20052257 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20171020

Martin
Marietta
October 19, 2017
Mr. William Elliott
United States Corp of Engineers
151 Patton Ave., Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: 4th Year Monitoring of Stream Relocation
Martin Marietta's Bonds Quarry
Action ID 2005-31812-313, DWQ#05-2257
Dear Mr. Elliott:
Brian K. North, PE
Division Environmental/Land Manager
Cant \/ia Ferri Fv
OCT 20 2011
Please find enclosed the 4th year monitoring results for Martin Marietta's stream relocation project that
was completed in late 2011 at our Bonds Quarry. The attached information documents the progress that
has taken place on this project and the continued efforts we have made to enhance this new drainage
feature. The information also describes the history of the project, along with the required surveying and
cross-sections to document the monitoring and site conditions that have occurred since the as-builts were
submitted. Please note Page 16 of the report identifying Future Sampling proposals. Future reports will
be provided to you, as our monitoring and enhancement efforts continue over the next year.
By copy of this letter, I am submitting a copy of this monitoring report to the North Carolina DEQ, Division
of Water Resources, 401 Wetlands Group for their files.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or e-mail me at
[e-mail].
erely,
Brian K. North, PE
cc: 401 Wetlands Group (Sent Via Fed Ex)
684\Bonds Relocation 4th Year Monitoring cvr
Mid -Atlantic Division
413 S. Chimney Rock Road, Greensboro, NC 27409
t. [phone] f. [phone] m. [phone] e. [e-mail]
www.martinmarietta.com

Bonds Quarry Mitigation Project
UT Restoration
DWQ #05-2257
USCOE Action ID No. 2003-31912-313
Post -Construction Report 2017
Prepared for submission to:
US Corps of Engineers
NC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Water Resources
PREPARED BY:
E
McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
FOR:
tAMartin
MCi"ate
OCTOBER 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
.................................................................................................................... iii
Listof Tables......................................................................................................................iii
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................. i
PROJECTSITE...................................................................................................................2
PROJECTHISTORY..........................................................................................................
6
METHODS..........................................................................................................................
6
RESULTS............................................................................................................................
6
ExistingConditions 2005....................................................................................................6
AsBuilt 2011.......................................................................................................................
7
PostMonitoring Year 4.......................................................................................................
7
PROBLEM AREAS ...............................
FUTURESAMPLING...................................................................................................... 16
AppendixA: ...................................................................................................................... 18
Preconstruction Photographs.................................................................................19
UTB Original Channel Photographs 2015............................................................ 24
AppendixB........................................................................................................................ 26
StreamAs Built Surveys.......................................................................................27
Photographs2011..................................................................................................49
AppendixC........................................................................................................................ 67
UTB Stream & Buffer Photographs 2017............................................................. 68
UTA Buffer Photographs 2017............................................................................. 70
AppendixD....................................................................................................................... 73
Vegetation & Livestake Monitoring Plot Tables 2017 ......................................... 74
Vegetation & Livestake Monitoring Plot Photographs 2017 ................................ 82
AppendixE........................................................................................................................ 86
Cross Section Survey and Photographs 2017 ........................................................ 87
UTAPhotographs 2017......................................................................................... 92
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
ii
McGill
ASSOCIATES

List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of Bonds Quarry Stream.............................................................................4
Figure 2. Upper UTA and UTB, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC Aerial Map 2013 ....... 5
Figure 3. Upper to Middle UTA Stream Restoration, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC,
AerialMap 2013......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Middle to Lower UTA Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County,
NC, Aerial Map 2013................................................................................................ 6
Figure 5. Lower UTA Stream Restoration Project, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC,
AerialMap 2013......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 6. Stream Stabilization Cover Sheet, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC ...............12
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of As -built Lengths and Restoration Approaches...........................................3
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
iii
McGill
ASSOCIATES

Bonds Quarry Mitigation Project
UT Restoration
DWQ 405-2257
USCOE Action ID No. 2003-31912-313
Post -Construction Monitoring 2017
Executive Summary
The Bonds Quarry Stream Relocation Project entered into the fourth year monitoring and the
fifth year after most construction was completed. With almost a mile in stream length relocated,
this project was a large scale relocation of a Class C, headwater stream in the Piedmont region
that has intermittent flow in the upstream section to no stream flow in the lower section and has
major impacts from stormwater runoff upstream. Added to the complexity of the length was the
creation of the stream channel in subsurface soils - saprolite and gravel pit substrate with little to
no topsoil. The UTA and UTB were relocated as small, headwater streams through a site that
frequently sees the two streams drying out and becoming intermittent in the dry months of the
year. Riparian conditions (wet, damp soils) are limited to the immediate vicinity of the stream
bed in this case and only in the upper sections of the stream. The rest of the project buffer area
consists of sloped, xeric conditions with poor soil conditions and little to no flow except during
rain events. The stormwater runoff in the past had created major gully conditions in the existing
UTA as shown by the photograph from 2005. Martin Marietta addressed the erosion through the
relocation of the stream and by installing a stormwater retention basin outside of the stream
relocation project, in order to manage the off-site flood impacts to the existing and new stream
channel. The photo from 2017 shows the same area post- construction of the relocated stream.
UTA 2005
UTA 2017
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 1
E. McGill
ASSOCIATES

As discussed in the Problem Areas Section of the report, the evolution of the project to address
the intermittent, flashy stream flow has shown slow but steady progress. Of the total 5100 linear
feet of relocated stream channel, problem areas as discussed in the report totaled only 350 linear
feet, or 6.8% of the total stream channel. The lower 300 linear foot section at the bottom of the
stream relocation has been repaired and is growing new vegetation. The remaining problem
areas are less than 1% of the total length of the project. This was overall a successful relocation
and creation of a stable stream system that was in poor condition in its previous location through
the quarry.
Based on the successful relocation and stabilization of the stream channel, Martin Marietta
would like to reduce the amount of stream monitoring that is designed for larger, perennial
stream channels. The current longitudinal profile, BEHI, cross section surveys, pebble counts,
live stake plots, and photo stations for channel pattern documentation does not provide good
information on the small intermittent to dry stream conditions. For the final year, Martin
Marietta would recommend reducing the annual monitoring to the following:
Photodocumentation of the project stream and buffer photographs, cross section and longitudinal
profiles at problem sites, problem area photographs, streambank erosion monitoring and
information on repairs and replantings as needed performed by Martin Marietta in future years.
Project Site
Martin Marietta relocated 4700' of UTA to the eastern boundary of the property down to the
discharge into the Rocky River at the southern end of the project area. Along with the relocation
of UTA, 400' of UTB on the property was relocated from Weddington Road to its confluence
with the relocated UTA. Preconstruction conditions are documented in the photographs in
Appendix A.
The relocated stream was constructed to the east of the existing quarry site. Buffers for the
relocated stream were restored and planted and protected under a recorded Conservation
Easement held by Cabarrus County. The pattern, profile and dimension were restored for the
two streams within the project site.
This Annual Report will summarize the monitoring efforts performed during 2017 (Year 4) at the
Bonds Quarry Site
Table 1. Summary of As -built Lengths and Restoration Approaches.
Reach Name
As -built Length (ft)
Restoration Approach
UTA
4,700
Relocation and Restoration
UTB
400
Relocation and Restoration
Total
5,100
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 2
E McGill
ASSOCIA TES

,�irllY i -
A
Concord d;
Regional a>i►
Airport
1 �J
O
N
v
273
'J
S
Rocky 1"."
River Golf Club
at Concord
•S
ji u40ri Smith 131-;r7
i
225 ir.Iz
'
Charlotte
A.1 oto r
rer k Rd Y L Speedwa/
h .
°0I RS
City of Charlotte. Count} ofCabarrus, State of
Figure 1 Site Location Map, UTA and UTB Stream Restoration Project, Bonds Quarry, Martin
Marietta, Concord, NC.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation McGill
Report of Findings —Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017 ASSOCIATES
Page 3

Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Figure 2. Upper UTA and UTB, Bonds
Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC, Aerial Map
2013.
Figure 3. Upper to Middle UTA Stream
Restoration, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus
County, NC, Aerial Map 2013.
Page 4
�. McGill
ASSOCIATES
t
U7
Y t
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Figure 2. Upper UTA and UTB, Bonds
Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC, Aerial Map
2013.
Figure 3. Upper to Middle UTA Stream
Restoration, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus
County, NC, Aerial Map 2013.
Page 4
�. McGill
ASSOCIATES

f .
w
Figure 4. Middle to Lower UTA Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project,
Cabarrus County, NC, Aerial Map 2013.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 5
Figure 5. Lower UTA Stream
Restoration Project, Bonds
Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC,
Aerial Map 2013.
R-M-cGill
ASSOCIATES

Project History
September 2005
Site Mitigation Plan Completed
May 2006
NC DWQ 401 Certification Issued
March 2007
US ACOE 404 Permit Issued
June 2008
Relocation Construction Began on UTA and UTB
March 2011
Fine Grading of New Channel Relocation with Structure/Stability
November 2011
Project Inspected by US ACOE and NC DW
December 2011
Relocation and Construction Completed
January 2012
Trees and Vegetation Plots Planted
February 2012
As -Built Drawings and Survey Submitted to US ACE and NC
DWQ
February 2014
First year Monitoring — Update Channel Survey and Cross -Sections
July 2014
Pebble Count and Evaluation of Stream Bank Stability and
Vegetation Plots
October 2014
Rebuilt bankfull and floodplain lower UTA
March 2015
Cross Section Survey and Photostations
February — April 2015
Replanting trees
May 2015
Vegetation Plot Monitoring MY2
December 2015
Repair and reconnection to Floodplain lower UTA
March — May 2016
Monitoring Surveys MY3
Winter 2016-2017
Trees replanted in lower section
May 2017
Monitoring Survey MY4
METHODS
Annual monitoring will include visual observations, vegetation and livestake monitoring in plots,
overall buffer stabilization, BEHI, pebble counts, longitudinal and cross section survey profiles.
Longitudinal profiles will be taken every other year for a total of 3 profiles over the monitoring
period. There were six cross sections, three livestake plots, and four vegetative monitoring plots
established along the project stream.
Pre -Construction Conditions 2005
Pre -construction observations in summer of 2005 of the streams UTA and UTB showed impacts
from the upstream commercial use in the headwaters of the two streams. Photographs of the pre -
construction conditions can be found in Appendix A. UTA appeared to be very stable in the
upper reach on the property with well vegetated banks and buffer. Most of this upper section
would not be impacted by the restoration project. At the confluence of UTA and UTB and a
stormwater drainage way, UTA became extremely entrenched with severe bank erosion. In the
lower sections, UTA was impacted indirectly by the removal of groundwater nearby due to
quarry activities which resulted in the removal of all flow during the dry months.
Martin Marietta. — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 6
E. McGill
ASSOCIA rES

UTB is an intermittent stream that is heavily impacted by stormwater flows from commercial
impervious areas upstream of the project site. Photographs of the old channel are shown in
Appendix A. On the project site, the stream showed heavy sedimentation impacts during high
water events. Downstream as it neared the confluence with UTA, it became severely entrenched
and headcutting of the stream channel was only controlled through bedrock substrate in this area.
As Built 2011
As built plan sheets for this project are shown in Appendix B and were submitted to the agencies
in February 2012. The active project construction extended over a long period of time with more
than a year in construction and planting activities for the project. As can be seen on the
timetable of the project history, the stream restoration project phases were completed at varying
time from 2008-2013 due to the length and complexity of the project. Vegetation planting
efforts were spread throughout this period.
Post Monitoring Year 4
VISUAL OBSERVATIONS
Visual observations were conducted on the entire project. In stream structures were assessed for
functionality and erosion concerns. Stream banks, side slopes and buffer areas were evaluated
for stability and erosion problems. Visual observations were used to evaluate the overall success
of the project.
UTB: The stream channel was stable, and stream banks showed no sign of erosion. Vegetative
growth continued to be good and consisted of walnut, yellow poplar, river birch, hickory and
oaks volunteers with cattails, sedges, and juncus species in wet spots. There was little to no flow
in this stream in May 2017. Photographs can be seen in Appendix C.
UTA: This stream continued to show a mixture of hardwoods and evergreens in the upper
section of the project where the stream flow was perennial in nature. There was a wetland
forming at the junction of UTA and UTB. Along the stream channel black willow, silky willow,
river birch, water oak, cattails, juncus sp. and carex sp. were common. Upslope white pine,
sweet gum, Eastern false willow, willow oak, yellow poplar, and sycamore could be found.
Ground cover was provided by Lespedeza sp, blackberry, goldenrod, trumpeter vine, daisy, and
dog fennel along with unknown grass species. Blueberry where planted were still surviving.
Growth of trees and shrubs were best in the upper, perennial flow section of the stream. As the
buffer progressed downstream, vegetation was reduced to white pine and Lespedeza except
where pools and springs entered the stream. By the lower end of the stream project, the stream
flow was only stormwater flows and little to no riparian vegetation could be found. At the
regraded end of the project before the confluence with the Rocky River, the regrading and the
level spreader was beginning to look more like a wetland area with no stream channel. Over
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation E. McGill
Report of Findings —Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017 ASSOCIATES
Page 7

time it will be seen if a channel develops in this area that only flows during storm events. There
was no flow in May 2017 during the monitoring, but the area was showing some indications of
hydric conditions forming. Other areas in the buffer had bare rock exposed with no vegetation
established. Photographs can be seen in Appendix C.
Aquatic organisms were observed in flowing channels and stream pools and included minnows,
dragonfly larvae, caddisfly larvae, snails, tadpoles, and turtles. Algae was noted growing on
some rocks. The water quality appeared to be good with clear visibility and no signs of pollution
or sedimentation.
VEGETATIVE MONITORING PLOTS
General: Vegetative and livestake monitoring results and photographs are found in Appendix D.
In general, the plots in reaches with perennial or more consistent stream flow are doing well and
establishing stability for the streambanks and buffer around the project stream. Where there is
limited to no stream flow except for rain storm events, the vegetation growth of the riparian
species planted for the project are not surviving or doing poorly. These drier areas, however, are
being naturalized by local upland species where the soil conditions allow (still areas of bare rock
and exposed pit gravel) and appear to be well on the way to naturally stabilizing the area.
Monitoring Plot #1 : This 25' by 50' vegetation survey plot was established in the stream reach
classification C of the relocation project. The first year monitored showed very few planted trees
present (no as -built count was made during initial plantings). More trees and shrubs were
planted in MY2. Over the four years, survival of planted species has dropped to 33% with total
stems/acre of 260. The originally planted species of blueberry and river birch were in good to
excellent condition and were well established. Combined with the volunteer species of white
pine and sweet gum, the abundant native species contributes to the stability and overall success
of the reach. No remediation is recommended at this time.
Monitoring Plot #2: This 25' x 50' vegetation survey plot was established in the stream reach
classification B of the relocation project, on the upper end. Seven planted blueberry plants were
counted the first year with three surviving through MY4. Other plants have been planted over
the years to improve the stem count for this buffer area in general, but the soil conditions are so
poor that survival has been dropping to 43%. New volunteer stems of white pine and eastern
false willow that are in excellent condition and well established are showing that naturalized
recovery is expected for this plot and have added to the total 120 stems/acre. No remediation is
recommended at this time.
Monitoring Plot #3: A 25' x 50' vegetation survey plot established in the lower section of the
stream reach classification B restoration section. An initial planting of blueberry, rhododendron,
and possibly eastern false willow of 11 stems were counted the first year and additional river
birch trees were planted the second year bringing the count to 18 or 400 stems/acre. Survival has
dropped to 33% with the loss of most of the blueberry shrubs. Native species of oak and eastern
false willow have increased the naturalization to a stable and successful 500 stems/acre in MY4.
No remediation is recommended at this time.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation E, McGill
Report of Findings —Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017 A S S O C: i A T E S
Page 8

