9  N/A  2.9 
Design Discharge (cfs)  14  N/A  5 
Water Surface Slope   0.014  N/A  0.012 
Sinuosity  1.1  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  5.4  10‐15  13.5 
Bank Height Ratio  4.1  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  1.3  2.5+  10.0 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  Silt‐Clay  Gravel Gravel 

Table 13. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2‐2 
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 90‐140  N/A  90‐140 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 135  Variable  135 
Channel/Reach Classification  G5c  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  4.4  N/A  7.6 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  0.8  N/A  0.6 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  3.6  N/A  4.3 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  3.9  N/A  3.1 
Design Discharge (cfs)  14  N/A  14 
Water Surface Slope   0.009‐0.020  N/A  0.012 
Sinuosity  1.1  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  5.4  10‐15  13.4 
Bank Height Ratio  4.1  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  1.3  2.5+  6.6 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  Silt‐Clay  Gravel Gravel 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
30 

Table 14. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2‐3 
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 90‐150  N/A  90‐150 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 149  Variable  149 
Channel/Reach Classification  G5c  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  5.7  N/A  9.0 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  1.7  N/A  0.6 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  9.4  N/A  5.8 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  2.1  N/A  3.4 
Design Discharge (cfs)  20  N/A  20 
Water Surface Slope   0.009‐0.020  N/A  0.011 
Sinuosity  1.1  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  3.4  10‐15  13.9 
Bank Height Ratio  1.5  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  1.8  2.5+  5.6 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  0.031/0.13/0.21/2.0/6.1/0.1/8  Gravel  Gravel 

Table 15. Morphological Essential Parameters for T3 
Parameter Existing Condition* Reference Condition Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 50‐90  N/A  50‐90 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 29  Variable  29 
Channel/Reach Classification  G4  C4  C4 
Design Discharge Width (ft)  N/A  N/A  5.0 
Design Discharge Depth (ft)  N/A  N/A  0.4 
Design Discharge Area (ft2)  N/A  N/A  1.9 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)  N/A  N/A  1.2 
Design Discharge (cfs)  N/A  N/A  2 
Water Surface Slope   N/A  N/A  0.016 
Sinuosity  N/A  1.2‐1.4  1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio  N/A  10‐15  13.5 
Bank Height Ratio  N/A  1.0‐1.1  1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio  N/A  2.5+  10 
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)  N/A  Gravel  Gravel 
*Existing channel impacted by pond bed 

6.10  Planting 
All unforested portions of the project easement will be planted to establish a forested riparian buffer. At 
a minimum, 12.1 acres will be reforested, but additional plantings may take place beyond this area to 
ensure an adequate density across the site. The planting plan is shown in the attached project plan sheets 
(Section 12.1). Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing) 
to achieve a mature survivability of 210 stems per acre after seven years. Woody vegetation planting will 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
31 

be conducted during dormancy. Species to be planted may consist of the following and any substitutions 
from the planting plan will be taken from this list: 

Common Name  Scientific Name 
River Birch Betula nigra 
American Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 
American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 
White Oak Quercus alba 
Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata 
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 
Pin Oak  Quercus palustris 
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 

On the restored stream banks, live stakes will be used to provide natural stabilization. Species identified 
for live staking include:  

Common Name  Scientific Name 
Silky Dogwood  Cornus amomum 
Black Willow Salix nigra 
Silky Willow Salix sericea 

A custom herbaceous seed mix composed of native species will also be developed and used to further 
stabilize the easement area as needed. 

6.11  Project Assets 
The tables below outline the anticipated project assets that will be produced from the Stony Fork project, 
and Figure 9 shows the proposed mitigation assets for the site. The total stream mitigation credits (SMCs) 
are slightly different than those outlined in the initial proposal. SMCs were removed at the bottom of the 
site due to land title issues associated with the Critcher Farms subdivision. The upper portion of T2 was 
eliminated from the project, since it was not a jurisdictional stream, but an additional tributary, Tributary 
3, was added to the project once it was determined it was jurisdictional. The buffer mitigation credits 
(BMCs) were reduced from the contracted amount due to the limitation on preservation credits once the 
final restoration, enhancement, and preservation BMCs were tabulated. 
 Draft Mitigation Plan                 Stony Fork Restoration Site April 24, 2018                       DMS Project Number 97085 32  Table 16. Project Asset Table  Project Component  ‐or‐  Reach ID Existing Footage/ Acreage Stationing Restoration Footage  or Acreage Creditable Footage or Acreage Restoration Level Approach Priority Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) MitigationCredits Notes/Comments SF1 1,235 9+93‐ 21+48 1155 1155 R PI/PII 1:1 1155  SF2 2,453 21+48‐49+50 2802 2707 R PI 1:1 2707 Crossings at STA 32+52‐33+17 (65’) and 44+49‐44+80 (31’) SF3 688 49+50‐56+74 724 694 R PI 1:1 694 Crossing at STA 55+48‐  55+78 (30’) T1 365 100+00‐105+10 510 510 R PI/PII 1:1 510  T1A 47 150+00‐151+59 159 159 R PI/PII 1:1 159  T1B 26 160+00‐160+26 26 26 R PI/PII 1:1 26  T2‐1 327 200+00‐203+34 334 334 EII N/A 2.5:1 134  T2‐2 326 203+34‐206+71 337 337 R PI/PII 1:1 337  T2‐3 780 206+71‐215+26 855 855 R PI/PII 1:1 855  T3‐1  72 300+00‐ 300+71 71  71  EI  PI/PII  1.5:1  47   T3‐2  82 300+71‐ 301+29 58  58  R  PI/PII  1:1  58   Buffer Restoration TOB to 100' 415,271  N/A  415,271  415,271  R  N/A  1:1  415,271   Buffer Restoration 101‐200' 37,091  N/A  37,091   37,091   R  N/A  3:1  12,364    Buffer Enhancement TOB to 100' 74,803  N/A  74,803  74,803  E  N/A  2:1  37,401   Buffer Preservation TOB to 100' 462,405  N/A  462,405  175,721  P  N/A  10:1  17,572 Preservation limited to no more than 25% of total buffer mitigation area. 
Draft Mitigation Plan     Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018   DMS Project Number 97085
33 
Table 17. Length and Summations by Mitigation Category 
Restoration Level Stream  
(linear feet) 
Riparian Wetland 
(acres) 
Non‐riparian 
Wetland 
(acres) 
Buffer (square feet) 
Riverine Non‐
Riverine 
Restoration 6,501 452,362 
Enhancement  74,803 
Enhancement I  71 
Enhancement II  334 
Creation  
Preservation  462,405 
High Quality Preservation  
Table 18. Overall Assets Summary 
Stony Fork Restoration Site (Project ID ‐ 97085) 
Overall Assets Summary 
Asset Category Overall Credits 
Stream 6,682 
RP Wetland 
NR Wetland 
Buffer 482,608 
T1B
Start SF1
SF2
T1
T2-3
SF3
T2-2
T2-1
T1A
T3-1 T3-2
NCCGIA
Ü 0 500250Feet
FIGURE 9. PROJECT ASSET MAP, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Stream Mitigation
6,682 SMCs
R (6,501 lf / 6,501 SMCs)
EI (71 lf / 47 SMCs)
EII (334 lf / 134 SMCs)
Buffer Mitigation
482,608 total credits
Buffer Restoration (452,362 sf / 427,634 credits)
Buffer Enhancement (74,803 sf / 37,401 credits)
Buffer Preservation (462,405 sf / 17,572 credits limited to 25% of total)
Source: NC OneMap Orthoimagery 2013.
34

