20061001 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20090413

Goldsboro Housing Authority
Stream Restoration Plan
Goldsboro, North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
n
CAR "N
94
u,
TAtt?tca?s s4?
'V-
r4i
June 2,2006
Final Submittal
11
Prepared by: Dewberry
2301 Rexwoods Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Phone - 919-881-9939
Fax - 914881-9923
Project Manager - Sheila Reeves, P.E.
Contact Information:
E-mail - sreeves8dewberry.com
Phone - 919-881-9939
The center point of the restored stream of interest i n this study is at 35.3908 degrees
North and 78.0039 degrees West.
The center point of the proposed wetland of interest in this study is at 35.3897
degrees North and 78.0069 degrees West.
The upstream extent of the reference reach used for comparison was 35.3783 degrees
North and 78.0142 degrees West, and the downstream extent was 35.3783 degrees
North and 78.0156 degrees West.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.-.... ...................,....................,.........,..........................................,.,..,........... ....
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..... ..................... ....................................:.,.......... ,.................... ....................... VII
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ .....2
1.1 Project Description- ........................................................................................................ .... 2
2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES... ..... --- ............................ ............. .................... ......4
2.1 Goals tmd Objectives ......................................................................................................... ... 4
3 LOCATION INFORMATION... ........ ---- ........ ...... ................ ...... ...... .............
...........
.....5
3.1 River Basin Information ................................................................................................. ......>
32 USGS 8-digit Catalog Number........................................................................................ ......5
3.3 County Information ...............
34 Stream Classifications ..............
3.5 1..1SGS Quadrangle Information ...................... . ................. .. . ............... ................ ......6
3.6 Additional Watershed Identifications.. ................................... ...... ..... ....._._ ........ .. ...,..6
4 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION...- ............................................................................ ......7
4.1 General Description ........................................ .......................................... ............ ......7
4.2 Drainage Area. ....... .......... --- ............... .... ............. _, .............. ... 7
4.3 Existing 1-and Use ...........................
4.4 future Land Use ............................................................................................................. ......7
4.5 Project: Watershed Soils-.,.-, ................................... ................. .... ............ ............. . ..8
5 DESCRIPTIONOF EXISTING CONDITIONS-, ........................................................................... ......9
5.1 Project Site ..................................................................................................................... ......9
52 Existing Hydrologic Features,.,. ... ...... - ......... .......... ............... ................. .10
5.3 Ploiect Site SoilS................................................................................ .......................... ....10
5.4 Plant Comnulrlties ..........................................................:.............................................. .... 11
5.5 Threatened/Endangered Species Study .......................................................................... . .. 1 1
5.6 Rosgen Survey and Classification ...... ........ ....... ............. .................................... ......... . .,, 12
5.6.1 C.'rocs-sections ............................................................................................................ ...1 3
L
5.6.2 Dimension..... ........ ............ .............................................. ....... --'- .......
..............

.... .i
1
5.6.3 Pattern ............................ ....14
5.6.4 Profile... ... ....... ......... ........ ........... ......... ---- ........ .....
............... --14
5.6.5 Pebble C:otcnts.,,....,.. ...............................................,.....,,................ ...............,..,........ .... 15
5.7 Pavement and Sul)-pavement Samples ............................................................................ ...15
5.8 Topographic Survey ........................................................................................................ ...15
5.9 Bank 1"rosion Hamrd Index ............................................................ ........................... ...17
' . 5.10 Wildlife Observed .......................................................................................................... ...17
5.11 Simunaryof 1Iydrologicand Hydraulic Findings .............................................................. 17
5.1 1.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................1
.
5.11.2 Hydraulics .......................... <
6 STREAM REFERENCE RESTORATION STUDIES.. ....... --- ....... .................... ............... ... 20
6.1 Site Identification and Mscription................................................................................. .. 20
6.2 Rosgen Classification '1
6 2.1 Cross-sec t'ions ........... ............ ............................. ..........................
_...
...20
6.22 Dimerisioti ............................................................................................................. " I
6.23 Pattern ......................................................... ....................... .. .... ..... ............ ..2I
6.2.4 Profile. .................................................... ? I
6.15 Pebble COnnts ............................................................................................................. _.
?1
63 Morphological Table ....................... ?
6.4 Plant Conlnlru)ities
Dewberry
n
6.5 Current Land Use/ Land C Otirer ........................................................................................ .23
6.6 Soils ....... ....... ...... .............. ......... ........ ..... ..,............... . 23
7 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN AND STREAM RESTORATION PLAN ........................................... .25
7.1 Design ConsideratiOns.................................................................................................... .25

..............
7.1.1 haGastraacture Constraints .......................................... ............ .............. ........
."

