20071470 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20071101

wry µ??o
aSN a ?m.??
V
0, q'7 0
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 30, 2007
Mr. Rob Ridings
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
SUBJECT: Planting Details for Onsite Stream Design Mitigation for R-2635C.
Dear Mr. Ridings:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Enclosed is a copy of the Planting Details for the onsite stream design location for Western Wake
Expressway (R-2635C Section) that you requested during the field site meeting held on October
29, 2007 and from your email sent on October 30, 2007. These plans follow NCDOT standards
for streambank reforestation.
Please refer to Site 3 on Permit Drawing Sheet Numbers 19 and 20 for Section R-2635C and the
Mitigation Plan for more details regarding the onsite stream design. If you have any questions
concerning these details or this project please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
?y
Gregory W. Price, PWS
Environmental Supervisor, Natural Environment Unit
Cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Ms. Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Mr. Mark Staley, NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit
R-2635 file
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
it •;t
r,
" 3I IN
119
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION :a
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604
---
s c? f?- ?
??P?_ -- ?
c ???-
zz
>n ~
EO,, F oW4
z
0 o d
W
r
G7 m G9 d
z
O ? d O ? d
N
O ? O o
a a
Oz o ? oz
0 0 0
A
G7
a
rA
V
I
M M 1 I I I
di 4t
N N r-1 r-1 r-1 ?=-1
q O
W ? ? pQ
G?.7 w (z7
U
M
m
d
C7 ? v? are
O E,
lq to N N N N
oil
m
m
M
N?
W
Y
N Q
K
W
o
J u ? ,mow
LL ?? J
m JN ?
0
z
a
Mill
N
i
t
F-
w <
N
z
? N
? wo
zz
m
V/
E;
F?l OO
W
A

2.
J O
6 K
? a
x a
0
a ?= g
a So
w w?
U Z
a g?
w
s iY
N K N N
N
Y ? t J
ti
1? 2
°" rn
Cw
Aft J

z
0
F @

0.0

022
O
w
0
Oil
t
S
n
Z
T
$? Z
cc Q
H N
0
N ?? N e
?¦d r.T.? a
z
0 ?
z N
W
a
m O
?% cc ? Q F
0
E v N m d W T
-mw
? r4 W
CN r r LULU Q ~ N CW O
H V
N® RV OO CC T'
Xc r _ ..??, O rn
cm Q T- O
Z
Q
Z
CO)
z CO) W J z
° WI- dN0
CO) O
zZ V0 OHO
°W z? IiWG'i N
V v
Q •v)
J
ONZ W= H W
WV mV Z J
CO) QZW JWW O V
p W j -i CO)
• z_ z N Z LL W t-
I • QrN N?
.. z0Q O
d. I. .. _ MWm W z
J I. H
z z U)
oCW ?:.. N
N
= oz I. a ? Ada 0=
z
z °C LLI I• J a H W Cl)
I-~ ° I. > m xz N ~
my zz I • ° '? z?
=r a0 I. m ui ar V
ao I' > Q
J
I ,. z a
Z LU I . W
cc um
oz ?? I?,
j m
• 1~LZ v?F
¦ ac F- O W I w
zy Oa Vv z m H
O¢ V a Cl)
I O
O
z WW
° v0 z3 N
C?J Qr wz
Q M. x W H
M LL
0 O
071970
R-2635C On-Site Mitigation
Wake County, North Carolina
Project No. 35520.1.1
Prepared for:
NC Department of Transportation
Natural Environment Unit
Parker Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 240
Raleigh, NC 27604
v
Mitigation Plan
May 2007
Prepared by Sungate Design Group, P.A.
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact Information:
Lane Sauls - Project Manager
Jenny 'S. Fle g, PE - Senior Engineer
[phone] phone
. [phone] fax
lsauls(iOuneatedesian.com
ifleming(i?sungatedesign.com

Table of Contents
I Page
1.0 Introduction ...............................
..
. 1
.
.
.................................................. .....................................................
' 2.0 Project Description ........................................................................... .....................................................1
' 3.0 General Watershed Information .......................................................................................................... 1
4.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 1

' 4.1 Unnamed Tributary to Reedy Branch .....................................................................................................
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 1
2
4.3 Existing Plant Communities .................................................................................................................... 2
4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................
5.0 Natural Channel Design ........................................................................................................................ 3
3
5.1 Reference Reach Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 3
' 5.2 Sediment Transport Analyses .................................................................................................................. 4
5.2.1 Aggradation/ Degradation Analysis ............................................................................................... 4
5.2.2 Sediment Transport Summary ........................................................................................................ 4
' 5.3 Proposed Design ...................................................................................................................................... 4
6.0 Flood Analyses ....................................................................................................................................... 5
7.0 Stream Riparian Planting Plan ............................................................................................................ 5
8.0 Stream Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................................................... 5
' 9.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 6
' Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Existing Watershed
' Figure 3. Soils Map
Figure 4. Reference Reach Map
' Tables
Table 1. Summary of Existing Cross Sections - Unnamed Tributary to Reedy Branch
Table 2. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring in Wake County

1

Appendices
Appendix A. Existing Cross Sections
Appendix B. Morphological Data
Appendix C. Particle Size Distribution Data
Appendix D. Entrainment Calculations
Appendix E. Velocity Calculations
Appendix F. Photos