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
35 
7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

Monitoring of the site shall occur for a minimum of seven years following construction. The following 
performance standards for stream mitigation are based on the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland 
Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT 2016) and will be used to judge site success. Buffer mitigation 
must meet the standards outlined in Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295.  

Vegetation Performance 
The site must achieve a woody stem density of 260 stems/acre after five years and 210 stems/acre after 
seven years to be considered successful. Trees in each plot must average 7 feet in height at Year 5 and 10 
feet at Year 7. A single species may not account for more than 50% of the required number of stems within 
any plot. Volunteers must be present for a minimum of two growing seasons before being included 
performance standards in Year 5 and Year 7. If monitoring indicates that any of these standards are not 
being met, corrective actions will take place. 

Stream Hydrologic Performance 
During the monitoring period, a minimum of four bankfull events must be recorded within the monitoring 
period. These bankfull events must occur in separate monitoring years. Bankfull events will be verified 
using a minimum of one automatic stream monitoring gauge on Stony Fork to record daily stream depth 
readings. Any Qgs flows at the project during the monitoring period will also be documented. All project 
streams must also show a minimum of 30 continuous flow day within a calendar year (assuming normal 
precipitation) for three out of four of the first four monitoring years. 

Stream Geomorphology Performance 
The site’s geomorphology will be monitored per the NCIRT’s 2016 guidance. Adjustment and lateral 
movement  following  construction  and  as  the  channel  settles  over the monitoring period are to be 
expected.  Geomorphological  measurements  of  cross‐sections  will be  used  to  determine  if  any 
adjustments that occur are out of the range typically expected for this type of stream.  

Riparian Buffer Performance 
The vegetation within the areas proposed for riparian buffer credit must contain 260 stems per acre at 
the end of five years of monitoring. There should be a minimum of four native hardwood tree species or 
four native hardwood tree and native shrub species (inclusive of volunteers), with no species greater than 
50% of the stems.  

8.0 MONITORING PLAN 

Monitoring of the Stony Fork Site shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream hydrology, stability, 
and  vegetation  survivability  data  to  support  the  evaluation  of the  project  in  meeting  established 
performance standards described above. The Proposed Monitoring Plan in Figure 10 shows the proposed 
locations of monitoring features described below.  

Vegetation Monitoring 
Vegetation monitoring will take place between July 1st and leaf drop. The success of the riparian buffer 
plantings will be evaluated using twelve 0.02‐acre square or rectangular plots within the enhancement 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
36 
and restoration buffer mitigation areas. Six plots will be permanently installed, while the remainder will 
be randomly placed at the time of each monitoring visit.  

In the permanent plots, the plant’s height, species, location, and origin (planted versus volunteer) will be 
noted. In the random plots, species and height will be recorded. In all plots, exotic and invasive stems will 
also be included in the stem counts. Additionally, a photograph will be taken of each plot. Beginning at 
the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, and 7. Riparian buffer mitigation requires monitoring in Years 1‐5, while the stream mitigation requires 
monitoring in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. 

Stream Hydrologic Monitoring 
Bankfull events on‐site will be verified using an automatic stream monitoring gauge on SF3 as seen on 
Figure 10 to record daily stream depth readings. The Qgs flow after the confluence with T2 is 45 cfs (based 
on 67% of a 2‐year USGS regression flow of 67.4 cfs). The measured flows will be compared to the Qgs 
value as well as the bankfull discharge. In addition, flow will recorded on T1, T2‐2, and T3.  

Stream Geomorphology Monitoring 
For stream monitoring, the purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. 
Following the procedures established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites 
(Harrelson et al. 1994) and the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification 
system (1994 and 1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension measurements, longitudinal 
profiles, and bed materials sampling. 

Dimension 
Sixteen permanent cross‐sections will be established at the Stony Fork Site, one set of a riffle and pool 
each on SF1, SF3, T1, T2‐2, T2‐3, and T3‐2 and two sets on SF2, the longest of the project reaches. The 
extents of each cross‐section will be recorded by either conventional survey or GPS. The cross‐sectional 
surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks and will include points on the 
adjacent floodplain or valley, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and 
thalweg. Width/depth, bank height and entrenchment ratios, as well as bankfull cross‐sectional area, 
width, max depth and mean depth will be calculated for each riffle cross‐section based on the survey data. 
Width/depth ratios, bankfull cross‐sectional area, width, max depth and mean depth will be calculated 
for each pool cross‐section. Cross‐section measurements will take place in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. 

Profile 
A detailed longitudinal profile will be conducted along the lengths of SF1, SF2, SF3, T1, T2‐2, T2‐3, and T3‐
2 during the as‐built survey. Measurements will include slopes (average, pool, and riffle) as well as 
calculations  of  pool‐to‐pool  spacing.  No  additional  profile  measurements  will  be  taken  during  the 
monitoring period unless deemed necessary due to concerns about bed elevation adjustments. 