...............:................
7.1.2 Grade Control Points.... ............. ---- ... ............ ........ .......
:?
7. 1-1 Utility Constrairats ......................................................................................................... .26
T I A Preservation of I :arge Trees ........................
7.2 Proposed Stream Classification .................................................................................... .2f.
7.3 Rosgen Priority Level ........................................................................................................ .26
7.4 Bankfull I)ischartle............ ...............................................................................:.............. .27
7.5 I)iaraensiora ........................................................................................................................ .27
7.6 Pattern .,.,........ ........... ................. ,............... ......... ....,........... .......... ...............,...... ..,..... ....... .27
7.7 I'rofile ............................................................................................................................. .2.7
7.8 Morlahological Table ..................................................................................................... .2&
7.0
1 Sediment Transport Analysis .........................................................................................
.29

...............................................................!
8 TYPICAL DRAWINGS.... ....... ........ ........ ...........
8.1 Typical Cross-Sections .......................

................................:......:...:....:.......... ..!
8.2 Structures... ............. .......... ............. ........

................................................ .............
83 Channel Plugs..... ..... ......... ......... ... . ....
.>1
9 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND DESIGN ........................................................................................... 32
9.1 StormwaterIlest Management I'ractic.c Selection ............ ................... ....... .... ... ........... .32

....................,........
92 Constructed Wetland Description.,, ...... ............ .......... .... ....
.
32
9.3 Design F arameters ....................
''
9.4 Control Structure Evaluat,1011................................................................................
9.5 Maintenance Rec.oamlendat?ions ......................... .. ,.-... a?...
,31
10 PLANTING PLAN ..................... -
10,1 Riparian Butler ............................................................................................................... .3>

. 10.2 Riparian Vegetation............................................................ ,........., ......,... .i7
10.3 Constructed Wethuad BMP Vegetation ............................................................................ .37
10.4 Constructed Wetland BLIP Vegetation Monitoring ............................................ 3
11 STREAM MONITORING PLAN ........................... .. .............................................................. 39
_ 11.1 Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Geomorphology ................................................. .... .3 )
12 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................................................... ..10
E.
....
111 Monitoring Report. ......... -- ... --1-- ................................ ....... --.- .... -- ...... .. . 40
13 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING.... ....................................................................................... .4.1
13.1 Prior to Construction ......................................................................................................... .41
13.2 During Construction ..................................................................................................... l
13.3 Sediment and Erosion C'ontrol...,.......... ............................................................................. .41
13.3.1 Tree Protection,.,. ... 1-1.1,
13.3.2 Erosion Control FeatureS ......................................................................................... .42
13.3.3 Temporarily Impacted Areas. ..... -- ........... ......... ....... --- ...... --, ........ .42
13.4 Following Construction ................................................................................................. .43
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................44
APPENDICES ................................................ ................................................................ ............. .. .... ...1
Appendix A: C:ieneral Watershed Information. ........ --- ......... .... .. .. ... .. . - ..................... ..II
Appendix A-1: Physiographic Region Map ........ ............... .... ........... ............ .....,.,, _......-... .III
Appendix A-2: USGS 7.5 Minute. Quadrangle Map ...................... .................... ..:..... .. ....... 1V
Appendix A-3: Project Watershed Land Use Map. .... ............ ............ .................... - ... ... V
Appendix A-4: Pr0lect tVatca-shed Soils Map .......................................................................... Vl
s.•
Appendix B: Description of'E xisting Conditions........., .... - ...
vil
i,
Appendix B-1: Project Site ._ Site Map with Easement ...................................... ................... V Il l
Appendix B-2: Project Site Dimension Data ..................................................... ..................... IX
Appendix B-3: Project Site Pattern Data.. ............. ............. .................................. ...................... XI