1.0 Introduction
' This Stream Restoration Plan addresses proposed improvements to be implemented by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) along an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Reedy Branch in Wake
' County. The plan is being completed to provide on-site mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts
associated with the construction Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) number R-2635C, or the
Western Wake Freeway (I-540) in western Wake County, North Carolina. The project covers
' approximately 640 linear feet of the UT to Reedy Branch.
2.0 Project Description
' The R-2635C mitigation site is situated approximately 2,300 feet downstream of US 64, immediately
west of the Town of Apex (Figure 1). Land use along the floodplain is predominately wooded, aside from
the perpendicular crossing of a gas line easement and a small portion of a horse pasture that extends from
' the adjacent upland area to the east. The existing channel appears relatively stable with moderately
vegetated banks, exhibiting minimal bank erosion. The existing channel also exhibits a stable pattern and
profile in the vicinity of the relocation. Restoration of the UT will involve the construction of a new
' channel with connectivity to the historic floodplain throughout the area. These efforts will utilize Priority
Level II stream restoration principles to re-establish approximately 640 linear feet of stream channel
upstream of the proposed roadway crossing. A protected riparian buffer will be established as part of the
' on-site mitigation requirements and a conservation easement will be established and fenced in its entirety
to restrict access to the restored areas and the I-540 right-of-way. The R-2635C mitigation site will be
held in perpetuity under the strictures of the NCDOT right-of-way.
t 3.0 General Watershed Information
' The UT is situated within the Cape Fear River Basin within the US Geological Survey (USGS)
hydrological unit code (HUC) 030030002 and the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin
03-06-05. Its drainage area at the mitigation site covers approximately 420 Acres (0.67 square miles). The
' overall watershed is relatively rural, dominated by low density residential areas and forest land. The land
use in the watershed is actively developing with large scale developments currently under construction
north of US 64. The mitigation site will be located in the existing floodplain associated with the UT to
Reedy Branch. Elevations across the project site range from a high of 315 feet above mean sea level (msl)
' at the upper limit of the UT relocation to a low of 308.6 feet above msl at the culvert entrance, at the
downstream end. The R-2635C mitigation site is within the Piedmont physiographic province;
specifically, the Triassic Basin Ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2002). According to the Wake County Soil
' Survey, Wehadkee and Bibb soils underlie the project area (Figure 3). These soils are poorly drained and
occur along floodplains, narrow upland draws and in depressions throughout the county (Cawthorn,
1970).
' 4.0 Existing Conditions
4.1 Unnamed Tributary to Reedy Branch
The headwaters of the UT to Reedy Branch are bounded to the north by SR 1601, to the east by NC 55,
' and to the west by SR 1163 (Kelly Road). The tributary flows in a southerly direction for approximately
0.9 miles before passing under US 64, then in a southwesterly direction for approximately 0.8 miles
before passing under Kelly Road. It converges with Reedy Branch approximately 1.0 mile downstream of
' Kelly Road. As previously mentioned, the drainage area associated with the mitigation site covers

1
' approximately 420 acres (Figure 2). The existing stream channel is located in its historical floodplain. The
relatively young age of the hardwood species indicate the area may have been cleared in the past for
' agricultural purposes; however, the floodplain and stream have recovered with a well established buffer
and a channel exhibiting only minimal amounts of erosion. Based on field reconnaissance, existing
channel surveys, and sediment transport analysis, the current stream channel is slightly incised, though
stable.
The existing UT channel flows approximately 1,200 linear feet within the limits of the R-2635C project
area. The existing channel slope averages 0.0050 ft/ft. Existing profile information for the stream is
' presented in Appendix A. The UT to Reedy Branch classifies as a slightly incised E4 channel according
to the Rosgen stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). A summary of the cross section data used to
determine these classifications can be found in Table 1 and existing cross section views are presented in
I Appendix B. Additional information, including existing pattern data for the stream, is shown with all the
morphological data in Appendix C.
' According to the modified Wolman Pebble Count procedure, the average d50 (50% of the sampled
population is equal to or finer than the representative particle diameter) is approximately 6.3 mm, which
falls within the gravel size category. The d50 for the wetted perimeter was approximately 11 mm. Pebble
' counts were taken at each cross section and a bar sample was taken immediately downstream of the
project area. The particle size distribution data which includes the classification, wetted perimeter, and
bar sample are presented in Appendix D.
' Table 1. Summary of Existing Cross Sections -Unnamed Tributary to Reedy Branch
1

1
Cross Station Morph. Bankfull Ent. W/D Wetted Hydraulic Stream'
Section No. Feature Area (ft2) Ratio* Ratio* Perimeter Radius Class.*
ft ft
1 Riffle 11.4 40.8 8.1 11.98 0.95 E4
2 Pool 16.5 N/A N/A 12.3 1.34 --
3 Riffle 11.7 42.8 7.1 11.68 1.00 E4
*Notes: Ent. Ratio is "Entrenchment Ratio"
W/D Ratio is "Width/Depth Ratio"
Stream classification is only viable along riffle sections.
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
' Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using the three-parameter approach as prescribed in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). A
consulting firm hired by NCDOT performed wetland delineations between 1997 and 1998. A riverine
' wetland occurs adjacent to the existing UT to Reedy Branch. This wetland was determined to be a
Palustrine Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous wetland which is characterized by a dominance of
hardwood deciduous species associated with bottomland hardwood forests. The forested classification
' denoted that the wetland is composed of vegetation that is 20 feet or taller (NCDOT, 2004). The proposed
on-site mitigation will impact a small portion of this wetland area.
' 4.3 Existing Plant Communities
The vegetative communities found within the mitigation area can be characterized under one major
grouping, the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Dominant species observed
' 2
1