Monitoring Plot #4: A 25'x 50' vegetation survey plot was established in the lower stream reach
classification of E/C restoration section. The first year only 3 live blueberry plants present, due
to soil conditions and erosion from flood events in 2013, both from overflows from UTA and
from the Rocky River backing up into the section. Additional plants were planted in 2015 but no
survival was noted in 2016. This area was regraded in 2016 into a more stable floodplain
configuration to take into account the dry stream conditions in summer and the high flood waters
during stormwater events. This plot was reset in a new location within the reach. Completely
replanted in the winter of 2016-2017, there are currently 23 planted stems (580 stems/acre) in the
monitoring plot. The landscaper planted rooted plants available at local nurseries and the species
are all ornamentals or non-native species. There are also indications in the plot that the
regrading has created suitable conditions to form wetlands in the area which may prevent
survival of these planted species. In the adjacent area there are volunteers of the Eastern false
willow which is FACW species and may naturalize the area in the coming years. No
remediation is recommended at this time until the soil conditions in this section stabilize as either
dry/wet.
Livestake Plot #1: A plot of 50' long was established on both sides of the stream and planted
with livestakes and rooted trees. Survival within the streambanks was excellent over the years,
with little to no survival outside the stream channel. Some shading out of species has occurred
with the excellent growth of the black willow trees/silky willow shrubs, leading to a natural
decrease in the number of stems within this plot (from 121 to 86). The abundant native species
contributes to the stability and overall success of the reach and no remediation is recommended
at this time.
Livestake Plot #2: A plot of 50' long was established on both sides of the stream and planted
with livestakes and rooted trees. Almost no survival of plantings was observed since MY1 due
to the lack of stream flow/riparian conditions in this section of the project. During May 2017,
there was a minimal amount of water flow, a trickle, in the stream channel. All of the riparian
species planted would not be able to survive in these conditions unless planted directly into the
stream channel. This is not recommended and it is recommended that this area will be
naturalized with native trees suitable for upland, drier soil conditions. No Livestake monitoring
plot would be appropriate for this section of the project.
Livestake Plot #3: A plot of 50' long was established roughly on both sides of the stream channel
and planted with livestakes and rooted trees. The initial dimension and pattern was unstable and
led to excessive streambank erosion shortly after as built construction. In 2016 this area was
completely regraded to a new floodplain configuration that was more suitable to the extreme
conditions of a dry stream channel with major stormwater impacts during heavy rain storms.
There was no distinct stream channel forming in 2017 and it was dry in May 2017, so replanting
the monitoring plot with livestakes would not show stream stabilization results either way. The
Plot will be dropped from monitoring and this area will be monitored through Monitoring Plot #4
vegetation stem counts.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 9
E McGill
ASS0CIATES

Channel Stability
The photodocumentation of the project stream channel was taken in May 2017 and can be seen
compared with the As -Built photos in Appendix C. Each of the five permanent cross-sections
were surveyed and compared to the As -built surveys. Survey results can be seen in tables in
Appendix E. Base flows were lower in May 2017 in the lower stream reaches, but were
consistent in the upper reaches. Normal rainfall had been experienced in the region within the
past week. A computational error in the stream classification calculations were discovered this
year and corrections were made going back to 2015 table results.
Cross Section #1: riffle has stabilized over the 4 years of monitoring with little changes to
stream characteristics. It is a shallow stream at this point but generally has perennial flow and
shows good vegetation growth along the streambank as shown in the cross section photograph.
The entrenchment ratio has decreased to a stable value. The cross section is in an area of heavy
rooted vegetation and is in a stable configuration for the stream flows.
Cross Section #2: Stream channel thalweg has shifted to the right from previous years. Banks
are stable as shown in the photograph of the cross section. Some aggradation has occurred,
primarily from the vegetative growth along the stream channel. The profile, depth and bankfull
width has remained fairly constant over the monitoring period. Entrenchment ratio is low and
the stream is connected to the floodplain. Depth is low and there is still perennial flow at this
monitoring point in the stream channel.
Cross Section #3: The graph shows a fairly stable dimension over the four years with only
minimal changes in the survey. Bottom and right bank shows increased sediment deposition, but
also increased depth and bankfull area. Entrenchment ratio has increased to moderately
entrenched. There is perennial flow at this section of the stream and vegetation is well
established as shown in the cross section photograph. This site may be moving to a pool
condition as shown by the mean depth for this small stream.
Cross Section #4: This site is in the section of the stream that is intermittent flow or dry except
during rain events. Vegetation growth is minimal along the streambank due to the dry and rocky
conditions. The channel has more characteristics of a stormwater conveyance channel than a
stream. Survey graph shows a stable dimension over the years since the As Built — the cross
section has stabilized at a slightly deeper and wider cross section and has remained consistent
over the years. The channel is moderately entrenched and has been since construction in 2011.
Cross Section #5: This station was completely reset in 2016 as construction in early 2016
regraded the streambank and floodplain topography changed drastically. This section of the
stream is dry except during rain events. The new As Built condition has a wider floodplain,
bankfull area, bankfull width while the depth of the dry channel is low. The site is showing none
of the problems seen in past reports (headcut, bank erosion). Results can be seen in the table in
Appendix E. Vegetation is beginning to recover and stabilize the area.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 10
E, McGill
ASSOC IAT ES

Cross Section #6 Pool — This cross section was dropped in 2016 after the construction of a new
floodplain/stream channel in the lower reach of the project. This was removed as no pool is
forming in the new channel, and the area is moving more towards a wetland complex. The
stability will be monitored in this area using Cross Section #5.
Problem Areas
This stream is located in a problematic environment. The channel was constructed in an area
that was reduced in elevation by 20;-30', removing the top soil and much of the overlaying soils.
It was constructed in saprolite, subsurface soils with large amounts of pit gravel and shale. This
soil tends to erode severely if disturbed by any digging activities. The stream flow is intermittent
near the beginning of the project and dries out as it flows downstream until it is a dry channel
except during rain events. The source of the stream is mixed woods and commercial areas, with
large amounts of impervious cover that leads to flashy streamflow events. After major bank
erosion occurred in 2013, a stormwater detention basin was installed separate from this project to
minimize these extreme events. The growth of vegetation along the stream channel was good in
areas where there is flow most of the year, and poor in sections where there is no flow.
Traditional riparian vegetation has not established along the stream channel except in the upper
sections — and most of that was within the stream channel itself. Steps have been taken over the
years to address these problems.
In Monitoring Year 4, the remaining problem areas are as noted:
• Streambank Erosion, headcutting and lack of vegetation between Station 43+50 and
47+00 (Close out as a problem area)
• Exposed bedrock in streambank at Station 15+00
• Failure at a cross vane at Station 18+75
• Streambank erosion at Station 20+20
• Streambank erosion at Station 20+82
• Slow growth of vegetation in the project area
These are being tracked and assessed. The total length of the areas compared with the full
project length are a small percentage and with continued improvement, reducing in size each
year (Figure 6). This year the lengths equaled 350 If. The majority of the length is in the lower
section that was completely regraded (300 If) and is stable now. The remaining 501f of unstable
streambank is only I% of the total stream relocation length. The problem areas are as follows:
Stations 43+50 to 47+00 (Lower 300 If)
The stream bank erosion at the end of the project appeared early after construction and was a
known problem area with no control over the major factors (flood events from upstream and
flooding of the Rocky River up into the UTA floodplain, little to no flow at other times of the
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation McGill
Report of Findings —Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017 A S S O CI A I' E S
Page 11

Area #
Stream Stabilization Summary
Total Length of Stream - 4,735'
Areas of Concern
Stabilization Area #1 - 26' (Station 14+99 thru 15+25)
Stabilization Area #2 - 8' (Station 18+72 thru 18+80)
Stabilization Area #3 - 24' (Station 20+10 thru 20+34)
Stabilization Area #4 - 24' (Station 20+82 thru 21+06)
Total Length of Concern Areas - 82'
Repair Areas
Repair Area #5 - 366' (Station 42+55 thru 46+21)
Total Length of Repair Areas - 366'
0' 150' 300' 450' 600'
I I I I I
Scale — 1"=300'
Area #
Dee�_C ove Dvc
�l
s o N u ct
It
J s s
3 8 g 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Area #38�
Area #4 Area #
Figure 6 - Problem Area Locations UTA
Paar 17
S
Aoa23 `5�w o
Site w
B N"y
b
Vicinity Map No Scale
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation As-Builts
Date: 9-8-17

year). There was downcutting of the channel, and erosion of the streambank impacting all
streambank vegetation that was planted along the stream channel. After many different
design/repairs were considered, an upstream off stream stormwater control basin was installed to
manage peak flows. Then Martin Marietta regraded the whole lower 300' section, expanded the
floodplain in 2016 and reconnected the stream to the expanded floodplain to allow for more area
for flood waters to spread out. This would mimic the old stream channel connection to the
Rocky River where a healthy wetland had developed and buffered the flood events both from
UTA and the Rocky River.
2015 Photo of lower section
2016 Photo of Lower Section
2017 Photo of Lower Section
The area has been replanted with tree species and native species are also showing growth that
adds to the stabilization of the area. There is no sign of new erosion in the section. Old channels
are dry for most of the year except during rain events. The area should be monitored to ensure
vegetation gets established, at least as much as is allowed under the major power lines and over
the sewer right of way. This area will no longer be tracked under problem areas as a separate
section after this year.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 13
E. McGill
ASSOCIATES