Appendix B-4: Project Site Profile Data ............................................................... ....................X111
Appendix B-5: Project Site Pebble Count Data... ........ ................... - .......... ....... . ................. XIV
Appendix B-6: Project Site Pavement/Sub-pavement Data ...... ........ ........ .......... . ................. XVIII
Appendix B-7: NCDA Soils Analysis- ................................................................ ....................XXI
Appendix B-8: Project Site BHI Data Sheets.. ....... ......... 1--l-1.1 ..... -.1.1 ........ .. ....... ......... X X l V
Appendix C: Reference Reach Information ............. .............. ................. ............... ... ..............XX:XIV
Appendix C-1: Reference Site Dimension Data ....... ......... ......... ......... ............... ...... .........XXXV
Appendix C-2: Reference Site Pattern Data. ...... ...... ......... ............. ........ . -'- ..... XXXV11
Appendix C:-3: Reference Site Profile Data... .............. .......
........................ ......... .
.XXXV1Il
Appendix C4: Reference Site Pebble Count Data ...... ................. .................... .... ... ...........XXXIX
Appendix C:-5: Reference Watershed Land Use/Land Cover Map, ........... ........ .. .... ............X1.11
Appendix C-6: Reference Watershed Soils M4tp .................................................. ................ X1_.111
Appendix D: Restoration Plan Materials ................................................................... .... ........... XLIV
Appendix D-1: NC SRI Plant List ......................................................................... .................. XI.V
Appendix D-2: Supporting Wetland Design and Nitrogen Load Calcul,atiOIra. .....
Appendix D-3: Supporting Wetland Inflow Calculation".- ................................. ................ XLVll
.................._ .. 1.
Appendix D-4: Hydraulic. Model .......................................................................... ..................... 1_.X
E
r 1
1.J
Dewberry
0 Table of Tables
Table I Project Restoration Structure and 01bjectivc.s ................ ......... ............. ...................._........... .. viii
Table 2 Project Watershed Land Use SUrnmary................................................................................. ...7
Table 3 Project Watershed Sail Series.. .............................................................................................. ...8
Table 4 Project Watershed Soil Textures............................................................................................ ...8
"fable 5 Project Soil Series .........................................................
Table 6 Project Soil Textures* .............................. .. . 10
Table 7 Endangered Species...-....., .................................................................................................. .I I
liable 8 Misc. Dimension Measurements ............................................................................................ .14
Table 9 ,'Morphological Table - Existing Conditions ........................... ................... ........ ...:........... ..... . I
Table 10 Summary of BEHI Evaluations ........................................................................................... .17
Table I 1 Urban Regression Equations ................................................................................................ . 18
'Fable 12 Summary of Calculated Flows for the Project Watershed ................................................... . 18'
Table 13 Morphological Table - Reference Reaches ........................................................................ 22
Table 14 Watershed 1-and Use / Land Cover,... ....... ....... ............ ...... ...... ................. .... ........ .23
'Fable 15 Comparison of Watershed Land Use 1 Land Cover ............................................................. .23
Table 16 REF-I Watershed Soil Series ...................................................................................... ...... .23
Table 17 Watershed Soil TeXtures*....... ............. ........................ ................. .24
Table. 18 Comparison of Watershed Sail Series ................................................................................ 24
Table 19 Comparison of Watershed Sail Textures ............................................................................ .24
Table. 20 Summary of Grades at Grade Control Points .................................................................... .26
Table 21 Morphological Table - Comprehensive ............................................................................... .28
Table; 22 Summary of Pebble Count Analysis .................................................................................... .21)
Table 23 Summary of PavementlSub-pavement sample for UTFBD .........................................
Table 24 Summary of Sediment Transport Equation Variables ......................................................... 9
.
'Fable 25 Flow Control Device Evaluation Summary.. ............... ....... ...... ......................... ...., ,3 3
Table 26 Stream Channel and Riparian Lone Plantings (entire easement area except 13N,111)_ .......... ..;5
Table 27 Planting Zones and Plant Species List for the Constnicted Wetland BMP.................. .. .. 18
K Table of Figures
Figure I Map of Targeted Local Watersheds .........................................................................................6
Figure 2 :flap of Sub-Watersheds shoving the Industrialized/Urbanized :Suture of the. Basin ...........19
0
Dewberry tii