1

1

1
i
1
1
included such canopy trees as water oak (Quercus nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Ater rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciua) and American elm (Ulmus americana). Common understory and vine species included black
willow (Salix nigra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American holly (Ilex opaca), highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), grape (Vitis sp.), cross vine (Bignonia
capreoata), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Herbaceous species were limited, based on the timing of the assessment (winter). Species such as
microstegium (Microstegium vimineum) and smartweed (Panicum sp.) were easily identifiable; however,
other species are also anticipated to be present during the growing season.
4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), three endangered and one threatened species
are known to occur in Wake County. Information regarding these federally listed species is presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Federal) Threatened and Endangered Species Potential) Occurrin in Wake Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Preferred Habitat Biological
Status* Habitat Present Conclusion
Open park-like May Affect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E pine stands No - Not likely
(live) w/ little to Adversely
undergrowth Affect
Mature forests
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus T near large Yes No Effect
bodies of water
Sandhills, sandy May Affect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E forests, Yes - Not likely
woodland and to Adversely
woodland edges Affect
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Stable silt-free No No Effect
streambed
*Notes:
E denotes Endangered (a taxon is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T denotes Threatened (a taxon "likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.")
5.0 Natural Channel Design
5.1 Reference Reach Analyses
One reference reach, noted as Southwest Prong Beaverdam Creek, has been identified for use on the
R-2635C stream restoration site. This stream is situated within the Raleigh City Limits and was chosen as
it represents a stable, urban, piedmont stream. The current watershed for UT to Reedy Branch is relatively
rural; however, a significant portion of the watershed is currently under construction and is anticipated to
urbanize rapidly. The UT to SW Prong Beaverdam Creek is located immediately upstream of the
intersection of Lake Boone Trail and Runnymeade Road (Figure 4). This stream is characterized as a first
order stream and classifies as an urban C5 stream type. Specific morphological data for this reference
reach are given within the morphological table presented in Appendix C. Its watershed covers
approximately 0.28 square miles (180 acres) and encompasses an older urban neighborhood in the City of
3
1
' Raleigh. Common species located along the riparian zone of this stream include tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), red maple, river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum, flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida), tulip
' poplar, giant cane, poison ivy, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea).
5.2 Sediment Transport Analyses
' Sediment plays a major role in the influence of channel stability and morphology (Rosgen, 1996). A
stable stream has the capacity to move its sediment load without aggrading or degrading.
' The critical dimensionless shear stress (r* ?j) is the measure of force required to initiate general movement
of particles in a bed of a given composition. Based on the d; of 11 mm and the bar sample dso of 3.0 mm
for the UT, the critical dimensionless shear stress was calculated to be approximately 0.0189 lbs/ft2.
1 Entrainment and velocity calculation sheets used for these analyses are presented in Appendices E and F,
respectively.
' The critical shear for the proposed channel has to be sufficient to move the D84 of the bed material. Based
on the Shield's curve, particles ranging from 20 mm to 40 mm could be moved within the proposed UT
channel, with an average moveable size of 22 mm. The largest particle found on depositional bars was 2.0
' mm. The D84 and Dloo of the UT are 18 mm and 36 mm, respectively. Therefore, the proposed design has
sufficient shear stress to move the bedload associated the stream channel. The use of plan form, structures
and vegetation will assist in maintaining the long term stability of the proposed channel.
' 5.2.1 Aggradation/Degradation Analysis
New channel construction associated with natural channel design projects generally includes the design
' and layout of a channel with increased length and sinuosity and reduced slope as compared with the
existing channel. However, when relocating a relatively stable channel, meanders become gentler and
slope will slightly increase. This is evident with the R-2635C mitigation site. The proposed design for the
UT will result in a new channel slightly more slope (0.0055 ft/ft) than the existing channel (0.005 ft/ft).
The proposed width/depth ratios were adjusted in conjunction with the slope to ensure that the proposed
stream will transport its sediment over time without aggrading or degrading.
' 5.2.2 Sediment Transport Summary
' Based on the calculations for competency, aggradation, degradation and capacity, bankfull conditions in
the proposed UT design channel will entrain particles ranging from 20 to 40 mm. The Dioo of the UT is 36
mm. The design channel is predicted to remain stable over time based on the establishment of proper
' dimension, pattern and profile and an active floodplain. The addition of riparian vegetation will further
enhance the long term stability of the entire system.
5.3 Proposed Design
' Design methodologies are based on natural channel design concepts outlined by Rosgen (1994, 1996 and
1998). These methodologies include existing and reference reach channel surveys, data interpretations
' and geomorphological comparisons of all channel features. Based on field observations and preliminary
ideas, the project will attempt to implement Priority Level II Restoration. A new channel will be
constructed with the appropriate dimension, pattern and profile for the stream's valley. The slope along
' the restored stream will be 0.0055 ft/ft. Bankfull cross sectional areas found in this portion of the project
average 16.0 square feet for riffles and 22.5 square feet for pools (Appendix Q. The proposed riffle area
is slightly larger than the area associated with the existing channel. During field reconnaissance, a small
depression was noted east of the stream that is below bankfull. The approximate area of flow for this
r 4
t
slough is 5 square feet. Once this is combined with the existing channel area, a total bankfull flow area is
approximately 16 square feet. This matches the rural regional curves for the Piedmont of North Carolina.
' 6.0 Flood Analyses
' The R-2635C mitigation site is not located within the Federal Emergency Management Association's
(FEMA) 100-year flood boundary, (FEMA, 2006). The proposed culvert to be constructed at the
downstream limit of the mitigation site will control flood elevations. The proposed stream relocation will
not have an adverse affect on existing flood elevations.
7.0 Stream Riparian Planting Plan
' The planting plan for the riparian and upland buffers of the R-2635C site will provide post-construction
erosion control and riparian habitat enhancement. The planting plan will also attempt to blend existing
' vegetative communities into recently restored areas. Plantings in the buffer areas will include native
species appropriate for the Piedmont physiographic province. Plants within the floodplain will be flood
tolerant species, which can accommodate periodic flooding events throughout the year. A variety of trees
will be planted to provide cover and habitat for wildlife as well as soil stabilization. The NCDOT
Roadside Environmental Unit will develop the specific details and plant lists to be utilized on the
R-2635C restoration site.
' Trees with extensive, deep rooting systems will assist in stabilizing the banks in the long term.
Colonization of local herbaceous vegetation will inevitably occur, which will provide additional soil
stability. Tree species will be planted as bare root stock on random eight-foot centers at a frequency of
680 stems per acre. Planting stock will be culled to remove inferior specimens, so only healthy, viable
stock will be planted at the R-2635C restoration site. Planting of species will utilize dormant plant stock
and will be performed to the extent practicable between December I" and March 15`h.
8.0 Stream Monitoring Plan
Monitoring will determine the degree of success the mitigation project has achieved in meeting the
objectives of providing proper channel functions and increased habitat quality. This monitoring data will
provide the NCDOT and resource agencies with evidence that the goals of the R-2635C mitigation project
' have been achieved. Monitoring of the site will include a visual inspection and photo documentation of
the restoration site at least once each year for a total of three years. The monitoring reports will include
discussions of the new stream and floodplain pertaining to channel stability, plant survivability, reference
photos and locations as well as a description of any problems and recommendations for remedial
measures. In the event that success criteria are not met, remedial measures will be installed to achieve
success, as directed by the NCDOT. The permittee shall submit the monitoring reports to the US Army
Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Project Manager, within sixty days after completing
' the monitoring.
1
1
1
1