Station 15+00
2016 Right bank Station 15+00
2016 Looking at left bank Station 15+00
2017 Station 15+00 looking at right bank
The size and dimension of this problem area has remained constant. The exposed bedrock
provides grade control on river right. Vegetation has continued to expand on the eroded bank on
river right and vegetation on river left has remained well established. The total length of rock
exposure/streambank erosion is 24 linear feet. The problem area will be monitored, but has not
expanded in size over the past few years. No remediation is recommended except to monitor
vegetation growth in the area.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 14
E. McGill
ASSOCIATES

Station 18+75
2016 Cross Vane 18+75
2017 Cross Vane 18+75
There has been no change in size or dimension of the eroded area in the past years. There is more
vegetative growth on the exposed bank on stream left which will help to stabilize the area. The
area of unstable streambank is 8 if in length. There is pit gravel and shale at this drop, providing
Grade control. Last year the Longitudinal Profile has shown some changes over the past 2 years,
but upstream and downstream profiles showed maintaining stable conditions. This section will
be monitored for further changes and destabilization.
Station 20+20
2016 Streambank Erosion 20+20
2017 Streambank Erosion at Station 20+20
As shown in the photograph, the section has maintained the previous condition and is showing
some deposition of material in the channel. The total length of the stream bank erosion is 24
linear feet. There is bedrock on stream right providing some bed control. The vegetation has
continued to increase coverage with more upland species, aiding in the stabilization of this
section. No remediation is recommended at this time.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 15
E, McGill
ASSOCIA rES

Station 20+82
2017 Streambank Erosion 20+82
This streambank erosion on river left was another location created in the flood of 2013. There is
bedrock exposure on river right providing grade control. No further streambank erosion has
been observed during the monitoring surveys and vegetation is beginning to stabilize the bank.
The total length of this streambank exposure is 24 linear feet. This site will be monitored for
further erosion and documented for stabilization. This site was not measured in previous years
but was added to the problem areas for monitoring in 2017.
Vegetation Stabilization in Buffer
This has been noted and discussed in monitoring reports since the first year. This year we noted
better planted and volunteer growth of species such as white pine, yellow poplar and eastern
false willow. The herbaceous ground cover is shifting in species from lespedeza to more native
species like dog fennel, blackberry, goldenrod, and aster family. The soil cover is building up
over the exposed pea gravel and is able to support more native vegetation. Most of the
vegetation problems in the past were due to planting riparian species where there was no
hydrology to support those species. Better results have been noted as the project ages with
upslope vegetation and native volunteers from seeds. As can be seen in the photographs of the
stream channel and buffer, where there is more consistent water flow in the channel, the riparian
vegetation has done extremely well. This can be monitored through photodocumentation and
addressed as needed with additional plantings.
Future Sampling
Martin Marietta proposes that these problem areas be the focus of future monitoring efforts and
stabilization activities. Based on the successful relocation and stabilization of most of the rest of
the stream channel, Martin Marietta would like to reduce the total amount of stream monitoring
for this project. This would allow Martin Marietta to concentrate on the sections of the stream
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation E McGill
Report of Findings —Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017 ASSOCIATES
Page 16

that still need continued surveillance and active stabilization efforts going forward in time.
Future monitoring would include photodocumentation of project stability and vegetative growth,
profile and cross section surveys at the problem areas, and streambank erosion monitoring.
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation McGill
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four �,
October 2017 A S S O C I A 'r E S
Page 17

Appendix A
Pre -Construction Photographs 2005
UTB Original Channel Photographs 2015
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 18
E McGill
ASSOCIATES

Upstream section of UTA above relocation, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC, April 2005.
Page 19

Downstream section of existing UTA looking south, Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus County,
NC, April 2005.
Downstream section of existing UTA at confluence with WWC4, looking south,
Bonds Quarry, Cabarrus County, NC, April 2005.
Page 20

ft
�, 1' ,n��i'�`,L � ..s+�. _��x !oma - '{ •
&* 4.4

Confluence of UTA and Rocky River looking west, Bonds Quarry,
Cabarrus County, NC, April 2005.
Rocky River at existing confluence with UTA looking west, Bonds Quarry,
Cabarrus County, NC, April 2005.
Page 23

fin;:A •�LIM
- �` �' •- .' t: -'_ ` �� �_ _ �- `:% _tom
-T �' I 1%�

AWI�K
" � _ - � . - .i�► %{sem,, rte`=. � ' . � r-�.. � � _
��., ►.�'`." � .7th _ _
{TIM4F7
<.
........ - - - - -
. � �,� 1. ; — i�--� ..� ' �,►���,' ��,�''�-,: re

Appendix B
Stream As -Built Surveys
Photographs 2011
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 26
RM-wGill
ASSOCIATES

Bonds Quarry Stream
Relocation Project
Martin Marietta Aggregates A A
As -Built Conditions December 2011
• USGS Quad Sheet Exhibit
• Longitudinal Profiles
• As -Built In -Stream Structures
• Monitoring Locations
• Cross Sectional Profiles and Calculations
• Fixed Stream Photographs
• Monitoring Location Reference Coordinates
Page 27

�l
— 7'
Original Stream Location
MAJ
85
,.-1 • •
• A
7
�L
New Stream Location
Site
Vicinity Map No scale
650 • • J
USGS Quadrangle Map
Kannapolis, NC 35080 -D6 -TF -024
INIMEW-4 01`119
USGS Quadrangle Map
l = % Harrisburg, NC 35080 -C6 -TF -024
USGS
% Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
0' 500' 1000; 1500' 2000'E'� 1ltIIIII Stream Relocation As-Builts
Scale — 1"=1000' Date: 12-19-2011

Longitudinal Profiles
In-Stream Structures
Monitoring Locations
Page 29

Plan #3 -%� ' x V ` ' -
Plan #5 'plan #7 Plan #9 Plan #10
Project Control Point
NC Grid (NAD 83 2011)
N 597,062.13 R
E 1,495,367.84 ft
Elevation 670.94
ite
Map No scale
Plan #4 Plan #6
Plan #8 Alan #11
.6
0
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
0' 250 5°° 75 '°° Martin
I I I I I Stream Relocation As-Builts
Scale — 1"=500' Page 30 Date: 12-19-2011

§�%— Constructed Cross Vane
-- — Existii.y _ddrock Location—
Livestake Monitoring Location
— Constructed Riffle
�'� — Vegetation Monitoring Location
— Photo Station
s�
err
1r
o��j 061
Existing Stream
x
C,
��
Begin UTA Stream
Re -Location Project
BankfiillLocation
t ,rr s�
PS #1
O
-^•-r " +y
0 Vegetation Monitoring
O
Thalweg Location #1 (25'x50)
O
Location
Relocated
PS #2
UTB Stream
Scale 1"=50'
0+100
1
00
2
FOO 3+00
4
00 5+0
60
660
0
o.
S
650
65
Scale
As—Built 2011 Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 "=5'
As—Built 2011 Bankfull Elevation
1Stram
P14p
7T 1(H)-1
Relocation As-Builts
"=50'
31
Date: 12-19-2011