Visual Assessment 
An annual site walk will be conducted at the end of each monitoring period to document any problem 
areas. Specific problem areas that could include low stem density or poor plant vigor, areas dominated by 
undesirable volunteer species, prolonged inundation, native and exotic invasive species, beaver activity, 
herbivory, encroachments, indicators of livestock access, or other areas of concern. The findings of the 
visual assessment as well as any recommended corrective actions for problem areas will be summarized 
in the monitoring reports by way of a Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) figure.  

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
37 

Photograph reference points (PRPs) will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow 
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location of each photo point will be marked in the 
monitoring plan and the bearing/orientation of the photograph will be documented to allow for repeated 
use. 

Reporting 
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the most current DMS monitoring template from June 
2017. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding 
of project status and trends, population of DMS databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in 
decision making regarding project close‐out. The report will document the monitored components and 
include all collected data, analyses, and photographs. The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted 
during  the  first  full  growing  season  following  project  completion. The site will be monitored for 
performance standards for seven years as needed after completion of construction. Full monitoring 
reports will be completed in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Limited monitoring reports will be submitted in Years 
4 (vegetation, CCPV, photos, stream gauge data, and site narrative) and 6 (CCPV, photos, stream gauge 
data, and site narrative). 

Table 20. Monitoring Requirements 

Stony Fork Restoration Site 
Required  Parameter  Quantity  Frequency  Notes 
Yes Pattern and 
Profile 
SF1, SF2, SF3, T1, T2‐2, T2‐3, 
and T3‐2 
Once, during as‐
built survey 
Additional measurements in later years 
may be taken as necessary. 
Yes Stream 
Dimension 
16 cross‐sections 
(8 riffles, 8 pools) 
Monitoring Years 
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7  
Yes Stream 
Hydrology 
4 pressure transducer 
gauges Annual  Gauges on SF3, T1, T2‐2, and T3‐2 
Yes  Vegetation 
6 permanent and 6 random 
vegetation monitoring plots 
Monitoring Years 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,  
and 7 
Minimum size of 0.02 acre 
Yes Visual 
Assessment   Annual   
Yes 
Exotic and 
nuisance 
vegetation 
  Annual 
Locations of exotic and nuisance 
vegetation will be mapped 
Yes Project 
boundary   Semi‐annual 
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary 
encroachments, etc. will be mapped 

!
!
!
!
")
")
")
")
")
")
NCCGIA
Ü
0 500250Feet
FIGURE 10. PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
!Proposed Stream Gauges (4)
")Proposed Permanent Veg Plots (6)
Proposed Cross-Sections (16)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Buffer Restoration
Buffer Enhancement
Buffer Preservation Source: NC OneMapOrthoimagery 2013.
38

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
39 
9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary 
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the 
IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions. 

10.0 LONG‐TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN 

SFRS will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program, which shall serve as conservation easement 
holder and long‐term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure 
that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the 
responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship 
Program is developing an endowment system within the non‐reverting, interest‐bearing Conservation 
Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by 
North Carolina General Statue GS 113A‐232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used 
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if 
applicable. The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary 
markings as needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility 
the owner of the underlying fee to maintain. 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
40 
11.0 REFERENCES 

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems: Watershed 
Protection Research Monograph. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Pages 1‐158  

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report  
Y‐87‐1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 

Griffith, G., J. Omernik, and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina, Regional Descriptions. US  
E.P.A. Last accessed 8/2017 at: 
https://archive.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/web/html/ncsc_eco.html 

Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J. R. Everhart, and 
R.E. Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. 
Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. 
American Water Resources Association. June 30 – July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. 

Harman, W. and R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,  
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington, D.C. EPA 843‐B‐12‐005 

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function‐Based 
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843‐K‐12‐006. 

NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services. March 2015. 2015 Neuse 03020201 Priorities. Last accessed at  
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=340a3f58‐336b‐42bf‐bab2‐
fb663cbfd78d&groupId=60329 

NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Feb. 2014. Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting  
  Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance. Last accessed at:  
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7af33f02‐0b5d‐4e8c‐b4e5‐
8517b3b41815&groupId=60329 

NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources. Draft 2016 303(d) list. Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 11/2017 at:   
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2016/NC_2016_Category_5_20
160606.pdf 

North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory 
Mitigation Update. Last accessed at:   http://saw‐reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington‐District‐
Mitigation‐Update.pdf 

Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295. Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and 
Maintenance of Riparian Buffers.  Last accessed at  
  http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20‐
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20‐
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
41 
Shields, F.D., Jr. R.R. Copeland, P.C. Klingeman, M.W. Doyle, and A. Simon. 2003. Design for Stream 
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 129 (8): 575‐584. 

Shields, Ing. A., W. P. Ott, and J. C. Van Uchelen. 1936. Application of Similarity Principles and Turbulence 
Research to Bed‐load Movement. Pasadena, CA: Soil Conservation Service, California Institute of 
Technology 

Simon, A., W. Dickerson, and A. Heins. 2004. Suspended‐sediment transport rates at the 1.5‐year  
recurrence interval for ecoregions of the United States: transport conditions at the bankfull and 
effective discharge? Geomorphology 58: 243–262. 

Simon, A. and M. Rinaldi. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of excess  
transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79: 
361–383. 

Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District. 

USDA, Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program. 2008. Stream Simulation: An  
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road‐Stream Crossings. 
Appendix E: Methods for Streambed Mobility/Stability Analysis. Last accessed 9/2016 at: 
http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/ 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2017. Web Soil Survey. Last accessed at:  
    http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 

USGS. 2017. National Streamflow Statistics Program, Version 6.1. Database Version NSS_v6_2017‐09‐ 
27.mdb. Last accessed 11/2017 at: http://water.usgs.gov/software/NSS/. 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085
42 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085

12.0 APPENDICES 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085

12.1 Plan Sheets 

Draft Mitigation Plan               Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                  DMS Project Number 97085