9.0 References
I Daniels, R.B., S.W. Buol, H.J. Kleiss, and C.A. Ditzler, 1999. Soil Systems of North Carolina. NC State
University, Soil Science Department, Raleigh, NC.
' Cawthorn, J.W., 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, in Cooperation with the NC Agricultural Experiment Station.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; Technical Report Y-
87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), 2004. h_p://www.fema.org.
' Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenant, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne, 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South
' Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, VA,
US Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
I Hey, Richard and Dave Rosgen, 1997. Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers. Wildland Hydrology,
Pagosa Springs, CO.
' North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), 1999. Subchapter lI - Forest Practice Guidelines Related
to Water Quality, Section .0100. 15A NCAC 1I.0102. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2004. Basinwide
Information Management System. Available:
hq://h2o.enr. state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-07-04.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2004a. North Carolina
Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
Prepared by the NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
' Quality, Water Quality Section.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2002. Basinwide
Assessment Report - Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Prepared by the NC Department of
Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), 2002. U-2707 Environmental Assessment.
Prepared be the NC Department of Transportation, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch.
' North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. NC
Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.
' North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), 2004. Protected Species listed for Yadkin County,
NC. Available: hqp://www.ncnhp.ora/
' Rosgen, D.L., 1998. The Reference Reach - A Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. From Proceedings
of the Wetlands and Restoration Conference, March 1998, Denver, CO. Wildland Hydrology,
Pagosa Springs, CO.
6
r
1
Ros en D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. i dl
g W 1 and Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, 22:169-199.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
' Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Protected Species listed for Wake County, NC.
Available: hiip://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.htmi

t
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1

_ r , ?s?j . - ,tom .i ?- : - I • _ ? ^? . `rd , .._ ?:+?3 ` `_1 ' '?• j ,?4T
. ? 'I Y ik?r ? r ._? .. %, .-` •.G 2aa I+• 1,..'? 1 '?, ;Y _ _
i
. _ ? I ; l ? ^?pp ., Y?Z .? - i ??: j / _ . ?+ ( ! - dry' v r•4 e _ •
+ ?r r ,
y
4-1
IJ .7
t ONSITE MITIGATION VICINITY
r
,
r,. . t n 1r,C / v
y 1?. v t
K•^)
?, .• ? - Sln?. it\/ ? rtl r ?)
? r ./'`?..? ) ? ) ? ?? ? ...Jf?./? y ??.JLt?1, _ two.-a ?'.r ``?••' ?g~!? rl !
} F 1 I 47 * r n •,. { ,r;'?_ ` F t % j a ,?. 4.7. ?` t o I
Ilk,
;;,;J sf > 1 r\ i R !_! ,r; r t ,
r? ? i - .-_ 2 r"? ?. - 1` ? ??? ? -i? ... ! r 1 , jl J. rte` y?'3 A .,/ f? r J•1 _`? !,? ? -
f.A
?">`f t ?': h ?- I t ?1)il , fJ?r ?. • ? - `f•?r r,r?? ; `? } ?' ?{_ Zr`'?
y ? l
r
r y? t sc•e :;0 000 2,000 Fee 41
Prepared By: SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, PA R2635C Onsite Mitigation
915 Jones Franklin Road -
•-
Raleigh, 27606
[phone] Project #: 35520.1.1
Vicinity Map FIGURE
Prepared For: NC Department of Transportation Wake Count NC
Natural Environment Unit County, 1
Parker Lincoln Building January 12 2007
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 240 ,
Raleigh, NC 27604 Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (New Hill and Green Level Quads)
t n
.., a'p#{ f i
4W# A
<

Via. ? ,
?.
.