The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancenrcrrt Program (EEP) identified two streams located within
the West Haven Apartments Complex, owned by the Goldsboro Housing Authority (GFIA), as a
candidate stream for restoration and, under a later amendment, revised the shrdy streams to include
only a portions of one of the streams and also identified a stream-side area, owned by N(.-,'DOT., as a
candidate for a constru.ctcd wetland as a stormwater Best Managcment Practice (BMP). The stream
length encompasses 2,170 lincar feet of the Unnamed Tributary to Borden Field Ditch (1..JTBFD), and
the wetland will cover approximately 1.5 acres of land. Working together, the GFIA and FFP have
agreed oil a conservation easement for the stream length identified for restoration and the NCDOT
acid EF.'P agreed on a conservation easement for the BMP. Dewberrv & Davis. Inc. (Dewberry) has
prepared this Stream Restoration Plan for the identified stream and BMP.
This Restoration Plan dociinicni.s the assessment and restoration approach for the UTBFD and the
creation of the BMP. At the downstream project limits, the UTBFD has a drainage area of`
approximately 255 acres (0.40 square mile`). At the point of confluence with the ori'-inal proposed
restoration reach manned Unnanied Tributary (UT), UTBFD has a drainage area of* approximately I 10
acres, while the UT has a drainage area of approximately 140 acres. At the Oak Street culvert
crossing, the U l'BFD has a drainage area of approximately 101 acres, and a drainage area of
approximately 30 acres at the upstream limits of' study. The drainage area for both the LJTB[`D arid
the U1' are highly urbanized watersheds, characterized by significant commercial and residential
devclopmeru. and imPervious cover raniging, from 34 to 42 percent. Within the project limits, the
streams lack sinuosity and have riparian buffer zones that have, been reproved or highly impacted by
routine lawn maintenance operations. Maintenance operations were observed to extend froni the
olerhanks to the stream bed during data collection phase of this project. The LI BFIi) enters the site
as a first order stream and becomes a second order stream upon its eorrf7u.ence with the first order UT
near the downstream project (units.
'T'he proposed restoration design is based on natural channel design methods that include the use of
rviere(icC reaches. Using the Rosgcn classification system and field observation. the reach of the
UT13F1) upstream of the LJf, is predoniinantly an F5 classification. Below its confluence with the L;T
I ? T'BFD is a (;.Sc stream that has actively eroding stream banks. The UT is also G5c that is incised.
The proposed strearn restoration for the U 1,131 D utilizes several restoration approaches including:
Priority 2 restoration of'625 feet to a C`5/l,S stream.
Priority 3 restoration of 900 feet to a ('S/ES stream with in entrenchment ratio limited by
cascrticnt and utility constraints
FInhancenaent of 275 feet by bank grading and construction of a bankfull or near bankfull
Inc rrc h
Per modification of the restoration scope, no work is proposed on the 1..JT or on the i.JTBFD
downstrcam of, the Confluence of the U'T'. The streams are located irr an urban setting, with an
unusual number of' site constraints that have been incorporated into the Restoration Plan. These
concerns Include:
Maintaining: resident safety and overall awareness of flooding potential;
()(Iscuing the stream appropriately from nearby buildings, utilities including gas. sanimr-y
sewer, w-atci,, electric, etc., and recreational areas;
Prescrtiint/Replacing pedestrian crossings;
r Integrating _ existing grade control points, such as storniwater culverts into the design; and
Designing within a limited casement width
Dewberry
cff
The design considered fencing around the stream as a means to provide safety protection for resident:
children playing scar the stream and provide deterrence from littering in the stream. Ilowever, at the
request of EEP, no fencing has been provided in the Restoration Plan due to access control ltisales,
maintenance issues, and the questionableeffectivenessof litter reduction within the stream.