SF1 9+93 to 21+48 1,235 Restoration 1 to 1 1,155 1,15521+48 to 32+52 1,143 1,104 1,104SF2* 33+16 to 44+49 1,027 Restoration 1 to 1 1,133 1,13344+80 to 49+50 283 470 47049+50 to 55+48 592 598 59855+78 to 56+74 96 96 96Tributary 1 100+00 to 105+10 365 Restoration 1 to 1 510 510Tributary 1A 150+00 to 151+59 47 Restoration 1 to 1 159 159Tributary 1B 160+00 to 160+26 26 Restoration 1 to 12626Tributary 2‐1 200+00 to 203+34 326 Enhancement II 2.5 to 1 334 134Tributary 2‐2 203+34 to 206+71 318 Restoration 1 to 1 337 337Tributary 2‐3 206+71 to 215+26 820 Restoration 1 to 1 855 855Tributary 3 300+00 to 300+71 72 Enhancement I1.5 to 17147Tributary 3 300+71 to 301+29 82 Restoration 1 to 15858TOTAL STREAM CREDITS 6,682Buffer Restoration TOB to 100'N/A 415,271        Buffer Restoration TOB to 100'1 to 1 415,271          415,271     Buffer Restoration 101‐200'N/A 37,091           Buffer Restoration 101‐200'3 to 1 37,091             12,364        Buffer Enhancement TOB to 100'N/A 74,803           Buffer Enhancement TOB to 100'2 to 1 74,803             37,402        Buffer Preservation TOB to 100'N/A 175,721        Buffer Preservation TOB to 100'10 to 1 175,721          17,572.10  482,608    * Crossings have been removed from creditable linear footage for all project streams.PROJECT COMPONENTS – 6,682 STREAM CREDITS AND 482,608 BUFFER CREDITSSF3*Reach IDProposed        StationingExisting Footage or Square FeetApproachTOTAL BUFFER CREDITSMitigation RatioRestoration Footage or AreaMitigation  CreditsRestoration 1 to 1