'J lip

19,
4 ,° 4
_ '1g •t"'sue a.'+ ^a" ?` `?' +
lr t
,
#E d 4
? a
14
?( {•,? f +a - -' '"j$: SV?'JVV IjVVV reel
Prepared By: SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, PA
915 Jones Franklin Road
f, ,? R2635C Onsite
Mitigation
Raleigh, NC 27606
Project #: 35520
1
1
[phone]
? .
.
Watershed
Map
p FIGURE
mow,
Prepared For: NC Department ofTranspodation
Natural Environment Unit Wake County, 2
Parker Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 240 January 12, 2007
Raleigh, NC 27604
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (John H Kerr Dam and Middlebury)
CrC
!Grc ,
a
GrO
Ig I
GrC
CrC2 1
CrC2
CrC2
-MR
Legend
J?

It \GrC
v?
C rE
CrC2
Afa Altavista fine sandy loam (0 to 4% slopes)
Cm Chewacla soils (0 to 2% slopes)
CrB2 Creedmoor sandy loam (2 to 6% slopes, eroded)
CrC Creedmoor sandy loam (6 to 10% slopes)
CrC2 Creedmoor sandy loam (6 to 10% slopes, eroded)
CrE Creedmoor sandy loam (10 to 20 % slopes)
GrB Granville sandy loam (2 to 6% slopes)
GrC Granville sandy loam (6 to 10% slopes)
GrD Granville sandy loam (10 to 15% slopes)
Gu Gullied land
MfB Mayodan sandy loam (2 to 6% slopes)
MfB2 Mayodan sandy loam (2 to 6% slopes, eroded)
MfC2 Mayodan sandy loam (6 to 10% slopes, eroded)
MfD2 Mayodan sandy loam (10 to 15% slopes, eroded)
MgB2 Mayodan gravelly sandy loam (2 to 6% slopes, eroded)
MgC Mayodan gravelly sandy loam (6 to 10% slopes)
MgC2 Mayodan gravelly sandy loam (6 to 10% slopes, eroded)
Wo Wehadkee and Bibb soils (0 to 2% slopes)
Wy Worsham sandy loam (0 to 4% slopes)
1`~ GrB X01 500 1;000 F et
MgB2
?•rc P? -J MgC2
Prepared By: SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, PA
R2635C OnsiteMiti Mitigation
915 Jones Franklin Road R - g
Raleigh, NC 27606 - } Project #: 35520.1.1
[phone] Soil Survey Map FIGURE
Prepared For: NC Department of Transportation -`t Wake Count NC 3
Natural Environment Unit Yr
Parker Lincoln Building f
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 240 \., January 12, 2007
Raleigh, NC 27604 Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (John H Kerr Dane and Middleburg)
i..

.cn t! KiM ?2J>

= ?••_r? ; . REFERENCE SITE VICINITY

r
i
' All
3; ??
f'? F f 1 tir/ 'k °b r f '4'r # ss-^ ,?,? s i .; ?? '.M ?vr• + '><.i. N ''f
?r I(r? C Nii y s /' „F? a v • 4 g ` w{ !W?'. +W1
r?.K° ,«rr• { F+ x •_/% 1,000:
Prepared By: SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, PA R2635C Onsite Mitigation
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606 Project #: 35520.1.1
[phone] Reference Vicinity Map FIGURE
Prepared For: NC Department of Transportation
is
Wake County, NC 4
Natural Environment Unit
Parker Lincoln Building „ January 12, 2007
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 240 ?- Raleigh, NC 27604Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (New Hill and Green Level Quads)
i
_N
- i - -I -.--I i, --: -

I
:

I _. L. ..

i I
' I I I ?
! I! 1
? 1
i l i
!
! I
- - - - - - - r
i i
1r I
•

?i
_
I
I
I
i
I
t
I i'1
'
I

T i r _
M
LO M LO (V
C`) CY)
? N
M ? co
M M
(4) u01lenaI-q
LO
r
M
co
Ln
O_
co
O
F
O
O
O
LO
L
O
O ?
O
N
J
N
_
0-1
O M O
4-
L

O
N
O
r
+ O
O
co
O
14,
M
O
M
i
O
O
L $
N +.
L
_O
O
N
O J
N
O
v-
U
r
O

M
M
O
l!7 N LO r In O In O LO
? j c7 O co O M 00
O O
co co M co co
(}}) UOi}eA813
O
d
LO
M
i
!I i ; I I
III
i !
i IIII
I I I-
7 r i

