The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20091169 Ver 1_401 Application_20110711WI LDLANDS ENGINEERING July 1, 2011 Mr. Ian McMillan` NC DENR? _ JU1_ 0 2011 Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27 and Water Quality Certification No. 3689 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project Rockingham County, North Carolina Dear Mr. McMillan: Please find enclosed five copies of our PCN package for the subject project. following supporting data: • PCN form, • Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan and EEP approval letter, • USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination, and • 11" x 17" copy of the 60% plan set. The goals of the project are to • restore and enhance appropriate in-stream, terrestrial, and wetland habitat, • improve water quality by reducing nutrient levels and sediment deposition, • stabilize the stream banks with native vegetation, and • excavate a floodplain bench. We have included the This same information has been submitted to the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office of the US Army Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions, please call me at (704) 332-7754. Sincerely, Mat enkins, PWS Environmental Scientist Enclosure cc: Mr. Andrew Williams US Army Corps of Engineers a_ a ;, 4R - \ 1 to °\ 0 WA7E?9 Office Use Only: G Corps action ID no. DWQ project no. Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008 Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form A. Applicant Information 'AT' 1. Processing 1 a . Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit 1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number: 1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No 1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply): ® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit ? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization 1 e. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401 Certification: ? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit: ? Yes ® No 1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program. ® El Yes No 1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h below. ? Yes ® No 1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No 2. Project Information 2a. Name of project: Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site 2b. County: Rockingham 2c. Nearest municipality / town: Reidsville, NC 2d. Subdivision name: N/A 2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: 3. Owner Information 3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: (Stream Site) - Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC (Wetland Site) - State of North Carolina (NCEEP) - Conservation Easement holder; Jerry D. Apple - parcel owner 3b. Deed Book and Page No. (Wildlands Conservation Easement) - Deed Book 1411, Page No. 2458 (Apple Conservation Easement) - Deed Book 1412, Page No. 1685 3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable): Wildlands Engineering, Inc.(EEP Stream Mitigation Full-Delivery Provider) Contact: John Hutton 3d. Street address: 5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122 3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27607 3f. Telephone no.: 919-851-9986 3g. Fax no.: 919-851-9987 3h. Email address: jhutton@wildlandsinc.com Page 1 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Engineer/Consultant 4b. Name: John Hutton 4c. Business name (if applicable): Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 4d. Street address: 5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122 4e. City, state, zip:: Raleigh, NC 27607 4f. Telephone no 919-851-9986 4g. Fax no.: ` ` ° 919-851-9987 4h. Email address: jhutton@wildlandsinc.com 5. Agent/Consuttant Information (if applicable) 5a. Name: 5b. Business name (if applicable): 5c. Street address: 5d. City, state, zip: 5e. Telephone no.: 5f. Fax no.: 5g. Email address: Page 2 of 11 B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification 1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PIN# 175706, 159491, 156941 1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): (Stream Site) Latitude: 36.329409 Longitude: 79.658261 (Wetland Site) Latitude: 36.275194 Longitude: 79.609577 1c. Property size: (Stream Site) - 34.5 acre tract (Wetland Site) - 19 acre tract 2. Surface Waters 2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to proposed project: Little Troublesome Creek 2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class C; NSW 2c. River basin: Cape Fear 03030002 3. Project Description 3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: The stream portion of this project is located within an urbanized watershed of Reidsville, NC. Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek exhibit severe bank erosion, incision, and over-widening. The wetland portion of this project is located in a relatively rural watershed, south of Reidsville. The existing and proposed wetlands are located entirely within an active agricultural crop field. 3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: The stream site includes approximately 1.7 acres; the wetland site includes 3.7 acres for a total of 5.4 acres of existing wetlands. 3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: Approximately 5,326 linear feet of intermittent and perennial channel within the project area. 3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: The primary goal for the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel within Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek through enhancement and restoration activities. As well as improve terrestrial wetland habitat adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek through enhancement and creation activities. 3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of new channel and floodplain, excavation of riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in-stream structures. A trackhoe will be used for in-stream work. 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including all prior phases) in the past? ®Yes ? No ? Unknown Comments: 4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ? Preliminary ®Final of determination was made? 4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Name (if known): Matt L. Jenkins, PWS - Wildlands Eng. Other: 4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation. SAW2009-02113, dated May 5, 2011 (enclosed in Appendix 2 of the report) 5. Project History 5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ®No ? Unknown 5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions. Page 3 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version B. Project Information and Prior Project History 6. Future Project Plans 6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No 6b. If yes, explain. Page 4 of 11 C. Proposed Impacts Inventory 1. Impacts Summary 1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply): ® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers ? Open Waters ? Pond Construction 2. Wetland Impacts If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted. 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f. Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres) Temporary T BB ? P ® T Temporary - Bottomland ® Yes ® Corps 1 39 Enhancement Hardwood ? No ® DWQ . CC ? P ®T Temporary - Bottomland ® Yes ® Corps 0 09 Enhancement Hardwood ? No ® DWQ . WL-1 ]PET Temporary - Palustrine Emergent El Yes E 0 9 Enhancement (crop field) ® No DWQ N . WL-2 E] P ®T Temporary - Palustrine Emergent El Yes ® Corps 2 76 Enhancement n (crop field) ®No ®DWQ . W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps ? No ? DWQ W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps ? No ? DWQ 2g. Total wetland impacts 5.14 2h. Comments: Portions of Wetlands BB and CC will be temporarily graded from adjacent channel construction and will be planted and enhanced with native vegetation. Wetlands WL-1 and WL-2 will be enhanced and planted with native vegetation. 3. Stream Impacts If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g. Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ -non-404 width (linear Temporary (T) ? (INT) . , other) (feet) feet) S1 ? P ®T Restoration Little Troublesome ® PER ® Corps 20 887 Creek ? INT ® DWQ S2 ? P ®T Restoration Irvin Creek ® PER ? INT ® Corps ® DWQ 15-20 3,544 S2 ? PET Restoration UT1 ? PER ® INT ® Corps ® DWQ 3-4 161 S3 ? P ® T Enhancement UT4 ? PER ® Corps 2 172 ® INT ® DWQ 3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 4,764 3i. Comments: All impacts to on-site streams include temporary enhancement and restoration activities and will result in a net gain of 781 linear feet of stream channel (702 LF perennial, 79LF intermittent). Page 5 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 4. Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below. 4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e. Open water Name of waterbody impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres) Permanent (P) or Temporary 01 ?P?T 02 ?P?T 03 ?P?T 04 ?P?T 0. Total open water impacts 4g. Comments: 5. Pond or Lake Construction If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below. 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e. Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres) number of pond Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded P1 P2 5f. Total 5g. Comments: 5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no: 5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): 5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): 5k. Method of construction: 6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form. 6a. ? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other: Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman 6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g. Buffer impact number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Temporary impact required? 131 ?P?T ?Yes ? No B2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No B3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No 6h. Total buffer impacts 6i. Comments: Page 6 of 11 D. Impact Justification and Mitigation 1. Avoidance and Minimization 1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project. The project constitutes a positive impact, enhancing and restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features in the streams and establishing flood storage. Wetland habitat will also be enhanced and created through improved hydrologic function and vegetation. Biodegradable coir fiber matting and native vegetation will be used to stabilize the newly graded banks throughout the project. 1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques. Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. 2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State 2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No 2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps 2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ? Mitigation bank ? Payment to in-lieu fee program ? Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: 3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity 3c. Comments: 4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program 4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes 4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet 4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold 4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet 4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres 4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: E acres 4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres 4h. Comments: 5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan. Page 7 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ 6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No 6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the amount of mitigation required. Zone 6c. Reason for impact 6d. Total impact (square feet) Multiplier 6e. Required mitigation (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 1.5 6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank, permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund). 6h. Comments: Page 8 of 11 E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1. Diffuse Flow Plan 1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? 1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no explain why. , Comments: ? ? Yes No 2. Stormwater Management Plan 2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0% 2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No 2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why: This project involves the restoration and , enhancement of on-site jurisdictional stream channels and wetlands, no increase in impervious cover will result from the construction of this project. 2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan: ? Certified Local Government 2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program ? DWQ 401 Unit 3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? ? Phase II 3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW apply (check all that apply): ? USMP ? Water Supply Watershed ? Other: 3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No attached? 4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review ? Coastal counties 4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply El HQW ? ORW (check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246 ? Other: 4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached? ? Yes ? No 5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No 5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No Page 9 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version F. Supplementary Information 1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) 1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No use of public (federal/state) land? 1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? 1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.) ® Yes ? No Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 3. 2. Violations (DWQ Requirement) 2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)? 2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No 2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): 3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description. This is a stream and wetland restoration project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively impact downstream water quality. 4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility. Page 10 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes No habitat? 5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No impacts? 5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ® Raleigh ? Asheville 5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? Utilized the NC Natural Heritage Program's element occurrence GIS data layer as well as contact the USFWS Raleigh office for any additional information on the presence of endangered or protected species or critical habitat (Appendix 3). Wildlands Engineering also performed a pedestrian survey of the site on July 21, 2009. 6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No 6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? Contacted NC Wildlife Resource Commission (see enclosed letter in Appendix 3). 7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence historic properties or cultural resources within the project area. SHPO conducted a review of the area and "are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project" (see enclosed letter, Appendix 3). 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? -T -MYes ? No 8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application has been submitted to NC Emergency Management (NCEM), a Cooperating Technical Partner with FEMA with authority to approve floodplain impacts to the Stream Site. After completion of the project, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be completed to revise floodplain mapping to reflect post- project floodplain conditions. No FEMA requirements were needed for the wetland portion of the project; a technical memo was prepared for Rockingham County with construction plans and proposed affects on hydrology. 8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panels 8903, 8904, 8911, 9812, 8921, and 9822 John Hutton Wildlands Engineering July 1, 2011 Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicart/Agent's Signature (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant Date is provided.) Page 11 of 11 June 29, 2011 Andrea Spangler Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 osvstem @ e m b! E PROGRAM Subject: Mitigation Plan for Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Cape Fear River Basin - CU# 03030002, Rockingham County Contract No. 003267 Dear Ms. Spangler: On June 17, 2011, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) received the Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. The Mitigation Plan proposes the restoration of 4,902 linear feet of stream and 8.7 acres of riparian wetland, the enhancement of 3.7 acres of riparian wetland, and the creation of 5.6 acres of riparian wetland, and is anticipated to provide 4902 Stream Mitigation Units and 13.4 riparian Wetland Mitigation Units. An onsite review of the Mitigation Plan was completed on June 1, 2011. The EEP has completed its review of the mitigation plan and has no additional comments at this time. Your invoice for completion of Task 3 will be approved for payment. Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits and/or certifications and complete the implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project (Task 4). A copy of this letter should be included with your 401/404 permit applications. For the purpose of obtaining approval of the erosion and sedimentation control plan for this project, I have also attached a memorandum confirming that Wildlands Engineering, Inc is the Owner and Financially Responsible Party, and has full operational control for all matters pertaining to construction of this project. Please sign and attach this memorandum to the Financial Responsibility/Ownership form of the erosion and sedimentation control plan application. Failure to do so may delay approval of the plan. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time. I can be reached at (919) 715-1656, or email me at -u earce@n.cmail.net. Sin rely, Guy C. Pearce EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor cc: file NCDENR north Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE Rockingham County, NC DENR Contract 003267 Mitigation Plan June 2011 Prepared for: V1. l NCDENR, NCEEP 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Prepared by: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. WILDLANDS 1430 S. Mint Street, #104 ENGINEERING Charlotte, NC 28203 P - 704-332-7754 F - 704-332-3306 Attn: Andrea S. Eckardt LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE Restoration Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Project Site Identification and Location ............................................................. 5 1.1 Directions to Project Site ............................................. . 5 1.2 ... ............................... USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations........ .. .. 6 1.3 Project Components and Structure ............................................................... .. 6 2.0 Watershed Characterization .......................................... . 7 2.1 . ................................... Drainage Area, Project Area, and Easement Acreage ................................ .. .. 7 2.2 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality .......................................... .. 8 2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ................................................................. .. 8 2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................ .. 9 2.5 Watershed Planning ......................................................................................... .. 9 2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species ........................................................... 10 2.7 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 12 2.8 Physical Constraints ......................................................................................... 12 3.0 Project Site Streams - Existing Conditions ...................................................... 13 3.1 Existing Conditions Survey .............................................. 13 3 2 ............................... Channel Classification . 3.3 ...................................................................................... I Valley Classification 15 3.4 ....................................................... Discharge 18 3 5 .......................................................................................................... Channel Mor holo 19 . p gy ........................................................................................ 21 3.6 Channel Evolution ............................................................................................ 22 3.7 Channel Stability Assessment ......................................... . 22 3 8 . ............................. Bankfull Verification . 3 9 ......................................................................................... Vegetation Communit T e D i ti 23 . y yp s escr p ons ................................................. 24 4.0 Reference Streams ................................................... 25 4.1 ........................................... Reference Streams Channel Morphology and Classification ..................... 25 4.2 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions ............... 27 5.0 Project Site Wetlands - Existing Conditions .................................................... 28 5.3 Soil Characterization ........................................................................................ 33 5.4 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History ...... 34 6.0 Reference Wetlands ............................................... 34 6.1 ............................................. Hydrological Characterization 2 6 ......................................................................... Soil Characterization 34 . ........................................................................................ 35 6.3 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History ...... 35 7.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan ......................................... 35 7.1 ....................................... Overarching Goals and Applications of Mitigation Plans ............................ 35 7.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives ............................. . 36 7.3 . ........................ Stream Project and Design Justification ....................................................... 38 7.4 Site Construction .............................................................................................. 47 8.0 Performance Criteria ........................................................................................... 52 8.1 Streams ............................................................................................................. 52 8.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................53 8.3 Vegetation .........................................................................................................53 9.0 Preliminary Monitoring ........................................................................................ 54 9.1 Streams ............................................................................................................. 54 9.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................56 9.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 56 10.0 Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy .................................. 56 11.0 References ........................................................................................................ 56 TABLES Table ES.1. Project Goals and Objectives Table ES.2.a Project Components Table ES.2.b Summary of Mitigation Levels Table la. Project Components Table 1b. Summary of Mitigation Levels Table 2. Drainage Areas Table 3. Soil Types and Descriptions Table 4. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Rockingham County, NC Table 5a. Project Attributes Table 5b. Mitigation Component Attributes Table 6: Little Troublesome Creek & Irvin Creek Existing Conditions Table 7. Summary of Design Discharge Analysis Table 8. Pre-Construction BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates Table 9. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters Table 10a. Water Balance for Gauge 1 Table 10b. Water Balance for Gauge 2 Table 10c. Water Balance for Gauge 3 Table 11. Design Geomorphic Data Table 12. Summary of Dimensionless Critical Shear Stress Calculations Table 13. Summary of Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type Table 14. Summary of Channel Velocities in Design Reaches of Little Troublesome Creek and UT1 Table 15. Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture Table 16. Riparian Woody Vegetation Table 17. Wetland Mitigation Summary Table 18. Project Activity and Reporting History FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Watershed Map - Stream Area Figure 4 Hydrologic Features - Stream Area Figure 5 Wetland Delineation and Gauges - Wetland Area Figure 6 Soils Map Figure 7 FEMA Flood Map Figure 8 Channel Evolution Model - Six Stages Figure 9 Bank Erosion Hazard Index Figure 10 Regional Curve Figure 11 Stream Reference Site Vicinity Map Figure 12 Wetland Boring Locations - Wetland Area Figure 13 Wetland Reference Site Vicinity Map Figure 14 Stream Design Figure 15 Wetland Design Figure 16 Shield's Curve Modified Figure 17 Proposed Wetland Grading APPENDICES Appendix 1 Site Photographs Appendix 2 Wetland and Stream Documentation Appendix 3 Agency Communication and Approved Categorical Exclusion Appendix 4 Existing Conditions Data Appendix 5 Historical Aerial Photographs Appendix 6 FEMA Floodplain Checklist EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) proposes to restore 5,340 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams and 18.0 acres of wetlands in Rockingham County, NC. The streams proposed for restoration include Little Troublesome Creek, an unnamed tributary to Little Troublesome Creek that is locally referred to as Irvin Creek, and one additional unnamed tributary to Little Troublesome Creek (UT1). The wetland area is located approximately four miles southeast of the stream project area and is also adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek. The project streams ultimately flow into the Haw River which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project is located in the Troublesome and Little Troublesome Creeks Local Watershed planning area (http://www.nceep.net/ services/lwps/Troublesome_Creek/trouble-summ.pdf). The project site's watershed includes Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002010030 which was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed in NCEEP's 2001 and 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plans (http://www.nceep.net/ services /lwps/pull_down/by _basin/CapeFear_RB.html). The Upper Cape Fear Basin Local Watershed Plan (LWP) identified urbanization and morphological stream alteration as having profound impacts on the health of Little Troublesome Creek. The LWP identified the stream restoration portion of the site as the top recommended site for stream restoration in the Upper Cape Fear Basin Local Watershed Plan - Targeting Management Report (http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/ Troublesome_Creek/target.pdf). The proposed project will provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Little Troublesome Creek project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat have more far- reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below in Table ES.I as project goals. Table ES.1. Project Goals and Objectives 1 ittln Trnuhlpenmp Crppk Mitinatinn Prniect Prima Goals Measured Project oaI How project will seek to reach goal Stabilize stream Riffle cross-sections of the restoration and enhancement reaches will dimensions be constructed to remain stable and will show little change in bankfull area maximum depth ratio and width-to-depth ratio over time. Stabilize stream The project will be constructed so that the bedform features of the pattern and profile restoration reaches will remain stable overtime. This will include riffles that remain steeper and shallower than the pools and pools that are deep with flat water surface slopes. The relative percentage of riffles and pools will not change significantly over time. Banks will be constructed so that bank height ratios will remain very near to 1.0 for nearly all of the restoration reaches. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 1 Mitigation Plan Establish proper substrate Stream substrate will remain coarse in the riffles and finer in the distribution pools. throughout stream Establish wedand hydrology for or A free groundwater surface be present within 12 inches of the ground restored wet/ands surface for 7 percent of the growing season measured on consecutive days under ical precipitation conditions. Restore native Native vegetation appropriate for the wetland and riparian buffer throughout zones on the site will be planted throughout. The planted trees will wet/ands and buffer become well established and survival criteria will be met. zones Secondary Goals Unmeasured Project goal How project will seek to reach goal Decrease nutrient Off-site nutrient input will be absorbed on-site by filtering flood flows and urban runoff through restored floodplain areas and wetlands, where flood flows pollutant levels can disperse through native vegetation and be captured in vernal pools. Increased surface water residency time will provide contact treatment time and groundwater recharge potential. Decrease sediment Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by input installing bioengineering and in-stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles. Sediment from off-site sources will be captured by deposition on restored floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities. Decrease water Restored riffle/step-pool sequences where distinct points of re- temperature and aeration can occur will allow for oxygen levels to be maintained in the increase dissolved perennial reaches. Creation of deep pool zones will lower oxygen temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations. concentrations Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create long- term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating. Create appropriate By creating a channel form that includes riffle and pool sequences, in-stream habitat gravel and cobble zones of macroinvertebrate habitat and deep pool habitat for fish. Introduction of large woody debris, rock structures, root wads, and native stream bank vegetation will substantially increase habitat value. Create appropriate Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive terrestrial habitat vegetation and planting native vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular inundating flows. Riparian wetland areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat. Decrease channel By allowing for more overbank flooding and by increasing channel velocities roughness, local channel velocities can be reduced. This will allow for less bank shear stress, formation of refuge zones during large storm events and zonal sortin of de ositionaI material. rauae rumesome t-.reeK mitigation site Page 2 Mitigation Plan Table ES.2.a Project Components Little Troublesome Creek Miti ation Project ca m c .. x w> Im 06 vv o o : . v .. a 4 a C ar V o? IL I F m Streams Irvin Creek - Priority 102+10.4 Reach 1 1,640 R 1 2,056.6 to 1,712 1:1 1,712 13.1 122+67 Irvin Creek - Priority 122+67 Reach 2 1,505 R 1 1,918.6 to 1,883 1:1 1,883 12.2 141+85.6 Little Pri rity 200+00.00 Troublesome 1,080 R 1 1,157.8 to 1,067 1:1 1,067 4.1 Creek 211+57.8 UT1- UT to 400+00.00 Little 184 R Priority 239.9 to 240 1:1 240 0.5 Troublesome 1/2 402+39.9 Creek - Total 4,409 --- --- 5,373 --- 4,9 2 --- 4,902 W etlands RW 1 8.7 R N/A 8.7 N/A 8.7 1:1 8.7 N/A 5.6 C N/A 5.6 N/A 5.6 3:1 1.9 3.7 E N/A 3.7 N/A 3.7 1.3:1 2.8 Total 18.0 --- N/A 18.0 --- 18.0 13.4 * Design lengths include portions of streams that will be reconstructed but for which mitigation credit may not be claimed Table ES.2.b Summary of Mitigation Levels Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project C . c+ 2 2! v 3 v IM a U o, J Restoration R 5,373 4,902 8.7 8.7 0 29.9 Enhancement E 0 0 3.7 2.8 0 0 Preservation (P) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creation C 0 0 5.6 1.9 0 0 TOTAL 5,3 3 4,902 18.0 13.4 0 29.9* *Buffer restoration will take place, but is not intended for mitigation credit. This document is consistent with the requirements of the federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 3 Mitigation Plan Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section 332.8 paragraphs (c) (2) through (c) (14). Specifically the document addresses the following requirements of the federal rule: (2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest. (3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. This should include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of accomplishing ecologically self-sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation at the compensatory mitigation project site. (see §332.3(d)) (4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site ownership, that will be used to ensure the long-term protection of the compensatory mitigation project site (see §332.7(a)). (5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory mitigation project site and, in the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensations. The baseline information should also include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed compensatory mitigation project site. A prospective permittee planning to secure credits from an approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline information about the impact site, not the mitigation bank or in-lieu fee project site. (6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination (see §332.3(f)). (7) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory mitigation project; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and erosion control measures. For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also include other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical channel cross-sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings. (8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is completed. (9) Performance standards. Ecologically-based standards that will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives (See §332.5). (10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be included. (See §332.6) Little I roublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 4 Mitigation Plan (11) Long-term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management. (See §332.7(d)) (12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See §332.7(c)) (13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (See §332.3(n)) 1.0 Project Site Identification and Location The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) proposes to restore 5,340 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams and 18.0 acres of wetlands in Rockingham County, NC. The streams proposed for restoration include Little Troublesome Creek, an unnamed tributary to Little Troublesome Creek that is locally referred to as Irvin Creek, and one additional unnamed tributary to Little Troublesome Creek (UT1). The wetland area is located approximately four miles southeast of the stream project area and is also adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek (Figure 1). The project streams ultimately flow into the Haw River which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. Photographs of the project site are included in Appendix 1. As a result of the proposed restoration activities, total stream length within the project area will be increased from approximately 4,435 linear feet to 5,340 linear feet. The proposed stream restoration designs will primarily include a Rosgen Priority Level 1 approach and the stream types for the restored streams will be Rosgen C channels with design dimensions based on those of reference reaches and past projects. The wetland areas consist of 8.7 acres of wetland restoration, 3.7 acres of wetland enhancement, and 5.6 acres of wetland creation. The wetlands will be restored to a Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Shafale and Weakley, 1990). Based on the proposed mitigation effort, the mitigation site will result in 4,900 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 14.5 wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Certain sections of the 5,340 LF of proposed stream restoration do not have the mandatory 50-foot buffer on both sides of the stream; therefore these sections are not being claimed for mitigation credit at this time. 1.1 Directions to Project Site The proposed stream mitigation project area is located south of Turner Road, east of the intersection of Turner Road and Way Street in the City of Reidsville, North Carolina (Figure 2). The subject site itself is forested, but is located in a highly urbanized watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002). A large shopping center is located immediately north of the site. An active railroad runs along the eastern edge of the project boundary. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 5 Mitigation Plan The proposed wetland mitigation project area is located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the intersection of NC Highway 150 and Mizpah Church Road, south of the City of Reidsville (Figure 2). The subject site is agricultural land and is surrounded by forested land. The site is also located within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC.03030002) and is currently being used for corn production. 1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations Little Troublesome Creek is located within the Haw River watershed (North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Subbasin 03-06-01) of the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030002010030) as shown in Figure 1. The NCDWQ assigns best usage classifications to State Waters that reflect water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Little Troublesome Creek (NCDWQ Index No. 16-7) is the main tributary of the project and has been classified as Class C; NSW waters. Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification is a supplemental classification for waters that are subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and therefore need nutrient management. Little Troublesome Creek is included on the NCDWQ 303d list of impaired water bodies for to habitat degradation and turbidity. This specific project reach was recommended for stream restoration in the NCEEP 2004 Upper Cape Fear Basin Local Watershed Plan but was never acquired by NCEEP. 1.3 Project Components and Structure Table Ia. Project Components Little TrouhlpcnmA rrraoir Mitin=tin., n-4--4- t° IM b o ?V o _ H C ° Q • ? Qi 1 0 M J C ' i .. a y vi ° a o..° t0 '° o o ` f d a a u , a1 0 o, a -J J C - At & CO Streams Irvin Creek - Priority 102+10.4 Reach 1 1,640 R 1 2,056.6 to 1,712 1:1 1,712 13.1 122+67 Irvin Creek - Priority 122+67 Reach 2 1,505 R 1 1,918.6 to 1,883 1:1 1,883 12.2 141+85.6 Little Priority 200+00.00 Troublesome 1,080 R 1,157.8 to 1,067 1:1 1,067 4.1 Creek 211+57.8 UT1 - UT to Little Priority 400+00.00 Troublesome 184 R ii2 239.9 to 240 1:1 240 0.5 Creek 402+39.9 Total 4,409 --- --- 5,373 --- 4,902 --- 4,902 Lime i rowlesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 6 Mitigation Plan W etlands RW 1 8.7 R N/A 8.7 N/A 8.7 1:1 8.7 N/A 5.6 C N/A 5.6 N/A 5.6 3:1 1.9 3.7 E N/A 3.7 N/A 3.7 13:1 2.8 Total 18.0 --- N/A 18.0 --- 18.0 13.4 * Design lengths include portions of streams that will be reconstructed but for which mitigation credit may not be claimed. Table 1.b Summary of Mitigation Levels Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project C U. (r %-0 A = A ^ H ? Im C U All 3%.0 3 CL ?v m%.0 J Restoration R 5,373 4,902 8.7 8.7 0 29.9 Enhancement E 0 0 3.7 2.8 0 0 Preservation (P) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creation C 0 0 5 -- - 1.9 0 0 TOTAL 5,373 4,902 71 0 13.4 1 0 29.9* *Buffer restoration will take place, but is not intended for mitigation credit. 2.0 Watershed Characterization 2.1 Drainage Area, Project Area, and Easement Acreage The Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek watersheds for the stream portion of the project drain approximately 3,245 acres (5.1 square miles) and 584 acres, respectively. The stream portion of the project's drainage area is located in a region southwest of the town of Reidsville, NC (Figure 3). The drainage area of each of the stream project reaches is included in Table 2. Table 2. Drainage Areas Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Proiect Project Reach Existing Length (LF) Drainage Area (acres) Irvin Creek Reach 1 1 640 525 Irvin Creek Reach 2 1,533 584 Little Troublesome Creek 1 078 3,245 UT1- UT to Little Troublesome Creek 184 62 The stream portion of the Little Troublesome Creek project is located within a 34.5-acre tract owned by Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC. A conservation easement has been recorded on 33 acres of the tract (Deed Book 1411, Page Number 2458). The wetland portion of the Little Troublesome Creek project is located within a tract of land owned by Jerry Apple, south of Reidsville, NC. A conservation easement has been recorded on the 19-acre project area within the Apple tract (Deed Book 1412, Page Number 1685). The conservation easements allow for the restoration work to occur and protect the project area in perpetuity. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 7 Mitigation Plan 22 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality On July 21, 2009, Wildlands Engineering investigated and assessed on-site jurisdictional Waters of the United States using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Potential jurisdictional wetland areas as well as typical upland areas were classified using the USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form. On-site jurisdictional wetland areas were also assessed using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). All USACE and NCWAM wetland forms are included in Appendix 2. The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are six jurisdictional stream channels in the stream project area including: Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek, and four unnamed tributaries. There are also four jurisdictional wetland areas on the stream site and two jurisdictional wetland areas on the wetland site (Figures 4 and 5). The proposed stream restoration project includes three of the jurisdictional stream channels: Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek, and one of the unnamed tributaries (UT 1) as shown in Figure 4. The wetland portion of the project is located adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek and includes 3.7 acres of existing jurisdictional waters (Figure 5). All tributaries and wetland areas are protected under the conservation easements that were placed on the project areas. All NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms are included in Appendix 2. 2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soi/s The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site is located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills and long low ridges, with elevations ranging anywhere from 300 to 1500 feet above sea level. The Inner Piedmont Belt is the most intensely deformed segment of the Piedmont with metamorphic rocks ranging from 500 to 750 million years in age. The belt consists of gneiss and schist that have been intruded by younger granite rock and is known for producing crushed stone that is commonly used for road aggregate and building construction. Specifically, the mitigation site is located within the CZbg region of the Inner Piedmont Belt. The CZbg region is characterized primarily of biotite gneiss and schist and consists of inequigranular, locally abundant potassic feldspar and garnet; interlayed and gradational with calc-silicate rock, sill imanite-mica schist, mica schist, and amphibolite. In addition, this region is known to contain small masses of granite rock (NCGS, 2009). The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Rockingham County Soil Survey (USDA, 2009). As shown in Figure 6, the soils found within the stream project include Clifford- Urban land complex, Codorus loam soils, and Fairview-Poplar Forest complex. Soils in the wetland project area are primarily mapped as Haw River silty clay loam, and Codorus loam. These four soils are described below in Table 3. Table 3. Soil Types and Descriptions Lithe Troublesome Creek Miti ation Project Soil Name Location Description Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 8 Mitigation Plan Soil Name Location Description Clifford-Urban Stream Clifford-Urban land complex soils are located on urban land, land complex Area interfluves, and uplands. The material is typically well-drained and consists of saprolite derived from granite and gneiss. The Fairview-Poplar Forest complex is comprised of Fairview-Poplar Stream approximately 50% Fairview components and 40% Poplar Forest complex Area Forest. The Fairview component is well-drained and consists of saprolite derived from schist or gneiss, while the Poplar Forest consists of well-drained weathered residuals from mica schist. Codorus loam, 0- Stream Codorus loam soils consist of nearly level, very deep, 2% slopes, and somewhat poorly drained soils. They are typically found in frequently Wetland floodplain areas. Shrink swell potential is low. These soils are flooded Areas frequently flooded. Haw River silty Haw River silty clay loam soils consist of nearly level, very clay loam 0-2% Wetland deep, poorly drained soils. They are typically found in , frequently slopes Area floodplain areas and river valleys. Shrink-swell potential is , flooded moderate. These soils are frequently flooded over a very long duration. Source: Rockingham County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov 2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends The Cape Fear 0303002 includes developing areas such as the cities of Greensboro, Durham, Burlington and Chapel Hill as well as the I-40/ I-85 transportation corridor. Population growth and the associated development and infrastructure projects create the necessity for mitigation projects in this region. Approximately 28% of the land in the project watershed has been developed and approximately 17% of the land surface is impervious. Land uses within the watershed include: mixed hardwood/evergreen forests (54%), residential (20%), cultivated/managed herbaceous cover (17%), commercial/ industrial (8%), deciduous/ evergreen scrubland (>I%), and open water (>I%). The development in the area surrounding the stream site was mostly complete by the 1970s and is likely completely stabilized by now. There is no evidence of increased development immediately around the wetland component of the project. According to historical aerial photography, the surrounding lands have been used as farm land for decades and there is no indication of any changes in landuse in this rural area which is approximately 6.3 miles south of the City of Reidsville. 2.5 Watershed Planning The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project is located in the Troublesome and Little Troublesome Creeks Local Watershed planning area (http://www.nceep.net/ services/lwps/Troublesome Creek/trouble-summ.pdo. The project site's watershed includes HUC 03030002010030 which was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed in NCEEP's 2001 and 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority plans (http://www.nceep.net/ services /lwps/pull_down/by _basin/CapeFear_RB.html). The Upper Cape Fear Basin Local Watershed Plan (LWP) identified urbanization and morphological stream alteration as having profound impacts on the health of Little Troublesome Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 9 Mitigation Plan Creek. The LWP identified the stream restoration portion of the site as the top recommended site for stream restoration in the Upper Cape Fear Basin Local Watershed Plan - Targeting Management Report (http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/ Troublesome_Creek/target.pdf). 2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species 2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines protection for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Wildlands utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases in order to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species for Rockingham County, NC (USFWS, 2008 and NHP, 2009). Three federally listed species, the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) are currently listed in Rockingham County (Table 4). Table 4. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Rockingham County, NC Little Troublesome Creek Mitiqation Proiect Species Federal Status Habitat Vertebrate Roanoke logperch E Medium to large warm water streams Percina re with relative) silt free substrates invertebrate James spinymussel E Free-flowing, silt free, fresh water Pleurobema coll/na streams Vascular Plant Smooth coneflower Open woods, roadsides, clearcuts, dry (Echinacea /aevigata) E limestone bluffs, and power line right- of-way E = Endangered; T=Threatened 2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 2.6.2.1 Species Description Percina rex Roanoke logperch is typically found in medium to large warm water streams with moderate gradient. This species ranges from the Ridge and Valley province in Virginia to the Blue Ridge and lower Piedmont of North Carolina and is intolerant of moderate to heavily silted substrata. Current threats to this species include urban runoff containing silts, turbidity, oil, fertilizers, and channelization. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 10 Mitigation Plan Pleurobema collina The James spinymussel is typically found in small headwater tributaries of the upper James River basin in Virginia and West Virginia and the Upper Roanoke River basin of Virginia and North Carolina. This species is a filter-feeding freshwater mussel, requiring habitats of free-flowing streams with a variety of substrates that are free from silt. Threats to this species include siltation, water impoundments, sewage discharge, stream channelization, and discharge of chlorine. Known populations of the James spinymussel have been observed within Rockingham County over the past 20 years. Echinacea laevigata The smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows approximately 1.5 meters tall and has pink to purplish ray flowers. This herbaceous species is typically found in open woods, road sides, clear cut areas, dry limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way. Abundant sunlight, little competition within the herbaceous layer, and periodic natural disturbances offer the most favorable habitat conditions for this species. This species is currently listed as historic for Rockingham County. 2.6.2.2 Biological Conclusion A pedestrian survey of the site was performed on July 21, 2009. No individual listed species were found to exist within the project area. It is determined that the proposed restoration activities will have no impact on any of the listed species. 2.6.3 Federal Designated Critical Habitat 2.6.3.1 Habitat Description The results of the pedestrian survey performed on July 21, 2009, indicate that in-stream habitat exhibits poor conditions for the presence of Roanoke logperch and James spinymussel. In-stream habitat includes gravel and cobble; however these substrates are dominated by finer sands and silts as a result of heavy bank erosion throughout the project reach. Potential habitat for the smooth coneflower exists within the northern portion of the upstream project area, which includes the power line right-of-way. This right-of-way habitat is, however, unsuitable for the smooth coneflower due to heavy herbaceous dominance of blackberry and invasive honeysuckle. No critical habitat for the listed species exists in the project area. 2.6.3.2 Biological Conclusion It is determined that the proposed restoration activities will have no impact on any of the listed species critical habitat. 2.6.4 USFWS Concurrence Requests for records search were submitted on July 12, 2010, to the USFWS and July 16, 2009, to the NCNHP to determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat located within the project area. In a letter dated July 20, 2009, the NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site or within a mile of the project area." A further review of the NCNHP element occurrence GIS data layer shows that no natural heritage elements occur within four miles of the proposed Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 11 Mitigation Plan project area. In a letter dated July 28, 2010, the USFWS stated the proposed project "is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitats, or species currently proposed for listing." All correspondence is included in Appendix 3. 2.7 Cultural Resources 2.7.1 Site Evaluation Methodology The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines the policy of historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that federal agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on any property, which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 16, 2009, regarding the stream portion of the project and another on July 12, 2010, regarding the wetland portion of the project. Both letters requested review and comment for the potential of cultural resources potentially affected by the Little Troublesome Creek Project. 2.7.2 SHPO/THPO Concurrence Requests for records search were submitted on July 16, 2009, and July 12, 2010, to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. In a letter dated July 23, 2009, and another letter dated July 28, 2010, (see Appendix 3), the SHPO stated that they have reviewed the project and are "aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project." 2.8 Physical Constraints 2.8.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities The stream portion of the project is located on a mostly forested parcel owned by Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC. A conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina has been recorded over 33 acres of the 34.5 acre parcel. The stream project site is bound by a sanitary sewer easement on the west side and a CSX railroad line on the east side. An existing gas line runs along the left top of bank of the existing channel for approximately 1,000 feet and is exposed in places due to bank erosion. The section of the gas line crossing Irvin Creek is scheduled to be relocated in June 2011. The new alignment of the gas line is shown on Figure 2. The wetland portion of the project is located on a parcel owned by Jerry Apple. A conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina has been recorded over 19 acres of the parcel. An underground irrigation pipe from Little Troublesome Creek to the upland area of the property bisects the project area. There is a 15-foot break in the easement for the irrigation pipe as shown in Figure 2. An existing conservation easement held by the US Fish and Wildlife Service is located immediately adjacent to the State of North Carolina easement south of the wetland project area. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 12 Mitigation Plan 2.8.2 Site Access The stream portion of the mitigation project is accessible from Turner Drive on the north side of the project area and Industrial Drive (SR 1798) on the west side of the project area (Figure 2). The wetland portion of the mitigation project is accessible from Cotton Road (SR 2603). 2.8.3 FEMA and Hydrologic Trespass The flood study for the Little Troublesome Creek project is comprised of two separate parts: the stream portion and wetland portion of the site (Figure 7). The stream restoration portion of the site is mapped as a FEMA Zone AE floodplain on FIRM panels 8903 and 8904. Irvin Creek and the upper portion of Little Troublesome Creek were modeled as a detailed study including 100-year base flood elevations and mapped floodway. The wetland restoration site is also mapped as a FEMA Zone AE floodplain on FIRM panels 8911, 9812, 8921 and 9822. This lower portion of Little Troublesome Creek model was performed as a limited detail study. Base flood elevations have been defined, but no floodway is mapped on the FIRM panel. Non-encroachment widths are published in the Rockingham County Community 370350 Flood Insurance Study dated July 3, 2007. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been prepared for the stream portion of the site. The project has been designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained on the project site and will not extend upstream to the adjacent parcel. The minor grading proposed for the wetland portion of the site proved to have little or no affect on the conveyance of the stream and does not require a full flood study. The proposed work has been addressed in a technical memorandum approved by Rockingham County. 3.0 Project Site Streams - Existing Conditions 3.1 Existing Conditions Survey Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek and UT1 are located within relatively mature forested buffers; however these channels are located within a urbanized watershed. Heavy storm flows and lack of stabilizing vegetation along these reaches have resulted in severe bank erosion, channel incision, and over-widening. The on-site existing conditions data were collected by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) in December 2009 and February 2011. Existing geomorphic survey data is included in Appendix 4 and cross-section locations are shown on Figure 4. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 13 Mitigation Plan Tables 5a and 5b summarize the attributes of the overall project and of the project reaches. Table 5a. Project Attributes Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project Project County Rockingham County Ph sio ra hic Region Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Ph sio ra hic Province Ecore ion Piedmont River Basin Cape Fear USGS HUC 14 digit) 03030002010030 NCDW Sub-basin 03-06-01 Within NCEEP Watershed Plan? The project is within an NCEEP Targeted Watershed WRC Class Warm Percent of Easement Fenced or Demarcated The easement has been recorded but is proposed to be demarcated post construction. No fencing necessary for easement area. Beaver Activity Observed During Design Phase? No Table 5b. Mitigation Component Attributes Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project Irvin Creek Irvin Creek Little UT1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Troublesome Creek Drainage Area acres 525 584 3245 62 Stream Order 1st 2nd 3rd 1st Restored Length LF 2,014 1,917 1,169 240 Perennial or Intermittent Perennial Perennial Perennial Intermittent Watershed Type Urban Watershed Land Use Developed 28% Agricultural 17% Forested/Scrubland 55% Watershed Impervious Cover 17% NCDWQ Index Number N/A N/A 16-7a N/A NCDW Classification C C C• NSW C 303d Listed No No Yes N Upstream of a 303d Stream Yes Yes Yes Yes Reasons for 303d Ecological/Biological Listing Total Acreage of Easement 33 acres (stream site); 19 acres (wetland site) Total Vegetated Acreage within 52 acres Easement Total Planted Acreage as art of Restoration 33.7 acres Rosgen Classification of Pre-Existing G4c G4c C5 G5 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 14 Mitigation Plan Rosgen Classification of Design C C C C Valle Type Valle Type VIII Valley Slope (feet/ foot 0.0114 0.0044 0.0033 N/A* Cowardin Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A Trout Waters Designation No No No No Endangered or Threatened Species No No No No Dominant Soil Series Codorus loam, 0- Codorus loam, 0- Fairview-Poplar Codorus loam, 0- and Characteristics 2% slopes CsA 2% slopes CsA Forest Complex 2% slopes CsA nc varicy uI v has ueen wgru iudrmy aneirea oy graoing ano prong or areagea material. An accurate valley slope ror rnis reach is not available 3.2 Channel C/assification Irvin Creek was divided into two separate reaches for classification due to differences in stream morphology and drainage area size: Reach 1 and Reach 2. Reach 1 of Irvin Creek includes approximately 1,640 LF of channel downstream of Turner Drive and a drainage area of 0.82 square mile. This upstream reach of Irvin Creek classifies as a relatively straight Rosgen G4c stream type (Rosgen, 1994). The channel is located in a moderately narrow portion of the valley and is highly incised with an entrenchment ratio of 1.2. The deep channel bed and narrow bankfull widths result in a low width-to-depth ratio of 11.5. According to an adjacent landowner, the channel was straightened in the 1930's or early 1940's for farming. Because the channel has been historical straightened (see aerial photo in Appendix 5) sinuosity cannot be used for classification. As seen below, this reach exhibits a very coarse gravel substrate throughout and is underlain at the downstream end by an exposed bedrock grade control point. Irvin Creek Reach 2 is approximately 1,533 LF and includes the area downstream of the bedrock grade control point of Reach 1 to the confluence with Little Troublesome Creek. Reach 2 continues to be classified as a Rosgen G4c stream type with an increased watershed size of 0.91 square mile. Reach 2 is also highly incised with a comparable entrenchment ratio to Reach 1 of 1.2. This reach is deeper than Reach 1 with similar bankfull widths, resulting in a much lower width-to-depth ratio ranging from 8.0 to 8.6. As with Reach 1, Reach 2 is known to have been historically straightened and heavily managed, particularly in the area adjacent to natural gas line, so sinuosity cannot be used for classification. Substrate throughout this reach upstream to a gravel and coarse sand downstream. Gravel and sand substrate common throughout Irvin Creek transitions from a coarse gravel and cobble Little Troublesome Creek includes approximately 1,078 LF of the lower portion of the project area with a drainage area of 5.1 square miles. Little Troublesome Creek classifies as a Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 15 Mitigation Plan straightened Rosgen C5 channel type. This channel exhibits a significantly larger cross-sectional area than Irvin Creek and has bank height ratios ranging from 1.6 to 2.8 indicating moderate to severe incision. The relatively deep channel bed and narrow bankfull widths result in a somewhat low width-to-depth ratio of 11.2. According to NRCS personnel, this channel was historically straightened, so sinuosity cannot be used for classification. Substrate throughout Little Troublesome Creek includes a medium gravel substrate along with irregularly occurring areas of coarse sand deposition including side channel and mid channel bars. UTl is 184 LF in length and has a drainage area of 0.1 square miles. This straight channel begins at the outfall of a culvert under the railroad and has downcut through the Little Troublesome Creek floodplain so that its outlet is at the bed elevation of the receiving creek. Immediately downstream of the culvert the channel is relatively unincised with bank height ratios near 1. Incision increases greatly in the downstream direction so that near the confluence with Little Troublesome Creek, the bank height ratios become closer to three (attempts to identify true bankfull elevation in the lower sections of this channel would be unreliable). Due to low width to depth and entrenchment ratios most of the length of this channel is classified as a G5 stream type. The substrate in UTl is almost completely comprised of sand. Existing geomorphic conditions for Irvin Creek, Little Troublesome Creek, and UT1 are summarized below in Table 6. Table 6: Little Troublesome Creek & Irvin Creek Existing Conditions Little Troublesome Creek strPam Mitinatinn Prniart Y rl Y N N !V E L %n .1d Gi 0 C J V 3 H Min Max Min Max Min Max min Max stream type G4c G4c C5 G5 drainage area DA sq mi 0.67 0.82 0.82 0.91 4.95 5.07 0.1 Q- NC Rural Regional Curve 67 72 72 83 283 288 14 Q- NC Regional Urban Curve ReTo R 238 255 255 288 830 842 58 z_ r NFF regression 110 126 422 --- sGS __ _ e extrapolation 45 91 48 99 215 F 365 --- Mannin s 122 99 102 237 --- 11 design discharge Qbkf cfs 90 100 370 14 Cross-Section Features bankfull cross- sectional area Abkf SF 27.3 30.6 32.8 73.6 6.4 average velocity during bankfull Vbkf fps 3.3 3.0 3.3 5.0 4.4 event width at bankfull Wbkf feet 17.7 15.2 17.2 28.7 5.2 maximum depth at bankfull dmax feet 1.8 2.4 2.6 3.3 1.9 mean depth at dbkf feet 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.6 1.2 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 16 Mitigation Plan X U m Ui a d '? z z Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max bankfull bankfull width to Wbkf/ 11.5 8.0 8.6 11.2 4 3 depth ratio dbkf . dmax/ depth ratio dbkf 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 low bank height 3.4 5.9 5.4 6.6 5.3 9.0 2.2 4.7 bank height ratio BHR 1.9 3.3 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.8 1.2 2.5 floodprone area 21 18 21 93 8 width Wf a feet entrenchment ratio ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.2 1.5 Sinuosity valley sloe Svalie feet/ foot 0.0114 0.0044 0.0033 N/A* Schann feet/ 0.0107 0.0043 0.0030 0.0183* channel sloe el foot sinuosity K 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0* Riffle Features feet/ 0.001 0.025 0.0019 0.017 0.000 0.011 0.007 0.050 riffle sloe SrifFle foot 7 2 SrifFle/ Schann 0.1 2.4 0.4 3.8 0.2 3.6 0.4 2.7 riffle sloe ratio el Pool Features feet/ 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.009 pool sloe Sol foot 5 9 Spool/ Schann 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 pool sloe ratio el pool-to-pool spacing L _ feet 39 60 27 76 46 127 29 42 Lp- 2.2 3.4 1.8 4.4 1.6 4.4 5.6 8.0 pool spacing ratio /Wbkf maximum pool depth at bankfull d ool feet 2.09 3.65 2.27 3.33 3.19 5.25 2.24 3.31 dpool/ 1.4 2.4 1.2 1.7 1.2 2.0 1.8 2.7 pool depth ratio d kf pool width at f ll 25.4 15.6 16.6 31.8 4.1 bank u W of feet Wpool/ 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8 pool width ratio Wbkf pool cross-sectional area at bankfull A ooi SF 34.9 28.5 32.7 81.2 9.2 ApooJ 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.4 pool area ratio Abkf Pattern Features Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 17 Mitigation Plan Z C .bg V M SIC V M 0 3 V Min Max min' Max Min Max Min Max belt width wit feet 39 81 46 94 119 --- meander width ratio wbId wbkf 2.2 4.6 3.0 5.5 4.1 --- meander length Lm feet 86 175 175 348 179 315 --- meander length ratio L`r'/w bkf 4.9 9.9 11.5 20.2 6.2 11.0 -- radius of curvature Rc feet 57.0 114.0 100 251 103 313 --- radius of curvature ratio RJ wbkf 3.2 6.4 6.6 14.6 3.6 10.9 --- Sediment Particle Size Distribution from Riffle 100- Count X2 X3 X5 X8 d16 mm 11.0 0.7 0.3 0.5 d35 mm 23.6 17.8 0.5 1.1 --- dso mm 32.8 24.2 0.8 9.7 --- d84 mm 67.7 55.6 11.4 21.9 --- d9s mm 98.3 86.2 19.0 40.2 --- d loo mm 180.0 256.0 32.0 >2048 --- Particle Size Distribution from Sub avement Anal sis Sub -pavement d16 mm 2.0 2.4 0.5 2.8 --- d35 mm 8.9 8.1 0.9 8.3 --- d5 mm 14.2 13.1 1.3 11.5 --- d84 mm 28.5 31.5 5.1 20.5 --- f d E mm 37.2 40.3 9.7 28.6 d 99 mm 45.0 45.0 16.0 45.0 --- Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Count d50 article medium ravel fine ravel coarse sand d16 mm 0.1 0.1 0.2 --- d35 mm 0.6 0.3 0.5 --- d50 mm 14.8 4.5 1.0 0.062 d84 mm 56.1 24.7 22.0 3.55 c195 mm 98.3 31.3 30.2 13.3 d99 mm >2048 45.0 >2048 >2048 .........,,y .,, ? , , ,as „wll alguulcanuy aucrnd dy grading and piling of dredged material. An accurate valley slope for this reach is not available. Sinuosity was calculated as channel length over valley length. 3.3 Valley Classification The Little Troublesome Creek project area is bound by broad valleys and gentle elevation relief. This surrounding fluvial and morphological landform is classified as Valley Type VIII (Rosgen, 1996). Alluvial terraces and broad floodplains are typically the predominant depositional Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 18 Mitigation Plan features for this valley type; however, due to extensive urban development these features are much less defined in the Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek watersheds. Slightly entrenched and meandering Rosgen C or E channels are the typical stream types found in Type VIII valleys, in addition to D, F, and G stream types (Rosgen, 1996). Historical straightening, dredging, adjacent utility line construction, and channel modifications of Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek have resulted in alteration of the channel type. 3.4 Discharge Multiple methods were used to approximate the bankfull discharge and choose a design discharge for each of the separate design reaches. Due to the amount of impervious cover within the watersheds of the three reaches, discharge estimates were made using methods intended for both urban and rural watersheds when available. Table 7 summarizes the results of each of the discharge analyses described in this section. Table 7. Summary of Design Discharge Analysis Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project USGS NFF- Rural Watersheds Drainage % Q2 Q5 Q10 Std Error Areas Impervious (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (%) (sq mi Irvin Creek - Reach 1 0.82 35% 117 212 293 41 Irvin Creek- Reach 2 0.91 32% 126 227 314 41 - 42 Little Troublesome Ck. 5.07 17% 422 726 978 41 - 42 UT1 0.1 41% --- --- --- --- USGS NFF - Urban Watersheds Drainage % Q2 Q5 Q10 Std Error Areas Impervious (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (%) (sq mi Irvin Creek - Reach 1 0.82 35% 330 527 669 41 - 42 Irvin Creek- Reach 2 0.91 32% 335 537 683 41 - 42 Little Troublesome Ck. 5.07 17% 772 1210 1520 41 - 42 UTl 0.1 41% 64.6 116 155 39 - 40 Regional Curves - Rural Piedmont Drainage Qbkf Vbkf er Lo Upper Abkf (SF) w Areas (sq mi ds ft s 95% 950/0 Irvin Creek - 0.82 18.74 77.1 4.12 32.31 219.42 Reach 1 Irvin Creek- 0.91 20.11 83.2 4.14 34.88 236.27 Reach 2 Little Troublesome Ck. 5.07 64.22 287.6 4.48 123.07 800.75 UT1 0.1 3.82 14.1 3.69 5.75 41.23 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 19 Mitigation Plan Regional Curves - Urban Piedmont Drainage Qbkf Vbkf Areas (sq mi Abkf (SF) cfs ft s Irvin Creek - Reach 1 0.82 51.39 260.4 5.07 Irvin Creek- Reach 2 0.91 55.04 278.4 5.06 Little Troublesome Ck. 5.07 171.02 835.7 4.89 UTi 0.1 10.88 57.8 5.31 Mannino's Eauation Drainage A (SF) Qbkf Vbkf Areas (sq mi cfs ft/s Irvin Creek - Reach 1a 0.82 27.3 69.7 2.55 Irvin Creek - Reach lb 0.82 48.8 360.9 7.39 Regional curves relating bankf ill discharge to drainage area for both rural (Harman, et al., 1999) and urban (Doll, et al., 2002) watersheds in the piedmont region of North Carolina were used to estimate the bankfull discharge for each reach. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flood frequency equations for rural (Weaver, et al., 2009) and urban (Robbins and Pope, 1996) watersheds in the North Carolina piedmont were used to estimate peak discharges for floods with a recurrence interval of two years. The two-year discharge provides a reasonable approximation of bankfull discharge, but is generally slightly larger than the discharge predicted by the appropriate regional curve. Another method used to estimate the bankfull discharge of Reach 1 involved using Manning's equation to estimate the discharge corresponding to a water surface elevation equal to potential bankfull features at two cross sections surveyed at the upper end of the reach. Cross section 1 had a stable left bank and the top of that bank (point of incipient flooding) was chosen to be a potential bankfull feature. Cross section 2, approximately 150 feet downstream of cross section 1, had a stable, vegetated bar feature at a lower elevation than the top of bank feature at cross section 1. The top break in slope of this bar was chosen as a potential bankfull feature at this cross section. No other cross sections were surveyed for this purpose due to the degraded condition of the channels and lack of potential bankfull features with the consistency necessary to make a bankfull determination. To determine how the potential bankfull features of each cross section compared to the regional curves, the surveyed bankfull cross-sectional area of each cross section was compared to both the urban and rural curves relating bankfull cross-sectional area to drainage area. The bankfull cross-sectional area surveyed for cross section 1 was very similar (8% lower) to the area predicted by the urban piedmont regional curve for the drainage area of that reach. The surveyed bankfull cross-sectional area for cross section 2 was 43% higher than the rural regional curve predicted but within the 95% confidence interval published with the rural curve. The USGS gauging station nearest to the project site with a long-term, continuous record of discharge is located on the Haw River at Benaja. The Haw River at this location has a drainage Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 20 Mitigation Plan area of 168 square miles and, therefore, this gauge is not appropriate to estimate discharge at the project site even though it is within the Haw River watershed. The lack of either reliable bankfull features along the project reach or an appropriate gauging station to estimate streamflow corresponding to bankfull discharge at the site make selection of a design discharge approximating the bankfull discharge difficult. The rationale for selecting the design discharges shown in Table 7 was developed based on the best available information and experience and professional judgments of the designers. The best estimates of a bankf ill discharge are provided by the regional curves and USGS flood frequency equations for 2-year peak flows. Although the watersheds of the three reaches are somewhat developed (impervious surface estimates range from 17% to 35%), past projects in the North Carolina piedmont have shown that restored stream channels in developed watersheds tend to stabilize with cross- sectional areas closer to that estimated by the rural regional curve rather than the urban curve. Recent research by Annable et al. (2010a and 2010b) indicates that channel forming discharge occurs far more frequently in urban streams than rural, indicating a similar magnitude of bankfull discharge in urban and rural watersheds. In addition, the site provides an ample forested floodplain which will dissipate the energy of larger discharges. A design intended to allow streamflows to more frequently spread onto the forested floodplain and into existing wetlands and created vernal pool features will maximize the water quality and hydrologic benefits of the project. Therefore, the design discharges for the three reaches were selected between those predicted by the rural and urban regression models, but more similar to those predicted by the rural equations. 3.5 Channel Morphology The existing conditions assessment of the project reaches of Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek indicated that channelization of the streams and urbanization of the watersheds has resulted in incision and enlargement of the channels. The channels have downcut to elevations where local grade control will prevent further incision. Bank erosion, which is severe at many locations in these channels, is now causing lateral enlargement of the streams. Results from a bank erosion hazard index (BEHI) assessment indicate that the bank erosion along the project reaches of Irvin and Little Troublesome Creeks contributes approximately 2,400 tons of sediment to downstream waters per year. The BEHI results are discussed in more detail in Section 3.7. Irvin Creek is a deeply incised stream channel with eroding banks, limited pool depth and classifies as a G-type stream. Parts of Irvin Creek have become over-widened due to excessive erosion and the beginnings of meander development. Short embedded riffles and long shallow pools dominate the bed form. The incision and lateral erosion have also resulted in degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology related to loss of floodplain connection and lowered water table, and have contributed to water quality problems such as lower dissolved oxygen levels due to wide channels with shallow flow. Similar conditions exist in UT1 where incision is especially severe. UTI is a small, intermittent stream which has down cut to the incised bed level of Little Troublesome Creek. The portion of Little Troublesome Creek included in the project classifies as a C-type channel but borders on a being a G- or F-type channel due to limited access to its floodplain. Little Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 21 Mitigation Plan Troublesome Creek is also lined by dredge spoil berms which further separate the channel from the floodplain. Incision appears to have ceased, so the width to depth ratios will likely never become low enough to warrant a G stream type classification. As lateral erosion continues, it will develop into an F-type channel and will likely continue to pollute downstream waters and cover bed substrate and habitat. 3.6 Channel Evolution The project stream reaches are all currently laterally unstable. According the Simon channel evolution model (Simon, 1986), the project reaches of Irvin Creek, Little Troublesome Creek, and UT 1 appear to be at Stage 4 - Channel Widening (Figure 8). They have passed Stage 3 - Incision; the down-cutting has been arrested by grade control or incision to local base level. In most areas bank erosion is actively widening the channels. In some locations bank erosion causes substantial widening and some transient deposition is beginning. For Irvin Creek and UT1 this is evident by the classification of G according to the Rosgen system and related channel evolution models. According to the Rosgen channel type succession model, these streams have progressed from C or E streams (the likely natural condition of the streams given regional physiography) to G streams and appear to be moving towards the wider incised F-type streams. Little Troublesome Creek is moving from a C to an F channel through lateral erosion having never incised to a G stream type. Once this stage of mass wasting is completed, the project streams would likely begin to experience increased sediment deposition caused by decreased depth of flow and shear stress in the wider channels. This depositional trend, known as Stage S according to Simon's model, will eventually create a new floodplain within the over-widened channels and a small C type or E type channel will be formed (Stage 6 - Quasi-Equilibrium). 3.7 Channel Stability Assessment The primary destabilizing force in Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek is vertical stream banks; areas lacking in significant riparian vegetation and root depth are allowing for further instability. A small area of exposed bedrock at the downstream portion of Reach 1 provides some vertical stability to Irvin Creek; however the remainder of this reach exhibits moderate to large amounts of incision and vertical degradation along with unstable vertical banks. Examination of BEHI ratings for this reach reveals moderate and extreme levels of bank erosion potential for the majority of the reach (Figure 9). Sediment export was also determined for 902 linear feet of Reach 1 of Irvin Creek and is estimated at approximately 870 tons per year (Table 8). This portion of Irvin Creek exhibited bank heights typically ranging from 5 to 8 feet. Reach 2 of Irvin Creek is equally affected by a lack of stabilizing bed features and bare vertical banks with similar incision and vertical degradation as Reach 1. Additionally, Reach 2 exhibits areas of mid-channel bars and heavy sediment deposition, indicative of channel over-widening. BEHI ratings for this reach range from low which is typical of smaller areas stabilized by tree roots, to extreme in which the channel banks exhibit severe undercutting and completely lack vegetation. Sediment export was determined for 2,470 linear feet of Reach 2 and is estimated at approximately 1,473 tons per year (Table 8). This large increase in sediment export over Reach Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 22 Mitigation Plan I can most likely be attributed to the increase in reach length as well as a slight increase in bank height (6 to 10 feet) and channel incision. The portion of the Little Troublesome Creek located within the project area exhibits large amounts of bank instability and areas of over-widening resulting in mid-channel deposition. BEHI ratings for Little Troublesome Creek range from moderate to extreme due to near vertical banks lacking stabilizing vegetation. Sediment export is estimated at approximately 2,404 tons per year for the reach (Table 8). The large amount of sediment export occurring in Little Troublesome Creek can be attributed to much higher bank heights along this section of the project; typically 15 to 20 feet in height. Table 8. Pre-Construction BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates Little Troublesome Creek Mitinatinn Prnieet Left Ban k Ri ht Ban k BEHI Linear Footage Sediment Export Ft3 Yr BEHI Linear Footage Sediment Export Ft3/Yr Extreme 505 15150 Extreme 61 1830 Mod 297 532 Mod 741 540 Irvin Creek Low 100 14 Low 100 14 Reach 1 Total Ft3/Yr 15696 2384 Tons/Yr 756 115 Reach Total 871 Tons/Yr Extreme 267 13212 Extreme 76 5320 V. High 692 3433 V. Hi h 499 2698 High 419 1752 High 363 1796 Irvin Creek Mod 886 939 Mod 1430 1392 Reach 2 Low 206 32 Low 102 14 Total Ft3/Yr 19368 11218 Tons/Yr 933 540 Reach Total 1473 Tons/Yr Extreme 549 42628 Extreme 80 2880 V. High 209 2618 V. High 273 999 Little High 61 110 High 196 353 Troublesome Mod 80 101 Mod 350 234 Creek Total Ft3/Yr 45457 4466 Tons/Yr 2189 215 Reach Total 2404 Tons/Yr 3.8 Bankfull Verification There were very few reliable indicators of bankfull stage throughout the project reaches. Based on the judgment of the field assessment team, a few potential bankfull stage indicators were selected throughout the reaches of Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek. These features included either a break in slope on flat depositional features or scour lines on steep banks. These indicators are consistent with those identified on other, more stable NC piedmont streams. The limited data collected on bankfull geometry for the project reaches were compared with the NC urban and rural piedmont regional curves. Analysis of the estimated bankfull cross-sectional Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 23 Mitigation Plan areas for the project reaches consistently plotted at or just above the NC rural piedmont regional curve data (Figure 10). This provides some validation of the bankfull identification and indicates that, although the selected bankfull features along the project reaches remain questionable, that the best available information was used to estimate bankfull stage throughout the project area. 3.9 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions Within the Little Troublesome Creek project corridor, a variety of vegetative habitats exist. The dominant community type is mesic mixed hardwood forest located throughout the floodplains and top of stream bank zones. These communities exhibited strong canopy layers as well as areas of thick shrub layer species. Canopy species throughout these areas include red maple (Ater rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and white oak (Quercus alba). Dominant sub-canopy species ranging in height from eight to 15 feet include red maple, ironwood, tulip tree, and box elder (Ater negundo). The shrub layer varies in thickness throughout the project area, but predominantly includes spicebush (Lindera benzoin), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), common blackberry (Rubus argutus), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and pawpaw (Asimina triloba). The herbaceous layer is relatively sparse other than areas where canopy coverage is minimal; species within this layer include false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Several utility line rights-of-way intersect and run parallel to Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek and include overhead utility lines, a natural gas pipeline, and a sanitary sewer line (Figure 2). Habitats within these areas range from moderately to heavily maintained. The overhead utility line right-of-way exhibits no canopy species and is completely dominated by shrub and herbaceous species including common blackberry, multiflora rose, invasive Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana). The natural gas pipeline exhibits minor adjacent canopy species including tulip tree, ironwood, black walnut, and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), while moderate maintenance of this right-of-way has allowed for domination of shrub and herbaceous species including common blackberry, box elder, wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), Nepalese browntop, poison ivy, and false nettle. The sanitary sewer line is the most heavily maintained and is dominated by mowed species of Nepalese browntop, straw-colored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), narrowleaf lespedeza (Lespedeza angustifolia), and various grasses (Festuca spp.). Edge species found throughout this maintained corridor include sweetgum, ironwood, multiflora rose, tulip tree, black walnut, poison ivy, wingstem, red maple, and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). The eastern boundary of the project area is defined by an adjacent railroad right-of-way. Species along the forest edge and toe of slope are moderately maintained and include sweetgum, box elder, pokeweed, Nepalese browntop, red bud (Cercis canadensis), pin oak (Quercus palustris), post oak (Quercus stellata), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), yellow foxtail (Setaria pumila), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 24 Mitigation Plan 4.0 Reference Streams Identification of suitable reference reaches for urban projects can be problematic. It is well documented that streams in developed watersheds become destabilized and enlarged and have degraded habitat conditions due to altered hydrology (U.S. EPA, 1997). Therefore, it is often difficult to find reference quality streams in urban settings. In addition, reference reaches in rural, wooded areas, where reference streams are most often identified in the southeast, are not appropriate as the sole basis for designing urban stream restoration projects. For these reasons, appropriate reference reaches were not identified within the Little Troublesome Creek watershed and project-specific reference reaches in nearby rural settings were not sought. The design parameters were largely developed based on the design discharge and the designers' experience with dimensionless ratio values commonly used in successful restoration designs of streams in urban areas of the North Carolina Piedmont. Multiple naturally stable streams were identified to provide verification of design parameters, especially pattern and profile characteristics. The reference reach data for similar streams was obtained from existing data sets. The reference streams considered when developing design parameters for this project include Collins Creek, Spencer Creek, UT to Belews Creek, and UT to Rocky Creek (Figure 11). These reference streams were chosen because of similarities to the project streams including drainage area, valley slope and morphology, bed material, and location within the piedmont. Collins Creek was used as a reference reach for another NCEEP stream restoration project constructed downstream of the project site on Little Troublesome Creek in 2008. The UT to Rocky Creek, UT to Belews Creek, and Spencer Creek references were used for other stream designs near the project site. 4.1 Reference Streams Channel Morphology and Classification According to the Little Troublesome Creek Restoration Plan (KCI Technologies, 2007), Collins Creek is located in the southern portion of Orange County near the confluence of the stream with the Haw River in Chatham County. The drainage area is 1.68 square miles and the land use within the drainage area is low-density residential and forest. The Collins Creek reference site was classified as an E4 channel type according to the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994). The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 4.4 to 12.1 and an entrenchment ratio of 2 to 3. The channel has a bank height ratio of 1 to 1.1 indicating vertical stability. However the channel is apparently straight and no planform feature information is available for the site. Data from the UT to Rocky Creek and Spencer Creek reference sites were obtained from the Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan by Baker Engineering (2007). The reference reaches are located in a mature forested area with 20-to 50-year-old forest growth. UT to Rocky Creek is classified as an E4b stream type in the Rosgen classification system and Spencer Creek is classified as an E4/C4. These reference reaches are vertically and horizontally stable, have moderate pattern with sinuosity measurements ranging from 1.1 to 2.3, have well-established pools at outside of channel bends, have several riffles, and have plentiful habitat features such as woody debris jams and tree roots. UT to Rocky Creek has a width. to depth ratio of 6.0 and a slope of 2.6 percent. The Spencer Creek reach has a sinuosity of 1.1 and a slope of 1.3 percent. The fourth reference site is a reach of UT to Belews Creek near the Town of Kemersville in Forsythe County. This reference reach data set was obtained from Brushy Fork Stream Restoration Plan (URS Corporation, 2007). The drainage area of the site is 3.4 square miles and the land use within the watershed includes residential development, forest, and areas of managed Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 25 Mitigation Plan herbaceous vegetation. The floodplain of this E5 stream is undeveloped bottomland hardwood forest. The width to depth ratio along this reach ranges from 6.3 to 9.1 and the entrenchment ratio is 34.7. The bank height ratio is 1.0 and the sinuosity of the reach is 1.2. The URS report stated that the reach appears to be maintaining stable cross section, pattern, and profile dimensions. Summaries of geomorphic parameters for all of the reference reaches analyzed for this project are included in Table 9. Table 9. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Proiect Collins Creek w T Spencer Creek Bel s Creek Roc Creek Parameter Not- ation Units min max min max min max min max stream type E4 E5 E4b E4/C4 drainage area DA sq mi 1.68 3.40 1.1 0.5 bankfull b ankf r a discha bkf fs 15-150 25.00 5 /P bankfull cross- Abkf SF 32.90 27.40 16.3 10.6 sectional area average velocity during Vbkf fps 3.90 4.80 5.5 N/P bankfull event width at bankfull wbkf feet 11.9-20.1 14.40 12.2 8.7 maximum depth at dmax feet 3.3-4.2 2.70 1.8 1.9 bankfull mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 1.6-2.7 1.95 1.3 1.2 bankfull width wbkf/dbkf 4.4-12.1 7.60 9 1 7 3 to depth ratio . . depth ratio dmax/dbkf 1.5-2.5 1.40 1.3 1.6 bank height ratio BHR 1-1.1 1.00 1.0 1.0 floodprone area width wfpa feet 60 200 72 229 entrenchment ratio ER 2.0-3.0 34.70 6.0 26.3 valley sloe Svalley feet/ foot --- 0.008 0.0261 0.0139 channel sloe Schannel feet/ fit 0.003 0.007 0.0235 0.0132 sinuosity K --- 1.20 1.1 1.05 riffle sloe SrifFle feet/ foot 0.003 0.008 --- 0.0606 0.0892 0.0100 0.0670 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 26 Mitigation Plan Collins Creek UT UT Spencer Creek Bele Creek Rocky Creek Parameter Not- ation Units min max min max min max min max riffle slope Srlffle/Schannel --- --- 2.6 3.8 0.8 5.1 ratio I slope poo SP°°, feet/ foot 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.0037 0.000 pool slope ratio SPooiischannel 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.16 0.01 pool-to-pool L " v feet 32.0 80.0 75.0 26 81 13 47 spacing pool spacing LP_P/Wbkf 1.6 6.7 5.2 2.2 6.7 1.5 5.3 ratio maximum pool depth at dPool feet 2.4 4.6 2.2 2.5 bankfull pool depth / dP°°V dbkf '-' 2.4 1.6 2.1 ratio pool width at W pool v°°l 24.3 13.1 10.9 8.4 bankfull pool width wv°°?wbkf "- 0.90 0.9 1.0 ratio pool cross- sectional area AP°°l SF 57.9 --- 19.3 12.8 at bankfull pool area ratio APooliAbkf ___ 0.90 1.2 1.2 belt width wblt feet --- 31.0 32.0 --- 24 52 meander w? /w btt/ bkf --- 2.15 2.22 --- 2.8 6.0 width ratio meander Lm feet --- 74.0 101.0 --- 54 196 length meander Lmiwbkf --- 5.5 6.6 --- 6.2 22.5 length ratio radius of R, feet --- 16.0 27.0 --- 5 22 curvature radius of curvature p R wbkf "' 1.11 1.93 --- 0.6 2.5 ratio 4.2 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions UT to Rocky Creek and Spencer Creek are both surrounded by mature hardwood forests composed of typical Piedmont bottomland riparian forest tree species. Dominant species include sweetgum, tulip tree, hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), red maple, and American elm (Ulmus americana). Common understory vegetation includes ironwood, American holly (Ilex opaca), paw paw (Asimina triloba), and flowering dogwood. The mature trees within the riparian buffers Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 27 Mitigation Plan provide significant bank reinforcement to keep the streams from eroding horizontally and maintain channels with small width to depth ratios (Baker Engineering, 2007). The riparian vegetation community for Collins Creek was not used as a reference community and is not described in the previous Little Troublesome Creek Restoration Plan. That document describes a reference community called the Williamsburg Alluvial Forest located approximately one mile downstream of the project site. The canopy species in the Piedmont Alluvial Forest portion of the Williamsburg Alluvial Forest include box elder, red maple, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), river birch (Betula nigra), and American sycamore. Understory species include Musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). The canopy species in the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), various oaks (Quercus spp.), and tulip poplar. Understory species include ironwood, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), hazel- nut (Corylus americana), deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum), and mapleleaf arrowwood (Viburnum acerifolium) (KCI Technologies, 2007). The riparian community of the UT to Belews Creek site is described as Piedmont-Mountain bottomland forest community. Canopy species described include sweetgum, tulip poplar, red maple, and American sycamore. The understory includes ironwood, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and saplings of the canopy species along with vines such as grape, catbrier, poison ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle. The herb layer was sparse; however the exotic Japanese knotweed was identified. 5.0 Project Site Wetlands - Existing Conditions 5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands On November 23, 2010, and March 23, 2011, Wildlands Engineering investigated and delineated on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the USACE Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual and the Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement Guide. The results of the on-site jurisdictional determination for the southern wetland site indicate that there are two jurisdictional wetland areas located within the floodplain of Little Troublesome Creek. These wetlands (WL-1 and WL-2) are approximately 0.9 and 2.76 acres in size, respectively and are primarily located within an active agricultural area (Figure 5). These systems exhibited pockets of inundation from one to six inches, sediment deposits, oxidized root channels, drainage patterns, low-chroma soils (10YR 5/2 and 7.5YR 511), many distinct mottles (7.5YR 4/6 and 2.5YR 4/6), and saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. Vegetation within this area has been heavily managed, resulting in a dominant herbaceous strata layer with very few, sparse trees. Wetland Determination Data Forms representative of these jurisdictional wetland areas have been enclosed in Appendix 2 (DP 1 w, DP2w, and DP7w). Based on an adjacent reference area, it was determined that these jurisdictional systems historically functioned as a Bottomland Hardwood Forest, prior to their conversion to cropland. An assessment of these wetlands was performed according to the recent North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) in order to determine their level of hydrologic function, water quality, and habitat condition. Due to heavy agricultural activities over the past several decades Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 28 Mitigation Plan along with aggressive vegetation management, these wetland systems scored out as low functioning systems when compared to reference conditions. Particularly low scoring parameters include the effects from tilling, grading, and ditching on decreased surface and subsurface hydrology. Additionally, vegetation management has reduced aquatic and terrestrial habitat along with eliminating the systems' connection to adjacent natural habitats. An NCWAM Wetland Rating Sheet representative of these jurisdictional wetland areas is enclosed in Appendix 2 (WL-1 and WL-2). 5.2 Hydrological Characterization In order to develop a wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation design for the Little Troublesome Creek Site, an analysis of the existing and proposed conditions for groundwater hydrology was necessary. DrainMod (version 6.0) was used to model existing and proposed groundwater hydrology at the site. DrainMod simulates water table depth over time and produces statistics describing long term water table characteristics and an annual water budget. DrainMod was selected for this application because it is a well documented modeling tool for assessing wetland hydrology (NCSU, 2010) and is commonly used in wetland creation and restoration projects. For more information on DrainMod and its application to high water table soils see Skaggs (1980). 5.2.1 Groundwater Modeling For the Little Troublesome Creek wetland site, six total models were developed and calibrated to represent the existing and proposed conditions at three different gauge locations across the site. Resulting model output was used to validate and refine the proposed grading plan for wetland restoration and creation on site and to develop a water budget for the site. The modeling procedures are described below. 5.2.1.1 Data Collection DrainMod models are built using site hydrology, soil, climate, and crop data. Prior to building the models, soil cores were taken to validate existing mapped soils across the site. Further explanation of the site soils can be found in section 5.3 of this report. Rainfall and temperature data were obtained from nearby weather station Reidsville 2 NW (Station No. 317202) operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service. The data set for this station was obtained from the North Carolina State Climate Office from May of 1962 through December of 2010. These data were used to calibrate the models and perform the long term simulations. Information to develop model inputs for crops previously grown on the site was obtained through interviews with the landowner. 5.2.1.2 Existing Conditions Base Model Set up and Calibration Models were created to represent three monitoring gauge locations on the site at as shown on Figure 5. The models were developed using the conventional drainage water management option with contributing surface water runoff to best simulate the drainage of the site. Each of the three gauges was installed in late July, 2010 and recorded groundwater depth twice per day with In-situ Level TROLL® 100 or 300 pressure transducers through early December 2010. This period was used as the calibration period for the groundwater models. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 29 Mitigation Plan The first step in developing the model was to prepare input files from various data sources. A soil input file obtained from N.C. State University, which has similar characteristics to the soils on the site, was used as a base soil input file for each model. The soil files were refined by adjusting the lateral saturated conductivity values for each of the mapped soils found on- site from published soil survey data (MRCS, 2010). Temperature and precipitation data from a nearby weather station, described above, were used to produce weather input files for each model. A crop file was also developed for this application because the site has previously been used for row crops including corn and soy beans. The crop file provides information used by the model to simulate the agricultural practices that have occurred on the site and is especially important for this project, because the site was used for agricultural production during the calibration period. Once the necessary input files were created, the project settings were adjusted for this application and then calibration runs were conducted. To calibrate the model, parameters not measured in the field were adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and geomorphic conditions until model simulation results closely matched observed gauge data. After calibration of each of the models was complete, the calibrated models were used as the basis for the proposed conditions models. Plots showing the calibration results are included in Appendix 2. Trends in the observed data are well-represented by the calibration simulations. Although hydrograph peaks between plots of observed and simulated data do not match exactly, relative changes in water table hydrology as a result of precipitation events correspond well between observed data and model results. 5.2.1.3 Proposed Conditions Model Setup The proposed conditions models were developed based on the existing conditions models to predict whether wetland criteria would be met over a long period of recorded climate data. Proposed plans for the site include grading portions of the site to lower elevations, removing an existing agricultural ditch that currently drains a portion of the site, planting native wetland plants, and roughing the surface soil through disking. These proposed plans were developed to increase the wetland hydrology on site. Settings for the proposed conditions model were altered to reflect these changes to the site. Filling of the existing agricultural ditch on the site was simulated by increasing the surface storage for the nearby gauge (gauge 2) rather than increasing ditch spacing. This method was used because the existing ditch is quite shallow and does not likely contribute to subsurface drainage. The ditch spacing values in the models were based on proximity of the gauges to Little Troublesome Creek. To account for proposed site grading conditions, the ground surface elevations were decreased by the depth of ground to be graded at gauge 1. Changes in the vegetation on the site were simulated by altering the rooting depth of plants on the site from variable shallow depths for crops (varying by time of year) to consistent and deeper values for hardwood tree species. Surface storage values were increased at all gauges to account for proposed disking to the site. Once the proposed conditions models were developed, each model was run for a 47- year period from May 1963 through 2009 using the weather data from the Reidsville 2 NW weather station to perform the long term simulation. 5.2.1.4 Modeling Results and Conclusions DrainMod was used to compare calibrated existing conditions models with proposed conditions scenarios to determine the effect of proposed practices on site hydrology. Each Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 30 Mitigation Plan gauge location was evaluated to establish how often annual wetland criteria would be met over the 47-year simulation period. The wetland criteria are that the water table must be within 12 inches of the ground surface at each gauge for a minimum of 7% of the growing season (March 25 through November 10). The modeling results show that Gauges 2 and 3 would meet the criteria 47 years out of the 47-year period following restoration activities. Gauge 1 would not regularly meet criteria without grading the portion of the site represented by that gauge (the wetland creation zone) to a lower elevation. The model results show that if grading is performed to lower the ground surface at Gauge 1 by 4 to 6 inches, that portion of the site will meet criteria 38 years out of the 47-year period. The existing ground surface rises between Gauge 1 and Little Troublesome Creek. Portions of the site nearer to the creek will be graded up to 18 to 24 inches in order to lower the ground to the same elevation as that proposed for the area around Gauge 1. 5.2.2 Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site The only surface water modeling necessary for the wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation design was performed with DrainMod by simulating a contributing area runoff for the hillslope on the western edge of the project site. The runoff simulated for this hillslope provided one of the hydrologic inputs for the wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation areas. No other modeling of surface hydrology, other than the HEC-RAS-hydraulic flood study, was performed for this project. 5.2.3 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site DrainMod computes daily water balance information and outputs summaries that describe the loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c summarize the average annual amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the three modeled locations on site. Infiltration represents the amount of water that percolates into the soil. Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to the drainage ditches or to underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows overland and reaches the drainage ditches before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the direct evaporation of water from the soil or through the transpiration of plants. From the water balance results provided in Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c it is clear that most rainfall on the existing site is lost via evapotranspiration and runoff. Once the project is complete, less water will leave the site through these mechanisms and more will drain through subsurface drainage. Table 10a. Water Balance for Gauge 1 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Proiect Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions- 4" Excavation Proposed Conditions- 6" Excavation Average Average Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) ) precipitation water) r) precipitation water) r) wat precipitation + runon) + runon) + runon) Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 31 Mitigation Plan Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions- Proposed Conditions- 4" Excavation 6" Excavation Average Average Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of cm of ( (% of (cm of (% of water) precipitation water) precipitation water) precipitation + runon) + runon) + runon) Precipitation 113.35 67.7% 113.35 67.7% 113.35 67.7% Runon from Upland 54.16 32.3% 54.16 32.3% 54.16 32.3% Precip. + Runon 167.51 100.0% 167.51 100.0% 167.51 100.0% Infiltration 111.49 66.6% 145.77 87.0% 145.28 86.7% Evapotranspiration 72.76 43.4% 67.35 40.2% 67.63 40.4% Drainage 40.12 24.0% 79.62 47.5% 78.93 47.1% Runoff 56.02 33.4% 21.69 12.9% 22.18 13.2% Table 10b. Water Balance for Gauge 2 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Proiect Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Annual Annual Annual Annual Hydrologic Amount Amount Amount Amount Parameter cm of (% of (% of water) precipitation water) precipitation + runon) + runon) Precipitation 113.35 71.5% 113.35 71.5% Runon from Upland 45.13 28.5% 45.13 28.5% Precip. + Runon 158.48 100.0% 158.48 100.0% Infiltration 85.84 54.2% 146.77 92.6% Evapotranspiration 67.92 42.9% 72.88 46.0% Drainage 18.38 11.6% 74.34 46.9% Runoff 72.63 45.8% 11.61 7.3% Table 10c. Water Balance for Gauge 3 Little Troublesome Creek Mitiaation Proiect Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Hydrologic Average Average Average Average Parameter Annual Annual Annual Annual Amount Amount Amount Amount Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 32 Mitigation Plan (cm of water (% of precipitation + ronon) (cm of water) (% of precipitation + runon) Precipitation 113.35 71.5% 113.35 71.5% Runon from Upland 45.13 28.5% 45.13 28.5% Precip. + Runon 158.48 100.0% 158.48 100.0% Infiltration 90.09 56.8% 92.63 58.4% Evapotranspiration 63.8 40.3% 68.38 43.1% Drainage 27.3 17.2% 25.11 15.8% Runoff 68.39 43.2% 65.85 41.6% 5.3 Soil Characterization An investigation of the existing soils on the wetland restoration/enhancement/creation site was performed by Wildlands staff on December 9, 2010. This investigation supplemented the soils analysis performed by a licensed soil scientist (LSS) on March 1, 201.0. Soil cores were collected at locations across the site to provide data to refine NRCS soils mapping units, establish areas suitable for wetland restoration and creation, and aid in developing a wetland grading plan. Twenty-six soil cores were taken at approximately 100 to 200-foot grid spacing across the site at varying depths. Five soil cores were taken by the licensed soil scientist in March. The cores were taken to a depth at which either hydric soil features or groundwater was encountered. Soil texture; Munsell chart hue, chroma, and value; and hydric soil characteristics were recorded for each core. The depth to hydric indicators and groundwater table was then measured at each core. Soils were also evaluated at six additional locations around the site during the wetland delineation described above. The soil core data from these six locations were added to the 26 grid-spaced cores, and the five cores taken by the LSS for a total of 37 cores in the soil core data base for the site. The most recent 32 soil boring locations and mapped soil units are shown on Figure 12. The data for each core is included in Appendix 2 along with the soil core profiles and figure from the March investigation. 5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification Two soils are mapped within the boundaries of the wetland project area in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey (MRCS, 2009). Much of the site is mapped as the Haw River (HcA) silty clay loam while the northern, eastern, and western edges of the site are mapped as Codorus (CsA) loam. Analysis of the soil core samples collected from the project site along with consideration of site topography indicated that soils classifications at 32 core locations agreed with the mapped soil units. The Haw River silty clay loam is not on the NC hydric soil list; however, it is a poorly drained, frequently flooded soil that was previously mapped as Chewacla which is listed on the NC Hydric Soil list. The Codorus series is not listed on the NC hydric soil list. Analysis of the core data indicates that the soils on the site mapped as Haw River are on the wetter end of the range of the Haw River series as many of the cores included low chroma soils and other hydric indicators. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 33 Mitigation Plan 5.3.2 Profile Description The Haw River series is described in the NRCS official series description as a piedmont floodplain soil that is very deep, poorly drained found on zero to two percent slopes. The typical texture profile of the Haw River is a silt loam at zero to five inches, a silty clay loam from five to 52 inches, and sand from 52 to 80 inches. The Codorus series is described as very deep, moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils. Codorus is found on floodplains with zero to three percent slopes. The texture profile of the Codorus series is loam from zero to eight inches, silty clay loam from eight to 18 inches, loam from 18 to 30 inches, and silt loam from 30 to 80 inches. 5.3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity The Haw River series has a moderately low to moderately high Ksat value ranging from 0.06 to 0.2 in/hr. It is poorly drained and typically has a water table depth of zero to 12 inches. The Codorus series has a moderately high to high Ksat value ranging from 0.57 to 1.98 in/hr. It is somewhat poorly drained and generally has a water table depth of six to 24 inches. 54 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History The existing vegetation communities within the on-site jurisdictional wetland area are representative of a stressed Palustrine Emergent system (Cowardin, 1979). Based on historical aerial photographs, farming and crop planting has been prevalent in this area since at least 1969 (Appendix 5). Due to heavy agricultural activities and vegetation management over the past several decades, several major strata are completely absent from this area resulting in a dominant herbaceous layer with few sparse mature trees. Dominant herbaceous species within this area include swamp rose (Rosa palustris), Nepalese browntop, stawcolored flatsedge, soft stem rush (Juncus effuses), and rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides). Sparse tree species include black willow (Salix nigra) and sweetgum. 6.0 Reference Wetlands A reference wetland was identified immediately adjacent to the wetland restoration/ enhancement/creation site (Figure 13). The property is a pristine Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Shafale & Weakley, 1990) protected by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conservation easement. Because the preservation site is immediately adjacent to the project, it offers the best opportunity to provide reference information to use in restoring and creating wetlands on the project site because it represents the most likely example of the original condition of the project site. The preservation site is primarily bottomland hardwood forest and the natural community present on the site will be used as a basis to develop the planting plan for the restoration/enhancement/creation project. 6.1 Hydrological Characterization A groundwater monitoring gauge was installed on July 29, 2010 on the preservation site immediately adjacent to the project to document the reference wetland hydrology. However, after further analysis during the fall when local water tables began to rise, it was determined that this particular location represented wetter than average conditions for this wetland complex. This well will be moved to a more appropriate reference location prior to construction of the wetland mitigation site. This information will be used to provide a comparison for the restored and created wetland hydrology throughout the monitoring period. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 34 Mitigation Plan 6.2 Soil Characterization The soils on the reference site are mapped the same as those on the project site according to the NRCS soil mapping. The wetland areas of the property are predominately Haw River series soils. The edges near Little Troublesome Creek and the Haw River are mapped as Codorus series. The areas mapped as Codorus series are not likely to be jurisdictional; the areas mapped as Haw River series will be the prime reference wetland. 6.2.1 Taxonomic Classification The dominant soil on the site is Haw River silty clay loam which is generally considered a hydric soil. As described in Section 5.3.1 above, analysis of the soil cores taken on the adjacent project site which are mapped as Haw River are on the wetter end of the range of the Haw River series and have characteristics indicative of hydric soils. 6.2.2 Profile Description A detailed profile description of the Haw River series is described in Section 5.3.2 above. 6.3 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History Historical aerials reveal no recent disturbances to this USFWS conservation area and no disturbances were observed in the field other than a minor cut trail. The existing vegetation communities are typical of a Bottomland Hardwood Forest and include mature canopy tree species, moderate subcanopy and shrub species, as well as a dense herbaceous layer. Dominant canopy species include sweetgum, cottonwood (Populus deltoids), red maple , sycamore , overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). Typical subcanopy and shrub species include American elm, box elder, sweetgum, and red maple. The dense herbaceous layer is comprised of soft stem rush, rice cutgrass, strawcolored flatsedge, and river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium). 7.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan 71 Overarching Goals and Applications of Mitigation Plans The following list provides the intended goals and applications of this mitigation plan: 7.1.1 The timely, cost effective delivery of sustainable ecological uplift for the purpose of meeting compensatory mitigation requirements. 7.1.2 Link project specific goals to watershed goals as provided in planning documents. 7.1.3 Articulate how the proposed approach or levels of intervention are proportional and optimized in terms of 7.1.1. 7.1.4 Demonstrate that the factors of influence and the data streams that are part of the design effort converge (or provide explanation when they don't) to justify the proposed level of intervention (7.1.3). 7.1.5 Define project level goals and objectives. 7.1.6 Provide a pre-restoration baseline to which monitoring data can be compared for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of goals and objectives. 7.1.7 Provide impact and other information necessary to obtain regulatory permits. 7.1.8 Document whether or not the project will result in a rise in flood elevations. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 35 Mitigation Plan 7.1.9 Address how does project goals and objectives address stressors identified in watershed characterization section of the plan. 7.Z Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project has been designed to meet the over-arching goals described above. A technical assessment of the Troublesome and Little Troublesome Creeks watersheds was conducted in 2004 and development of a local watershed plan (LWP) for these watersheds was completed, based on the findings and recommendations of the technical assessment. The most significant watershed stressors identified during the technical assessment were stream erosion and instability. Others included declining aquatic habitat, loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers, loss of wetlands, lack of urban stormwater detention, and water quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings. The management recommendations to address these problems were stream restoration and implementation of stormwater best management practices, or BMPs (Tetra Tech, 2004). The stream restoration project described in this Mitigation Plan (referred to as Site 3 in that report) was identified as a top priority project to achieve the management goals described in the LWP documents. The project will address the key watershed stressor by reducing stream instability and erosion in the Little Troublesome Creek watershed. This project has been designed to offset the other key watershed stressors as well. The goals for this project include: • Decrease nutrient and urban runoff pollutant levels; • Decrease sediment input; • Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen levels; • Create appropriate in-stream habitat; • Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; and • Decrease channel velocities. The project objectives to meet these goals are: • Off-site nutrient input will be absorbed on-site by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain areas and wetlands, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation and be captured in vernal pools. Increased surface water residency time will provide contact treatment time and groundwater recharge potential. • Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by installing bioengineering and in-stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles. Sediment from off-site sources will be captured by deposition on restored floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities. • Restored riffle/step-pool sequences where distinct points of re-aeration can occur will allow for oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Creation of deep pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create long- term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating. • Creating a channel form that includes riffle -pool sequences and gravel and cobble zones of macroinvertebrate habitat for fish. Introduction of large woody debris, rock structures, root wads, and native stream bank vegetation will substantially increase habitat value. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 36 Mitigation Plan • Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting native vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows. Riparian wetland areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat. • By allowing for more overbank flooding and by increasing channel roughness, local channel velocities can be reduced. This will allow for less bank shear stress, formation of refuge zones during large storm events and zonal sorting of depositional material. 