0
The UTBFD currently has three pedestrian bridges located within the project limits. The design
includes replacement of two pedestrian crossings along the proposed stream restoration reach. :view
bridges are required because the existing bridges are within the current Iloodprone flow area of the
stream and do not have adequate span available for the proposed cross-sectional dimensions and
therefore would restrict the planned grading along; these segments of the stream. The proposed
restoration methods, in response to these constraints, are shown in 't'able 1.
Table 1 Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Project Number 73142900
Existing Designed
Restoration
Station
Restoration
Priority Linear Linear
Segment 1
Range
Type
Approach Footage Footage Comment
Reach ID I or or
Acreage Acreage
3+75- i Overbank
UTBFD 6+50 Enhancement 275 Improvement
Relocation and
08+25- Overbank
UTBFD 10+25 Restoration P2 200 Improvement
10+25- Overbank
UTBFD 11+25 Restoration P3 100 Improvement
Relocation and
11+25- Minimal Overbank
UTBFD 11+75 Restoration P2 Addition 50 Improvement
of Linear
11+75- Footage Overbank
UTBFD 13+00 Restoration P3 of Stream 125 Im rovement

Relocation and
13+00- Overbank
UTBFD 15+00 Restoration
.... ..-_.-... P2 200 Improvement
15+00 Overbank
UTBFD 21+75 Restoration P3 675 Improvement
Relocation and
21+75- Overbank
UTBFD 23+50 Restoration P2 175 Improvement
Dewberry
%III
L'
1.1 Project Description
']'his Restoration Plan documents the evaluation and development of a conceptual stream design for
approximately 2,170 linear feet of the Unnamed Tributary to Borden Field Ditch (U B 'D) and the
creation of a constructed wetland (BN4P). The stream and wetland site are located within the City of
Goldsboro, in Wayne C:'ounty NC. The identified stream length is located within the West Haven
Apartment C:otnplex, which is owned by the (.3oldsboro Ilousing Authority ((;I 1A) and the wetland
site is adjacent to West Haven Apartment Complex within the NCDOT Right-of'-way. Working
together, the GI-1A and the 1,cosystern Enhancement Program (EI;P) have developed an agreement for
a Conservation t Asement along the stream reaches identified for restoration and the NCDOT and J.'EP
have developed an agreement for a Conservation Easement on the wetland site. Dewberry & Davis,
Inc. (Dewberry) is working with I',F P to develop strearn restoration documents for the identified
stream reaches and BMP.
As part of the development of the Stream Restoration Plan for the identified strearn reaches,
Dewberry has performed the following tasks:
• Watershed and Stream Data Collection.
+ Topographic Study (excluding a Boundary SuiA ey)
• Existing Strearn Analysis
• Reference Reach Identification and Analysis
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study
• Conceptual and Restoration Plan Development
• Phase I F rivironmental Assessment
• Geoteclrnical Investigations
Dewberry be0 an the restoration plan process by collecting existing GIS databases from various
sorer°ces for rcler nee use ore this project. Soule of the databases include color aerial photography
(dated approximately 2002), C?SGS stream data, NRC'S soil survey irrtor-ltratian, etc. A Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) was obtained from the NC Floodplain Mapping. Program website for use in
developing contours I-or the project site and watershed. Using; these contours in conjunction with
star iNvater infi-astruuture reaps obtained tirom the (,'ity of Goldsboro, watersheds were developed for
tlme study strearns. Aerial photography ),vas analyzed «tor land use within cacti ,vatershe.d. As part of
this data Collection process, Dewberry also collected (L.1ta oil endam-'erect species th?it potentially
COLIld be located inlnear the project site.
A detailed topographic survey was Conducted along the study stream land ztn t_ nnamed Tributary (UT)
which flows into the L'T'fa)?`t? ore the dowrrst;reana erect. The topographic survey included
approximately 150 feet in width (centered along cacti strearn) extending tare length of each study
strearn. Survey included location of lame trees and utilities within the survey extents. Utility location
was perl'Ormed by Locating Contractors. Stream proliles, general channel features, and typical cross
sections \, ere collected and georrrorphic features were rtt<ipped for each study strearn.
Numerous site constraints exist due to the location of the study streams in relation to an active
apartment cornplex. Location inf:onnation has been collected for site constraints, including_ existing
culverts, pedestrian bridges, utilities, building Iocations, etc. These constraints have been Carefully
evaluated .is part of the Restoration Plan development
dewberry
Property and utility casement location inf MMadon "vas obtained Ii-ont the recorded Subdivision Platt
t« r, the CHA property. Ile (AmNelvation I. serncrrts shcnvn wm obtained 11mtt EEP as a bounc -y
survey pro\ idcd I v another surveyor (see !Appendix 1?-I: Project Site- Site Map with 1,,,ascinent),
As hart of tyre existing stream ,analysis, sm,eyed stream 1:cau , Aerc analyr;ed to develop the, Rosen
morphological table. '['Ile riparian bLiffcr ,vas evaluated to determine tlae existing plant species,
including any invasive plant species. SKI mnV&s were Meted "thin the riparian bulfcr awa and
sera to the NCD A Agr-orurmic Division IN analysis. IRcwhs Wn this analysis are included as
.Appendix B-7 NCDA `'coils Analvsis.
A search ovas amdnowd to krcate art urban reference reach with similar watershed characteristics to
the prgjcct reach,,. t roan reference reach (REF-1) was located, and smAcy vas performed to
docrument sire., t c:?itrres, including; typical cross sections and native vegetation (see Appendix A-1:
fhysios;nWA. Inc; Rm Nbp for reference reach and watershed location in comparison to the project.
locatW A t uwphological table Arts developed 1o1- this site based on collected data. 1n additional
rc(crence reach {RI~,f -`'} "as obAned fi-ttnt the Stream Restoration Institute to rrsc for supplemental
data.
The collected data has been a.malged and applied A the devclopment of the Conceptual PIall
(,trhn hied tt.r lal_;f My 6, 2I) MY I he Conceptual flan not, revised lased <o Antendinent i to
evaluate. the feasibility of a BMI1 for the site. Ile drall Restoration flan was revised based cm
Alnendlucnt 2 to incotpwate tlrc IMH' desyn and >n the stream re;,hmuion to 0 the littrit.ed
coraserti;atit>n et?err.c°nt pro%ridcd by the 6111A.
E