�- Constructed Cross Vane
Existing Bedrock Location-
Livestake Monitoring Location
— Constructed Riffle
— Vegetation Monitoring Location
— Photo Station
PS
r
S 0
Bankfiill Location
` O
00,
r- Ln
5 0
PS #3
p """-c - a-___v
oo
O
p
'
p
p
PS #5
PS #4
Thalweg
Location
Scale 1 "=50'
+_00
I -6__00_
7
00
8
00
9_00
10+0
�60
6
O �
�
S
•
�
CD
5
.,
50
------- 6
0
As-Built 2011 Thalweg ElevationMartin
Marietta Bonds Quarry
Scale
• ' ' •
As-Built 2011 Bankfull Elevation
PlAP#2
Stream Relocation As-Builts
(V)-1"=5'
(H)—l"=50'
32
Date: 12-19-2011

PS #8
Baakfull Location
is Jfl.
a'1 -
r
Ln
O
PS #10
��
�PS #9 O A o
Location
PS #7
r �
5' Z
m + O
!!
O
PS #6
,
O
Constructed Cross Vane Existing Bedrock Location— Livestake Monitoring Location
o�
Constructed Riffle
— Vegetation Monitoring Location -i — Photo Station
x
Scale 1"--50'
0+00
11400
i1-2_-00
13
00 :14-00
15+0
0
S
z
I
r
-
-
3
CD
610
650
D
•
•
rt
n
S
• r
• m
6
0
-------
------- 640
----
--------
Scale
As—Built 2011
Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 "=5'
' ' As—Built 2011
Bankfull Elevation
Plq,gL,#3Stream Relocation As-Builts
(H)-1 "=50'
" Date: 12-19-2011

PS #10
~—
S
Banldvll Location
r �
9' 41, o` �--�,�
m f
`�—` U
PS #13 rt
00
C
rt
O () �-
I�
CD O O
Thalweg
Location
PS #12 �
PS #11
�— Constructed Cross Vane
-- — Existing Bedrock Location — Livestake Monitoring Location
Scale 1"=50'
— Constructed Riffle
Q — Vegetation Monitoring Location — Photo Station
65;0 0 '15
00;
-------
16
--------
00; 17
00
-----
18
------
00; 19
— 6501
00
r
m
•
•
•
•
i
640
--------
---
6401
1
•
i
_
S
1
I
---
630
--------
---
Scale
"-5'
As—Built 2011
As—Built 2011
Thalweg Elevation
Bankfull Elevation
Plan
#4 Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation As-Builts
(V)-1
(H)-1 "-50'
Page
34 Date: 12-19-2011

Scale 1"=50'
PS #13
n
s z
Constructed Cross Vane — Existing Bedrock Location— Livestake Monitoring Locc
�— Constructed Riffle — Vegetation Monitoring Location — Photo Station
18 00 19 00 20 00 21 00 22-00
o
rt
. S
m
630 —------. 630'
n
Zr
.,
620 I ( I I 620
Scale As—Built 2011 Thalweg Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 "=5' ' ' As—Built 2011 Bankfull Elevation PIPAA5#5 Stream Relocation As-Builts
(H)—l"=50' Date: 12-19-2011

PS #16
gip Location
it 0
N
PS #17
i7 O
N W
Ln
0
p
Thalweg
Location
(�
n
D
PS #18
� 0
-Fa
0
�— Constructed Cross Vane
Existing Bedrock Location)—
Livestake Monitoring Location
Scale 1"=50'
— Constructed Riffle
— Vegetation Monitoring Location —
Photo Station
;22-._00
23
OQ
f24
00 125
00
j26
_00.
0
S
r
CD
--
62,0
" •
620
o
o
9
CD
.i
610
As—Built 2011 Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
Scale
.... As—Built 2011 Bankfull Elevation
p 1 6
Stream Relocation As-Builts
(V)-1,.=5�
(H)-1"=50'
Date: 12-19-2011

�– Constructed Cross Vane
Existing Bedrock Location–
Livestake Monitoring Location
– Constructed Riffle
Q – Vegetation Monitoring Location – Photo Station
O
N
OO
N
Bankfiill Location
N
o PS #21
N d'
O
O
A.L
7 W
m �.
------^--1-
W
'�. r O
,r ,.r•,r,�
A,. m e a O
O O N O
4 ` . ' �. r' . PS #19 .Thalweg
O O PS #20
O
Location
Vegetation Monitoring
Location #2 (2550) 'a
Scale
1"=50'
.-
2600
i
_
i
27.._00'
128
_.OQ
29.
_00
_.430
0 0
0
A
S
- r
----
--—---
610
610
-- o
A
r
CD
•
------
600
i
600'
Scale
As–Built
2011 Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1"=5'
As–Built
2011 Bankfull Elevation
P14JJ
/
Relocation As-Builts
(H)-1"=50'
3#7Stram
Date: 12-19-2011

Bankfull Location o
PS #22W
(W (N �_ S
N
rt
PS #21
N
S(A
r 4
o
h 5
N
W _ J
O
O Q
T W
Lp o O
O
PS #23
r o
-I-
O O
Thalweg
Location
— Constructed Cross Vane -- —
Existing Bedrock Location— Livestake Monitoring Location
1"=50'
— Constructed Riffle —
Vegetation Monitoring Location — Photo Station
Scale
30
00
131-00
32-00
33-00
34-00
6110
610
-- o
0
r
N
•
•
n
6Q0
•'
6p0
CD _.
590
590
Scale
As—Built 2011 Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 "=5'
' ' ' As—Built 2011 Bankfull Elevation n
L�
Stream Relocation As-Builts
(H)—l"=50'
}
Date: 12-19-2011

Vegetation Monitoring
Am ,., m
Location #3 (25'x50)
Bankfvll Location
a,., r "
PS #26 0
PS #25'
�
rr •
W W .99�0 ? A
U)
rt
W
PS
Wr
oi
✓��+0
W
O O �
W
o 7'
W
N
O
r- + O
O
CD ov
Thalweg
Location
�— Constructed Cross Vane
Existing Bedrock Location—
Livestake Monitoring Location
"=50'
— Constructed Riffle —
Vegetation Monitoring Location
— Photo Station
Scale
1
35-09
36-00;
37
04
38-09
39
00;
0
__.._.
n
S
-------
----
600
600
m
•
O
r
r
•.
m
----
590
-------
5
90
Scale
As—Built 2011 Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 "=5' ' ' ' •
As—Built 2011 Bankfull Elevation P144,#9
Stream Relocation As-Builts
(H)-1
"=50'
Date: 12-19-2011

nng
0�
PS #27
PS #26
o
4�
W
Ln
zr
�
O
�
O
w
O
Thalweg
1�
m
location Bankfiilll ovation
is
PS #28
PS #29
ra lel.
o
� h
U'
Location—
Livestake Monitoring Location
o
�—
Constructed Cross Vane
-- — Existing Bedrock
Scale 1"=50'
—
Constructed Riffle
— Vegetation Monitoring Location
—
Photo Station
39-00
400a41
O�i
-,4-2-.00
43400
o
n
S
r
m
i•
--
----
--------
590
j
I
•
59
o
r
•
n
3
•
r
3
m
580
As—Built
2011 Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
Scale
"=5'
' ' ' As—Built
2011 Bankfull Elevation
Plavl,,# 10
Stream Relocation As-Builts
(V)-1
(H)—l"=50'
Date: 12-19-2011

Constructed Cross Vane
Existing Bedrock Location -
Livestake Monitoring Location
,�=%-
A
-
Constructed Riffle
-
Vegetation Monitoring Location -
Photo Station
PS #29 LO
Bankflill Location
>
J
n
PS #32 9
0
�
U C
O 2
� o
Thalweg
--
R ,
>1
fA
Location
o
`�
�
O
U
O
PS #33
PS #30
_$l­PS
#31
Scale 1"=50'
Vegetation Monitoring
Location #1 (25 Xso)
43-00
44-00
%
45+00
; ! E 146+06
00
0
rr
n
z
r-
.I.
3
m
•
580
-------
�•
580
ZJ
O
n
I
T
•
ZJ
CD
—
----- —
-----
570
--------
--------
--
570
Scale
As-Built 2011 Thalweg Elevation
Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1"=5' ' '
' • As-Built 2011 Bankfull
Elevation
Ptaq,#I I
Stream Relocation As-Builts
(H)-1 "=50'
Date: 12-19-2011