7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification and Wetland Type The design streams and wetlands will be restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but with also strong consideration to existing watershed conditions and trajectory. The specific proposed stream and wetland types are described below. 7,2.1.1 Designed Channel Classification The stream restoration portion of this project includes four reaches (Figure 14): Reach l: Irvin Creek from Turner drive to the confluence with UT2 (design length = 2,014 LF) Reach 2: Irvin Creek from the confluence with UT2 to the confluence with Little Troublesome Creek (design length = 1,917 LF) Reach 3: Little Troublesome Creek from the confluence with Irvin Creek to the confluence with UT3 approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the confluence with Irvin Creek (design length = 1,169 LF) UT 1: A tributary to Little Troublesome Creek (design length = 240 LF). All stream reaches included in the design for this project will be constructed as C type streams according to the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1996). Type C streams are slightly entrenched, meandering streams with well developed floodplains and gentle gradients of 2% or less. They occur within a wide range of valley types and are common within valley type VIII, which is similar to the valleys of Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek. The morphologic design parameters for the design reaches fall within the ranges specified for C streams (Rosgen, 1996). However, the specific values for the design parameters were selected based on designer experience and judgment and were verified with sediment transport analyses and assessment of morphologic data from reference reach data sets. Each of the design reaches will be reconnected with the existing floodplain (Priority 1) except along portions of the design reaches where excavation of a new floodplain at a lower level is necessary due to stream and floodplain grade transitions (Priority 2). In either case, the restored channels will have entrenchment ratios of greater than 2. The sinuosity for the restored channels will range from 1.2 to 1.3. 7.2.1.2 Designed Wetland Type The wetland elements of this project include the following (Figure 15): Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 37 Mitigation Plan RW1: The main wetland component of this project which is located at the lower end of the Little Troublesome Creek watershed and consists of 8.7 acres of wetland restoration, 3.7 acres of wetland enhancement, and 5.6 acres of wetland creation. This wetland area will be restored to a Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Shafale and Weakley, 1990). Vernal Pools and Pocket Wetlands: The restoration of the streams described above will include reconnecting the stream to the natural floodplain in some sections and creating a new lower floodplain for other sections. This will provide opportunities for wetlands to be created or restored which will include the creation of vernal pool features where portions of the existing channel will be filled to an elevation lower than that of the surrounding floodplain. These features will generally be designed to intercept concentrated runoff from offsite to provide water quality treatment benefits. Other pocket wetlands are likely to be created or enhanced simply by raising the existing stream beds to a degree that the floodplain will be frequently inundated. No mitigation credit will be claimed for either of these conditions. Communities planted in these zones will be appropriate for Piedmont bottomland hardwood forests. 7.2.2 Target Wetland Communities and Buffer Communities The target communities for the restored and created wetlands (including RW 1 and the vernal pools and pocket wetlands) and riparian buffer zones will be based on reference conditions. The main reference site is combination of a Piedmont bottomland forest and Piedmont bottomland swamp adjacent to RW1. This reference site is within a conservation easement held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. Because most of the wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation areas as well as the riparian buffer will have hydrology similar to the Piedmont bottomland forest, that community will be the primary target, although both communities share many of the same species. The species to be planted are described in Section 5.4.2. 7.3 Stream Project and Design justification The existing conditions assessment of the project reaches of Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek indicated that channelization of the streams and urbanization of the watersheds has resulted in incision and enlargement of the channels. The channels have down cut to a point at which local grade control will prevent further incision. Bank erosion, which is severe at many locations in these channels, is now causing lateral enlargement of the streams. Results from a BEHI assessment indicate that the bank erosion along the project reaches of Irvin and Little Troublesome Creeks contributes approximately 2,400 tons of sediment to downstream waters per year. The incision and lateral erosion have also resulted in degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology (related to loss of floodplain connection and lowered water table), and have contributed to water quality problems such as lower dissolved oxygen levels (due to wide channels with shallow flow). Similar conditions exist in UT1 where incision is especially severe. UT1 is a small, intermittent stream which has down cut to the incised bed level of Little Troublesome Creek. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 38 Mitigation Plan The project stream reaches are all currently unstable. According the Simon channel evolution model (Simon, 1989), the project reaches of Irvin Creek, Little Troublesome Creek, and UT1 are at Stage 4 - Channel Widening. They have passed Stage 3 - Incision; the down-cutting appears to have been arrested by grade control or incision to local base level. Bank erosion has begun and, in fact, has progressed quite far in many locations. It appears, based on visual observation and cross-sectional measurements, that the reaches have progressed to the point where depositional processes are beginning. For Irvin Creek and UT1, this is evident by the classification of G according to the Rosgen system and related channel evolution models. According to the Rosgen channel type succession model, these streams have progressed from C or E streams which is the likely natural condition of the streams given regional physiography, to G streams and appear to be moving towards the wider, incised F type. The next stages in many streams would likely be increased sediment deposition caused by decreased depth of flow and shear stress in the wider channels (Stage S according to Simon's model), eventually creating a small C type channel (or potentially a more narrow E type eventually) with a lower floodplain and base level (Stage 6 - Quasi-Equilibrium). However, with limited sediment supply from the developed watersheds, especially the case for Irvin Creek, the sediment accumulation necessary to reform a stable channel at a lower elevation will take a long time. The portions of Little Troublesome Creek and UTl included in the project have not incised enough to be classified as G channels with entrenchment ratios lower than 1.4. However both are incised and laterally eroding. Little Troublesome Creek is also lined by dredge spoil berms which further separate the channel from the floodplain. Local base level control appears to be preventing this stream from down-cutting further, so its entrenchment ratio will likely never become low enough to warrant a G stream type classification. However, this channel may continue to widen through bank erosion. On-going lateral erosion in these streams will continue to pollute downstream waters and cover bed substrate and habitat. They may eventually reach the same end point as Irvin Creek and UT 2, i.e. erosion will cease and depositional processes will rebuild a natural channel form at the current lower base level. The objectives described in Section 7.2 were partially developed to deal with the issues described in the paragraphs above. The key factors driving the need for this intervention are: • Without intervention, it is likely that lateral erosion in all of the project reaches will continue for some time contributing tons of sediment to downstream waters each year. • Restoration of aquatic habitat is needed. Rates of recovery of alluvial channels after disturbance due to urbanization are not well understood or documented and, in theory, the disturbed reaches may remain unstable indefinitely (Arnold et al., 1982). • Treatment and storage of urban runoff is needed. The restored floodplain and created and restored wetlands will provide both increased flood storage and treatment. • The project offers an excellent opportunity to implement a stream restoration project along with restored and created wetlands that meet the goals of the local watershed plan extremely well. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 39 Mitigation Plan An assessment of watershed trajectory further justifies intervention. The watersheds of Irvin Creek, Little Troublesome Creek, and UT1 are essentially built out. The development in this area includes downtown Reidsville, multiple shopping centers, and a hospital, as well as multiple single family subdivisions. The development in this area was mostly complete by the 1970s and is likely completely stabilized by now. This is important to the stream project because if further development were expected it could cause another disturbance to the fluvial system and result in additional channel adjustments after the mitigation project is constructed. Further, there is reason to believe that, due to the length of time that the watersheds have been stabilized and the fact that the channels have not yet reached a new equilibrium point, the stream reaches described in this document need intervention to be stabilized and to accomplish the other objective of this project. Table 11. Design Geomorphic Data Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Proiect Notat Un t Irvin Creek Irvin Creek Little -ion i ' Reach 1 Reach 2 Troublesome UTi Creek min max min max min max min max stream type C4 C4 C5 C5 drainage area DA sq mi 0.82 0.91 5.07 0.1 bankfull design Qbkf cfs 90 100 370 14 discharge Cross-Section Features bankfull cross- sectional Af SF 30.0 30.8 87.0 5.1 area average bankfull Vbkf fps 3.0 3.3 4.3 2.7 velocity width at bankfull wbkf feet 19 19.2 32.3 7.8 maximum depth at dmax feet 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.2 3.2 3.8 0.8 0.9 bankfull mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 1.6 1.6 2.7 0.7 bankfull width to Wbkf/ dbkf 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 depth ratio depth ratio dd ax/ 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.43 low bank height 1.9 1.9 3.2 0.6 bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 40 Mitigation Plan Notat Irvin Creek Irvin Creek Little -ion Units Reach 1 Reach 2 Troublesome UT1 Creek min max min max min max min max floodprone area width wfra feet >80 >200 >285 >100 entrenchme ER > 4.2 > 10 4 > 8 8 > 16 4 nt ratio _ _ . _ . _ . Sinuosity valley slope Svalley feet/ 0.00585 0.00588 0.00572 NA* foot cha a el slop Schannel feet/ f 0.0045 0.0049 0.0044 0.012* sinuosity K 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3* Riffle Features riffle slope Srlffle feet/ 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.0147 0.0066 0.0088 0.01845 0.0369 foot riffle slope Siffle/ ratio Schannel 1.4 3.0 1.4 3.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 3.0 Pool Features pool sloe p S P°°I feet/ foot 0.0005 0.0009 0.00049 0.00098 0.00044 0.00088 0.00123 0.00246 pool slope Spool/ 1 0 0.02 0 1 0 2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 2 ratio Schannel . . . . pool pool Lp-p feet 76.1 133.1 76.9 134.6 129.2 226.1 24.3 42.5 spacing ing pool L?? spacing 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 ratio wbkf maximum pool depth del feet 2.8 4.0 2.9 4.0 4.8 6.7 1.2 1.6 at bankfull pool depth dpool/ 1 8 2 5 1 8 2 5 1.8 2.5 1.7 2.3 ratio dbkf . . . . pool width Nod feet 22.8 28.5 23.1 28.8 38.8 48.5 9.4 11.7 at bankfull pool width wp,.l/ 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 ratio wbkf Pattern Features belt width wblt feet 57 152 58 154 113 258 27 62 meander wbi 3 0 8.0 3.0 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 width ratio wbkf . meander Ln, feet 152 228 154 231 258 388 62 94 length meander Ld 8.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 length ratio wbkf radius of feet 38 57 38 58 65 97 16 23 curvature Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 41 Mitigation Plan Notat Units Irvin Creek Irvin Creek Little Troublesome UT1 -ion Reach 1 Reach 2 Creek min max min max min max min max radius of fir/ curvature Wbkf 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 ratio • ???•• a rsu.--tty a--U uy gIauulg auu pnwug vi uicugeu matenai. Hn accurate vauey slope ror tors reacn is not avauable. Sinuosity was calculated as channel length over valley length 7.3.1 Sediment Transport Analysis A sediment transport analysis was performed for the design reaches of Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek in order to evaluate the stability of the proposed channel. Two separate questions should be addressed with sediment transport studies: 1) What size bed material particles will become entrained at flows at or near the bankfull discharge (competence) and 2) Does the stream have the ability to pass the sediment load supplied to it (capacity)? The analysis performed for this project addresses both the competence and capacity questions with the information available. Stream competence can be determined through calculations performed with data commonly collected for stream restoration projects. The issue of capacity is much more difficult to analyze due to lack of reliable data on sediment supply for a given stream and, therefore, must often be analyzed qualitatively - unless initial qualitative analysis warrants further field data collection. The existing bed material matrix in Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek is comprised of both gravel and sand. Multiple pebble counts and pavement and subpavement samples throughout the project reaches show similar bimodal distributions of particle size. In gravel bed streams, including bimodal systems, bedload is the dominant component of sediment transport (Wilcock, et al., 2009). Therefore bedload was the focus of this sediment transport analysis. 7.3.1.1 Methodology The competence question was addressed by analyzing shear stresses at the design bankfull flows for each design reach and comparing that to the shear stress needed to move the bed material that will line the proposed channels (similar to existing bed material). The initial competence analysis was performed using standard equations for calculating critical dimensionless shear stress needed to move the bed material and the depth and slope combination needed to produce that stress. The equations are: (1) Tci = 0.0834(d50/ds50)-0.872 (2) T,i = ds/(ys*Di) (3) dbkf = (Tci*'ys*Dl)/S where iii is critical dimensionless shear stress, d50 is median diameter of pavement material, ds50 is median diameter of subpavement material, ys is specific weight of Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 42 Mitigation Plan sediment, Di is the largest diameter of subpavement material, dbkf is mean bankfull depth of channel, and S is the water surface slope at bankfull stage. This analysis is only appropriate for gravel bed streams and therefore was only performed for Reaches 1 and 2 of Irvin Creek. In sand bed channels such as Little Troublesome Creek and UT1, the entire bed becomes mobile during bankfull events and other techniques must be used to analyze stability. An additional analysis was performed with a HEC-RAS model of the proposed condition. The model was used to analyze all of the project streams, including the sand bed channels. As mentioned above, the Shields diagram methodology is not appropriate to analyze channels with bed material predominately comprised by sand - which is the case for Little Troublesome Creek and UT1. Little Troublesome Creek is classified as a sand bed channel but has a significant gravel component as well. The bed of UT 1 is almost entirely comprised of sand. The allowable velocity method is suggested by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) National Engineering Handbook on stream restoration for analyzing stability in sand bed channels (MRCS, 2007). The allowable velocities for fine sand, coarse sand, and fine gravel according to that document are 2 ft/s, 4 ft/s, and 6 ft/s respectively. Therefore velocities were analyzed for Little Troublesome Creek and UTI and shear stresses were analyzed for Irvin Creek in the HEC-RAS analysis described below. The capacity question was addressed by performing a watershed assessment including an assessment of the existing reaches to determine the significance of the sediment supply on the design. In this case, the highly developed condition of the project reach watersheds indicated that sediment supply would be minimal and not likely to change as described below. 7.3.1.2 Calculations The results of the critical dimensionless shear stress analysis were compared to the Irvin Creek design in order to predict whether or not the channel will move the bed material at design bankfull flow. A summary of the results of this analysis are included in Table 12. Table 12 also shows the critical shear stress in lbs/ft2 required to move the largest particle from the subpavement samples derived from the modified Shield Diagram developed by Wildland Hydrology based on the original Shield's curve (ASCE, 1975). Examination of the results in Table 12 shows that all of the Irvin Creek reaches will be capable of mobilizing the largest subpavement particles at the design bankfull flows. Table 12. Summary of Dimensionless Critical Shear Stress Calculations Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Proiect Little Irvin Creek Irvin Creek- Troublesome -Reach 1 Reach 2 Creek* UT1 Calculated Dc,;t;c, ft 1.56 1.06 0.53 N/A Design riffle mean depth ft 1.6 1.6 3.2-3.8 N/A Calculated Scryt;ca, ft/ft 0.0044 0.0033 0.0009 N/A Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 43 Mitigation Plan Uttle Irvin Creek Irvin Creek- Troublesome -Reach 1 Reach 2 Creek* UT1 Design channel slope ft/ft 0.0045 0.0050 0.0044 0.0123 Critical shear stress to move largest subpavement particle** Ibs/ft2 0.18 0.17 0.15 N/A Bankfull boundary shear stress Ibs/ftZ 0.38 0.43 N/A N/A '* I he critical shear stress analysis was not performed on the sand bed channels. "From modified Shield's Diagram (Figure 16) The HEC-RAS model of the proposed condition was developed to analyze shear stresses throughout Irvin Creek. Shear stresses were analyzed at locations every 100 feet throughout the entire length of the creek. Table 13 shows summary statistics of the results of the shear stress modeling for riffles and pools for both reaches of Irvin Creek. The summary statistics shown in Table 13 can be compared with the critical shear stresses obtained from the modified Shields Diagram (Table 12) to provide an estimate of stress on the channel bed and if deposition or scour is predicted. As expected, the shear stresses summarized in Table 13 are greater in riffles than pools. In most cases there is not enough shear stress in the pools to move the largest subpavement particle. However, the riffles appear to have enough shear stress to move the largest subpavement particle in every case. It appears that in some cases, the potential for degradation exists. As discussed below, measures will be taken to prevent channel degradation. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 44 Mitigation Plan Table 13. Summary of Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type Little Troublesome Creek Miti ation Project - Irvin Creek Shear Stress Statistic Ib ftZ Riffle Pool Minimum 0.26 0.07 Maximum 1.08 0.34 Average 0.56 0.15 The HEC-RAS model of the proposed conditions was also used to analyze velocities throughout the Little Troublesome Creek and UT1 design reaches. The results (Table 14) can be compared to the permissible velocities listed above for the bed material of Little Troublesome (fine gravel and coarse sand) and UT1 (fine sand) to assess the potential for bed degradation. While the velocities are generally within the allowable range, the maximum values indicate that some locations will have velocities that somewhat exceed the allowable values. As discussed below, measures will be taken to prevent channel degradation. Table 14. Summary of Channel Velocities in Design Reaches of Little Troublesome Creek and UTi Little Troublesnme Creek Mitinatinn Prniart Velocity Statistic (ft/s) Little Troublesome Creek UT1 Minimum 2.18 0.10 Maximum 5.58 2.90 Average 3.61 1.01 Allowable Veloci 4 to 6 ft/s 2 ft/s As mentioned above, the capacity of the design reaches to move the sediment load supplied from their respective watersheds must be analyzed qualitatively because no accurate data on sediment supply are available. A review of the land use within the watersheds for each of the design reaches was performed through GIS analysis and windshield surveys. The results of these assessments indicate that the watersheds were developed decades ago and are essentially built-out. Due to the developed nature of the watershed and the fact that urban watersheds tend to stabilize over time, the design reaches are not expected to have a large sediment supply coming from the watershed. Another important consideration when assessing sediment load from a watershed is the potential for future changes in load. Further development within these watersheds will be limited and thus no change in bedload supply is expected to occur. Finally, bed deposition observed along the existing reaches is mostly sandy material, a significant portion of which has come from erosion of upstream channel banks. Much of this supply will be eliminated as a result of this project. Due to these considerations, the bedload supply of the design reaches has been considered small and the channels have been designed as threshold channels. A threshold channel is a channel that will remain stabile without depositing or evacuating sediment over time. With a low sediment load, grade control and bank stabilization and Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 45 Mitigation Plan reinforcement will prevent vertical and lateral movement of the channel. Adequate shear stresses in the proposed design condition will result in improved transport of the existing sediment load and will prevent aggradation of the bed over time. This is a common design approach for urban streams where channel adjustments over time are not desirable due to constraints such as adjacent properties and existing infrastructure. 7,3.1.3 Discussion The shear stress values for the riffle features in some portions of the Irvin Creek design reach indicate excess shear stress but are not uncommonly high and a couple of qualifying statements are in order. First, the revised Shields diagram analysis does not directly predict scour but, rather, entrainment of particles. It provides information that may be used to estimate if and where scour might occur. Secondly, the Shields diagram was developed for gravel bed streams that have a consistent bed material particle size (i.e. not bimodal systems with large quantities of sand). Research has shown that bed material that is bimodal with large proportions of both gravel and sand (such as that of Irvin Creek) is more difficult to move than bed material that is uniform in size (Wilcock, et al., 2009). Therefore the revised Shields diagram analysis likely under-predicts the critical shear stress required to mobilize the bed within the design reaches. However, measures will be taken to prevent significant scour at key locations in the channel, especially riffles. Grade control structures including constructed riffles, reinforced constructed riffles, log and boulder sills, cross vanes, and others will be installed during construction at locations were bed scour potential is significant. Natural material revetments such as root wads and brush toe will be used along with bioengineering to prevent bank erosion. All in-stream structures and revetments are shown on the design plans. The grade control structures have been designed to withstand much greater shear stresses than those predicted through modeling for Irvin creek. In addition, the channel banks will be protected with revetments and erosion control matting to protect the banks until vegetation becomes established. Similarly, some potential for degradation is predicted by the allowable velocity analysis for Little Troublesome Creek and UTI. Again, stout grade control structures capable of withstanding significantly higher velocities and shear stress than the model results indicate will occur in the channel have been designed to protect vulnerable locations. 7.3.2 HEC-RAS Analysis 7.3.2.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR The flood study for the Little Troublesome Creek project is comprised of two parts: the stream portion and wetland portion of the site. The stream portion of the site includes channel and floodplain grading of approximately 5,000 linear feet of Little Troublesome Creek and its unnamed tributary (mapped as Tributary A of Little Troublesome Creek and locally referred to as Irvin Creek). This area is mapped as a FEMA Zone AE floodplain on FIRM panels 8903 and 8904 (Figure 7). Irvin Creek and the upper portion of Little Troublesome Creek were performed as a detailed study including 100-year base flood elevations and mapped floodway. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 46 Mitigation Plan The wetland portion of the site includes restoration of approximately 17.5 acres of riparian wetlands located within the Little Troublesome Creek floodplain near its confluence with the Haw River. This area is also mapped as a FEMA Zone AE floodplain on FIRM panels 8911, 9812, 8921 and 9822 (Figure 7). The lower portion of Little Troublesome Creek was performed as a limited detailed study. Base flood elevations have been defined, but no floodway is mapped on the FIRM panel. Non- encroachment widths are published in the Rockingham County Community 370350 Flood Insurance Study dated July 3, 2007. A Rosgen Priority 1 restoration approach is proposed for the stream work performed on Little Troublesome and Irvin Creeks (Rosgen, 1997). The channel will tie into the existing adjacent floodplain elevation which hydraulic modeling indicates will result in an increase in the 100-year base flood and floodway elevations. The effective hydraulic models have been obtained from the NC Floodplain Mapping Program. Wildlands has modeled existing and proposed hydraulic conditions on the stream site for the 100-year flood event along the upper portion of Little Troublesome Creek as well as Irvin Creek. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been prepared for submittal to the City of Reidsville, the NC Floodplain Mapping Program, and FEMA for approval prior to construction to document the increase in base flood and floodway elevations. Following construction completion, an as-built survey and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be finalized and submitted to the City of Reidsville local floodplain administrator, the NC Floodplain Mapping Program, and FEMA. The wetland portion of the site will require only minor floodplain grading to create wetland features on site. After thorough review of the existing stream data and proposed design plans, a hydrologic analysis is not necessary for minor floodplain work proposed for this project. The proposed plans and wetland evaluation have been addressed in a technical memo and approved by Rockingham County. The EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklists are included in Appendix 6 and have been submitted to the Rockingham County and City of Reidsville floodplain administrators. 7.3.2.2 Hydrologic Trespass The project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained on the project site and will not extend upstream to adjacent parcels, so hydrologic trespass will not be a concern. The proposed restoration has been designed to transition back to the existing boundary conditions. in a gradual manner. 7.4 Site Construction 7.4.