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.2 Data Analysis/Supplemental Information and Maps 
Existing Conditions Cross‐Sections 
Pebble Count Tables 
Stream Morphological Tables 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Station Elevation0.0 201.53 199.64.5 201.87 6.48.6 202.02 7.210.2 201.75 200.811.0 201.46 8.711.8 199.65 1.212.8 198.68 0.913.5 198.52 8.114.3 198.43 1.215.4 198.36 2.916.1 198.4817.2 198.6418.4 198.8621.0 201.8422.0 201.8830.3 201.5237.3 201.17Bankfull Elevation:SUMMARY DATARiver Basin:Project NameXS IDDrainage Area:Date:Field Crew:175 acresFlood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:NeuseStony ForkXS15/26/2016T. Seelinger, A. FrenchBankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Mean Depth at Bankfull:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:W / D Ratio:1981992002012022030 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS15/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area65
Station Elevation0.0 198.70 194.44.1 198.56 7.07.5 198.16 7.011.9 197.19 195.616.0 196.15 10.018.0 195.67 1.320.0 195.41 1.020.6 195.23 7.020.8 193.51 1.422.3 193.52 1.723.0 193.1424.2 193.1025.1 193.0725.9 193.1026.4 193.3227.2 193.7427.9 194.5628.7 196.7530.1 197.0733.1 197.0837.0 196.7940.5 196.6443.7 196.43NeuseStony ForkXS2River Basin:Project NameXS IDDrainage Area:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Date:Field Crew:190 acres5/26/2016T. Seelinger, A. FrenchW / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bankfull Elevation:SUMMARY DATAMean Depth at Bankfull:Bank Height Ratio:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:1921931941951961971981990 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS25/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area66
Station Elevation0.0 189.45185.24.1 189.556.910.1 189.215.013.4 188.67187.415.8 188.117.417.6 187.762.218.9 185.811.421.6 183.443.622.0 183.271.522.4 183.052.122.7 182.9623.2 183.0624.4 184.2825.3 187.4428.4 189.3629.2 190.9833.1 191.7436.4 192.0939.0 192.43Bankfull Elevation:SUMMARY DATARiver Basin:Project NameXS IDDrainage Area:Date:Field Crew:217 acresFlood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:NeuseStony ForkXS35/26/2016T. Seelinger, A. FrenchBankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Mean Depth at Bankfull:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:W / D Ratio:1821841861881901921940 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS35/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area67
Station Elevation0.0 182.10 180.44.7 182.08 8.99.0 182.19 10.011.5 181.81 181.713.8 181.21 14.515.1 180.27 1.316.3 180.18 0.916.6 179.46 11.218.9 179.37 1.520.2 179.27 1.621.5 179.1722.8 179.1823.3 179.0323.9 179.3025.8 181.2428.6 183.3430.9 183.8037.3 184.06NeuseStony ForkXS4River Basin:Project NameXS IDDrainage Area:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Date:Field Crew:254 acresMax Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:Bankfull Elevation:SUMMARY DATAMean Depth at Bankfull:5/26/2016T. Seelinger, A. FrenchBankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:1781791801811821831841850 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS45/26/2016BankfullFloodprone Area68
Station Elevation0.0 178.30 176.68.5 178.72 8.214.0 178.98 7.416.6 178.59 178.018.1 178.34 9.919.9 176.94 1.521.4 175.41 1.123.3 175.42 6.724.6 175.22 1.325.6 175.11 2.226.3 175.2227.1 175.3929.0 179.2129.9 179.3235.4 179.2740.1 179.2944.4 179.26Bankfull Elevation:SUMMARY DATARiver Basin:Project NameXS IDDrainage Area:Date:Field Crew:264 acresFlood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:NeuseStony ForkXS55/26/2016T. Seelinger, A. FrenchBankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Mean Depth at Bankfull:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:W / D Ratio:1741751761771781791800 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS55/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area69
Station Elevation0.0 176.80 175.64.4 177.00 12.58.8 177.22 10.510.1 177.30 176.911.4 176.81 14.412.4 174.40 1.314.7 174.22 1.216.9 174.37 8.819.2 174.32 1.420.8 174.29 2.022.0 174.4723.5 178.1625.8 179.7727.8 180.1931.2 180.2634.9 179.4839.0 178.9342.3 178.7545.0 178.96River Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS IDXS6Drainage Area:414 acresDate:5/26/2016Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchSUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:1731741751761771781791801810 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS65/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area70
Station Elevation0.0 199.77 197.04.1 199.60 0.97.9 199.49 3.412.0 198.93 197.414.4 198.87 4.517.2 198.33 0.418.4 197.93 0.319.5 197.21 12.820.0 196.60 1.320.8 196.75 4.521.4 196.7722.2 196.6223.1 196.9924.6 198.1026.0 198.5130.3 198.6034.5 198.2638.6 198.11Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Drainage Area:12 acresDate:5/26/2016XS7SUMMARY DATAEntrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:Bankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchRiver Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS ID1961971971981981991992002000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS75/26/2016BankfullFloodprone Area71
Station Elevation0.0 99.77 96.05.3 100.02 3.611.3 100.00 4.414.0 99.65 97.214.9 96.50 5.716.3 95.01 1.216.7 94.96 0.817.5 94.88 5.418.1 94.82 1.318.5 95.05 4.119.6 95.6822.0 100.0323.8 100.2528.7 100.1135.3 100.35River Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS IDXS8Drainage Area:93 acresDate:5/26/2016Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchSUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:9495969798991001010 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS85/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area72
Station Elevation0.0 177.63176.76.4 177.599.411.0 177.915.713.1 178.03178.813.8 177.79>3014.7 174.812.115.6 174.671.616.5 174.853.517.5 174.865.318.5 175.021.519.2 175.2920.4 178.2322.0 178.6826.8 178.5830.7 178.57River Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS IDXS9Drainage Area:149.5 acresDate:5/26/2016Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchSUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:1741751751761761771771781781791791800 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS95/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area73
Station Elevation0.0 182.75 180.64.7 182.77 9.38.5 182.35 10.111.8 181.71 182.013.5 181.06 >2015.8 180.64 1.316.4 179.53 0.919.3 179.49 11.021.4 179.29 2.022.7 179.54 1.123.3 179.7024.4 180.2626.6 180.8029.2 181.1030.9 181.48River Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS IDXS Ref1Drainage Area:263.9 acresDate:5/26/2016Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchSUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:1791801801811811821821831830 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS Ref15/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area74
Station Elevation0.0 101.01 100.27.2 100.37 15.010.0 100.99 11.811.1 100.87 102.312.4 99.16 >3813.6 98.10 2.114.7 98.18 1.316.2 98.21 9.317.2 98.21 3.218.0 98.34 1.118.8 98.5019.4 99.2920.5 99.6124.0 100.3026.3 101.0230.1 100.8038.2 101.73River Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS IDXS Ref2Drainage Area:536.8 acresDate:5/26/2016Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchSUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:989899991001001011011021021031030510152025303540Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS Ref25/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area75
Station Elevation0.0 100.94 100.08.4 101.48 15.09.8 101.44 11.711.3 100.39 102.113.5 99.56 >2515.1 99.45 2.116.1 99.09 1.317.2 98.14 9.118.1 98.09 2.119.3 97.99 1.520.0 98.1121.6 98.1422.3 98.2422.8 98.5225.3 101.8626.2 102.1929.3 102.9333.5 103.22River Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS IDXS Ref3Drainage Area:536.8 acresDate:5/26/2016Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchSUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:9798991001011021031040 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS Ref35/26/2016BankfullFlood Prone Area76
Station Elevation0.0 100.63 98.10.8 100.49 5.92.3 98.98 7.76.3 98.49 99.410.3 98.83 22.313.3 98.52 1.315.6 97.90 0.817.8 97.57 10.018.1 96.96 2.918.7 96.87 1.219.7 96.9821.0 96.9421.6 96.8423.0 98.6224.5 99.5831.1 99.7234.5 100.6538.8 100.78River Basin:NeuseProject NameStony ForkXS IDXS Ref4Drainage Area:149.5 acresDate:5/26/2016Field Crew:T. Seelinger, A. FrenchSUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation:Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:Bankfull Width:Flood Prone Area Elevation:Flood Prone Width:Max Depth at Bankfull:Mean Depth at Bankfull:W / D Ratio:Entrenchment Ratio:Bank Height Ratio:9797989899991001001011010510152025303540Elevation (feet)Station (feet)Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork, XS Ref45/26/2016BankfullFloodprone Area77
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS1
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
3%Silt/Clay
26%Sand
71%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.15D16
1.2D35
2.2D50
5.3D65
7.5D84
11D95
Size Distribution
1.1Mean (mm)
7.1Dispersion
-0.4Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
3
10
2
4
5
5
20
6
13
20
7
4
1
10078
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS2
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
3%Silt/Clay
54%Sand
43%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.11D16
0.23D35
0.57D50
3.4D65
8.0D84
11D95
Size Distribution
0.9Mean (mm)
8.6Dispersion
0.2Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
3
4
11
19
11
8
6
3
18
12
3
1
9979