I
1 T
i

I l i
I? I ?'.
i
i..... i l l
IIII
._. .? ?._ I
I
_
_
It
I
i
1 L. i
?
i I
i

LO
M
O
M

N
.CD
E
O
N
O J
N ?
O
L
It-, >
O
r
0
O
?t U') M_ U') N L f LO O Lf)
co ?? co ? M ? M T- M
0'J co co co o
\ co
(4) uOIJena13
MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL WITH
GAGE STATION AND REFERENCE REACH DATA (Adapted from Rosgen, 1996)
Restoration Site: R-2635C
JSGS Gage Station: WA
Reference Reach: UT to Beaverdam Creek
Surveyors: SDG
Date: 1211212006
Neather: Sunny - 60°
larlables
-
-
- fXsting channel Proposed Reach Reference Reach
1. T
rew
nTy
in E4 C/E4 C5
2. Drainage Area (so. r,>I 0.67 0.67 0.28
3 Bankful Wdth ryWlrfl It mew. 9.4 Mean: 13.0 Mean: 11.8
Minimum 9.1 Minimum minimum 9.9
Malorn um 9.6 Maximum M mum 14.1
1. &vWJ Mean Dahl (dbkff ft Mean: 1.25 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 0.8
MN*TUR 1.19 Minimum Minimum: 0.7
Maximum 1.29 Madmum: Madr um: 1.0
5. Width/Depth Raft (VWIQA2" Mow 7.6 Mean: 10.8 Mean: 15.0
Minimum 7.1 Minimum: Mkdmum:
Maldmum 81 Maximum Madmum
;. BankU Craw-Seo4anl Area (Abkf) ap ft mum: 11.6 Mean: 16.0 Mean 9.4
MhImum 11.4 Minimum: Minimum 7.8
Madmwm 11.7 Meximum Maximum: 10.5
'. BaNdull Mean Velocity (Vbld) fps Meat 3.8 Mean: 4.3 Mean:
Mknkmum 37 Mwmwm: Minimum
Madrtum 3.9 Madmwm Motdmxn:
J. Saractua Discharge (OW cis Man: 44.0 Mean 68.8 Mean:
Minirnurn 43.0 minimum Minimum
Maximum 45.0 Maximum Madman:
Maximum Bankfull Depth (d rnox) It Meat: 1.9 Mean: 1.8 Mean: 1.3
Mk*"UM 1.7 Minimum Mi *MJM 1.0
Maximum 2.0 Maximum Mmmwmm 1.7
i 0. With of Flood Prate Area (ftit) R Moen: 391.0 Mean: 85.0 Mean: 90.0
I
Minimum 390.0 Minimum: 60.0 Minkmumr
Matdmum 392.0 Maximum 110.0 MadmRR
1. Entrenchnertt Rabo (WipW VVdd) Mean: 41.6 Mean 6.5 Mean: 7.6
Mknkrwrtt 41.5 Minimum 4.6 Minimum:
Miadmum: 41.7 Maximum: 8.5 Madman
12. Meander Length (Lm) ft mow 119.0 Mean: 77.4 Mew: 710
I
Minkrwm 82.0 Minimum 60.0 Minimum 33.0
Maxknum 164.0 Maximum 95.0 Maximum 144.0
3. Ratio of Meander Length to Bw kg Win Mean: 12.7 Mean: 6.0 Mean: 6.0
(Lm N tid) Minimum 8.7 Minimum: 4.6 Minimum 2.8
Maximum 17.4 Maximum: 7.3 MaxknaR 122
14. Radius of Curvature (Re) It Msat 17.6 Mean: 256 Mean: 18.0
I
Mkdm rn: 10.0 Minimum 22.0 Minimum 11.1
mewnum 32.0 Maximum 34.0 Maximum: 38.0
5. Ratio of Radars Of Cmaveture to fh;U NO 1.s Mew: 2.0 Mean: 1.5
Nhdth (Re~ Mkrimum 11 Minimum: 1.7 Mt*"J : 0.9
admummn: 3.4 Maximum 2.6 Madmen 12
16. Bell W6d h (Wb1q R Mew: 81.0 Mean: 36.3 Mean: 71.0
Mkurxam 440 Minimum 28.0 Minimum 30.0
Madmum 120.0 Maximum: 43.0 Maximum 119.0
7. Meander W4dth Ratio (YVbItMIW Mean: 8.6 Mean: 2.8 Mean: 6.0
MkNrtwm 47 minimum 2.2 Minimum 2.5
MAdmum: 12.8 Madmum: 3.3 Madmwm 10.1
18. Sinuosity (Stream IwQft aley distentee) Mean: 1.5 Mean[ 1.4 Meat. 2.2
(K) Minh urmt Minimum Minimum
Maximum Maximum Maximum:
9. Valley Slope MIR) Mean 0.0075 Mean: 0.0074 Mew: 0.0300
Minkinu n: Mhanum: Mktknum
Madmum Maximum Madmum
20. Average Wale Surface Slaps Maw: 0.0050 Mean: 0.0055 Mean 0.01300
for Reach (Sevg) Minimum Minimum Minimum:
Madman: Maximum Maximum
1. Pool Slope (Spool) RM Mean: 0.0010 Mew: 0.0010 Mean: 0.0011
Mhknum Minimum Minimum 0.0000
Modmum: Maximum Madmwm: 0.0030
22. Ratio of Pod Slope to Average Slope Meant 0.200 Mean: 0.182 Mean: 0.1
(SpookBavg) Minimum Minimum Mktimum: 0.0
Madmum Maximum: Maximum 0.2
1 Maxknum Pod Depth (dpod) ft Min: 2,5 Mew 3 0 Min: 2.4
Minimum minimum Mknknum 1.8
Madmumt Madmum: Madrtum: 2.9
24. Ratio of Maxkmwm Pod Depth to Baniduy Mean: 2.0 Mean 2.4 Mean: 3.0
Mean Depth (dpoolidbid) Minimum Minimum Minimum 2.3
Madmum: Maximum Maximum: 3.6
5. Pod Width (Whoop H Mwrr. 8.5 Mean: 15.0 Mean: 9.9
Minimum: Minimum MknMwm: 9.1
Madmum: Mo dmum Matdm m: 10.5
26. Ratio of Pod W4dth to BwftA W1dth Mean: 0.9 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 0.8
(VJpooWVbkp Minknum Mktimum Minimum 0.8
Maximum Maximum: Madmum 0.9
7. Pod to Pool Spacing (p-p) ft Mean N/A Mean 46.6 36.5
MkNmum Minkrwm: 36.1 Minimum 18.0
Maximum: Maximum 58.7 uxn 58.0
28 Ratio of Pod?Pool Spodng to Bankfull Mew: N/A Mew: 3.6 F 3.1
Width (p-p/Wbkp Mktknum. Minimum: 2.8 wm
E 1.5
Ma)dm urn: Maximum 4 5 )dff-UTT 4.9
0
00
i
i
i I I o
0
i
E
U d
Lo N a
M in E
to m
i
I
i
Hill
0
0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O W I? O N V ('7 N0 .--
(ueyl JOUI J) anilelnwno %
Entrainment Calculation Form
Project: R-2635C
Stream: Reedy Branch
Date: 12/19/2006
Location: Wake County
Reach: Proposed
Observers: SDG
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress:
Tci = 0.0&34(dud50)-0.872
Value Variable Definition
11 di mm D50 from Riffle or Pavement* *Choose
2 d50 mm D50 from Bar Sample or Sub Pavement" One
0.0189 Tci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment
of largest particle in Bar Sample:
dr = (Tci*1.65*DfuSe 1.65 = submerged specific weight of sediment
16, mm Largest Bar Sample Particle in mm
0.05 Di ft Largest Bar Sample Particle in ft
0.0055 Se ft/ft Bankfull Water Surface Slope
0.30 dr ft Bankfulll Mean Depth Required
1.27 de ft Bankfull Mean Depth (From Rifff/e Cross Section)
de/dr= 4.28 if = 1 <1 >1
Choose one: Stable aggrading Degrading
Bankfull Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment
of largest particle in Bar Sample:
Sr = (Tci*1.6t5*Dlyde 1.65 = submerged specific weight of sediment
0.05 Di ft Largest Bar Sample Particle
1.27 de ft Bankfull Mean Depth (From Riffle Cross Section)
0.0013 Sr ft/ft Bankfull Water Surface Slope Required
Se/Sr= 4.28 if = 1 <1 >1
Choose one: Stable aggrading Degrading
Sediment Transport Validation - Bankfull Shear Stress
Tc = RS
62.4 y Ibs/cu ft Density of water
1.03 R=AM/p
16 A sq ft Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area
15.46 Wp Wetted parameter
0.0055 S ft/ft Bankfull Water Surface Slope
0.355188 Tc Ib/sqr ft Tc = RS
16 Di mm Largest Bar Sample Particle (mm)
Moveable Particle size (mm) at Bankfull Shear Stress
22 mm" predicted by the Sheilds diagram, Redfield book: p.190; Blue: p.238