..Dewberry

2.1 Goals and Objectives
This stream restoration project will support the EEP's mission to restore wetlands, streams, and
riparian (strcarnside) areas throughout the state. Further the BMP will assist EEP in meeting the
Neuse Kivcr Basin water quality goals for Nitrogen reduction.
In general, the restoration and BMP support, wholly or in part, the following EEP goals:
r Protect and improve water quality by restoring; stream and riparian area functions and
values lost through historic, current, and future impacts
Specifically, the strean restoration will:
i Reduce downstream sedimentation by stabilizing c;roding stream banks along the
study stream lengths
r Replace a degraded sir ain reach with a stabilized stream which supports natural
stream princesses
r Decrease property logs within the Goldsboro Housing Autlu>rity and adjacent
property
Enhance aesthetics of the restored stream reach
And the BMP will:
r Reduce dow n.stream sedimentation by providing capture of total suspended solids
from the. Ii"1
r Provide water quality treatment equivalent to one-inch of runoff from a previous
untreated mixed use residential area totaling 123 acres
f.nhance aesthetics and create wetland habitat
The proposed wetland will provide nitrogen reduction upstream of the nutrient scnsitivc waters of the
Neuse River. The created wetland can provide up to a forty percent reduction of nitrogen, however
the actual removal percentage will be influenced by the intermediate flooding of the wetland. Since
the wetland is and overbank wetland and will receive flow only during above hankfull events,
treatment will riot occur during=. low flow periods.
The restoration project endeavors to support the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(NC'I)WO) efforts to improve water quality as identified in the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. In general, the. project supports, wholly or in part, the following sections of the Neuse River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan:
r 4.16 Sedimentation Pollution Control
4.17 habitat Degradation
4.19 Algal Bloom
r 4.2.1 Protection and Maintenance of I;xist.ing Forested Riparian Areas
%- 4.2.5 Nutrient Management
r 4.5 Implement Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plans
n
Dewberry 4
3 LOCATION INFORMATION
3.1 River Basin Information
North Carolina contains 17 river basins c thcr partially or completely. The project ,.?atcrshcd is
situated just cast of the Piedmont PhvSiographic. Region, entirely within the. Coastal Plain
Physiographic Region and within the Netrse River Basin. With a drainagearea greater than 6,100
square rnilcS. the NCLISc is the third largest river basin in North Carolina.
3.2 USGS &digit Catalog Number
The t.initcd States Gcological Survey (t SG S) categorizes the nation into 21 regions, into sub-regions,
into accounting units. and finally into cataloging' units. Each of these divisions results in the
assignment of two digits. The result is that these cataloging units or watersheds each possess a unique
S-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC). The Neuse is sub-divided into 14 of these 8-digit units. The
project watcrshcd has a IIU'C of'03020201 (03 South-Attantic Gulf, 02 Neuse-Pamlico, 02 Ncusc, 01
l fiber Ncusc). A snap of the 8-digit HUCs i5 provided in Appendix A-I : Physiographic Region Map.
The North Carolina State Office of' the USGS has further subdivided the 8-digit watersheds, devised
al the federal lcvel, into 14-digit sub-watersheds. The project watershed's 14 digit HUC is
03020201200020. A reap of the UTBFD's 14 digit HUC is provided in Appendix A-1: Physiographic
Rctg"ion Map.
3.3 County Information
The project watershed is located within the city of Goldsboro in central Wayne County. A map of Wayne and surroundin`gcountiescan be seen in Appendix A-l: Physiographic Region Map.
5.4 Stream Classifications
Though the [JTBFD has not been classified by NC'DWQ, it drains to streams that drain into tile Neuse
River, which has been assigned a C nutrient sensitive water (NSW) surface water classification near
Goldsboro by NCDWQ.
A "C" classification indicates waters defined to have a best use of aquatic life propagation/protection
and secondary recreation. Waters that have a primary classification of are waters which have
SUf iciCnt water gtrahty to support fish consrunption, aquatic life, and secondary recreation (i.e.,
wadiwl, boatiaal- and minimal human body contact with water). NSWs tend to experience water
quality problcans associated with excessive plant growth resulting From nutrient enrichment.
Within :Appendix B2 of the Neusc Basin vide Watershed Restoration Plan (2001), the NCDWQ noted
that the benthic macro im ertcbrate bio-classifications were completed at two locations near the
LIT131:1) and the t.JT. These locations, SR 1915 and US 117. on the Neuse River consistently received
"GOOD" and "GOOD-FAIR ratings between 1984 and 2000. The NCDWQ's "GOOD-FAIR"
benthic macro invertebrate bioclassification rating indicates a use support rating of "Partially
Impaired" for benthic organisms.

Dewberry

;I l) : ', '. (. 6 cl1Otivn lt) kr i t ,.? A-2; IISG', T.,
_, tent cll? r . ? 1 r
3.6 Additional Watershed Identifications
The North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) uses several
different methods to categorizeand organize tltc state's watersheds. Three (3) of these identifications
are listed below with their descriptions.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Watershed Restoration Plan for the Neuse
Rivet- Basin (2001) and The Basinwide Assessment Reports (Neese River 2001) both give the
watershed a DWQ identifier of Neese River Subbasin 03-04-05.
The DWQ's Nonpoint So urce :Management Program reco"I'li/es that the pra,ject ?Aatcrshed lies within
a "Cate- Irv I BB"I"in" or a ha,in "Needing Restoration."The Nonpoint Source Management Prognim
uses the North Carolina 1_?nified Watershed Assessment 8 l)i,"it C atalolgiug Catesorv to identify
watershed,.,me,e cat ioging units rrre synonyinous, with the (SGS unit,. The pra.ject ticatershed's &
di .>it t)armber- is 0302-0201 .
The 1:I;P identifies small watersheds that are of special concern called Targeted. Local Watersheds,
There are several I EP Targeted I.-ocal Watersheds (defined by their NRCS 14-digit hydrologic unit)
within the same North Carolina Unified Watershed Assessment ti Digit Cataloging Category. The
project site is closest to EEP's Neuse Rivet l argeted L,ocal Watershed nurnbers 030202020-10010, -
()10020,-010021, and -010022. These watersheds are located just west of the project watershed, see
Figure 1. The El. ,P uses these watersheds to concentrate multiple restoration projects within a local
watershed to maximize program resources and result in greater benefits to wateraluality. A benefit of'
identifying Targeted Local Watersheds is to encourage other groups and organizations to consider
implementing projects in these areas also.
Figure 1 Map of Targeted Local Watersheds
Neu" RWor Basin
??- Sudraain 6
NCt7 t 7srpstsd loch Watsrshsds
10010, 90026,
10021, 10022
7Pr Stansy Croak
i?
WA> K )-fir s? tY11107f1`IF1fY2{;
?- Clt wwra.r.AS«tiarw
?"
iysw
wM+