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS3
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
61%Silt/Clay
13%Sand
26%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.062D16
0.062D35
0.062D50
0.068D65
4.7D84
11D95
Size Distribution
0.5Mean (mm)
8.7Dispersion
1Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
62
3
5
3
1
1
5
3
4
1
8
3
2
10180
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS4
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
10%Silt/Clay
90%Sand
0%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.066D16
0.080D35
0.093D50
0.11D65
0.14D84
0.21D95
Size Distribution
0.1Mean (mm)
1.5Dispersion
0.1Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
10
70
20
10081
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS5
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
5%Silt/Clay
7%Sand
88%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
1.1D16
2.1D35
4.1D50
7.0D65
12D84
17D95
Size Distribution
3.7Mean (mm)
3.3Dispersion
-0.1Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
5
1
7
23
17
10
11
13
14
5
1
10782
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS6
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
5%Silt/Clay
10%Sand
85%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
1.1D16
6.0D35
8.3D50
9.6D65
12D84
15D95
Size Distribution
3.6Mean (mm)
3.3Dispersion
-0.7Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
6
1
9
1
10
3
8
15
40
17
4
11483
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS7
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
100%Silt/Clay
0%Sand
0%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.062D16
0.062D35
0.062D50
0.062D65
0.062D84
0.062D95
Size Distribution
0.1Mean (mm)
1Dispersion
NaNSkewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
100
10084
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS8
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
100%Silt/Clay
0%Sand
0%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.062D16
0.062D35
0.062D50
0.062D65
0.062D84
0.062D95
Size Distribution
0.1Mean (mm)
1Dispersion
NaNSkewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
100
10085
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS9
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
8%Silt/Clay
67%Sand
25%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.031D16
0.13D35
0.21D50
0.45D65
2.0D84
6.1D95
Size Distribution
0.2Mean (mm)
8Dispersion
0.1Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
9
15
14
25
13
9
11
4
7
6
1
11486
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS Ref 1
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
10%Silt/Clay
90%Sand
0%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.066D16
0.080D35
0.093D50
0.11D65
0.14D84
0.21D95
Size Distribution
0.1Mean (mm)
1.5Dispersion
0.1Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
10
70
20
10087
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS Ref 2
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
0%Silt/Clay
65%Sand
35%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.091D16
0.20D35
0.39D50
1.0D65
1.8D84
5.6D95
Size Distribution
0.4Mean (mm)
4.4Dispersion
0Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
11
10
22
13
11
23
5
3
2
1
1
1
10388
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS Ref 3
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
0%Silt/Clay
81%Sand
19%Gravel
0%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.10D16
0.17D35
0.22D50
0.41D65
1.2D84
3.2D95
Size Distribution
0.3Mean (mm)
3.4Dispersion
0.4Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
7
13
37
11
13
12
3
3
1
10089
020406080100Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS Ref 4
Particle Size (mm)% Finer Than (Cumulative)0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Assessment - 5/26/2016
Type
7%Silt/Clay
24%Sand
68%Gravel
1%Cobble
0%Boulder
0%Bedrock
0%Hardpan
0%Wood/Det.
0%Artificial
Size (mm)
0.12D16
2.4D35
6.4D50
11D65
19D84
30D95
Size Distribution
1.6Mean (mm)
12.5Dispersion
-0.6Skewness
Particle
Silt/Clay
Millimeter
Very Fine
Fine
Count
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
Bedrock
< 0.062
.062 - .125
.125 - .25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 5.7
5.7 - 8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45 - 64
64 - 90
90 - 128
128 - 180
180 - 256
256 - 362
362 - 512
512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
>2048
S/C
S
A
N
D
S
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
C
O
B
L
B
L
D
R
BDRK
Total
7
4
6
7
4
4
3
8
8
6
14
13
9
10
2
1
10690
T1
Stony Fork
T2
XSRe f 1
XSRe f 4
XSRe f 2XSRef 3
T3
T1B-T1A
NCCGIA
Ü 0 1,000500Feet
REFERENCE CROSS-SECTION LOCATIONS
Project Easement
Existing Project Streams
Other Streams
Reference Cross-Sections
Source: NC OneMap Orthoimagery 2013.
Morphological CriteriaReferenceG4c G4c - G5c G4c G5 G5c C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C40.27 0.41 0.84 0.02 0.23 1.49 ~ 0.27 0.41 0.84 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.23 0.027.2 5.0 -- 10.0 10.5 3.4 4.5 -- 5.7 14.8 -- 18.8 ~ 9.7 11.3 12.6 5.0 5.0 7.6 9.0 5.00.9 1.0 -- 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.8 -- 1.7 1.3 -- 1.8 ~ 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.46.4 6.9 -- 8.9 12.5 0.9 3.6 -- 9.4 25 ~ 7.0 9.4 11.8 1.9 1.9 4.3 5.8 1.98.1 3.7 -- 11.2 8.9 12.7 3.4 -- 5.4 9.0 -- 14.0 10 -- 15 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.4 13.9 13.51.2 1.3 -- 2.2 1.3 0.4 1.2 -- 2.1 1.9 -- 2.4 ~ 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.68.7 7.4 -- 14.5 14.4 4.5 5.7 -- 30.7 >50 ~ 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 501.2 1.4 -- 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 -- 5.4 >2.5 >2.5 10.3 8.8 7.9 10 10 6.6 5.6 101.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 -- 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2Pool Mean Depth (ft)*****1.6 -- 1.8 ~ 1.3 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.7Riffle Mean Depth (ft) (Dbkf) 0.9 1.0 -- 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.8 -- 1.7 1.3 -- 1.8 ~ 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4Pool Width (ft)*****16.2 -- 18.8 ~ 13.5 15.7 17.5 7.0 7.0 10.6 12.5 7.0Riffle Width (ft) 7.2 5.0 -- 10.0 10.5 3.4 4.5 -- 5.7 14.8 -- 18.8 ~ 9.7 11.3 12.6 5.0 5.0 7.6 9.0 5.0Pool XS Area (sf)*****25.5 -- 33.4 ~ 17.6 23.3 29.2 5.0 5.0 10.1 14.8 5.0Riffle XS Area (sf) 6.4 6.9 -- 8.9 12.5 0.9 3.6 -- 9.4 25.0 ~ 7.0 9.4 11.8 1.9 1.9 4.3 5.8 1.9Pool Width / Riffle Width*****1.2 -- 1.3 1.2 -- 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4Pool Max Depth / Dbkf***** 2.21.5 -- 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.0Bank Height Ratio 2.9 1.6 -- 2.1 2.0 4.5 1.5 -- 4.1 1.0 -- 1.2 1.0 -- 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Mean Bankfull Velocity (V) (fps) 3.5 3.3 -- 3.8 3.4 3.2 2.1 -- 3.9 3.7 -- 4.2 3.5 -- 5 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.4 1.2Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs) 22.2 23.7 -- 30.2 42.1 3 13.9 -- 19.7 93 -- 105 ~ 22.7 30.4 42.8 5.6** 5.3 13.5 19.9 2.2Radius of Curvature (Rc) (ft)*****16 -- 87 ~ 20 -- 29 22 -- 33 28 -- 35 11 -- 17 12 -- 15 16 -- 23 18 -- 23 11 -- 14Belt Width (Wblt) (ft)***** 60 ~30 -- 55 37 -- 65 46 -- 77 23 -- 37 25 -- 40 28 -- 45 32 -- 54 16 -- 26Meander Length (Lm) (ft)*****66 -- 191 ~ 93 -- 132 105 -- 148 148 -- 176 58 -- 72 70 85 -- 90 92 -- 100 43-- 47Radius of Curvature / Bankfull Width*****0.9 -- 5.9 2 -- 3 2.1 -- 3.0 2.0 -- 2.9 2.2 -- 2.8 2.2 -- 3.4 2.4 -- 3.0 2.1 -- 3.0 2 .0-- 2.6 2.2 -- 2.8Meander Width Ratio (Wblt / Wbkf)***** 4.13.5 -- 8 3.1 -- 5.7 3.3 -- 5.8 3.7 -- 6.1 4.6 -- 7.4 5.0 -- 8.0 3.7 -- 5.9 3.6 -- 6.0 3.2 -- 5.2Meander Length / Bankfull Width*****3.5 -- 12.9 7 -- 14 9.6 -- 13.6 9.3 -- 13.1 11.7 -- 14.0 11.6 -- 14.4 14 11.2 -- 11.8 10.2 -- 11.1 8.6 -- 9.4Valley slope 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.028 0.013 0.006 0.005 -- 0.015 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.024 0.016 0.014 0.013 0.0019Average water surface slope 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.035 0.014 0.005 ~ 0.0090.008 0.008 0.020 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.0016Riffle slope 0.009 0.003 -- 0.008 0.006 0.035 0.009 -- 0.020 0.013 -- 0.035 ~ 0.009 -- 0.015 0.009 -- 0.015 0.01 0.014 - 0.04 0.016 0.014 0.012 -- 0.015 0.0025Pool slope*****0 -- 0.0003 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0.006 0 0 0Pool to pool spacing*****50 -- 105 ~ 55 -- 70 59 -- 84 84 -- 101 31 -- 44 32-- 40 44 -- 50 46 -- 63 21 -- 27Pool length*****14 -- 33 ~ 21 -- 46 24 -- 52 35 -- 62 11 -- 29 6 -- 16 14 -- 24 12 -- 34 7 -- 15Riffle Slope / Avg. Water Surface Slope 1.00 0.31 -- 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 -- 1.43 2.6 -- 7.0 1.2 -- 1.5 1.0 -- 1.6 1.1 -- 1.9 1.2 0.7 - 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 -- 1.4 1.6Pool Slope / Avg. Water Surface Slope*****0 -- 0.06 0 -- 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pool to Pool Spacing / Bankfull Width*****2.7 -- 7.1 3.5 -- 7 5.6 -- 7.3 5.2 -- 7.4 6.7 -- 8.0 6.2 -- 8.8 6.4 -- 8.0 5.7 -- 6.6 5.1 -- 7.0 4.2 -- 5.4* : no data shown for pools, radius of curvature or meanders in existing stream do to channelization / lack of bed diversity** : channel sized larger for constructabilityT3Restored ReachesWidth / Depth Ratio (Wbkf / Dbkf)Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) (ft)Stream Type (Rosgen)SF3SF1Stable Design RatiosSF1 (xs1)Profile Pattern DimensionEntrenchment Ratio (ER)Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) (K)Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa) (ft)Maximum Depth (dmbkf) (ft)SF2 (xs2-5)SF3 (xs6)T1 (xs7)Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf) (ft2)Drainage Area (mi2)T2-2T2 (xs8-9)Long BranchT2-2T2-1Existing ChannelT1SF2