0.2
Ib/ft2 Predicted Shear Stress Required to move Di (lb/ft2)
predicted by the Sheilds diagram, Red field book: p.190; Blue: p.238
* Shear acceptable as largest particles found in stream were 26 and 36mm
Entrainment Calculation Form
Project: R-2635C
Stream: Reedy Branch
Date: 12/13/2006
Location: Wake County
Reach: Existing
Observers: SDG
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress:
Tci z 0.0$34(dI1d50)"-0.872
Value Variable Definition
11 di mm D50 from Riffle or Pavement* *Choose
2 d50 mm D50 from Bar Sample or Sub Pavement* One
0.0189 Tci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
Bankfu0 Mean Depth Required for Entralnment
of largest particle in Bar Sample:
dr a (Tci`1.65*DIYSe 1.65 =submerged specific weight of sediment
16 mm Largest Bar Sample Particle in mm
0.05 Di ft Largest Bar Sample Particle in ft
0.0050 Se ft/ft Bankfull Water Surface Slope
0.33 dr ft Bankfulll Mean Depth Required
1.19
i deft Bankfull Mean Depth (From Rifle Cross Section)
de/dr= 3.64 if = 1 <1 >1
Choose one: " Stable aggrading Degrading
Bankfull Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment
of largest particle In Bar Sample:
Sr = (Tci*1.65" Dlyde 1.65 =submerged specific weight of sediment
0.05 Di ft Largest Bar Sample Particle
1.19 deft Bankfull Mean Depth (From Rifffle Cross Section)
0.0014 Sr ft/ft Bankfull Water Surface Slope Required
Se/Sr= 3.64 if = 1 <1 >1
Choose one: Stable aggrading Degrading
Sediment Transport Validation • Sankfuil Shear Stress
Tc = yRS
62.4 y Ibs/cu ft Density of water
0.95 R=A/Wp
11.4 A sq ft Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area
12 Wp Wetted parameter
0.0050 S ft/ft Bankfull Water Surface Slope
0.2964 Tc Ib/sqr ft Tc = yRS
16 Di mm Largest Bar Sample Particle (mm)
Moveable Particle size (mm) at Bankfull Shear Stress
18 mm predicted by the Sheilds diagram, Red field book: p.190; Blue: p.238