Cross Sectional Profiles
and Calculations
Page 42

Stream Section C Station 5+98
Cross Section #1 Riffle Section
2011 As -Built
Bankfull Area
8.2
Bankfull Width
7.2
Mean Depth
1.2
Max Depth
1.5
w/d Ratio
6
Flood Width
24.8
Entrenchment
Ratio
3.4
* Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
658
M
co
0 657
o'
D
656
655
Cross Section #1 - Riffle Section
Stream Station 5+98
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
658
657
656
655
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Scale ---- As—Built 2011 Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)—1 "=2; Cross S,Ction #1 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
(H)-1 =4 age 4 Date: 12-19-2011
No Scale

Stream Section C Station 11+29
Cross Section #2 Pool Section
2011 As -Built
Bankfull Area
6.5
Bankfull Width
12.0
Mean Depth
0.5
------
Bankfiill Elevation
---------------
---------
Max Depth
0.8
* Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
Scale
(V)-1 "=2.
(H)-1 "=4'
0
655-
654
Y
(D
653
0
7
652
651
0
No Scale
Cross Section #2 - Pool Section
Stream Station 11+29
Station(ft)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
655
654
------
Bankfiill Elevation
---------------
---------
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
---- As—Built 2011 Elevation
654
653
652
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 651
Sp
MarMaetta Bonds Quary
Cross c4ion # 2 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
g Date: 12-19-2011

Stream Section B Station 24+36
Cross Section #3 Riffle Section
2011 As -Built
Bankfull Area
1.3
Bankfull Width
2.5
Mean Depth
0.5
Max Depth
0.8
w/d Ratio
5.0
Flood Width
7.6
Entrenchment
Ratio
3.0
. Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
M
m
o 615
1+
O
Z3
614
613
Cross Section #3 - Riffle Section
Stream Station 24+36
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21
616
615
614
613
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21
Scale -- As—Built 2011 Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 =2Cross Section #3 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
,
(H)-1 =4, Page 45 Date: 12-19-2011
No Scale

Stream Section B Station 29+53
Cross Section #4 Pool Section
606
2011 As -Built
m
Q
Bankfull Area
4.4
Bankfull Width
4.8
603
Mean Depth
1.0
Max Depth
1.3
" Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
Cross Section #4 - Pool Section
Stream Station 29+53
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
606
605
604
603
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Scale ---- As—Built 2011 Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
S,�C4on
(V)-1;;=2; Cross #4 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
(H)-1 =4 gDate: 12-19-2011
No Scale
606
M
m
Q
605
o'
604
603
Cross Section #4 - Pool Section
Stream Station 29+53
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
606
605
604
603
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Scale ---- As—Built 2011 Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
S,�C4on
(V)-1;;=2; Cross #4 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
(H)-1 =4 gDate: 12-19-2011
No Scale

Stream Section C Station 43+71
Cross Section #5 Riffle Section
2011 As -Built
Bankfull Area
8.1
Bankfull Width
5.2
Mean Depth
1.8
Max Depth
2.2
w/d Ratio
2.8
Flood Width
10.7
Entrenchment
Ratio
2.1
*Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
585
M
G
0 584
fi
0
583
582
Cross Section #5 - Riffle Section
Stream Station 43+71
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2425
585
584
583
582
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2425
Scale-- As—Built 2011 Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 =2, Cross Supon #5 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
(H)-1 =4 Date: 12-19-2011
No Scale

Stream Section C Station 44+65
Cross Section #6 Pool Section
2011 As -Built
Flood Zone Elevation
-----� BankfullElevation ----'
Bankfull Area
8.1
Bankfull Width
5.2
Mean Depth
1.8
Max Depth
2.2
w/d Ratio
2.8
Flood Width
8.4
Entrenchment
Ratio
2.1
Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
583
l
t
i 582
t -
Cross Section #6 - Pool Section
Stream Station 44+65
" � �)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 29
580
0
2 4 6
583
582
581
580
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 29
No Scale
Scale ---- As—Built 2011 Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1;;=2; Cross Section #6 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
(H)-1 =4 Page 48 Date: 12-19-2011
Flood Zone Elevation
-----� BankfullElevation ----'
2 4 6
583
582
581
580
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 29
No Scale
Scale ---- As—Built 2011 Elevation Martin Marietta Bonds Quarry
(V)-1;;=2; Cross Section #6 Stream Cross Section As-Builts
(H)-1 =4 Page 48 Date: 12-19-2011

Fixed Stream Station
Photographs
Page 49

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #1 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 597,536.14 E 1,495,509.02
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #2 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 597,278.18 E 1,495,362.58
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 50

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #3 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 597,069.01 E 1,495,410.11
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #4 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,908.08 E 1,495,433.18
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 51

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #5 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,726.42 E 1,495,502.27
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #6 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,648.38 E 1,495,609.77
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 52

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #7 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,575.23 E 1,495,669.61
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #8 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,495.81 E 1,495,712.27
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 53

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #9 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,354.00 E 1,495,684.89
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #10 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,190.18 E 1,495,676.91
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 54

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station # 11 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 596,055.07 E 1,495,603.82
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #12 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 595,970.16 E 1,495,604.00
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 55

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #13 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 595,881.63 E 1,495,614.56
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #14 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 595,760.59 E 1,495,600.29
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 56

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #15 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 595,635.76 E 1,495,609.50
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #16 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 595,422.77 E 1,495,623.86
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 57

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #17 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 595,266.94 E 1,495,613.13
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #18 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 595,170.63 E 1,495,571.38
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 58

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #19 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 594,992.31 E 1,495,537.47
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #20 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 594,795.00 E 1,495,536.41
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 59

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #21 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 594,655.19 E 1,495,555.92
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #22 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 594,494.07 E 1,495,569.44
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 60

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #23 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 594,349.29 E 1,495,562.09
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #24 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 594,166.51 E 1,495,581.32
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 61

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #25 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,989.89 E 1,495,594.66
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station 926 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,791.14 E 1,495,603.57
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 62

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #27 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,633.09 E 1,495,617.50
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #28 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,524.79 E 1,495,579.89
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 63

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #29 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,399.82 E 1,495,566.45
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #30 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,356.16 E 1,495,494.61
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 64

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #31 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,249.55 E 1,495,437.82
Date: 12-19-2011
Photo Station #32 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,169.70 E 1,495,481.87
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 65

Fixed Stream Station Photos
Bonds Quarry Creek Relocation
Photo Station #33 (looking downstream)
Coordinates (ft) N 593,135.40 E 1,495,450.43
Date: 12-19-2011
As -Built Conditions December, 2011
Page 66

Appendix C
UTB Stream & Buffer Photographs 2017
UTA Buffer Photographs 2017
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 67
E
McGill
ASSOCIATES

2015 UTB from upstream start of project looking
downstream, Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project,
Project, Cabarrus County, NC, May 2015.
2017 UTB from upstream start of project looking
downstream, Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration
Project, Cabarrus County, NC, May 2017.
2015 UTB From midpoint of project looking downstream
towards confluence with UTA, Bonds Quarry Stream
Restoration Project, Cabarrus County, NC, May 2015.
Page 68
2017 UTB From midpoint of project looking
downstream towards confluence with UTA,
May 2017.

UTB looking upstream from start of project, intermittent
Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC, May 2015.
Page 69
UTB looking upstream from start of channel,
project, May 2017.

UTA Buffer Photograph #1 Post Construction; Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County,
NC, 2011.
UTA Buffer Photograph #1; Bonds Quarry
Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County,
NC, May 2017.
UTA Buffer Photograph #2 Post construction;
Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project,
Cabarrus County, NC, 2011.
Page 70
UTA Buffer Photograph #2; Bonds Quarry
Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County,
NC, May 2017.

UTA Buffer Photograph #3 Post Construction;
Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project,
Cabarrus County, NC, 2011.
UTA Buffer Photograph #3; Bonds Quarry
Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County,
NC, May 2017.
UTA Buffer Photograph #4 Post Construction;
Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project,
Cabarrus County, NC, 2011.
Page 71
UTA Buffer Photograph #4 Post Construction; Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC, May 2017.

UTA Buffer Photograph #5 Post Construction, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County,
NC, 2011.
UTA Buffer Photograph #5 looking downstream,
Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project,
Cabarrus County, NC, May 2017.
UTA Buffer Photograph #6 Post Construction; Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC, 2011.
Page 72
UTA Buffer Photograph #6 looking downstream;
Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC, May 2017.