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.3 Buffer Mitigation 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Location Jurisdictional Streams Restoration TypeReach ID/ ComponentBuffer Width (ft)Creditable Area (sf)*Initial Credit Ratio (x:1)% Full CreditFinal Credit Ratio (x:1)Riparian Buffer Credits (BMU)Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 1.33                       ‐ SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 292,954 100% 1.00            292,954 SF 101‐200' 20,075 33% 3.00                 6,692 Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 2.67                       ‐ SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 16,364 100% 2.00                 8,182 101‐200' 33% 6.00                       ‐ Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 1.33                       ‐ T1 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 75,209 100% 1.00               75,209 T1 101‐200' 17,015 33% 3.00                 5,672 Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 2.67                       ‐ Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 100% 2.00                       ‐ 101‐200' 33% 6.00                       ‐ Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 1.33                       ‐ T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 47,108 100% 1.00               47,108 101‐200' 33% 3.00                       ‐ Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 2.67                       ‐ T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 58,439 100% 2.00               29,219 101‐200' 33% 6.00                       ‐ 527,164           465,036 175,721                   Location Jurisdictional Streams Restoration TypeReach ID/ ComponentBuffer Width (ft)Creditable Area (sf)*Initial Credit Ratio (x:1)% Full CreditFinal Credit Ratio (x:1)Riparian Buffer Credits (BMU)SF Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 1,378 75% 13.33                    103 SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 334,203 100% 10.00               33,420 SF 101‐200' 9,358 33% 30.00                    309 Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 6.67                       ‐ Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 100% 5.00                       ‐ 101‐200' 33% 15.00                       ‐ Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 13.33                       ‐ T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 115,847 100% 10.00               11,585 T2 101‐200' 854 33% 30.00                      28 Min. 20' from TOB  to 29' 75% 6.67                       ‐ Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 100% 5.00                       ‐ 101‐200' 33% 15.00                       ‐ 461,641                                 45,445 450,050175,72110 100% 10              17,572 988,805                510,481       702,886 482,608       TOTAL TOTAL WITH LIMITED PRESERVATIONSUBTOTAL AREA (SF): Min. 30' from TOB to 100' PreservationLIMIT OF PRESERVATION BY TOTAL AREASUBTOTALSSUBTOTALSELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREARural SubjectRestoration1Enhancement2Rural NonsubjectRestoration1Enhancement2Rural SubjectRestoration1Enhancement2RuralSubjectPreservation10Nonsubject5RuralSubjectPreservation10Nonsubject5
Sheet 2
Sheet 3
Sheet 1
NCCGIAÜ0250125Feet
Buffer Mitigation - Overview
Image Source:NCOneMap 2013
Project Easement
Buffer Zones
TO B to less than 20 ' (No Cred it)
TO B to 20-29'
TO B to 30'
30-100'
101-200 '
T1
T2
!
!
!
!
NCCGIAÜ0250125Feet
Buffer Mitigation - Field Points
Image Source:NCOneMap 2013
Existing Project Streams
Other Streams
Project Easement
!Field Points
T1
T2
SF
NCCGIAÜ010050Feet
Buffer Mitigation - Sheet 1
Image Source:NCOneMap 2013
MATCHLINE WITHSHEET 2
T1
Star t Stony For kReach 1 (SF1)
Stony For kReach 2 (SF2)
Out of T1 watershed and beyond 200'of Stony Fork
Project Easement
Easement Drainage Breaks
Buffer Width Zones
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Restoration
Buffer Enhancement
Buffer Preservation
NCCGIA
Ü 0 10050Feet
Buffer Mitigation - Sheet 2
Image Source:NCOneMap 2013
MATCHLINE WITHSHEET 1
Stony For k Reach 2 (SF2)
MATCHLINE WITHSHEET 3
Project Easement
Buffer Width Zones
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Restoration
Buffer Enhancement
Buffer Preservation
NCCGIAÜ010050Feet
Buffer Mitigation - Sheet 3
Image Source:NCOneMap 2013
MATCHLINE WITHSHEET 2
T2
Stony For kReach 3 (SF3)
Pr oject End
Project Easement
Easement Drainage Breaks
Buffer Width Zones
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Restoration
Buffer Enhancement
Buffer Preservation