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation and Other Project Related Construction The majority of the stream restoration elements of the project will be constructed as Priority 1 restoration in which the stream bed is raised so that the bankfull elevation will coincide with the existing floodplain. Due to the degree of incision, portions of the stream restoration will be constructed as Priority 2 restoration or restoration where a new floodplain bench is excavated at an elevation below the existing floodplain. The Priority Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 47 2 sections of the design include the first section of the Irvin Creek portion of the project (approximately 900 feet), the lower 375 feet of Irvin Creek, and all of the UT1 restoration. Existing floodplain berms will be removed from the Little Troublesome Creek portion of the project to provide better floodplain access to that stream; however, that portion of the project is categorized as Priority 1. While some trees will be removed during construction and used for in-stream habitat and grade control, minimal mature canopy removal will occur. Trees to be protected will be marked prior to construction. The stream reconstruction will result in an appropriately-sized channel that will meander across the floodplain. The cross-sectional dimensions of the design channels will be constructed to flood the adjacent floodplain, wetlands, and constructed vernal pools frequently. The reconstructed channel banks will be built with stable side slopes, armored with native materials, matted, and planted for long-term stability. The sinuous planform of the channel will be built to mimic a natural piedmont stream. Portions of the new channel will be less sinuous due to adjacent constraints but these irregularities will add a desirable variation to the planform. The bedform of the reconstructed channel will vary between pools and riffles. Generally the pools will occur in the outside of the meander bends and the riffles in the straight sections of channel between meanders. Riffle-pool sequences such as those that will be built in the new channels are common for piedmont streams and provide energy dissipation and aquatic habitat. The straighter portions of the channel will also have irregularly-spaced pools scoured by hydraulics created by in-stream structures. The floodplain will become wetter as a result of the project. Existing wetlands will be better hydrated and it is likely that additional wetlands will be created as a byproduct of raising the channel bed. In addition, vernal pools will be constructed at some locations along the existing channel alignment. These features will be depressions in the floodplain that will provide additional storage for flood waters and additional wetland acreage. The will be constructed so that they remain inundated after water on the majority of the floodplain has receded. Because the project area is currently forested, construction will be done in a way to minimize removal of any large, mature trees. Grade control is an important element of the design and many riffles will be constructed with grade control features. These include native gravel/cobble material riffles harvested from the existing channel, native material riffles reinforced with larger quarry stone, boulder and log sills, and cross vanes. Log vanes, log and rock j-hook vanes, and constructed riffles with cross vanes will be among other in-stream structures constructed along the stream project. These structures will provide additional grade control and will deflect flows away from vulnerable banks and create habitat diversity. The channel banks will also be armored with native materials from the site including root wads and brush toe features. These structures and revetments are shown on the attached 60 percent design plans. A mix of log and rock structures will be used on this site due to the occurrence of woody debris and bedrock and large cobble features found in the existing channels and reference reaches. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 48 Mitigation Plan The wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation areas for which mitigation credit will be generated are several miles downstream of the stream restoration site near the confluence of Little Troublesome Creek and the Haw River. Most of the site has been used for planting corn, soy beans, and wheat in rotation for several decades. The site is located between a relatively steep upland area to the west and Little Troublesome Creek to the east. The site is slightly lower along the center for much of the length of the project and the northern portion of this lower area is jurisdictional wetland. The lower elevation zone becomes much wider towards the southern end of the property. The southern portion of the site is drained by a shallow ditch that runs generally east to west across the site and discharges to another ditch off the south end of the property. The plan for the wetland site is to restore, enhance, and create wetland functions by grading portions of the site to improve or create wetland hydrology and planting the site with native wetland vegetation. The preexisting wetland hydrology of the lower elevation portions of the site will be restored by filling the ditch to slow drainage from the site. The upland areas around the perimeter of the site will be graded to a lower elevation so that wetland hydrology will become established. In these areas, the ground surface will be lowered by approximately 4 inches in the restoration zone and up to 24 inches in the creation zone, depending on the existing elevation (see Figure 18). In addition to these activities, a berm that currently runs along Little Troublesome Creek on the eastern edge of the site will be notched to allow more frequent flooding of the site during storm flow events in the stream. These activities will result in 8.7 acres of wetland restoration, 3.7 acres of wetland enhancement, and 5.6 acres of wetland creation. The entire site will be protected by a permanent conservation easement. 7.4.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration 7.4.2.1 Narrative of Plant Community Restoration As a final stage of construction, riparian stream buffers and wetland mitigation zones will be planted and restored to the dominant natural plant community that exists within the project watershed. This natural community within and adjacent to the project easement is classified as Piedmont Bottomland Forest and was determined based on existing canopy and herbaceous species (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Proposed plant and seed materials will be placed on stream banks and bench areas as well as the floodplain, for a total of 33.7 acres of planting. These areas will be planted with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of permanent herbaceous vegetation ground cover. A permanent seed mixture of native herbaceous and grass species will be applied to all disturbed areas within the project easement. An herbaceous seed mixture was chosen that would provide quick stabilization of constructed stream banks, benches, and side slopes. These species will also provide early habitat value through rapid growth of ground cover on the tops of banks and floodplain areas. Proposed herbaceous species are listed in Table 15. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 49 Mitigation Plan Table 15. Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture Little Troublesome Creek Mitiaation Proiect Scientific Name Common Name Ludwi is alternifolia Bush seedbox Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem Scir us c erinus Wool grass Uniola latifolia River oats Trifolium re ens White clover Carex crinita Fringed sedge Iuncus effusus Soft stem rush Fl mus vir inica Virginia wild e Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Individual tree and shrub species will be planted throughout the project easement including stream banks, benches, tops of banks, and floodplains zones. These species will be planted as bare root and live stakes and will provide additional stabilization to the outsides of constructed meander bends and side slopes. Species planted as bare roots will spaced at an initial density of 680 plants per acre (8 feet on center). Live stakes will be planted at 4,840 stakes per acre (3 feet on center) on channel banks. Targeted densities after monitoring year 3 are 320 woody stems per acre. Proposed tree and shrub species are representative of existing on-site vegetation communities and are typical of Piedmont Bottomland Forests, shown in Table 16. Table 16. Riparian Woody Vegetation Little Troublesome Creek Mitiaation Proiect will not exceed S% of live stakes Scientific Name Common Name Stream Bank Live Stakes Salix ni ra Black willow* Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Salix sericea Silk willow Stream Benches/ U er Banks Bare Roots Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak Quercus nigra Water oak Acer negundo Box elder Setula nigra River birch Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Alnus serrulata Tag alder Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Cornus amomum Silk dogwood Lindera benzoin Spicebush 1/iburnum dentatum Arrowwood Quercus falcata Southern red oak Acer rubrum Red maple Corylus amencana Hazelnut Sym horicarpos orbiculatus Coralberry Lime troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 50 Mitigation Plan 7 4.2 2 Narrative oflnvasive Species Management During the on-site field investigation, occurrences of invasive species were identified throughout the project reaches. The abundance of these species differed across various habitats within the project area. Within the more heavily forested floodplain areas along Irvin Creek and Little Troublesome Creek, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose, and Japanese honeysuckle were observed along the top of bank and floodplain zones. Chinese privet is a large evergreen shrub that aggressively encroaches and out- competes native vegetation. Multiflora rose is a medium-sized, deciduous, thorny shrub that forms dense thickets that can choke out native understory species. Japanese honeysuckle is a moderately invasive, perennial trailing or twining vine found in forest margins, rights-of-way, and disturbed areas. Mechanical extraction of these species will be performed in tandem with stream restoration activities. Long term management of these species with herbicide should be applied prior to the fruiting season of adjacent native shrubs and trees to avoid minimal damage. The on-site and adjacent gas and sewer utility rights-of-way are dominated by heavily maintained herbaceous species including Nepalese browntop and lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata). Nepalese browntop is an aggressive, low-growing grass that can dominate shaded, disturbed floodplains. Lespedeza is an aggressive perennial, drought-resistant species able to invade a variety of habitats including fields, meadows, marshes, open woodlands, and roadsides. Fruiting season for this species generally occurs from July through March. Although mechanical extraction of these species will be performed along with stream restoration activities, follow up treatment and long term management with herbicides will be required in order to prevent the spread of these species into newly restored areas. A late season herbicide application should be performed before these species set seed. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. 7.4.3 Mitigation Credit Summary The stream restoration activities described above will result in 5,340 linear feet of stream restoration. Certain sections of the 5,340 LF of proposed stream restoration do not have the mandatory 50-foot buffer on both sides of the stream; therefore these sections are not being claimed for mitigation credit at this time. There will be other sections of stream that have substantially greater buffer than the minimum requirement of 50 feet and may generate additional mitigation credits. At a mitigation ratio of 1:1, the restoration activities will generate 4,900 stream mitigation units (SMUs). The proposed wetland mitigation project includes restoration, enhancement, and creation of wetlands. The proposed mitigation ratios are 1:1 for restoration, 1.3:1 for enhancement, and 3:1 for creation. These are typical ratios for these types of mitigation activities except that the proposed enhancement ratio is somewhat higher than typical. The higher enhancement ratio was agreed to with Todd Tugwell with the USACE during a March 9, 2011 meeting for the following reasons: The higher ratio is warranted because of the low quality of the existing wetland enhancement zone. Currently the Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 51 Mitigation Plan enhancement zone, like the restoration and creation zones, is being used for farming. The hydrology of the site has been altered by a drainage ditch and a berm along Little Troublesome Creek. There is no vegetation on the site except for some areas of grasses and cultivated crops. Enhancement activities performed on the site will include improving the hydrology of the enhancement zone (as well as the creation and restoration zones) and restoring the native vegetation. Therefore the functional uplift of the enhancement portion of the project will be nearly the same as that of the restoration zone and, thus, a high ratio for enhancement is appropriate. The wetland mitigation work will result in a total of 13.4 WMUs as shown in Table 17. The wetland mitigation zones are shown in Figure 15. Table 17. Wetland Mitigation Summary Little Troublesome crp-P& Mitigation Drnior+ Type of Mitigation Acres Ratio WMUs Restoration 8.7 1:1 8.7 Creation 5.6 3:1 1.9 Enhancement 3.7 1.3:1 2.8 Total Wetland Mitigation Units 18.0 --- 13.4 8.0 Performance Criteria The stream and wetland restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 1.0, 11/20/2009) and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits will occur to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream restoration sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. The wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation sections will be assigned specific performance criteria for hydrology and vegetation. An outline of the performance criteria components follows. 8.1 Streams Post-restoration monitoring of channel stability will include dimension (cross-sections), pattern and profile (longitudinal profile), and photo documentation of the project. Success criteria for the stream restoration also include substrate analysis and the frequency of bankfull events. The success criteria are described below for each parameter. 8.1.1 Dimension Riffle cross-sections on the restoration and enhancement reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio and width-to-depth ratio. Riffle cross-sections should generally fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width-to- Lime Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 52 Mitigation Plan depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. 8.1.2 Pattern and Profile Longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches should show that the bedform features are remaining stable. Although the project reaches are naturally gravel and small coble bed channels, the bedload currently includes a large percentage of finer channel material. We anticipate this fine material to create transient bar features that will migrate with each large flow event throughout the project reaches. The riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools should remain deeper with flat water surface slopes. Due to the fines in the bedload, some filling of the pools will occur over time. The relative percentage of riffles and pools should not change significantly from the design parameters. The longitudinal profile should show that the bank height ratio remains very near to 1.0 for nearly all of the restoration reach. 8.1.3 Photo Documentation Lateral reference photos should show a stable cross-section with no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. . 8.1.4 Substrate Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression toward or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features. 8.1.5 Bankfull Events Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration and enhancement reaches within the five-year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. 8.2 Wetlands The final performance criteria for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 7 percent of the growing season which is measured on consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions. This success criteria was determined through model simulations of post restoration conditions and comparison to an immediately adjacent existing wetland system. If a particular well does not meet these criteria for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to that of the reference well to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the monitoring period. 8.3 Vegetation The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260, five-year-old, planted trees per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of year five of the monitoring period. The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 53 Mitigation Plan at least 320 three-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary. 9.0 Preliminary Monitoring Using the WEEP Baseline Monitoring Plan Template (version 1.0, 11/19/2009), a baseline monitoring document and as-built record drawings of the project will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCEEP. These reports will be based on the WEEP Monitoring Report Template (version 1.2.1, 12/01/2009). The monitoring period will extend five years beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met. The project's activity and reporting history is included in Table 18. Table 18. Project Activity and Reporting History Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Proiect Activity or Report Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan Report June 2011 Final Design-Construction Plans Jul 2011 Permanent Seed Mix Applied _ March 2012 Bare Root Plantings March 2012 Mitigation Plan / As-Built Report May 2012 Year 1 Monitoring Report December 2012 Year 2 Monitoring Report December 2013 Year 3 Monitoring Report December 2014 Year 4 Monitoring Report December 2015 Year 5 Monitoring Report December 2016 9.1 Streams The following characteristics will be monitored with respect to stream channels on site. 9.1.1 Dimension In order to monitor the channel dimension, two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with riffle and pool sections in proportion to EEP guidance. Each cross-section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. An annual cross-section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. 9.1.2 Pattern and Profile A longitudinal profile will be completed for the restoration reaches of the project each year of the monitoring period. For reaches greater than 3,000 feet in length, the profile will be conducted for at least 30% of the restoration length of the channel, per USACE and NCDWQ Stream Mitigation Guidance. For reaches less than 3,000 feet in length, the profile will be completed for the entire reach length. Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. These profile measurements will be taken at the head of each Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 54 Mitigation Plan riffle, run, pool, and glide, as well as at the maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and NC State Plane coordinates. 9.1.3 Photo Documentation Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for five years following construction. Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored each year. Photos will be used to monitor restoration and enhancement stream reaches as well as vegetation plots. Lateral reference photos should show a stable cross-section with no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. The reference photo transects will be taken of both banks at each permanent cross-section. A survey tape pulled across the section will be centered in the photographs of the bank. The photographer will make every effort to maintain the same area in each photo over time. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Photographs will be taken at representative grade control structures along the restored stream. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time. 9.1.4 Substrate A reach-wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement. Also, a subpavement sample will be taken at each surveyed riffle to characterize the subpavement particle size distribution. 9.1.5 Bankfull Events Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the restored channel at a central site location. The gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition. 9.1.6 Bank Stability Assessments BEHI and NBS assessments will be performed in year five of the project monitoring. The entire project length will be classified into the BEHI erosion hazard categories and will include a NBS assessment. The data will be compared to the preconstruction BEHI and NBS assessment results. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 55 Mitigation Plan 9.2 Wetlands Groundwater monitoring gauges will be established throughout the wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation areas. Generally, the gauges will be installed at appropriate locations so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland project area. 9.3 Vegetation Monitoring will begin at the end of the first growing season. Species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated. The restoration site will then be evaluated each subsequent year between July and November until the final success criteria are achieved. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary. Vegetation-monitoring quadrants will be installed across the restoration site to measure the survival of the planted trees. The ,number of monitoring quadrants required will based on the NCEEP monitoring guidance documents (version 1.2, 11/16/06). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species and shrubs and 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will be calculated and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked so they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living planted seedlings and the current year's living planted seedlings. 10.0 Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy The Little Troublesome Creek project is located within two tracts of land in Rockingham County, NC. One parcel is owned by Jerry D. Apple and the second parcel is owned by Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC. Conservation easements held by the State of North Carolina have been recorded with the Rockingham County Register of Deeds on the Little Troublesome Creek project study area within the two tracts (Apple - Deed Book 1412 Page Number 1685, Wildlands Holding LLC - Deed Book 1411, Page Number 2458). The conservation easements allow for the restoration work to occur and protect the project area in perpetuity. Signage will be placed along the easement boundary per NCEEP guidance that was current at the time the proposal was submitted. Adaptive measures will be developed or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented in the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined in this report. Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria. 11.0 References Annable, W.K., et al., 2010a. Estimating channel forming flow in urban watercourses. River Research and Applications 1-16. DOI: 10.002/rra.1391 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 56 Mitigation Plan Annable, W.K., et al., 2010b. Quasi-equilibrium conditions of urban gravel-bed stream channels in southern Ontario, Canada. River Research and Applications 1-23. DOI: 10. 1002/rra. 145 7 Arnold, C.L., P.J. Boison, and P.C. Patton, 1982. Sawmill Brook: An Example of Rapid Geomorphic Change Related to Urbanization. Journal of Geology 90:155-166. Baker Engineering NY, Inc., 2007. Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan. Charlotte, NC. Doll, B.A., et al. 2002. Analysis of Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 27, No. 3, p 641-651. EPA, 1997. Urbanization and Streams: Studies of Hydrologic Impacts. Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 841-R-97-009. Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT. KCI Technologies, 2007. Little Troublesome Creek Restoration Plan. Raleigh, NC. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2009. Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources. http://www. geology. enr. state. nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database, Rockingham County, NC. http://149.168.1.196/nhp/county.html North Carolina State University (NCSU), 2010. DrainMod Related Publications. Accessed May 10, 2010, at: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/soil_water/drainmod/drainmod_papers.html#wetland Robbins, J.C., and Pope, B.F., 1996, Estimation of flood frequency characteristics of small urban streams in North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96- 4084, 21 p. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12-22. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 57 Mitigation Plan Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26. Simon, A., Rinaldi, M. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79: 361-383. Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DrainMod Reference Report: Methods for design and evaluation of drainage-water management systems for soils with high water tables. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 329 pp. Simon, A. 2006. Flow energy, time, and evolution of dynamic fluvial systems: implications for stabilization and restoration of unstable systems. In: Proceedings of the 2006 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress (R. Graham, Ed.), May 21-25, 2006, Omaha, Nebraska. CDROM. Weaver, J.C., et al. 2009. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p. Wilcock, P., et al., 2009. Sediment Transport Primer: Estimating Bed-Material Transport in Gravel Bed Rivers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-226. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 78 p. Tetra Tech, Inc., 2004. Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report. Durham, NC United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Rockingham County, North Carolina. http://SoilDataMart.nres.usda.gov United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Rockingham County, NC. http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htmi URS Corporation, 2007. Brushy Fork Stream Restoration Plan. Morrisville, NC Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 58 Mitigation Plan ,win! Hydrologic Unit Code (14) EEP Targeted Local Watershed r Rood's „R fts 1 0, 00, o-- ,?11l1?11 03U1C)104 43u S, 4 0% LoWkwil " - • .u,+?,, c,?,,1 chi „I, ? fauiF=., r Figure 1. Vicinity Map Wl LDLANDS 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site ENGINEERING L I Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Rockingham County, NC •• P - ( Pet'; n' 14 KWif r _ f ? 1 Ric 1 uTG'W?S , t . ?' ? l:y5 aa 1--;,,. - d RR4ii1 a 'q • (?JFF v? 1 ?.... ? ?? ? r', .. 'rte ® n?.? r F ?- ti114. i r "? L r r a „' ?? Irvin Creek ` s t 584 acres Little Troublesome Creek 3,245 acres ` „..r •., ri • , T % r.r r ?,t r, , f loll D?sD^sai , g.• 1} - 111 -gyp ?._' F ' i f `Reidsville, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle - - r 1 A 1 ?r Figure 3. Watershed Map - Stream Area V V 1 LDLA N t'hS 0 1,100 2,200 Feet Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site ENGINEERING Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC w r Figure 4. Hydrologic Features - Stream Area ?" ' • I L t???'L A N DS 0 250 500 Feet Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site C N? l IN V E E R 1 N G Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. were delineated and classifed by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. on November 23, 2010; Easement Area verification was completed by the USACE on May 5, 2011 (SAW2009-02113). Parcels Monitoring Gauges Jurisdictional Wetland (3.7 Acres) Existing Streams i a f • ? ¦r s y. 9 n l Jl ? i n n 1 = *`I f P 04 ? t x t ?A a Y- 1$ tt?;, 9w '201Q AerMl Photography Figure 5. Wetland Delineation - Wetland Area WI LDLANDS 0 125 250 Feet Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site F N IG I N F F R I N C I , I Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Stream Area n t= s ? c r c. .1 ,? i- 3t n rt . Easement Area Existing Streams minim% RT +j# ChC i r I Project Streams ChC - Clifford-Urban Land Complex CsA - Codorus loam, 0-2% slopes FrE2 - Fairview-Poplar Forest Complex HcA - Haw River silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes Wetland Area t w 0 250 500 Feet WI LDLAND J ENGINEERING S N ? d?5, 1. ` ' ? _ ;ry May . a*u CsA ` . w 1 j 7, J, HrA i Figure 6. Soils Map Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Stream Area FIRM Panels: 8903 and 8904 WILDLANDS ENGINEERING IRM Panels: 8911, 9812, 8921, and 9822 Figure 7. FEMA Flood Map Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Stage t RernDdified ?. # ( Stage 2 Constructed "?? ..? ?? •:.,?,,.?„"? Stage 3 'Degradation , ? R Stage 4 Degradation and Widening Stage 5 Aggradation r ?? ?,• .?,. ?.",,,--r-- - and Alidening Ste' g' ° ? `•1 4--a- Stage, 6. ?.. r ,. uasi-eguihbnum ,,.I ---- Direction of bed or bank movement *Simon & Hupp, 1986 WiLDLANDS ENGINEERING Figure 8. Channel Evolution Model - Six Stages Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Rockingham County, NC North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Area 1040 E - d Cr 100 --- Q uj 10 x --- C 1 A Rural Data x Irwin. Xj Jet 1 Drainage Area esquare miles) 100 1000 • Urban Data • I; vin X2 irvin X3 I. ittle Troublesome X8 --- Pavver iRw-al Data) ?-- Power (Urban Data) North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge 10000 11000 ? u P rFs r u p 100 10 01 • Rural Data • Urban Data ? Irvin Reach 1 x IrOn Reach 2 Little Troublesome ---- F-1mver (Rural Data) --Pmter (Urban Data' Figure 10. Regional Curve Data WIMLANDS Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site F N (--, .1 N IF F FR [ N G Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC 1 10 i 100 1000 Drainage Area (square miles) I i ? i Hydrologic Unit Code (8) CASWELL EEP Targeted Local Watershed INGHAM fLJgMTho?blosnsCnok*h1 11 aft LOGING" I i PERSON --------------------------- 7 -------------- ------------ L---------- 114" LM* *h?MICMk UM80N1i UT to sewm cf all* LoC?tloA FORSYTH I GUILFORD ORANGE i ALAMANCE q? I I I I ? AVIE AVIE I -------- ------- i I -? I ---------------------- I I DAVIDSON I ? ? I I , i % RANDOLPH I CHATHAM i I ROWAN < ? I ! -- CABS RUS epwim Q** LEE f f / I 1 l UT to Rocky STANLY MOORE i MONTGOMERY HARNETT 1 ?I ? UNION+SON ANSON r r \1 `-\ RIC RA RICH OND HOKE CUMB LAN ?? jii CC Figure 11. Stream Reference Site Vicinity Map Y V (LDLANDS 0 5 10 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site ENGINEERING Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC f ' b r jp? y< 0 A ' 1 Easement Area Existing Streams 4? Monitoring. Gauges Soil Borings ?, i '2010 Aeriai Photography Figure 12. Soil Borings - Wetland Area W(LDLANDS 0 125 250 Feet Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site F t 'elf G I t +t F t ['? I NI I I I I i Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Hydrologic Unit Code (14) EEP Targeted Local Watershed ReIdtVolf LM 7ba m CIO* SIIM ENwa e /aft Locafte ROCKINGHAM ?,. s , Maa ------------------------------------------------- i? GUILFORD11r./?? Figure 13. Wetland Reference Site Vicinity Map V I LDLANDS 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site ENGINEERING 1 I J Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC Rockingham County, NC A c Figure 14. Stream Design WILDLANDS 0 250 500 Feet Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site I ° ° ° I Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) ENGINEERING ° r u . Parcels` Easement Areas Existing Streams 4 ; t } -J'r Monitoring Gauges - • i', 3 Wetland Restoration a o P" Ik, I i Wetland Enhancement ,a' +` w•,."+ a' x 3 ! ' p ?. 