UTA Buffer Photograph #7 Post Construction,
project end; Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration
Project, Cabarrus County, NC, 2011.
Page 73
UTA Buffer Photograph #7 looking
downstream at project end; Bonds Quarry
Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County,
NC, May 2017.

Appendix D
Vegetation & Livestake Monitoring Plot Tables 2017
Vegetation & Livestake Monitoring Plot Photographs 2017
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 74
i
McGll
ASSOCIATES

' Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
Page 75
Plant #
2014
V
# Alive
2015
# Plants
V
2016
# Plantd
V
2017
# Plants
V
2018
# Plants V
UTA Monitorin
Plot #1
Li uidambar
styraciflua Sweet gum
1
1
1
Liriodendron
tuli i era Yellow poplar
2
2
2
Quercus
alba White oak
1
Betula
nigra River birch
12
4
5
Pinus
strobus White Pine
7
6
Unknown s .
Unknown
2
2
2
Vaccinium
sp Blueberry
2
0
4
4
1
Campsis
radicans Trumpeter Vine
3
Total
2
5
5
18
38
10
6
7
0 0
Total Planted + Volunteers
7
21
18
13
0
Survival % ]anted
0%
100%
100%
72%
0%
Total stems/acre
100
420
360
260
0
' Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
Page 75

1 Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
2017 - Unknown Identified as Groundsel Tree
Page 76
Plant #
2014 2015
V # Alive # Plants V
2016
Plantd
V
2017
# Plants
V
2018
# Plant V
UTA Monitorin
Plot #2
Li uidambar
styraefflua Sweet gum
Liriodendron
tuli i era Yellow poplar
Salix
nigra Black willow
1
1
1
1
Betula
nigra River birch
4
1
1
Pinus
strobus White pine
1
2
Baccharis
halimi olia Groundsel tree
1
1
Vaccinium
sp Blueberry
7
4 5 1
5
2
Total
7
0 4 10 1
7
4
3
3
0 0
Total Planted + Volunteers
7
11
11
6
0
Survival % planted
57%
i 100%
70%
43%
0%
Total stems/acre
80 1 220
220
120
0
1 Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
2017 - Unknown Identified as Groundsel Tree
Page 76

1 Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
Unknown shrub - previously ID as blueberry
Page 77
Plant #
2014
V
# Alive
2015
# Plants V
2016
# Plants
V
2017
# Plantd
2018
V # Plants, V
UTA Monitorin
Plot 43
Li uidambar
styraciflua Sweet gum
Liriodendron
tuli i era Yellow poplar
Betula
nigra River birch
11
2
4
Quercus
SP Oak S.
1
1
1
Quercus
SP. Water Oak
1
Baccharis
halimi olia Groundsel tree
4
1
1
3
14
Unknown
sp Shrub
2
3
Paccinium
sp Blueberry
6
1
7
6 2
3
1
3
Rhododendron
canadense Rhododendron
1
1
1
Campsis
radicans Vine
1
_Trumpeter
Total
11
1
9
18 2
6
9
6
19 0 0
Total Planted + Volunteers
9
20
15
25
0
Survival % planted
73%
100/
33%
33%
0%
Total stems/acre
180
400
300
500
0
1 Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
Unknown shrub - previously ID as blueberry
Page 77

1 Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
2014 total primarily vines- not counted in total
2 stems/acre
Page 78
during reconstruction
of lower stream
channel, will be
replanted Replanted 2017
Plant #
2014
V
# Alive
2015
# Plants V
2016
Plantd V
2017
# Plantd
V
2018
#PlantE V
UTA Monitorin
Plot #4
Li uidambar
styraciflua Sweet gum
3
Ilex
SP Holly
9
Betula
nigra River birch
2
Boxwood
4
Campsis
radicans Trumpet Vine
23
23
14
Morella
Carolinensis Bayberry family
6
Unknown sp.
Chinese Privet
variegated
4
Unknowns .
Ornamental shrub
3
Vaccinium
SP Blueberry
4
3
6
Total
4
23
26
8 14
0 0
23
6
0 0
Total Planted + Volunteers
27
22
0
29
0
Survival % planted
75% 1
1
100%
0%
100%
0%
Total stems/acre
80
440
0
580
0
1 Additional trees planted 2015
V= Number of volunteer trees and shrubs
2014 total primarily vines- not counted in total
2 stems/acre
Page 78
during reconstruction
of lower stream
channel, will be
replanted Replanted 2017

Livestake Counts Plot #1
Bonds Quarry Restoration Site
Species
Species
Y1 Totals
Species
Y2 Totals
Species
Y3 Totals
Species
Y4 Totals
Y4 LS V
TREES
Salix
nigra
Black Willow
75
85
78
100
75
Po ulus
deltoides
Eastern
Cottonwood
7
8
12
9
7
Betula
nigra
River Birch
0
3
3
0
0
Quercus
phellos
Willow Oak
0
1
1
0
0
Plantanus
occidentalis
Sycamore
1
1
1
Baccharis
halimi olia
Eastern False
Willow
1
1
1
SHRUBS
lnus serrulataTag Alder 0 1 1 0
0
Salix isericea Silk Willow 2 2 4 10
2
Totals 84 0 2 106 99 121
86
Y4:Third Year Totals; LS: Live stake; V:Volunteer. This plot was planted with both livestakes and
rooted trees; Growth was so healthy that the live stakes could not be identified separately from the
trees.
Page 79

Livestake Counts Plot #2
Bonds Quarry Restoration Site
Species
Species
Yl Totals
Species
Y2 Totals
Species
Y3 Totals
Species
Y4 Totals
Y4 LS V
TREES
Betula
nigra
River Birch
0
1
0
0
0
Liriodendron
tulipfera
Yellow Poplar
0
0
16
0
0
Quercus
ISP.
Oak Species
unknown
0
0
1
1
0
SHRUBS
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood
0
0
0
Salix sericea Silky Willow
0
0
0
Salix nigra Black Willow
0
0
0
Totals
0
0
0
1
17
1
0
Y4: Third Year Totals; LS: Live stake; V:Volunteer. This plot was planted with both livestakes
and rooted trees.
Page 80

Livestake Counts Plot #3
Bonds Quarr Restoration Site
Species
Species
Y1 Totals
Species
Y2 Totals
Species
Y3 Totals
Y2 LS V
TREES
Sweet gum
SalixVnigra
0
1
2
0
Quercus ra Water oak
0
1
2
0
Quercus llos Willow oak
0
1
2
0
Betula River Birch
0
0
3
0
Liriodendron tulipfera iYellow Poplar
0
0
3
0
SHRUBS
Vaccinium s. Blueberry
0
1
1
0
Unknown Unknown
0
0
1
0
Totals
0 0 0
4
14
0
Y3: Third Year Totals; LS: Live stake; V:Volunteer. This plot was planted with both livestakes
and rooted trees. In late 2015 the plot was completely removed during the re -construction of the
lower stream channel. Y4 - Due to no stream flow during summer months, no livestake plot will
be re-established - monitoring will be through the vegetative monitoring plot in the area.
Page 81

2014 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #1, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.
2014 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #2, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.
Page 82
2017 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #1, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.
2017 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #2, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.

2014 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #3, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.
2014 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #4, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.
2017 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #3, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC
Page 83
2017 Vegetation Monitoring Plot #4; Reset from
previous years due to regrading of project
floodplain, Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration
Project, Cabarrus County, NC.

2014 Livestake Monitoring Plot #1, Bonds Quarry
Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County, NC.
2014 Livestake Monitoring Plot #2, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.
Page 84
2017 Livestake Monitoring Plot #1, Bonds Quarry
Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County, NC.
2016 Livestake Monitoring Plot #2, Bonds
Quarry Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus
County, NC.