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.4 Site Protection Instrument 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.5 Credit Release Schedule 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the final design plans unless 
otherwise documented and provided to the Interagency Review Team following construction. Under no 
circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA authorization has been 
received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the 
project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The 
DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have 
been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some 
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the 
case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site 
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the 
criteria described as follows: 
Stream Credit Release Schedule – 7 year Timeframe 
Monitoring 
Year Credit Release Activity Interim 
Release 
Total 
Released 
0  Initial Allocation – see requirements below  30%  30% 
1  First year monitoring report demonstrates performance 
standards are being met 
10%  40% 
2  Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance 
standards are being met 
10%  50% (60%*) 
3  Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance 
standards are being met 
10%  60% (70%*) 
4  Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 
standards are being met 
5%  65% (75%*) 
5  Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 
standards are being met 
10%  75% (85%*) 
6  Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 
standards are being met 
5%  80% (90%*) 
7  Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are 
being met, and project has received close‐out approval from IRT 
10%  90% (100%*) 
*See Subsequent Credit Releases description below 

Initial Allocation of Released Credits 
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCDMS 
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities: 
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan 
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE 
covering the property 
c. Completion  of  project  construction  (the  initial  physical  and  biological  improvements  to  the 
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCDMS Instrument, construction means 
that a mitigation sit\e has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as‐built 
report has  been  produced. As‐built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project 
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits. 
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA appr oval for projects where DA permit 
issuance is not required 

Subsequent Credit Releases 
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a 
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream project with a 7‐year 
monitoring period, a reserve of 10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bank‐full 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

events  have  occurred,  in  separate  years,  provided  the  channel  is  stable  and  all  other  performance 
standards are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, 
release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones 
associated with credit release, the NCDMS will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with 
documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation 
will be included with the annual monitoring report.  

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.6 Financial Assurance 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service’s In‐Lieu Fee Instrument 
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly NCDENR) has 
provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects 
to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all 
mitigation projects implemented by the program. 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.7 DWR Stream Identification Forms 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.8 Approved Jurisdictional Determination 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

12.9 Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form 

Draft Mitigation Plan                                                      Stony Fork Restoration Site 
April 24, 2018                                                     DMS Project Number 97085 

Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of
Mitigation Services Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Infor mation
Ston Fork Stream Restoration Site
Johnston Count , NC
97085
KCI Technolo ies, Inc.
Tim Morris
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Ralei h, NC 27609
Stony Fork is a stream and stream buffer restoration project for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Services, Division of Mitigation Services that aims to restore and enhance over 7000 linear feet of channelized and entrenched stream channels in the Neuse River Basin. This project will occur on eight parcels of privately owned land near the Town of Benson in Johnston Count North Carolina.
Date
Conditional Approved By:
Date
D Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By: •••••
Date
. ...
DMS Project Manager
For Division Administrator
FHWA
For Division Administrator
FHWA
\/Ar�irm 1 .:1 A/1 A/nF,
7-6-2016
Lindsay Crocker
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 1
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 2

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the specie and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
(By virtue of no-response)
Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 3
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?

Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A

Agency Responses

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

May 12, 2016

Timothy Morris
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609

Re: Stony Fork Stream Restoration, KCI 161600959, Johnston County, ER 16-0710
Dear Mr. Morris:
Thank you for your letter of April 21, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
May 31, 2016
Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr Morris:
Thank you for your letter dated April 22, 2016, Subject: Request for Comments –
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project, KCI Job Number – 161600959, Johnston
Co., NC. The following guidance is provided for your information.
Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.
Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban-built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
North Carolina
State Office
4407 Bland Road
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171
Fax [phone]
Mr. Morris
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: [e-mail].
Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC
MILTON CORTES
Digitally signed by MILTON CORTES
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=Department of
Agriculture, cn=MILTON CORTES,
0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=12001000080173
Date: 2016.05.31 15:49:42 -04'00'

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

May 4, 2016

Mr. Timothy Morris
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609

Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project, KCI
Project Number 161600959, Johnston County, North Carolina.

Dear Mr. Morris,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).

KCI Technologies of North Carolina proposes to complete a wetland restoration project for the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The subject site, referred to as the Stony Fork Stream
Restoration Site, is located approximately 2,000 feet south and east of the intersection of Elevation and
Federal Roads. The proposed restoration work will restore hydrology and vegetation by realigning the
existing stream and stabilizing the site with native vegetation. Stony Creek flows into Hannah Creek in
the Neuse River basin.

Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and
wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products
should have loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or
metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.

Page 2

May 4, 2016
Scoping – Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NCNHDE-1517
April 20, 2016
Thomas Seelinger
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
[e-mail]
RE: Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
Dear Thomas Seelinger:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there
are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed
areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of
natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area
may not have been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for site-specific surveys
where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact
the NCNHP so that we may update our records.
The attached ‘Potential Occurrences’ table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have
been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records
suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable
habitat exists and is included for reference.
Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one-mile radius of the project area, if any,
are also included in this report. The location of the natural areas and conservation/managed areas can be
viewed online on the Natural Heritage Data Explorer found at: https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications.
Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally-listed species are documented near the
project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact John Finnegan at [e-mail] or 919.707.8630.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 3
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
April 20, 2016
NCNHDE-1517
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Status
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Dragonfly or
Damselfly
33753 Somatochlora georgiana Coppery Emerald 2004-PRE Historical 5-Very
Low
---Significantly
Rare
G3G4 S2?
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on April 20, 2016; source: NCNHP, Q4 October 2015. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 3 of 3

Affidavit of Public Notice