4 Wetland Creation PL t ? n+M d J ah ? yis ? i b y 6 Y?g* a i w w: Y ?'^ , ,G,.•y, '°`'' J"` I ICI t *2010,4erial Photography f 1 1 i Figure 15. Wetland Design V Y I L DL,A1 N Y' 0 125 250 Feet Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site E N G I N E S RI N C -1 ' I Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC 181 O i.eopoTd lNdrrn °• Mi11e 1964 A Leopold, Wdman 3 Miller. 1964 (upper outliers) i (.1r) p (0? .6 Q Trendline (Colorado Date + Upper outliers. Leopold, / 1( r WcVman e Miller 1964) v ° Trendline (Leopold, Wdnlar. a. Miller 1564) ^ E Wdoradc Data + upper outlers. 0 Leopold.'wVolman & Miller, 1964 / Pcnwer Trendine Jia.mm) = 253.7 : / R' W 0.W 1 1000 000 Leapdd.Wotman Miller. 1564 / Ower Trendiine Dio ?mm) 77 966 P' = 0.5'336 t woo 001 /A ° 0 0 0 01 T, = Critical Shear Stress 4 Ibs ; SgFt. j WI LDLAN DS ENGINEERING l.J J Figure 16. Shield's Curve Modified Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Cape Fear River Basin (03030002) Rockingham County, NC APPENDIX 1 Site Photographs ? . c Little Troublesome Creek, facing downstream - Stream Mitigation Site ?4F ?tr« f Irvin Creek, lower portion of project - Stream Mitigation Site r?` ?.`, r fy ?? Lr? ?.1'. • wK.yliy .' t h _? J ? r r. UTi, facing upstream to culvert crossing - Stream Mitigation Site t= a * :.a gas +'?r=^°+p Aw.?w???"?' r''+ +S,c - "7V a -• ii: 74 r. -'. H. t 9' "J4M, - rer...ar. Southern agricultural field, mapped as non-wetlands by NRCS - Wetland Mitigation Site Irvin Creek, facing downstream at upper portion of project - Stream Mitigation Site Wetland (WL-1) and adjacent agricultural field, facing south - Wetland Mitigation Site APPENDIX 2 Wetland and Stream Documentation U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW2009-02113 County: Rockingham U.S.G.S. Quad: Reidsville, NC NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Property Owner/Agent: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Address: 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone No.: (704) 332-7754 Property description: Size (acres) -23.9 and 17.6 acres Nearest Town Reidsville Nearest Waterway Little Troublesome Creek River Basin Cape Fear USGS RUC 03030002 Coordinates N 36.3334 W -79.6579 Location description The proposed stream mitigation portion of the Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project is located south of Turner Road, east of the intersection of Turner Road and Wav Street in the City of Reidsville Rockingham County, North Carolina. The proposed wetland mitigation portion of the project is located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the intersection of NC Highway 150 and Mizpah Church Road south of the City of Reidsville Rockingham County North Carolina. Indicate Which of the Following Apply: A. Preliminary Determination _ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Anny (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). B. Approved Determination There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the pen-nit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. on your project area delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps. X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. _ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. _ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the pennit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. _ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at (252) 946-6481 to determine their requirements. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Kichefski at 919-554-4884 ext. 35. C. Basis For Determination There are six streams within this project area that are relativelv permanent waters (RPW) and four of them are unnamed tributaries (UT) to Little Troublesome Creek The fifth stream Irving Creek is also an RPW These five RPW's flow into the sixth stream, Little Troublesome Creek. which is also an RPW Little Troublesome Creek flows into the Haw River, a traditionally navigable water (TNW) which is a tributary to the Cape Fear River a navigable water of the United States The Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWMs) of the streams were indicated by the following phvsical characteristics: Bed and banks, clear natural line impressed on the ban shelving scour and changes in the character of soil There are five wetlands in the protect area, three at the northern site location and two at the southern site location The wetlands are adiacent with the unnamed tributaries or Little Troublesome Creek and meet the hvdrophytic vegetation wetland hydrology and hvdric soil criteria of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual D. Remarks The project area is split into two separate locations All five streams and 3 wetlands are associated with the northern location and two wetlands are associated with the southern location. The site locations are described above. E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this detennination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division Attn: Steve Kichefski, Project Manager, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by July 5, 2011. **It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to e District Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.** Corps Regulatory Official: ?G Date May 5, 2011 Expiration Date May 5, 2016 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at bqp://re_gulatofy.usacesurvey.co m/ to complete the survey online. Copy furnished: Sue Homewood North Carolina Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Stream and Wetland Data Forms Available Upon Request ` Ln Ln LO Ln LO O M M N N e-I .--1 O O r-I O l ( r14 00 i o 0 I o ?.i 0 _ v 3 0 c a i U CL) N O O a O o i N 00 a--I a--I f CD O N \ r-1 N a+ V O r-I O N w Q1 ? O "I O N O M 00 O O N O 00 O O N N O ri O N O O O O O N (' d' O O O \ n Lf1 lD I? I? algel aaleM of 43da® Lq v It c 0 L .Q N W iri Vn 1n M m N N 14 i m (?0 N N Y O ? O d N GJ v Ln O d o € f O O O O 0O O algel jaleM 01 41daa o n o O O N W i I - -- N i O O N 00 N a-i O -4 O N -1 e-1 O r-1 O N \ aT N O O r-i O N O'1 \ O a " r a O O r-I O N Ql r-1 O e-i O N O M 00 O ?-i O N O i-i \ 00 O r-I O N e-i N t\ O c-i O N \ O O O lD I? 00 1- Ut u1 M 'i O m N N O e? O N 00 N E ? j N c 70, u m 0 o m CD N \ 6 00 N K a v w o a o 0 o oq 0 O N 01 N O .-a O e-i N ? I ? ? t4 \ O -4 0 ri O N PI r-I O a4 0 N O m \ 00 O O N O r-1 00 O O O O ? N M angel aaleM of 41daa O e-i O N \ i-I O O O d' V1 l0 ? i 1 3 I I I I I o I I E I I m e 3 z v a 0 v v c v v C c e e e - E oo c OO 3 v E E E „ a e a d s =1 a a -E I o 0 I r o x ? Y ? I d 0 i l a a I o fi v m d E wo V N I 9 a O >_ > K >_ K > C O O 0 K > iE > O O O O m O O > > > > > > > N G H o m m m 3 m O o U O °0 U 0 V o v m m K m O o a U °0 ) 3 °o °o ; o °o O o ¢ ; ¢ K T O °0 fY 3 K ; K ; K = _ _ _ = = r = V C = U v = U U u = _ = i v i = _ _ u I ?t.. d 3 LL N I I o ? o rv o N C O N N N v eJ I f r r I I 9' C I eo e N I I I i i. O NI N N N N (? N M N ?O N N c` ?O ? i0 •O N :O N cp N b N i0 `J i0 `J N cB N t0 N IO h tp Y IG ?O N N N (O h fp N tD N N [O N <D h V ?D O (O < < M O a l0 < O H N y f 0 m U K } K > T } (r } > d' > Y K Y Q_ > R' } K > R } K } K > > K > K Y T K Y K > d' > K > d' } D_' } ll Y d' > K > K > D_' } 0: Y K > K > K > R' Y K > K Y K > > R' > K > > K > K > K N K } K N Q ? o r h r ? M N h M1 ?O n N r r v? n r u'1 r n r ?O r it i v i Y m C O °o, e o N e 2 M e N e M o e e o N e 0 N e M e N e N e 0 N e 0 N e 0 N e 0 N e oi S e o N e 0 M e 0 M e 0 iM e 0 e N o e N e N e N e N e N e 0 N e e o ?- e N e N e e N e 0 I ?' -o E o - EI o E o E _ E _ E E ,? o E 0 E 0 E 0 E 10 E 0 IS o CI 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E o E 0 E o E o E o E o E -° IE o E E o - E p E o - E o E IE o E o IE o E m 0 IE o - E E E ry E o E m & IE .m - E E - E - E o - f 0 E 0 .E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E E 0 E ° E 0 > ° m -5 -a -6 _ 6 = m m m 2. Z ' _ m m -O m ? ° m m -O m m m m - o 0 o c v m m m m - - _ - - _ - N N O N N D ro t0 N N - _ N o M N N N ? M N N ? N ?O ? < V1 N N V N N ? < N N N N N ?O •- N N N LE) N N < N N N V N N i0 N ?O N N m N N N N N N N ?O N N N V t?( O N 0 N N - N •- N N i?(1 N N N N h ?- i0 C V < N p p < O n YJ NN \ ?O m W > ?Of > U? > I Q? } Ir } (r } ICE i> It > ir > fy T W > oe } > } } Y > m > (r > T Y T } Ir > Er > Y } ? > of Y > T T > > T T tr > x T Q? > ft > m Y m } ir > Er > Q? Y T } T T (r > T Y m } m > m } T Y } } } } M UY > > 'r > > > C N H N N N N N N N N ?O N N N i0 i0 N ?O N N i0 N IN N VJ N ?O Y? a r O N i0 N N f n n n I n n n n n il n i n n n c ? N d y N a d y ? N ? d p ? N W ? N ?o p N ? d N d p N m 6 M M 6 ? ? Y A 6 N N 6 ? 6 jy -- N 6 ? N N d a N N ? d N eb W ° N 6 N d N ? N N d ? N ? M N ? I ? N O d p - N G d N ? (V d 'R ? N ? 6 m ° N S N N b N ? N O d d d r 6 d d m E E E E y N y m I m o .+ N m e vvi ?n ?o n a'o o, o ., N m N U U ?n U ,y o rv 0 m 0 a 0 in o o a oz Soil Profile Descriptions Wildlands Project Sites Soils Descriptions performed by Mike Ortosky (NC Licensed Soil Scientist # 1075) Apple Property - 3/1/10 Profile #1 Depth Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes 0-4 7.5 YR 5/4 C2D IOYR 512 & 5,'6 Clay Loam 4-12 10 YR 5/2 C2D 7.5 YR 5/6 Clay Loam 12-16 10 YR 4/2 C213 7.5 YR 5/6 Clay 16-20 10 YR 6/1 7.5 YR 516 (50%) Clay Profile #2 (same characteristics as #1) Depth Color (Munsell Mottles Texture Notes 0-4 7.5 YR 5/4 C2D IQYR 5,2 &. 5/6 Cla Loam 4-12 10 YR 5/2 C2D 7.5 YR 5/6 Clay Loam 12-16 10 YR 4/2 C21) 7.5 YR 5/6 Clay 16-20 10 YR 6/1 7.5 YR 5/6 (50'/x) Clay Profile 43 (same characteristics as # 1 & 2) Depth Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes 0-4 7.5 YR 5/4 C2D I6YR 5,2 & 5.'6 Clay Loam 4-12 10 YR 5/2 C2D 7.5 YR 5/6 Clay Loam 12-16 10 YR 4/2 C21) 7.5 YR 5/6 Clay - --I 16-20 10 YR 6/1 7.5 YR 516 (50%) Cla y r Profile. #4 De Eth Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes 0-10 10 YR 414 Clay Loam 10 14 7.5 YR 5; 4 C2D I0`?'R 5/`2 & 5/6 Cla} Lcta,n ? -- 14--22 l0 YR 5/2 C21)7.5 YR 5/6 Clay Profile #5 Depth Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes 0-8 7.5YR 4/3 Loam 8-16 7.5 YR 4/4 _ C2D ]0 YR 5/3 Clay Loam 16-20 7.5 YR 4/2 F21) 10 YR 5/6 Clay Loam ` 20+ 10 YR 5;1 '21) 10 YR 5.'6 Clay - Soil & Environnuxital Conyullants, PA j z ` ., Midlands Project Sites ?r 7 s. it CSA k. } d YaB+~? t.xA ,y. „it?§. Soils Map Little Troublesome Creek 0 175 350 Feet Mitigation Site ?/?? ? ?7 t 1 J ? !' I LDLt11V DS Rockingham County, NC APPENDIX 3 Agency Communication and Approved Categorical Exclusion t4 ,. Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects Version 1.4 Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental document. Part 1: General • Information Pro-eet Name: Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Count Name: Rockingham County EEP Number: 003267 Project Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Project Contact Name: Andrea M. Spangler Project Contact Address: 1430 S. Mint Street, suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203 Project Contact E-mail: aspangler@wildlandsinc.com EEP Pro-ect Manager: Guy Pearce Project D- e i t e rou esome ree i igation ite is a s ream an we an mi iga ion project oca a 2.n Rockingham County, NC. The project consists of two non-adjacent areas: stream mitigation area located on Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek in the City of Reidsville and wetland mitigatio area located on Little Troublesome Creek south of the City of Reidsville. The project as a whole ill provide stream and wetland miti ation units to NCEEP in the Cape Fear River Basin (03030002). For Official Use Only Reviewed By_ Date EEP P oject Manager Conditional Approved By: Date For Division Administrator FHWA ? Check this box if there are outstanding issues Final Approval By: r Date For ivision Administrator FHWA 4 { July 16, 2009 Mr. Peter Sandbeck Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617 Subject: Request for Records Search Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Bank Reidsville, North Carolina Dear Mr. Sandbeck: We are hereby contacting the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office regarding the presence of any historic properties or cultural resources within the referenced project corridor. The project is located along Little Troublesome Creek, south of Turner Road in Reidsville, NC (Figure 1). The attached USGS Site Location Map illustrates the approximate location of the project area. Figure 1 was prepared from the Reidsville Quadrangle, North Carolina. This project is located within a mixed use, low density commercial and residential area with adjacent roadways, wooded areas, and parking lots. The purpose of this project is to perform stream restoration and enhancement activities. Construction of this project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and require Section 404/401 permitting. Please provide a written response concerning your determination regarding the presence of any historic properties or cultural resources within the project area. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, -- jJ Matt L. Jenkins, PWS Environmental Scientist Attachment: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation STATZ North (-Iat,;)]'tia,f)epartnzern nt?(`t.lltrrr?tl llesiauf-( ,, Srett jl?i tonic 1'eescrvatil ti Ctfficc_ ,- f s 1 ? L Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation July 12, 2010 Renee Gledhill-Earley State Historic Preservation Office 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 Subject: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation project in Rockingham County. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley, The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential wetland and stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site map with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed). The Little Troublesome Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. The majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as tilling. In addition, Wildlands contracted New South Associates to perform an "in-office" historical screening of the area. Maps from 1926 and 1938 showed no buildings in the site. The archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) were not reviewed. Due to the site's location in an active floodplain with poorly drained soils, New South Associates' professional opinion was that more detailed surveys would not be required. Enclosed are current photos of the site. We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Andrea M. Spangler Senior Environmental Planner cc: Donnie Brew, EEP 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Office of Archives and History Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director July 28, 2010 Andrea Spangler Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street, #104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Re: Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Project, Rockingham County, ER 10-1314 Dear Ms. Spangler: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2010, 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, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number. Sincerely, Peter Sandbeck Loc t o6tlte6s°orrie CPr el<MOIgaFon Site CategonCal Exclusion Docume tat on ter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599 July 12, 2010 Dale Suiter US Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Field Office P.O. Box 33726 Raleigh, NC 27636 Subject: Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Rockingham County, North Carolina Dear Mr. Suiter, The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded. Additionally, a downstream area has been identified for wetland creation and restoration. We have already obtained an updated species list for Rockingham County from your web site (http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.htrni . The threatened or endangered species for this county are: the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). We are requesting that you please provide any known information for each species in the county. The USFWS will be contacted if suitable habitat for any listed species is found or if we determine that the project may affect one or more federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a stream and wetland restoration project on the subject properties. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure 1 was prepared from the Reidsville, NC 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list and site determination are correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Matt L. Jenkins, PWS Environmental Scientist Attachment: Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map 2 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 July 28, 2010 Matt Jenkins Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Re: Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site- Rockingham County, NC Dear Mr. Jenkins: This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally-protected endangered and threatened species with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) web page at http://www.fws.gov/sleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally-protected species. Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina. Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the web site often for updated information or changes. ' The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive.no legal protection and their designation does riot necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened species. However, we recommend that all practicable, measures be taken to avoid or-minimize adverse impacts to federal species of concern. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys. If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles. With regard to the above-referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action. However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species, including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction. Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction site and any nearby down-gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality. We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary). 2 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mark Bowers of this office at (919) 856-4520 ext. 19. Sincerely, f ` "Pete Benjamin Field Supervisor Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation July 12, 2010 Shannon Deaton North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 Subject: Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Rockingham County, North Carolina Dear Mr. Deaton, The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream and wetland restoration project on the attached sites. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure 1 was prepared from the Reidsville, NC 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded. Additionally, a downstream area has been identified for wetland creation and restoration. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, -= Matt L. Jenkins, PWS Environmental Scientist Attachment: Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission U Gordon Myers, Executive Director 28 July 2010 Matt L. Jenkins, PWS Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Subject: Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site - Rockingham County, North Carolina. Dear Mr. Jenkins: Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.). The proposed project includes restoration of a degraded stream channel and downstream wetland creation and restoration in Little Troublesome Creek. Little Troublesome Creek is a tributary to Haw River in the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the state significantly rare Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi) in Little Troublesome Creek. Stream and wetland restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. We recommend establishing native, forested buffers in riparian areas to protect water quality, improve terrestrial habitat, and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided natural channel design methods are used and measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If we can provide further assistance, please contact our office at (336) 449-7625. Sincerely, Shari L. Bryant Piedmont Region Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 276994721 Telephone: (919) 707-0220 o Fax: (919) 707-0028 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation APPENDIX 4 Existing Conditions Data Existing Stream Geomorphology Survey Data Available Upon Request APPENDIX 5 Historical Aerial Photographs Little Troublesome Creek Turner Road Reidsville, NC 27320 Inquiry Number: 2542336.5 July 15, 2009 440 Wheeiers -Mrs P?rLjcl 6, ®r- 7? F M1Jfw CT 06461 E QR`F' d00 352.0050 ww'w ectrret :om EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should the) be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2009 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. Date EDR Searched Historical Sources: Aerial Photography July 15, 2009 Target Property: Turner Road Reidsville, NC 27320 Year Scale 1971 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750' 1977 Aerial Photograph. Scale: I"=] 000' 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750' Details Source Panel #: 2436079-C6/Flight Date: March 14, 1971 EDR Panel #: 2436079-C6/Flight Date: March 09, 1977 EDR Panel #: 2436079-C6/Flight Date: April 23, 1982 EDR Panel #: 2436079-C6/Flight Date: January 30, 1993 EDR 2006 Aerial Photograph. 1 " = 604' Flight Year: 2006 EDR 2542336.5 2 INQUIRY #: 2542336.5 ?j YEAR: 1971 N ?---? = 750' _° ?? ` .,,, ..,..,. 7 ?Ja, s.. eta ` INQUIRY #: 2542336.5 YEAR: 1977 = 1000' a s 'ice ?r INQUIRY #: 2542336.5 YEAR: 1982 -; = 1000' Al' ?Ciji' nA tea' ?$ d Little Troublesome Creek Wetland Mizpah Church Road Reidsville, NC 27320 Inquiry Number: 2827687.4 July 29, 2010 440 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 (rEDRal 4'iCtf;,°,lai c:1a fZrSGUr'tr !+ 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com Date EDR Searched Historical Sources: Aerial Photography July 29, 2010 Target Property: Mizpah Church Road Reidsville, NC 27320 Year Scale 1969 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=500' 1971 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750' 1977 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750' 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750' 2006 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=604' Details Source Panel #: 36079-C5, Williamsburg, NC;(Flight Date: March EDR 13, 1969 Panel #: 36079-C5, Williamsburg, NC;/Flight Date: March EDR 16, 1971 Panel #: 36079-C5, Williamsburg, NC;/Flight Date: March EDR 26, 1977 Panel #: 36079-C5, Williamsburg, NC;/Flight Date: April 23, EDR 1982 Panel #: 36079-C5, Williamsburg, NC;/Flight Date: February EDR 14, 1999 Panel #: 36079-C5; Williamsburg, NC;/Flight Date: January EDR 01,2006 2827687.4 2 w +y i sue.,. ?. ??? ,?:?, ?!' d?-+"'?b ?; " ? ?. A?.?r ? ?" "`gyp a. i ? i s } ??` y -rl. 3} _ .? ? t ? w ? a ,. ??? '? ? Y 6? .> tFa . ;. t fi U: •, yr , u err 'IN 40, w' # s Awoo x ,. ?. X4,, MIN i ir? m L d[1?t I ?? Yt c ?? ?r rt ? '? •4: d y M ^?xP F ? ,..r ?" A r 4v t I-V y'}, 1 YT 5??4 P f x4 ^'? b4 34k ?5 ";. JvZT! s A^. T r• fi 3 s 5 INQUIRY #: 2827687.4 YEAR: 1971 = 750' , rT t;, ,;t INQUIRY #: 2827687.4_ YEAR: 1977 4 N 750' NIIIIIIIIIIIIIII INQUIRY #: 2627687.4 ? N YEAR: 1982 ,.1 f ----i = 1000' am lmftwwm? i v, i N M W e??x 'a? y '" ` SrtM t( .v INQUIRY #: 2827687.4 YEAR: 1999 1 ` --? = 750' 36 1 o s? " " rt rw s ? ?F"' ?? V ,ate S-0 f lv- I t6 p;? m I INQUIRY #: 2827687.4 r YEAR: 2006 a = 604' x , APPENDIX 6 FEMA Floodplain Checklist L • Y-F! EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist This form was developed by the National Flood lnsurrarrce program, NC Floodplain Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects. The form is intended to sturtrrlarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of' the projects. The Corm should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn..Ioluj Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Prot.-unm. Project Location ante of project: Little Troublesome free . Stream & Wetland 41tigatiot.l Site N.trrre rl stre,ann or feature.- Little I`roublesorric d?reck., Tributary A to Little, Troublesome Creek County : Rocl ingharll County, NC Name of river Nasin: ? Cape Fear Rive-i T?r?sit; Is project urban or rural`' ? 1.1r"ban ante o .lurisdictionf?l (;rty of Reidsville,1NfC f n?r itnic?halityl??aurtt:y: 1 D FIR-NI panel nurnbE?,, for l?rrrn Past ls 8903 and 890?/€ elliffe :>rte: t.`orl: inunily -No.: "0200. C 0 ; 50 NifEi p INl nit-jers: 371 Ctr,9tt?ttO and = 1 tt89tt4E.iOF FfTec rive Map D(at :. July " 007 ( opr t.llt,lnt 11"1x110: Wildlands F n?;?rlecr°i trx. Ir c. Nicole Macaltso PE -_. Phone number. (9J 9) 851-9986 Address: 5605 ("ha _>c:l Hill ill Road, Suit. 121 R.a.leigh, N(' "17607 FFAIIA EEP- Hokidplnn_t'Prcckkst Strea??? Site I'a e- (s?f 3 11 Design Information Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500". Wildlands Engineering is designing a stream and wetland restoration project to provide stream and wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs) for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The stream restoration work includes channel and floodplain grading for approximately 5, 000 linear feet (LF) of Little Troublesome Creek and its unnamed tributary (mapped as Tributary A to Little Troublesome Creek and locally referred to as Irvin Creek). Little Troublesome Creek and its Tributary A are located within the Upper Cape Fear watershed (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-06-01) of the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). The wetland portion of the site will be addressed in a separate study and checklist. Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority. Examnle Reach Length Priority Little Troublesome Creek 1,169 One (Restoration) Tributary A to Little Troublesome Creek 3,931 One (Restoration) UTI - UT to Little Troublesome Creek 240 One (Restoration) Floodplain Information Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)? Yes t` No If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined.: r. Redelineation lv Detailed Study 1- Limited Detail Study f- Approximate Study r Don't know List flood zone designation: Check if applies: rv AE Zone 0- Floodway Nan-Encroachment None r A Zone • Local Setbacks Required • No Local Setbacks Required a FEMA_EEP-F1oodp1ain_Check1ist - Stream Site Page 2 of 3 If local setbacks are re aired, list how many feet: N/A ? -i Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside flood4vay/non- en croachment/setbacks? " Yes No and Acquisition (Check) + State owned (fee simple) i Conservation easrnent (Design Bid Build) 1v Conservation Easement (Full Deliver} Project) Note.: if the project property is state-owned, their all requirements should be addressed to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily, (919) 807-410 1 ) Is comn1t1nitV/C0unty participating in the NFI-P prog.ram? Yes No Note: if corgi-comity is not participating, then alt requirc:111r nts should be addressed to NTIP (attn: I d%vard. Curtis, (919) 715-8000 x369 ) Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Donna Setliff Phorte N umber `( ; F) 349-1065 ---- - -------- --- Floodplain Requirements "I'lris seclion to be filled by c. lesignerfapplicaT11 ftollovvi.ng verification with the L PA. No ` e ion N(l(Y Dist 1,ener o Map Revision C.: ondit;01-jaj Lem--x of`.,\,1,1p .R.etri ion C'tt}?erI?e?:?i.iir?:ra-rr`rrt4 List o lac'r ('?` ttrlr'F'I"tat ref ? f7r'r"r31tC.TIt?: Nam _ ic;?Fte Mac ultisc> t''1;__._-- --------- Title: I3rc?c:t 7tr?ee.r Sign- are: .:- Date;: 41/5/2-011 k UAIJ:'l_I H, -11?ii?t,:(r)i<lill e }?eckEis* 4irc 11 Site I1ag 3 of T, A EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist This form was developed by the National Flood Insarance Program, NC Floodplain Mapping prograrn and Ecosystemn Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP Projects. The form is intended to surnmarize the floodplain. requirements during the design phase of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Focal Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to NFJP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Niapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and NC- Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Protect Location Narnc- o.E'projeca: Little Troubleson,)e Creek "-"tre'llyl & Wetkind Vlttil,ati,on Site Ia-rle if stream or feature: Little Troublesome (Meek County! Rockingha.rn County-, NC Name of river basin: Cape Fear River Basill I project Urban or 17UPT? ? Rural N?zIF e of 7iIF i sdictional Rockint h II1 C oulzt C." municzn lit'county DFIRM pane] null-lber for Firm Panels 8911, 9812, 8921 and 982) entire kite=: COMMLill ity No,: 370350 tvlapNunibers: 371('18911000, 171089L,)OO,1, 17 10892, 1 00,1, arid 3,71 ki) 89,22 OW i_Elfectit e Map Date: ROT 3.2007 Consultant nG1n)c: ; Wildlands E'.Ir?r,Ircc,Iirl?>>.- Int: Nicole N-4acaluso, PE __._ Phone nunrber: (919) 851 9986 Address: 5605 Chipel Ifill Road, Sulte 122 Raleigh, NC 27607 FEINIA EFT Fioodplain C heddi?t , \ etiand 'i 1'?t e I of s Design Information Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500". Wildlands Engineering is designing a stream and wetland restoration project to provide stream and wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs) for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The wetland portion of'the site includes the restoration of approximately 17.5 acres of riparian wetlands located within the Little Troublesome Creek floodplain near its confluence with the Haw River. Little Troublesome Creek is located within the Upper Cape Fear watershed (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-06-01) of the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). The stream portion of the site will be addressed in a separate study and checklist. Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority. Example Reach Area Priority RWI, adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek 17.5 acres N/A Floodplain Information Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)? Yes (` No If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined: * Redelineation * Detailed Study P, Limited Detail Study * Approximate Study * Don't know List flood zone designation: Check if applies: P AE Zone r Floodway t%' Non Encroachment r None 1"` A Zone r Local Setbacks Required r" No Local Setbacks Required If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: N/A FEMA_EEP_Floodplain_Checklist - Wetland Site Page 2 of 3 w Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside lloodway/non- encroachmen t/setbacks? i.a,1u riL%tJuniuull (L:11G41 ) '__. State owned (fee simple) Conservation easnrnt (Designs laid 1361d) Iv Conservation Easernent (Full Delivery Project.} Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all reyuiremcnts should be addressed to the Department of Adininistration, State Construction Office (attri: Herbert Neily. (919) 807-4101) Is community/county participating in the NFIP program? Yes . No Note: if coi-ninunity is not participating, then all regWrements should be addressed to _NFIP (attn: Edward Curtis, 919 715-8000 x369) Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Frankie Le.g,arrx Phone Nuniber: (336) 42-8137 Floodplaiii Requirements This; sec ion to be fide°d by de sigrne r/applicant Wowing vr i-ification with the LFPA ;v No Action No Rise Letter of Map Recision Conditional Lettei, ofMaj) Revision Other- keeltlirenr-nis List othe;° rcdLzire me nts: FZ technical mc;nio vraas prep}rr`d flor Ro kinglurrn1 County it k::;;(}t'LIri1 T to guician C rE:C;i'ived I-rom the NC Floodplain IN/lapping P c7gi ant The tech heal mpml hwllie:l d detailed t o n4tt'ndion p1mis and an c'Xplanation of the INDpos d Mew on 1lj%&olt)gy Band on z otir evaluation. a frill flood s?udV was not. t'equi'ed. Poll( wh;:' c(.1ti.str'4CLti+i L an c;w^builS. sur ev and engiiiecr s ocnifi adun will also be providcd 't.o the ('onnt , C?ornnrents. _ _. _ `dame. Nicx>lt 1?1a?G11?tso_1'l;__ Tr.tle: I?1'o]Ce t l.?nw?rtiUcr' _--?_.___ FIE.-AM LI?P hl?oci, [1in_C1i:cklist Weiland Site Si l?;rratUlC'; Date; 4/55)011 4agtfjof 3 38.8'. Lij ode LLI 4=2 43343 3RU r--q q ow o_ ON `/?4unOD u N-SU1130.8 W O W 4 ?aa.40 aLuosajgno.41 al:.i-l o = g UOIPn-41SUOD 103 ION - sued %09 -C czn.?' O D N *-?r VJ p CY D 1-i X Q) H Q) s b O t L t d .O L M. E i O L CL ? L N y ? ?D o> ? d U ? d ? ? u N W U 4 U ?- W m z m v1 N b4? h L >> C In T ? U ?G t4 O W ri ad V 3'-I m u o-r 4? d 0) M 4F 00 O a0 ? b0O U CL. 00 W S 00 z - a, u 'O z O O + 4? .a o? r Ln Y°G ? - C O 48 ? 07 M L f0 ? 0? W _ V 3Jr-l v3i U?M b E E V) t w .O L CL J d w L O . I L y O Q u oor?QQ d0 00 O N CG to M it r-4 ril- UO m J r_ O L O m w O ++ y L N N L Q 0: U w ?c cam •L cv to ? L 0 4? W d LA > a33oocx n t O_ O ? v C CL O S- ). 4J O ,a u u d r d w O C O of m .O +, p ?- t d i m c 10 oa z y d a U' O W N E L V U_ m m O 41 L a o d d "O o ? t u ? CL. 3 3 s 3 w 3 0 V E V z E ? o 0 V L ca E .... O v ? s I V t 0? ? O W Z r-1 r-I r-I .1-, r-I N ? ? l0 N M ?- ?f1 Q Q 00 rl N M r-1 r-I O r-I r-1 r-1 A O O O O 1-4 N M M :- V) U U 00 z z ,al N e F ` P r a _ d s r t t i m H Y _2 Nqz N U4 z W = g N zz e u mMs Ma?n ianp LUE3,113 m? s 3 ?z oW ON `Auno0 Lue4gui?:)o-d > dZo? ° r o W jaa.A0 auaosalgno.a1 aprj o ° g 11 g- j uoipn.ijsuo0..god ION - sued %09 o , o ?? Z 3 ? t l ?-••- a O O Z oaw w % ?'??? \ O wD CO a,? ,i / 0 z o j 0w) m w p ii p z w 1 N ` J 1-? W j mgz3 Of O w 0M+ U, W 1 ?` l x D1 c?oa n i N Z -j .•/ V1 w C7kd, _F-mo( J / 1 l w m?U) m 1 Un 7 + ? N C?q H \ ? ? "- flf??"} }vr}nrn7 C7 , w ? ? ? t?1 4?#?i??litt ? S.#;?441f S 1 it m ? ;? Is?i?{{{44ttf? i(j , Irl, •?• I ? I ??fsfS?tft , o w 0 cli % I ; { 1{/4'441{4? 11r, t- _ ? o+ a ? rxr!?, {rf!(t f,114 ?`} ? ?`s 4 , S a } } co Vial aN? s t , -1 ! Ili "} tY - N r k w- ? ?r r f . a x tI Z W o r ^ ?... - --. _. o U" 3 Z N cam] s. ``? ? J? f ao?MOmf? r ? w i r \ '' 3ni80 83N?inl 1 j L A g 2 0 ? m .. ???g4 ode gzm .. oW RN ?_ W a v sloqua,<s pue saoN leauaE) `Auno? Lueq.Suijao-a :)N 199.40 auaosalgnoa1 apl-I 8 o e o 8? "• a ? .g ?? m g .J Z ? ¢ p w W } L-0 0 V z M O y uotpn.alsuoD .io j m ;ON - suEld %09 _ 0 N a c m m = a 3 N c z c 3 ro 0 E IL o m N m c = m W = m m c m m 888 m N M m m m N N N c O U - m 0 O ? dM MM O m a (L a) E N c m , r d) LC U)N >= I U y y y O OO OCI ? ? G O. 6 a ?? a a`t°? av0i a x LLLN x P-PN N .6 .6 m a3 r ? CO L mc ? ? a m aD ai m m C. a '? ai t CO co z . Otn >fn m*§ Q S L) Yy ?N m 2 Q' ? J N O m3 m3 mcm O O = 0 - ?3 O m5 m °m O p D .00 ff m O ?I O m 0 o O ` oo 0 o O MA am a>U a cn CL C/) a p5m Co ep O m c z m 0 m o 0 E U 0 0 U U w C `m 0 c ? U m f f Z °m °m ?i °m m 0 2 2 2 2 U a n a a ywow m IE m E ' a O m I O. m N 7 ? E Q ? nay mm b m ? 0 t $ U m a N c0 = W E'ycn U r mm ° 0 ?lRDm - c m? Z m$=? m W ? _ o; ? ? m 5 J m J ?cNm '" m ?5 m m °1 E 3 8' 'b x U v 0a°gc _ w Z' c U U a Z $ m a E= a m n c7 f 3 a° w a W v m m a 01? m Z - r y a a a a a a a a L C C = C C C L m N N 6 N V N a a a m C C C 'co, N N a C N m o E! x .X .% X X -X X X X X ?5 % ?? $ a w W W W W W W W W W W W 2 2 E .C W N m >88a C U? i v g nm2 C7 O salge1 aan�na}S og� s i C O W aeZd�°Q w' J 4 ON `Auno:) Lueq$uijao-g O � � U O W s _ �aa.�0 auuosa�gnoa1 a�441-1 o ��c w o O 2 2 cn m c N c 0 •c O uoipn.Ajsuo0 .Aod ION - sued %09 U m c CL c O U � J •� � _N m W COt�tD�a � ea N c ° n n n m n 0 � C U � cno .Q `C � � (O 000nn^ tCJ a P7 �j 2 ¢ w w � H � E <O CO (O �A f0 �• m m W 0 � m � ¢ 0 0 v � C U L N c C w f� O� f0 to 0 'a 0 CM 0 N 0 d •� m O r U O Oi v �' �- • _O � Cl t N t �n t r CO 2�N m � � O O V VO L � N C N O N N N O V; 0 C1 C O W O pU c_ � oaooncMon� U V E �U 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 m N N N N N N O O � c � C') O C') � Y � a (MD t� GSD O ��5 M Coll M U U U U a0 y L m W � n�� a m m � U J Ico �co V � O a � M c � O O P O O QI CO O W N L. M o?�noornvcoina Z U U U U U U N 0 of cc � � ri CO o co � W � � n � n n n 0 c � N f0 O N N O �1'f n r N O� n� � N O O OOD N � O O r� N N N M N r C O � O r r r r r <t r U -p W N U) c W �mccacca��cca�f° CD rn c c o 'c L C •— G •0) m .2 W m � � O O C M (O M LO g O co LA �7 h LfY O n t0 O CO O� n O M 1� O co Ln N� O� r M lD O fD N O 'cY CD O� M O f, CO to M tt N (n �23000032 � :2 co C'M C7 N N M O Q) m GO � n n CO � to � CM N N N N r r r 1� CO CO nn��Nnnnnnnnr�r�r�r�r�n�n��nn w U U F�- U d O 'c •- o a0 O O c��p O m� M O r h v I� M cO O n r O M a O T f0 i1'f a0 � r � CO � r In 00 a r f- M In O ll') � r M C � . MM C") CV MM O O T OD (U OD f� I� (O fG t17 m ct It M N N N CV r r r O D) CU n CO N N N N O O N M V� O n O O nnnn��nr�n�r�r�r�r�nnn�nr��nnnnnr�r�r�r� m 2 7 U U mw U U U U U U 3 c � Z rL.r � V% •y O C c O V O O M O N c0 co O O O M to M O M n W O M M N ��rr77 V V f� O d' OD v I� to O M N O� W O� O f0 � O OD V 00 O M CD CD co t� � O (G M r OR M r N CC O _O M a0 f� � N O q CM c+i �A O t1'i C f, d' co M O r co fD f� O O c0 N O m CV o0 O Wt� I� MT M O O t0 O l0 M f0 00 N to t0 00 I- n O M f- O D c � M t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t N to f� O O r N Cl) Cl) t0 (O OD O N M V' �A t� 00 O O N M S fG f� m O 42) � m O O O O O r r N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M� V � moo¢UwUm¢o¢oUomUomm¢omaU¢moUammmw H N .7. � p N �+•� �p r N c? 'T �O C� t- 00 m O r N M� lA CO f� OD O� N N N N N N N pppp QQ�� O r N N N M M M w E oCoEoE��oCOC[CoEoC��Eo�oCOCoEoE�joCoEoEoC�oCoEoCoEoCor C7 O C O 'O O � � U O W O 2 2 cn m c N c 0 •c O o C U ¢ U m c c O U � J •� � _N m W COt�tD�a � ea N c ° n n n m n 0 � C U � cno .Q `C � � (O 000nn^ tCJ a P7 �j 2 ¢ w w � H � E <O CO (O �A f0 �• m m W 0 � m � ¢ 0 0 v � C U L N c C w f� O� f0 to 0 'a 0 CM 0 N 0 d •� m O r U O Oi v �' �- • _O � Cl t N t �n t r CO 2�N m � � O O V VO L � N C N O N N N O V; 0 C1 C O W O pU c_ � oaooncMon� U V E �U 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 m N N N N N N O O � c � C') O C') � Y � a (MD t� GSD O ��5 M Coll M U U U U a0 y L m W � n�� a m m � U J Ico �co V � O a � M c � O O P O O QI CO O W N L. M o?�noornvcoina Z U U U U U U N 0 of cc � � ri CO o co � W � � n � n n n 0 c � N f0 O N N O �1'f n r N O� n� � N O O OOD N � O O r� N N N M N r r r r r r r r <t r C N �mccacca��cca�f° � (n �23000032 U U U N M V� O n M m 2 7 U U U U U U U U U � Z C7 O C O 'O O � � W O 2 W m c c 0 •c O U m c c O � J •� � _N m W COt�tD�a � ea c ° n n n m n 0 � coo cNo cno .Q `C � � (O 000nn^ tCJ a P7 CV N w w � H <O CO (O �A f0 �• m m W 0 0 0 0 0 v � C L N _ C C w f� O� f0 to 0 'a 0 CM 0 N 0 d •� m O r In Oi v �' �- • _O � Cl t N t �n t r CO o t m � � O O V VO L � O N N N O V; 0 C1 C O pU c_ � oaooncMon� V E �U 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 m N N N N N N O O N a 2 � ¢oCo�aca�m O U Z U U U U U U � a m m � U J Ico �co � O a � M M M pppp M 2 � m¢¢o�acac M Z U U U U U U 2Z UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU oCOC C7 O C O 'O O � � W O 2 W m c c 0 •c O U m c c O � J •� � _N m W COt�tD�a � ea c ° n n n m n 0 � coo cNo cno .Q `C � � (O 000nn^ tCJ a P7 CV N w w � H <O CO (O �A f0 �• m m W 0 0 0 0 0 v � C L N _ C C w f� O� f0 to 0 'a 0 CM 0 N 0 d •� m O r In Oi v �' �- • _O � Cl t N t �n t r CO o t m � � O O V VO L � O N N N O V; 0 C1 C O pU c_ � oaooncMon� V E �U 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 m N N N N N N O O N a 2 � ¢oCo�aca�m O U Z U U U U U U � a m m � U J Ico �co � O a � M M M pppp M 2 � m¢¢o�acac M Z U U U U U U � O C O 'O •2 W W cp U m c �k 5 •c O m W � � COt�tD�a � ea W w n n n n n r H m � <O CO (O �A f0 �• � m W 0 0 0 0 0 v L N _ C Cf 0 O� N�� h C •� 'C O O r In Oi U�c �- • _O � Cl t N t �n t r CO o t m � � O O V VO � H $- H mmo¢mw 2 � ¢oCo�aca�m U Z U U U U U U 8 ? Zo Zu m suoipaS le:)idKL 0 r "s J UJ < p rl ? Z ?? m `,,4uno:) Lueggut?ao-g x W 3 W u?LL o ?aa.40 aLuosalgno.A1 o = Q .1 o 0 uoipn.alsuoD.Aod ;ON - SuEld %09 w Y U) F w a w aW > OZ N J ' l i z y J XX w ' W z J Q ti U a F x a ' O w Y Na w? IL w OZ V J \ /l \ Z U)W W Z Z : J = ?. LLU s2 f p : w Y F ^ Na cw. O w z N J w Y IL w F ^ w N s pw > J Z [/1 J W W Q I co J Y Z Q cc 2 d ? 3 o a U Z w CD J Y Z Q m f ? 0 h a 1^ it U W co ' J J w y Z m o: w w z V Z w w co O J >J_ Z > 0 WU Za _E it LDa J °z waovi o<COF- 0,d2 ?ma= Z, Z m ZwQ? 03Lu >Z ?F mm o!¢¢? v~ioZo o<ocs UO=Z z°Z-a iril RDOw w 7 0 o w 0Of 0. C0 Z r N fh J o in b u) _ r 0 ci %t N po N CL co w Bo b p b LL o N .- v ui W J 2 b oo U? L- N O o ui 04 M of W U) a J LLJ J co LL1 O -i M Lo p ;;T 0 LL M ch c p I` W ° v (°• <n Lu O cq N ``' ti ui C, a U Z Lu j lb b q in p N N p p O ? co N O F-- W C G ?. ?[ X 2 Q F- Q Q M Z S W o W 0 Q / 1 ,1 J o J (n LL = ~ LL O W ? Q CD ? s S Q m o m Z o V) 'r. alUo.ad pue URld o s g o C g? mM ?laaaD uin ri s Q 0 rl :)N `4uno:) uueggul?ao-d o cV Z ?~LL = W m T ' g w ? Naa.t:) auaosalgno.4 0 ? pp 0 ll K a 6 uotpn.ajsuoD -iod ION - sued %09 °• m o o ¢ ?a ? ; ? U c fA 7 r N M 0 2 m U U U U L) z r ^ N ' '^ 8 b A A? g 8 B 0 33 00 in a U ? K In W 1 v - -It Ln N N I o0 N , .? J W U ••AA 'uS t \ W ? I t J w ) 11 1 V U 0 U "wry' n I /f 1 f ? L11 I 1 z Q U S U ~ (n Id ,\ •i t 1 z W of K 0 w Lu 1 UVOU > w Y U ED ' ?o I 8 U Z U O 83N8ni 3/\1 a ::s s o 31401d pue ueld o a p w C Zz d Ns ?aaa3 uinai _ 8 Q J N A oW ?? gg :)N `4uno0 wegSuijao-g 20 N 3 zs u~ • laa.i0 awosalgno.i1 ' = W ? r o u K CL. - h y.l G uoipn.AlsuoD Ao j ION - sued %09 d T U W U ? d V N U ? c LO CD r-- U U U O 2 V ?z o 0 co .? a U ? N C-1 i R °o 0 8 in 0 Y m 0 8 + 8 fig 8 ? ( t C s ? 8 C i l 1 n t 0 in L } ?; pm x 4 31401d PUP UBld 8 i rC gZ x u s J! m 2 pa.4D UI/Uj 5 a LU ?"' ¢ M A z,o? $ € ?N `4uno? Luggui??oS Z cV z_.- 15 ?~LL W W s o ` Naa.?? auuosalgnoa1 9144!-l y = s a uoipn.Ajsuo0.4oj ION - sueld %09 I ^ ? N ?g co Q a 0 0 0 a ? V D U ? (A op 0 0 r N O V Z U U U U U U 0 s + a s + a N i N 8 N N 8 O O O H STp,116+00 Mp,TCH?-INE M' r 0 0 x i 9140ad pue ueld °ZZ?s?d s m ° uin j r 8 Q ' 1•`" A :5 OW-? M = g? ON `Auno0 uuegSuijao-g ?, z o N a Zo ???? g w m m ? g ° W ?aa.40 auaosajgnoa1 a144?? o = o = ' ,. i d uotpn.AlsuoD .4o j ION - sueld %09 T O m U ~ V 4 Y N U V ? G y ? r r r O 2 V ? Z U U U N ? O r r n ? 0 4i N It 1 I i 1 i 7f 1 8 + U p <g O Z w F /\ N N f W A \ CL 8 k m Q i j i co .? a U ? L w MgTcHLIN !ESrA 121+50 ? U 1t I. 1 \ J I{{ f 1Ij i / 4t i.. i (!1 r 7 f Z J a E. 0 w? Z LL / U Z t7 ZO t% Q w J w J Q LL F u aluoad pue weld o o C o d ? ga a.AD urnj ?Ia S a Q? LCD oW ON `/(Iuno0 uueqgui1ao? z ? N a ?ouF? s 4 E Ta o Cl. a W Naa.43 auaosalgno.41 y uoipn.ijsuo0.ao j ION - sued %09 a o m m a R a) *y 2 V y c y ?Q n_ ao _rn N O 2 ? V CZ Z U U U U f CHIINF _ STq 121+50 rTT `;'? i MATCNC,NF ` ST v, 1 A X26+SO Wo j; oz Zg ; w? X O . % x'? ?,. N- 20 Z % fF- ! %'A ? i x x ? t N a xx, X %X j t? I x ? ' VI Z o xX XX X i f cn j a x X x U) 7LI X 1 1 W % U) i J X ` top \ •/ a i X I X X l if % Y. % ! ' y % A p U r s N s S e al4oad pue UPId a a i ( C ZZ . mm° g pa.a? UI/Uj a z J ¢ ? ? •. ??z .JW. ^. ? o t :)N ',Cluno? weggui?aoS g o cV 3 Ws ° jaaa0 auaosalgno.1 E a g ysy - a z o" ? u n uoipn.Ajsuoj .aod ION - sueld %09 0 c ^ O O n A 8 s m 8 3 N O " CL o m ¢ U Q ? d V N U ? C r U- N N Cl N N 7 ? cE ? c V z U U U U U X x xx t Xt X X X X x? x Ix Ix. x X ? fX IxI xi x Ax x k xi I i 1 1 t E? ? f r ` 4 ti? 1 xS X X x '-t x ? X X 7 x xi x x ` X XI t X X X ? l i ? X X x? Zz x 'x '. Ja 1CD X Xi' ?o° t x z o / M Z M X i X Z L J J i X X x Q U Q x t U Z Z O X x f Q G 4= __ G - - - _ ?I CD o LL ? goo # f J 0 , co (L W ?Z N LL Z t .?...' , ?. C Z J N a°? U i m z L) r m- I Zg oZ i \\\ N CO) l ,?2x rm- t l t t q 726,%SO f ? t j? , f t ;/ c c c 91Uo.ad pue UPId s o? a 'm?m4 Zz d pa lD uinai Q ? ?. SZ .o, ?N `/(Iuno? LuegSuijao-8 N A 3 W ?LL€ jaa.tD aLuosalgno.a1 d D? O V K H uoipn.Alsuo0 -4o j ION - sued %09 0 I co r" a V -0 u w . -It in N N mo MATCHLINE - STA 138+50 ?r .i ? •i I o ? c T i i M oW-? t e0 ?v ? I I I J I N I Ix k x I r ,X f i xXxi.X' ? i N X, ri X Q LU 1 ?w I (n x ?x zQ( xf I x Xrx ?` 1 ? x x ; x 1 X x cn k x! ? ? ,; I X x t 0 I t , 7 W x x z ! x J cn , x x } x x X x X x x I x x X t r X x x x U X k i ]( x f x x x x x x x x z X x g j x J 0 W Q z Z LL (..' = IL I U0 Z i z 0 y j w W J LLO ? i I f X X. x I CD x rx k X, r X c k X j x x x ix I ,xX. ?- C? 2 . Q) co 0 0 0 m ? Y 5 U ? ? F c ""' N - .?. m N r? N ao N rn N o C0 O 2 ? c: V Z U U U U U = - STA 132+50 4-. a140ad pue UEld s r. C gZsmg= 1aaaD uinai F a z ? 00 ? r q ZS _ $ € `4uno:) uueqSui?ao-g :)N ° cV 2 o? E m o g Cl- CL 3 Z laa.AD aLuosalgno.A1 a??l? o a g uoipn.A4suoD god ION - suBld %09 a m m w R H y 41 2 U V ? •+ _ .0 _ M M M C O U 2 ? m ¢ m C) NZ U U U O 00 L [O L w i c N 2 O F- 0 S ro m S 0 8 S s + T7' n N Ky? NWT Ova Zc 59 Z W K V1 N. U 2?. i ft. U i JN? F ci t 1 1 k z J 3 1i l i t t t i i 1 "31Uo.Ad pue UEld a C g? l mg4 laa.AD awosalgno.a1 al:}i? t s m= 5 L.L A °Z?? § gd :)N `4uno? uuegSuijao? m z N g w ~LL :5 ce *0 U CL. jaa.40 auaosalgno.41 al..i-l _ a uotpn.Alsuo:).Ao j 4ON - sued %09 a co ca 0 CD o d "+Q N V ea i F i a ? :3 N H m M Co C O c) 2= U U U V J U) Z 0 n n g N n 0 0 N N O N 4 N N N N 5 n i v 00'LOL =A313' I ? I M MalYtl a N I C I m y V w w K w U 2 Z Hu, N 0 0 0 00 T) J Q ti O Lc) w N N N i ri i .? i nt? (7?Q ? m MV) t 4 tt t ? 7 rV i V/ t t Vl tt t r z o M 31UOad pue URld s s a r C g? d m,4 laaa? auaosalgnoal apl? r S z LL Q ~ •? A wt ZoZ `a ON if4uno:) uueq$ut?ao? g ° N 3 Z u? G laa.A0 awosalgnoal al44i-l W m y CL a W ' s C N uoipnilsuo:) Ao j ION - sued %09 - n 0 g m N N Y N m rr a U ? L ? v N C I i r f 0 1 N j G1 ? N O N H M M co O ? 2? U U U V i Z Y 9 \ tl7 1 w O } `" W 1 U U ' ! W i( I f O N tt U J i o?± { LLJ ' W J N 0 N 9 s U U g°o 5 N A t f I' . / i .r ? 1 L r? t i i Z i Zo i Z LL . ... t ( Q LL 0 Q J 111 LL Op ® ' • V) '43 ? 3140-ld pue U81d ; s = m w °Zoz $ ? `Auno:) weq.Sutjao-g :)N z ° N fu 4 - g £ ` W m °- 3 Ww ?aa.r<? auaosalgno.A1 al:p 1 o ' go ? b uoini4suoD.Aoj 4oN - suBld °% 09 o? a G a ¢ ¢ U ¢ 0 w E H V is ~ V! 0 2 E OE o` of cc cc of U Z U U U U U U ue we =nym L9'BE+Z06 = V1S w ? ....... 0 .._ _ .. (0 Z I , F W ; ___ L....., E9'bOL =A313 'bL 3 - WbZO+ OZOb ==A31V1S . J A 9Z'96+LOb=V1S OLTOZ =A913-- . ._.- 99'69+ LOV c VIS 09-90L =A313 L V.L =A313 OL'9not, - v1S J .. Z 6650E =A313 m W O a O Lb'SL+LOC=VIS 0, *90 ? =A913 i •- -89?SOL =A313 ff' i 006=V1S 9 VL9+OOOb = V1S - I O _ 9L'90L =A313 : < :. ZO'SL+006 a VIS „ C0 0 O \ a 1 9?'90L = A313 BZ'99+00V = V? 1 L =A313. += V1S =A313 LZ'90L =313 r: ViS._.. -Lo n +00,1 T, ZZ'90L -A313 =A313 r 1S__.. : __... ... A f9'b1+006=V1S .... . A313 r=MIS J S °a g °a ?; \? I 0: w y Z Qw z w zm q ^ l , ?, NAM . a 0 3 zzzz d „o M9W9Ao PUE143M z w 0 A °Z-? § g `Auno:) uueggui?ao-d :)N .. W c? Ww V~ € = W I 3 _ ?aa.AD auaosalgno.i al ll n a U G 00 t O . K y uoipn.alsuo0 .tod 4ON - sued %09 0 M O O N a Z N _ K O O= O \ D ?a \ ?y` D 0 Un Z 8 8 z ( C g7 ? F. guipeaJ puelpm 4 8 g z r-I .` A ? W. z " ON `t'4uno0 Lue4gui?aom ?- W m .. 3 o ?7@ W w o? ?aa.4? awosalgno.i I ap! g g = T ? c 1 3" s C G U H uot.pn.41suoD Ao j ION - sued %09 0 Ln 0 ?Q z O N o: O O = N O 0 co 0 0 Lf) H W Z J 2 H Q .t r- .. CE£ 00+805 00+109 CE - CE -.;CE.? CE' CE ? t ? f,r I, 30 \ ?r \ i 1 U t V t?\ co E? p 3E CE CE i .., r rf t ? t I f a / f / 01 OO+b05 OO+SOS i ! ` f ? / f f / t 2 f' / CD -r 1 r 00+009 00+to9 OO+Z05 n Zz iQ F> @1? I uk w w W / I ' M 11 ' z jo fM z / II Z z Q F- ` xN Gj Y W W / \ O O 2 z ys UO F_ r I ? W I J ILL W -,r 3 3? ?- 37 Q ?)S N ' M 11 Z C7 O F? NW X -W ' I l C zz? m Suipe.ag pUelpm _ 8 z z N 1? Q oW W $$ :)N `4uno:) Lue4$ui?ao? .. ° m a ?? g6 LU o laa.4? auaosalgno.A1 ap4rl g? _ mm >y hoc D U OC v uoipn.AjsubD.aoj ION - suEld %09 0 0 o -, ?Q z Z 0 N K O O = Lr) v O r? t /J J P L --?_ P L P L ?----- P L J PL IL / r ? CE ? CE CEO .,.,.... ?„y^" CE rE w CE / ., 00+919 LL 1 b ?3y °?? \ as ja\ 3a , P L P L --- P L U .. _-._.... ..ham` ? -_.•^ ,- •...?-. .m?,m CE CE _ CE - CE - CE - CE CE 00.00 00 00+ 9 s. \ rj \ m° , ti s j ?-r- I oo+e?s/ 00+445 a LL U ? W C7 1M' 3o / 30 / 3]-30-3a-3C -g C) J ,? ,l d W d \ ?d d \ ?d d \ ?d d, 00 00 O LO W z J 2 U Q Z> z? o m? q suoipas le:)id/f1 pUel4aM a z Q z zed ??MMZ ? U O oW U :,fUl ON `/(4uno0 uaegguijao-g g cYi s ?~ € E 3 W laa.A0 auaosaigno.4j a1441-1 z b o g ? uoipnijsuo0 Aod ION - sued %09 I- - I I I I W I O O W a 0 0 z a w Z I I w I I w r? Jz O U I ? 0 ? z 0 W I N r-{ I a I ? I I ( I w I° I o z F I w I I? I I I I ? I C I i I I I to C7 wW O O la I a i I I I o c? I c7 z U) I w I I _J I I I ? I o o ? 1 w co O a a L I I Q I I I I I I I I I I I L 1 I I °V w ° U N a I a C) I I I I I pp K I o I C7 2 N w O I? W z I I w QDQ I K O 0 z F I w I I I I I o N ? N j t a b b a w w Q? K l] U) O 0 Of a I\ w 0 O z I y J n SURUEld 30 — \ 30 CL g d Mm= pa.13 UI/UI 1�C :)N `4uno:) Lueggui�ao-g \~ J s 2 ~LL€ 5 N 3 W �aajD auaosalgno.41 al44l-1 y a uotpn.Ajsuoj io j ION - sued %09 J n 30 — \ 30 CL J n 1 t 1 1' 1 t 1 W W I \v `•� - i \ _ . . _ _ C .J ...:.. . .... \ \~ J 1 t 1 1' 1 t 1 W W I \v `•� - i \ _ . . _ _ C .J ...:.. . .... a ANY C gzxd ? e jaw:) uinai s N sw ?N ` 4uno? Lueggut?ao? g - ' E S y O W W jaa.AD auaosajgno.a1 2)144! l a a O d u OC y uo!.pn.AjsuoD.4o j ION - sued 1009 I x t i f i/ J I 1 I 1 `CT i ? ?1 ?; $uiluEld s gz d m s g4 ?aa.A:) UI/Uj t 8 Z M C JW un m s j )N ` 4uno:) Lueggui?ao-g g - Zo ?? ?' = m v c ? auaosalgno.t1 a s " Q e - c o u c w uoijon.AjsuoD god }ON - sueld %09 0 Q - L) U 21 idl J w r l ,.r l? , l 11 1 I r 1 ? I ? 1 N I I ? 4 In ! i I N 1 N i I N ! r ! n Ln 1 ! i N i I 1 1 1 (n I i1 1 3 I Ln I V) i 1 i t ( cn z $utluBld o s z °?xom ZzdMm4 ?aaa? wtiti r 8 z ?" gW .? $g ON `4uno:) uuggul?:)o-d g Zs u? € ?aa.40 auAosalgno,41 aprj y w 0 € 8 0. W • o o u uoipn.A;suo0 Aod ;ON - sued %09 1? z o SURUBld % i NC gz d yp„mE Mm w? jaa.4D uI/WI t S s z ?(, Z sy ON ` uno0 uae42ui?ao-d z - . ? W £:? u _ ? m m 9 ' ' g Z ° ?aaa0 auuosalgno.a1 aprj ° pp a G H c S u N uoipn i4suo0.46o joN -sued %09 0 I! l I J L "" Vl ! !t! 1 i ? i L ' i s ll 1 ? l y 14 \ 1 'l U) 11 ? F J 1 ' 1, t, a 8 i ? zZ °Q laa.a:) uwj 8 z q oW $ `4uno? Lueggul??o-g 191 p )N § = m Zw ???LL€ ?aa?0 auaosalgno.41 all? = W CL* W a uoipnA4suoD.Ao j ION - sueld %09 i 3 t 4 N i 1 l L 1 U ?m N 1 it l V } 1` N t , ) 1 m t ? l t t t 1 t N t N 1 { En 1 l f /wr t tt N 7? t f i ! f to + p N t t N t t N r! N i 1 ? 1 ? t I10 vNi ? r ? f 1 r r f I w ° M SulluEld o s Z C ao V) gz, d ^NQ ?aa.a:) Ul/Ui t 8 ?'` A oW :)N `Auno0 Luggui?:)og z 4' 3Z ? s € m g ° ?99.i0 auaosalgno.A1 91l? m r :b r W G > D V OC y uoipn-41suoD.Ao j ION - sued %09 C i 1 f C 4 f { LU I MATCHI INF _ STA 138+50 3 N l l f l ? _ 1 N I ? I f } N ? 1 t N i O N t l l rn ® t j ! m !? ; I t t 1 !t ?? ?W I ? a? N ? r y r fn ! ! ! I 7 ? ! N £ ? N m 7 N MATC I t ? jt N HLINE - TA 132+50 L 1 SURUBld a rn ,m^gm gZ d ???o pw:) UI/Uj S "s Z 00 ? ?.`" Z y °E ON `Auno0 uaeggui??o? ? g ?- A ??LL g E w r u ? o W s G ?aa.AD auaosalgno.a1 al-14i-l o a € uoq:)n.A4suoD.Ao j 4oN - sueld %09 Z 0 U K y LLI n W t 1 t t 4 r ? 1 i f t t 1 1 i I r t t r i 1 t f t i 3 I i { t? 3 1r 1 N o Zz d ??MLL s?mMZ $uiluEld )aa.43 awosalgno t a? i? a s g i z 1,? A g??._ )N `4uno:) uaeqSui?ao-g ` g d- W s ?u? € ?aa.AD auaosalgnoal al ly o g = g a g uotpn.A4suoD.Ao j ION - sued %09 0 J Q H .o z O ? N K O S N -? d- 0 0 0 0 s N Q r SURULId o a ZZ d ?aa.a? auaosalgno i a? l? r a JW. W ? M; N fi $ ON ` uno0 uue4Suijao-g c - s o?~LLc g m c a 3 W laaa0 auaosalgnoa1 a? l? _ .? b • o o? ? uoipn.Alsuo0.Ao j ION - sued %09 t CLE -E Ir i s (/ f J i r' 11 ?5 5I t PL Ix w r aw w zw k z; 9 " 8ulluEld 1. 8 % v) -r 2<gm o e ??^ 4 ^ g? ? z s?mm ? 1il o " " "g CJ Z r-1 1? A JW,? s ^.y W o - = W . ? 3 W laa.AD aLuosalgno.a1 al441 1 o f b - uoipn.ijsuoD god ION - sued %09 z O F- U ? n F- m F- m Z Z + + N Una zz?r W ?U) W N r Q W F W Z N Q Q (n W Y W W K U W f O N J m? a or ?w r w w= J LU W J N ? 1 < I* I ?.?. o Zz P7 M ~ o r B uiluPld PUB143M c o 0 z rl -,?C ( A g21.- d oW . JW._ i" $gw ON `Auno0 Lue4gui?ao? S g z ir; .?. 4 u` - a I m W 3 ? Z W uaosalgno.i1 1 ?aaa0 a??l c a I o s - vL? uoipn.44suo0 .Ao j 4oN - sued %09 0 ?2 0 O z O N K O p x N v O tt(? f? i O CC) CC) 0 In W Z J U H Q ' C Z `o gQ N! ? ? p m M BulZuEld PERM r "s Z z (?( ( •? A JW._? °z S § $ 1ao8 ON ` 4uno0 weggui g 1?1 s u~LL€ . r g = W m v - 3° W ? aa.a:) auaosalgno.a1 a144 l N uoipn.a,lsuo0.Ao j ION - sueld %09 0 0 o? ?Q Z 0 N K Q = In v Jt O co W O A V/ W Z J U F- Q d \ ?d d \ ?d d \ 0 " 4 u ? « Z; V) m"gym Z ? ? 8 ~ d?? z m ° S?IB?24 e r? F , u um z « Z ? S ^ gy. J W ._'^ C DN ` Auno0 Lueggui?aoN Q o OO ?u d m 4 z ?aa.AD auaosalgno.A1 a ll o = o W ° uoipn.4jsuoD.4oj ION - sueld %09 W 00 a O? p2 ? <W Y dZ m0 W mZ r? _< IX fq Rd < WO m m O x X x X x X Jam U w? rN a O WQ O m0 - W KU7 m v/)V m ag LL U S 3 X > O m z LL aoa ? ?? J m ?cgi < / r ' gg? .901.£ z (I a a ' O ..9 O1 .£ \ jW a ?m wp r ¢ is t7 U K LL? I qw O / z I Q w a m ?a o J W K W r S W 0 {I < { 11 d Lu p O < W LL Q 0 LL rrII 0 ?d LL = ((?? p Z z 2 X N ml w Y / ^ lv 1?! N d p Z o 'I w? C7 0 O 2 Wm ago r r W I JQ a W Z W < r m Q Z 0 p ?O m Z W ?LL 0 W Oa LLO C70 Z O d w.-. m Um y >Z g > > m ?? m O L;a > ?-. ZO K V ?a H d = wW m r F- m w W?j 3 fC m SNO11039 IVOIdAl W LL W s i 0 Z O O N li3d H101M p a j g LL N INOll09 31ddRl a ?0 ;LL w O J 2 I?----.{ O Z Y U Y ow W UW 2F oJ W O OI I in O ?a = .° ? ?Q LL 900 OW N? a s +"? ,. 0 r0 U 0 mxug <C ¢a Z ? am m 0) 30 wa ? I w I LLm W? Wi a m d y 00 LLI OJ wI Y < m S _ m ar z LL 0 a mJ d yW W MOId m U a ? \ m ) t m ? d I > _ I . C (dAl) 3651S d0 301 Wp m0 < \\\h- UO < O (dAl) )INVS d0 d01 0 LL g ,g y' T r W Z 'o W Z LL O ® oca ?wm swa U ? jW O Om W WO ~? Y OZ Z O O w QQ O? W '''' Wy u? O w p ??? {{{{ j LL O O a ?'J¢a a ?z ym LL / O7 U O Z< Yd F m a 0 0 I m Z zzg U a o?? i za 1 ma Z >W 0? J Za 'I n W u ma W wW fLLL wz 4 ?O Q r 'co m d Q WO r¢ wa >w co Za ml z Ua 2 J ? _ ?Z Co W I-L UF U ai a a R O DLO L d I W' I -1 I;I O l V Q M W 5Z 0 m L)y m X LL= J m I li a 1 I N Q) 0 m ? U O ` Y I i / O O a a m zM ' i z U a o Z m ?< z W 0 r ~ LLi q O W W W r LL ry W K 1 LL O m LL i J Z 4 m O m A O U F ? ? _ I Q N (? L z j aU z O O LL w < Qm g XQ? LL ` / K I li O? 0 I Z O m I L r O m r Q U W \ rA) J L = W ° W u a a H Z O L v U w N011035 IVJIdAl W¢ l LL CQ z i 3d H101 M I+ . K a Y A < U l WOl10S 31=1=11N LL a 3 o " ?d ° CC z °_ a- 3 LL N r? a 0 z0 O a Q O r 0 W ? I _ OC Q O C aOa m K I ?C m >a Xw ? \ wa lV ? m W ? ? m a ? 3 5 3 v }r 3 ,,, 1\\ \\ LL LL W 1 0 I a Y = m Y Y ° w I 0 LL O O = Z O td\ , l o I' 6. \ o? f s3x TOm ?I s ? A (M) H101M r r w (X z 0 w < z < 1tl3ANI w - LL > g a =- & ?O? w? wa ?aa LLz ?w r re 0 O m p x 0 #. a cj S ? 8z F'? Z???°° sl!p?aa N c 2 Q r :S; W ° WN 08 J ? ON ` 4uno0 uaegSuilao-d W 06 Z ? g m m ° W ?aa.iD auuosalgno.l1 a144!? s = G' O U oL y uoipnJjsuo0 and 4oN - sueld %09 ;w wz? W 0 LL H A x? 5 5 o? 0w w52? >z? ° o z w a zaa i S2 W V LL (?LL? NY z I m? a > FN K Q_ Wza ((?? o0 p ?K 0 w 0 o? W r W? ¢ w Lu ?a LLo z¢ J w o = z? Sou 7v 0 r a min x as za m _d w a >a ~ m r O 1 ? z ? U O a d z ¢ o mW a Zvi oo H g LLJ o J ? mN5m o Y a'W 2 a o F Wz 0 >w g O jz T O ZO O iw xE , WH n a6 W ma LL >K? a W ZZ y. O O LL LL q W 3 LL d w -:: 0 C7 W zr z O O aN < u 1= jn N Z N ? w O ?b N z m Z W l i K m ? w m ? m 2 K v m O O SNOU03S IV OIdAl 2f3d H101M LL W01L09 31+41N LL aw LL O Z K H N 5 g x EL a: w or 1 - woo J o? ¢ a^ 1 as 4 - ow F < y Y jw z a 4 aI a z Y z o L $o N JU m w U d ' LL d o o - t?i o z,. qLL 5 o Y m i ° of ? r w do J °° a - ,? u N a z z is a 1 5 uLL . LL J ° y w ? O, Q 48 i z 0 .9 01.£ `. w z = LL a0 z m U j >w eoa a W= a. o I 1 03 wo zs r¢ vwiX o w oo o w x 2w z a m o? uLL >? O K y y m 9 f7 > w a U 3 w wm d ? a zo Wz a w LL z LL Y 0 1 Q ova o. a x x x O O 2 x w ? r m w cc Q CC 4 4 4 ? ? ? K >" 2 sax IZ N WF ~ W x z O m W w z }01 U a wz - za ? ) Nz a d m LL U = O Or a0? x 1 V > ~ p w In Y i U ° > ?L) a ?W z r Q Z a z eo a w(wj m J MIV oC b t? m OG 2 O d -,t.- _ a ^ ? 1v zw DLL ? 0 w Y wa wLL > zzf wn ?a a G 0 IL a w z Oy Xw a 0 w r LL ¢ O?Q wa m W N ? >Q C2 L ° 0 ww d 3 wpz gt tI / y w0 / SNOII03S IVOIdA.L X U i13d H101M } WOLLOS 3ldAW a 4. or JZ S? a F A Q ? R wm I m z N .° N w w LL a Za Q Z rn z ao W z LL d m o i m 0 N J w a ii f a 3 y O L Or oom ?i O z m z Y a r cl n N O a w Wz m O 0 m m o O m O LL a? W Ooz LL LL j ?? JL ) Fz r o - ? ` Q ? W y U y a ? LL 1 W SO Z = m 7 0 z w 0 J 0 Ir W w J a SN011035 IVOIdAl m j gQ = N3d HlOIM a WOllOS 3lddlN U] a IJi Y W w N o W J LLr o? a o ` ?< ?g 0 z 2 N ? wa LL z Z LL m N ^X 4 0 QO W 2 I y O ° o?om 4 ? g u gz?d ???m m? s?ie?ao s ?" M ` 6 °U, 4uno? Lue ?N 4.gu i? ?o ? o 0 ?~? m Zw o € ?aa.?? auuosalgno.?1 a1441-l _ r W uoipn-i suoD .4od ION - sueld %09 5 m Www a m I m ZJ ? $Z -WOU F w p ? <1 <? ?U 1rz Wo ow ? w O MW w x 1 P ? t - gWW w w p _7 0 ( =w= K U w w?z ¢ QQ KO mz g w (7 U ? Z xaOW ? . 0 x U z 3:z mg LL a? ? ] N O Z , I O ? < a . ; s?KZZ O z m Z LL K viz a0 / 7w<w (7 00LL v F x W a Hg Y LL QUa I : C` 1- f K¢O ?WPM ZJ $W Z P . m=W Jy? wZ g? W a =OOZ 3JUO ZQ H Swa Y> 0, m W - U z mo O au 1 3 Fa ? U 2 z w O Z z y wow F J = zLL w wa aw V N 4?O m (xj~ 3 K g C7 z Uw?O 3 ? m a ?w ? CL W HU w w JZ z y=gS LL O ¢ wmz a w O pa O x O U ¢UF-O wOaU Z a r - w Q?? wY mU W m vpi c7 ( ?77w Z U 2 LLJ? o? ? w 5Z5 vO -zp QU O §wgz Ox Wa xOw Wm 9 ? O?W J d d jpU U 8 O g 2 ? z m< u ,pp U, J OLLaK s t4 KU x wl ., z l - V z o? g? g g H. w ~ J ? _ I ? N ni < 2 2 a J ? \ W i\ ? e E L ( Q Q O z \ Q x I c U dp? a d k w i < a p Z r JO ~?¢ J m = i rr a N O ? i a m S W z; F m a ? o o> a w I m Np J ? o w J ? O wN I LL k o zw f J 5 _ , m Z U U Uww K H '010 O U MLLo aY Z O F Z U d O MID LL0 r w moa w m = d m N H ', m m m Z w / m m ro m 5 0 m O J O O a a z x J O P a a 3 z m O z I a a 3 d I < < O C7 z < CO I a i _ G 'O m 3d E z 0 4-+ Z I O 8 O y O w I oC Z w o ( m , a ''O ? 1, 0pl a a w w 3 r' ?? LL ? J 80 _ r O<$a U z O d ma mYZ w O 0 W H m Z F O D U O z Z / ?= 10 mp W of X' W I'm ? a ?U Z O UpFZZ? ?_ F g m~Ua F?xw Ui F C a?i j 2Jf Ua W W m ~?$ a m? ? m m z aF2?Wxf > pOH w O a? ?W Q ( J 0 m O J? w w < 0 o 3 r ??aa y J O Ox .- fV - F U) z b m °? t'i o > Z? ?O ?p o O I op Y 0 1 " U 9 N 8 i C gzid "= f ? JW f :)N ` 4uno:) We4Su11DO8 W o0 ._ V~p Z € ° jaa.i0 auuosajgnoa1 al?i? s ° = s 1 t W c i u c UOIPnJISUo0 AOJ ION - sueld %09 ?x a w ?FLL???ae ? x > o LL O W S >5Z O N W O W m m O vj j w Z 1U pN m Z? ? Wp 3a C ?g ? I > °? Uy m a m OU J z 3a Z 0? sw w < vv?? =m 4 W m > z x U a > o w > m c o O U 2 w? 0Z Z pm 'WW v k > j > m O LL W O zF L m J OLL S 3 Zm / z. H M fN O) co S z O Y ma aG SUN 0=m {.Z J LL OS 00 Qp M v ca - w O m W J 0. mH O0z KQ li = y Nz Oz0 3m , y \ -17 wW0 m o u L 0 Z w0 ?o 0 \ Jy ?.... m? ? _ S i ? N O W Km O W ~Z JwX N= m K S133HS NV14 33S S31'dtlA H19N31 U p ep LL V 02 ? kz p z w? O U 00 w 0 zC O F ~ z0 x a3 >w T ? d z ----------- o]-i 1 >a ? Q ui0 w: , m Y x 3 g ?QUy U ? ? 2 O C Z J O x O U x C °' OIn o O +' S- o W z m? m x m C' m z J °m oom N L Z Y z? A Q II wVwo UdW ?? '? - Z g? - m KW I d OLL Up .Zl F O ° w Q I m O .B L-dl CL d ° zF / v? 0 awm ?O c o ?f 1 2 Oug< a p z?? Z o ?? .+? ?Z4 6 m o q LL z0O o i? //` / ° ? b p a 0 zOG O ~ // O H p w b P d w 0 m / ° p _ . 5 _ 0 RN W Z 2p <Z d J.I 0. 1 0 F NO Q ? Q70 Um p a om A / w p w LL WLL Y m _ ? I U h Qe y L W C z ? M"Q JW? W s s3lge1 UOREPSan 13 saWN 2URUBld )N `Auno:) Lue4guilaoN ?aajD auaosalgnoa1 a ll e g a ~ b z ?zr CL LU 00 r uoipn.alsuoD.Ao j ;o - suE(d %09 7 7 d c 60 k 60 O N ? c O N O! c C ? In a Y C v A m W ?9 m E H C '? c W m c J N ? N M , V O O O Z N N N 2 9 9 b s a ? 5 W a fi F ? c ? ? a - a F ? °@0 s9 1 z=gax ° c t c 5 S Q s? qH ? ?.y & ?JJ. P? I t?l , Y +?T J J J p Y ? ?tl ? E l , 7$ L w k 6. W 3 ?y r?J? ? ? S 3 ? as a E U v 'a ? 5 c K 8 £ 2 C O? Fu w 5.Z. W E2 EE ?z ? =E a 85.0-, O U J O S c° E _ in o ? z w ZO W Z =R - % WO r y0 W Q 0O0W W ~mNs O{=WY Z W WNaA YJ 0 n 6 CA '24 Z re ?a?rc li Z, y fi fi QOOa Zgp m $a @ a o • 2 °° 2 Jy W W @ ?6 Q _Z m 5 € 'po 3 0 y m c9 ?R 0 5 ?, > W f S -? L r E a < zo E w y H K '? < RS y E y ?` y V p( 4 `n m ? A 4 fi y g Y } _ j. y ^ Y ? Y Y } < a a a ¢ a ¢ a a a a a a F ? c9 ? ? u' c3 ? 2? tt FC?? G G t t t 6 a 'z ?? a a a a a 3 m ? y ?. Y y m k m gg E ? 3 y S ? a a ? c3€ ? A 3 F 8 3 d ? ? E y Pl ? i r .t .y ? c n E ?. ?, r r r d g? ? C C t t C S 3 R ?? a a a a a m ro c?? m 3 X8 6 ? ,?? ? E F E t 4 ? u p a r 3M o gz d ?= slie}ad sul;Ueld e $ A Z-oi $ .y ON ` 4uno0 uuggui?:)o-g g W 00 G 2 a? ?? ? y WW ~LL j ?aa.AD auaosalgno.41 a??i? g € m b ° s uoipn.AZsuo0 Ao j ION - sueld %09 Z wZ?O KY=KH ? ?o mmOaH ?Z°a>az r N O z N O r MO O :3W i UZWW 3¢??aW O II ?ZZZWU J O p z p W f? W J O W Z NZwdOZ 8>xm? ? Z- ?Orw bi Q O m y D= o V401108 IV 03213dtl1 WI - 3NAS 3AME 01 2 •y? 8 1: Z CV y 0 Z?FO¢ is Wk0oFFz pp rQ G ? ` FmS02 J ww 2WO?f0 Q m;? WOr O / YYr? W ww QQ ?omM, aZ Owrxnw?0 Jo 3 ZZZZ rc M¢<ay C7 JWZa?FaFaa r ° NE$(gU Z {g0 z0 ?a r- O' O x O J m _ N ZOr Y WZ a ~ O Z Z3: w W a 2; Z Oar N_p m m F- W i? F Z Z W j.-_-- w W a0' - O ?q?q''GgO_p QZi O W w N o amU?Td J¢?a W? 0F 0 mz wA0 po g O ¢W xJW a \ w NF 7 S j 'a d Z z 0 I L______ a N LL m O r C) d / °_ o v rg L N ?C t a z 0 xS W= OW y0 \\\ ud i i i c a°z 2! +4 OZ =OWW4F CG 2 v. mm J 2 2Za;WOWS ., `O { { 0 N m?oaao$Fa °° a r 2 TT N a a6 \ M =y ??Q ?iyJWOz t i -C HZW O r 'r Z 2 Z F z Q N? z 7 rW?JWF1W 2 JO W m WHW55=25w W w o OJ N-NmWrQmW J W rl i \ LL C i { { p z WZ z O m 0 w r W y ??°ogWQ =°rw J N ° wFWUy d_, rIZaW j h I m 2 F 2 m 2 Q0 0 J F s O 0< w / 00800,KrOW 90,w O .NY r o N / S ZQ. WWmWwaON 2NO? / w z pa'FSN00 (?K 0 WJ4WK?0rYZrrZ? LL > W J J W o x 3J J N N fOW www'n zz wg /./ 2N NFFFONmC7 WNO8VWix I Z Z O O J= 08W Y z" W r WE 3 O ?N W Wr?=?dJOQ=O¢1 W > a? mxOr OOy2rri W ZZ p0aaJp0?8wzzJZx w> OF O Wryi z °ZBZrYpR ?p m a FNW WaWQ a O 'I Na ? W Fp W Qa 0<. ,0 7 WooJS..9 le :) H o m ?1 5WWzmc UM