2017 No Livestake Monitoring Plot #3 to be
2014 Livestake Monitoring Plot #3, Bonds Quarry reestablished — Monitoring Plot #4 covering
Stream Restoration Project, Cabarrus County, NC. similar area, Bonds Quarry Stream Restoration
Project, Cabarrus County, NC.
Page 85

Appendix E
Cross Section Survey Reports and Photographs 2017
Martin Marietta — Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation
Report of Findings — Monitoring Report Year Four
October 2017
Page 86
E
McGill
ASSOCIATES

Stream Section C Station 5+98
Cross Section #1 Riffle Section
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
Bankfull Area
1.75
2.6
2.1
2.7
2.4
Bankfull Width
7.0
8.3
9.2
10.3
10.2
Mean Depth
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
Max Depth
0.66
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
w/d Ratio
23.3
15.9
30.6
34.3
34.0
Flood Width
24.8
20.6
1 21.3
22.9
22.7
Entrenchment
Ratio
3.6
2.5
2.8
2.2
2.2
* Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
* 2017 calculations include revision for (2015 & 2016)
M
N
o 657
0
Me
X -Section #1 - No Scale
Cross Section #1 - Riffle Section
Stream Station 5+98
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
655
0
Scale
(V)-1 =2'
(H)-1 "=4'
2 4 6 8
658
657
656
655
10 12 14 6 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
Cross e�tlon # 1 Stream Relocation Project
age 8 Date: 5-15-17
`2017 Prof
le
Flood Zone Eleva
ion �
`•� `� ``�e -
----------- Bankfull Ele au n
y-
\ ;.-
2015 Profile
__ _-_ w
i✓'-'�
_2016-Profile
014 Profile -- ---'' _-----
----
i
i
2011 Profile--
{
Scale
(V)-1 =2'
(H)-1 "=4'
2 4 6 8
658
657
656
655
10 12 14 6 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
Cross e�tlon # 1 Stream Relocation Project
age 8 Date: 5-15-17

Stream Section C Station 11+29
Cross Section #2 Pool Section
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
Bankfull Area
7.3
2.1
5.5
6.0
5.8
Bankfull Width
16.5
12.3
18.2
17.2
17.7
Mean Depth
0.4
0.20
0.4
0.4
0.3
Max Depth
0.66
0.50
1.3
1 0.7
0.7
w/d Ratio
39.3
24.4
45.5
43.0
59.0
Flood Width
21.2
17.8
20.5
21.0
22.1
Entrenchment
Ratio
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.2
` Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
' 2017 calculations include revision for (2015 & 2016)
0
655-
654
M
N
0 653
0
7
652
651
0
2 4 6 8
X -Section #2 - No Scale
Cross Section #2 - Pool Section
Stream Station 11+29
Station(ft)
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
655
Scale
(V)-1 "=2'
(H)-1 "=4'
2 4 6 8
654
653
652
651
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
Cross Section #2 Stream Relocation Project
Page 88 Date: 5-15-17
` .
Flood Zone Elevation
Bankfull
Elevation
'
2014Profile'=j'-�.
2011 Profle 1
2015 Profilc
2016IProfde 2017 Profile
j
Scale
(V)-1 "=2'
(H)-1 "=4'
2 4 6 8
654
653
652
651
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
Cross Section #2 Stream Relocation Project
Page 88 Date: 5-15-17

Stream Section B Station 24+36
Cross Section #3 Riffle Section
I
Zone Eleva on
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
Bankfull Area
2.8
2.9
5.3
3.8
5.7
Bankfull Width
7.6
8.1
8.5
7.8
7.6
Mean Depth
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.7
Max Depth
0.75
0.48
0.9
0.8
1.0
w/d Ratio
20.0
16.9
12.1
15.6
10.8
Flood Width
13.3
11.6
11.3
10.9
15.3
Entrenchment
Ratio
1.8
1.4
1.3
.1.4
2.0
" Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
" 2017 calculations include revision for (2015 & 2016)
M
(D
0 615
O
D
614
X -Section #3 - No Scale
Cross Section #3 - Riffle Section
Stream Station 24+36
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21
I
Flood
I
Zone Eleva on
-
/
Bankfull
2015 Profile v
Elevation
i
\`
2014 Profile
2011 Profile
2017 profile
2016 Profile
i
i
613-
0
Scale
(V)-1 =2'
(H)-1 "=4'
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross *ae�tion #3
g
616
615
614
613
18 20 21
Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
Stream Relocation Project
Date: 5-15-17

Stream Section B Station 29+53
Cross Section #4 Pool Section
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
Bankfull Area
2.6
2.7
5.3
6.7
5.2
Bankfull Width
5.8
6.5
6.6
7.0
6.6
Mean Depth
0.52
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.8
Max Depth
0.75
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.0
w/d Ratio
11.2
13.0
8.2
7.0
8.3
Flood Width
11.0
7.6
12.2
16.0
12.6
Entrenchment
Ratio
1.9
1.2
1.8
2.3
1.9
* Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
* 2017 calculations include revision for (2014-2016)
A16I.
M
N
0 605
0
7
604
X -Section #4 - No Scale
Cross Section #4 - Pool Section
Stream Station 29+53
Station(ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
603
0
Scale
(V)-1 "=2'
(H)-1 "=4'
•e•
605
604
603
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
Cross *Se tion #4 Stream Relocation Project
g Date: 5-15-17
_ Flood Zone
Elevation '
}, i Bankfull
Elevation �i I
P
.'
2014 Profilel
_
20171Profile
2015 Profile J20111
Profile
2016 Profile
i
Scale
(V)-1 "=2'
(H)-1 "=4'
•e•
605
604
603
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
Cross *Se tion #4 Stream Relocation Project
g Date: 5-15-17

Stream Section C Station 43+71
Cross Section #5 Riffle Section
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
Bankfull Area
1.9
6.8
2.9
4.6
4.9
Bankfull Width
4.2
5.2
6.1
13.0
13.0
Mean Depth
0.49
0.60
0.51
0.4
0.4
Max Depth
0.75
0.72
0.64
0.5
0.6
w/d Ratio
8.5
11.3
13.1
32.5
32.5
Flood Width
10.7
11.3
7.51
40.0
40.0
Entrenchment
Ratio
2.5
1.7
1.2
3.1
3.1
* Values listed are in Ft or Sq. Ft.
* 2014 Values revised due to 2014 comptation errors.
* 2016 Values reflect regrading of lower channel.
* 2017 calculations include revision for (2015 & 2016)
583
M
co
0 582
o'
D
581
580
Cross Section #5 - Riffle Section
Stream Station 43+71
Station(ft)
X -Section #5 - No Scale
583
582
581
580
34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 /U /2 /4
Scale Martin Marietta - Bonds Quarry
(V)-1 "-2' Cross *eqion # 5 Stream Relocation Project
(H)-1' -5' age Date: 5-15-17

Photo Station #1
12-19-2011
Photo Station #2
12-19-2011
Photo Station #3
12-19-2011
Page 92
Photo Station #1
5-8-2017
Photo Station 42
5-8-2017
Photo Station #3
5-8-2017

Photo Station #4
12-19-2011
Photo Station #5
12-19-2011
Photo Station #6
12-19-2011
Page 93
Photo Station #4
5-8-2017
Photo Station #5
5-8-2017
Photo Station #6
5-8-2017

s x,
,. A4 .
i
e

Photo Station #10
12-19-2011
Photo Station #11
12-19-2011
Photo Station #12
12-19-2011
Page 95
Photo Station #10
5-8-2017
Photo Station #11
5-8-2017
Photo Station #12
5-8-2017

Photo Station #13
12-19-2011
Photo Station #14
12-19-2011
Photo Station #15
12-19-2011
Page 96
Photo Station #13
5-8-2017
Photo Station #14
5-8-2017
Photo Station #15
5-8-2017

r'�•ly t 1 � i� In +'.�. -`
3rn'33'
..Yl
rte., -
7
i �

Photo Station #19
12-19-2011
Photo Station #20
12-19-2011
Photo Station #21
12-19-2011
Page 98
Photo Station #19
5-8-2017
Photo Station #20
5-8-2017
Photo Station #21
5-8-2017

IA -
{' {J •�.�e4 *..gyp., r.:{ �♦

Photo Station #25
12-19-2011
Photo Station #26
12-19-2011
Photo Station #27
12-19-2011
Page 100
Photo Station #25
5-8-2017
Photo Station #26
5-8-2017
Photo Station #27
5-8-2017

1 0 �i �
fi'' • � ' �e
,,.i
' •'ti
�µ
� � +.
y.
gam, _ d+:

Photo Station #31
12-19-2011
Photo Station #32
12-19-2011
.y
Photo Station #33
12-19-2011
E
Page 102
Photo Station #31
5-8-2017
Photo Station #32
5-8-2017
Photo Station #33
5-8-2017