0.28
Ib/ft2 Predicted Shear Stress Required to move Di (Ib/ft2)
predicted by the Sheilds diagram, Red field book: p.190; Blue: p.238
Velocity Comparison Form
Project:
Stream:
Date:
R-2635C
Reedy Branch
12/19/2006
Location: Wake County
Reach: Proposed
Observers: SDG
]!!put Variables Output Var iables
Bankfull X-Sec Area (Abkf) 16 s ft Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) 1.23 ft
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 13 ft Wetted Parameter (WP) 15.46 ft
D84 (Riffle or pavement) 20 mm D84 (mm/304.8) 0.07 ft
Bankfull Slope (S) 0.0055 ft/ft Hydraulic Radius (R) 1.03 ft
Gravitational Accleration (g) 32.2 ft/ sec Dbkf/D84 (use D84 in ft) 18.76 ft/ft
Bankfull Maximum Depth 1.5` ft. R/D84 (use D84 in ft) 15.77 ft/ft
Dbkf/D84, u/u*, Mannin s n
u/u* (Using Dbkf/D84 Red Book: p188; Blue p233) 10.1 fvsms
Mannings n (Red Book: p189; Blue :p236) 0.027
Velocity from annings' equation: u=1.4865 * (R A 2/3)(SAI /)/n) 4.18 ft/s
u/u*=2.83+5.7lo R/D84
u* u* = (gRS)^.5 0.43 ft/s
Velocity: u = u*( +5.7log(/ 84)) 4.13 ft/s
Mannin s n b StreamT e
Stream type E4
Mannings n (Red Book: p187; Blue :p237) 0.032
Velocity from Mannngs' equation: u=1.4865 * (R A / ( 1/2) n) 3.52 ft/s
Continui Equation
Qbkf (cfs) original curve or stream gage hydraulic geometry 68.9 CfS
Velocity (u= /A) or from stream gage hydraulic geometry 4.31 ft/s
Or. Richard He Method
Coefficient a a = 11(R/dmax)^-0.314 12.47232184
Friction Factor - f 1/f^1/2 = 2.03 log (aR/(D84*3.5)) 0.079262013
Velocity (From 'Arcy Weisbach equation: u=(8*g* / 1/2) 4.30 ft/s
Velocity Comparison Form
Project: R-2635C
Stream: Reedy Branch
Date: 12/13/2006
Location: Wake County
Reach: Existing
Observers: SDG
Input Variables Output Var iables
Bankfull X-Sec Area (Abkf 11.4 s ft Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) 1.19 ft
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 9.6 ft Wetted Parameter (WP) 12 ft
D84 (Riffle or pavement) 20 mm D84 (mm/304.8) 0.07 ft
Bankfull Slope (S) 0.005 ft/ft Hydraulic Radius (R) 0.95 ft
Gravitational Accleration (g) 32.2 ft/s sec Dbkf/D84 (use D84 in ft) 18.14 ft/ft
Bankfull Maximum Depth 2 ft. R/D84 (use D84 in ft) 14.48 ft/ft
Dbkf/D84, u/u*, Manning n
u/u* (Using Dbkf/D84 Red Book: p188; Blue p233) 10 vs/vs
Mannings n (Red Book: p189; Blue :p236) - 0.027
Velocity (From ammngs' equation: u=1.4865 * (R A 2/3) (1 /2)/n) 3.76 ft/s
u/u*=2.83+5.7to12/0$4
u* u* = (gRS)".5
- 0.39 ft/s
Velocity.
u = u*(2. 3+5.7 og(R 4)) 3.69 ft/s
Mannin s n b StreamType
Stream type E4
Mannings n (Red Book: p187; Blue :p237) 0.032
Velocity (From Mannings equation: u=1.4865 * 2/3)( 1/ )/n) 3.17 ft/s
Continua Equation
Qbkf (cfs) original curve or stream gage hydraulic geometry cfs
elocity (u= /A) or from stream gage hydraulic geometry 0.00 ft/s
Dr. Richard He Method
Coefficient a a = 11(R/dmax)^-0.314 14.02300812
Friction Factor - f 1/f^1/2 = 2.03 log (aR/(D84*3.5)) 0.07803079
Velocity (From D'Arcy eis ach equation: u=(8*g* / 1/2) 3.96 ft/s
Looking downstream over surveyed reach
Overview of riparian Area
Overview 42 of Riparian Area
Riffle # 1 Looking Downstream
Riffle #1 Looking Downstream
Riffle 42 Looking Upstream
Riffle #2 Looking Upstream
Pool Section Looking Upstream
Pool Section Looking Upstream
Wetland Area
21
0
0
?o
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
r
O
O
+
N
O
O
+
O
O
+
O
_________________________________________________________________________ iittYtB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNOISK31
z z
a a
a
at z
? $? wg
? zs a
r
? o
r p 17
1-7 7 m 8
=W
t
O
0
r O
O ^
r
W O
Q o o
O A if
i
oz th
NO,
O O o ?c
as
^ o
o O
^ aH
p N? ?W
^ O
o mm .,
=z .-
_m o
c?
2 0
0 0 c?
,, 2 2 I
a' O

a?4

mw

?s

C
w
a

O
O
I
i
RP
Y
II
1 ¦1 m
m
z
O
g ?
W
N
N ? ?++
G
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
SNOISU3M