Dewberry,

4,1 C;eneral Description
The protect -,vaterslaetl is located entirely Nvithirr the City of' Goldsboro and is rotaghly botuaded by
{ rrahaau Street to the North. Wadm.at Street to the Smith, US 117 to the West, and North (:enter Street
in the Fast. The project ?tiaterslrc d N url:ran in mitt.nrc, {.and is characterized by significant commercial
and high density residential development.
4.2 Drainage Area
The U-11314) has a drainage area of' approximately 255 acres (0.40 square na.iles) at the downstream
project limits. The U 1 BFD enters the site as a first order strewn and becomes a second order stream
upon its confluence with the t.'T. At its confltence with 1_'T, the drainage area 1'()r UT13H) Is
approximately 110 acres (0.17 square miles). The UTT I'D is a second order stream at the
downstream project site boundary. While UTBF'D has several culverts draining directly into the
stream along this. pr'. ect reach, the majorit}, of' flow enters the stream at a 3 0 cormoat?:d metal pipe
(CN11)), located at Astor Court.
The drainage area at the upstream limit is approximately 30 acres and increases to 101 acres it. the
cuivert ,at Oak Street.
4.3 Existing Land Use
The project watershed is an urban watershed with significant amounts of commercial, residential, and
industrial uses, as shown in Table 2 and Appendix A-3: Project `katershed Land Usc Map.
Approximately 39"o of the project watershed has a commercial land use, while rotaghly .3 "'o is used
for residential purposes. Less than 10`0 of the space in the watershed is open space. ^
Table 2 Project Watershed Land Use Summary
_ Land Use % by area
Commercial 39.4
-
Residential
1f3 acre 2.5
m
1%2 acre ._
X34.9
Industrial 14
Open 9.2
An analysis was performed to evaluate impervious area of' the watershed. GIS layers representing
building Footprints, driveways, parking areas, and roadtivays were obtained from the City of
Goldsboro to facilitate this evaluation. Based on this data and an analvsis of aerial photography,
impervious area for the watershed is 35%, with stib-basin imper ious areas ranging frorn 34 to 41
4.4 Future Land Use
A review of the aerial photography indicates that the project watershed is "built.-oaat" to its ultimate
potential. It appears that parcels have already been developed under the current zoning regulations, it
is assumed that there will not be a significant change in zoning or land use in the foreseeable future.
Theretore, there is no expectation of significantchanges in the hydrologic function of' the watershed.
Dewberry 7
4.5 Project Watershed Soils
The project ltiatershed contains several different soil mapping units. ?yhich are predominantly the
Norfolk, Johns, I-iinibee. and Wickham soil series. The I.,eaf; Kalmia, Goldshoro. and Rains series are
also found in small pockets (Appendix A-4: Project Watershed Soils Map). "fable I lists the soil
mapping units and the percentage of" the watershed area made up Icy each sail rnapping unit. in which
each series described below, is found. Soils in the project watershed are predominately loamy sand
and sandy loarns. The soil textures and corresponding percentage of Nyatershed area are shown in
TahIe 4.
"fable 3 Project Watershed Soil Series
Soil Mapping Unit % of Watershed Soil Mapping Unit % of Watershed
Norfolk
Johns 44.4
21.1 Leaf
Kalmia 33
2.5
I
Lumk - 14.9 Goldsboro 2.3
.?
Wickham 11.2 Raines ?
0.4
Table 4 Project Watershed Soil Textures
Soil Texture % of Watershed
I.-oamv Sand 58.0
Sandy I..oarn 38.7
11 The remaining 3.3 percent of the Soils are clascitied as loam.
Norfolk Series
This series consists of nearly level well drained soils found mostly on broad smooth divides, Despite
these soils being low In natural fertility and organic matter content, they are important wails for.
farrning in Wayne. Comity. The soil is easily kept iu good tilth; infiltration is moderate and srarface
runoff is slow. Most Norfolk soils are classified as loamy sand.
Johns Series
Like the Norfolk and Katrina soil;. Johns Series soils are found predominantly on broad, smooth
terraces and short slopes and upland divides. Typically these soils are formed in strearn sediment.
Again. like the: Norfolk and Kalmra soils, Johns Series soils are low in natural fertility and organic
matter content. This series has anoderate permeability. nrediurn water availability capacity. and their
shrink swell capacity as tisually logy. Most.lohns soils are classified as sandy loains.
Lumbee Series
This series consists of' poorly drained soils found on broad, smooth terraces and shallow drainage
ways. Like the. Norfolk series they are also low in natural fertility and organic matter content.
l.:umbee soils are t:tsually classifieds sandy loans. This series has moderate permeability, medi1.1111
water availability capacity, and their shrink swell capacity is usually low. These soils are usually
formed in stream sediment.
n
Dewberry
n
5.1 Project Site
The U'IBI'D is located within the West Haven Apartment Complex. owned by the GHA. Isle
property is roughly defined by US 117 and 13 to the east, West Holly Street to the north. NC c;1 to
the south, and Railroad track to the west. The project reach of UTBIJ), flows thru the central area of
the apartment complex, while the UT flows along a property boundary of the apartment complex.
The pro_jcct site (taken as the approximate limits of the Conservation f.aserncnt) has residential
buildings, common recreational areas, and numerous utilities located within the site. The project site
and casement can be viewed in Appendix B-1: Project Site - Site Map with Lasement.
Along the project reach, the UTBf`D has three existing pedestrian bridges, which provide access to
the recreational facilities and other residential buildings. No sidewalks are provided to the pedestrian
brid,*es. There are worn pathways leading to and from each pedestrian bridge. The stream banks and
riparian buffer are routinely maintained lawn areas. with moderated tree cover in most locations along
the UTBFD. The stream has minimal slope and minimal pattern.
Development of the Conceptual and Restoration plans required many factors to be carefully
considered since the stream reaches and BMP are located in an active, urbanized area. As part of the
Restoration Plan, Dewberry considered many constraints including, but riot limited to the following:
• Preserving large trees along the project reaches
• Utilizing/re-utilizing existing pedestrian crossings along the stream reach
• Protecting utility crossings along the stream
• Protecting infrastructure (Buildings, basketball courts, light poles)
• Managing the lack ofgrade along project reaches
• Maintaining existing grade control points, (existing culverts)
• Incorporating Conservation Easement limits
+ Maintaining base flow in the UT while directing stream flows into the BMP
While there is not a significant tree stand along the project reach, efforts to minimize tree removal
have been made. as they provide environmental benefits and an aesthetic benefit as well. Large
diameter trees (greater than 4 inches dbh) have been surveyed along the project reach and shown On
the Restoration Plan.
EEP and GHA have expressed interest in maintaining two of the existing three pedestrian crossings
along the stream with a desire to re-use the existing pedestrian bridges. Due to the length of the
existing bridges, the option of re-use the bridges would force grade control points and restrict strcarrr
width through the stream crossing.
Utility crossings and alignments along the stream are iinportailt to consider in determining potential
conflicts. Spatial (X, Y) locations of utilities have been identified along the project reach by Locating
Contractors, a sub-consultant for this project. Dewberry survey crews have surveyed the utility
locations as designated by Utility Contractors. Known utilities include electric. as, water, telephone,
cable television, stormwater, and sanitary-sewer lines. Potential utility contlicts were considered
during development of the Restoration Plan.

Ila
Dewberry
5.2 Existing Hydrologic Features
The stream enters the project area via stormwater culverts/drainage systems. The tI FBFD is a first-
order stream at the upstream project limits. ;'year the downstream project limits. the UTBFI) becomes
a second-order stream. The I.JTf3FD flows into Borden Field Ditch approximately 1,50.0 linear feet
downstream of the project limits. Borden Field Ditch flows into the Little River, and ultimately into
the Neuse River.
Anecdotal information indicates the stream floods out of bank frequently and is flashy in nature. The
Lipper sections of'the L1TBFL) receive the majority of the draainage area in two point discharges. Each
storrnwater discharge point has established Scour holes. These observations are consistent Willi the
urban setting and the hydrology developed for the design.
5.3 Project Site `;oils
All anurlySi ; has beery inade of thc Soils within the project limits using NRC``i GIS soil dater. For the
purposes of this analysis, the project limits are taken as the extents of` the approximate C'onsen, ation
FlaSeinent, as provided to Dewberry by FF P;
Based on this dataset, tlae predorninant soils of' the, project site are the I.umbee and l...eal' aerie:,. Both
are poorly drained. nearly level Soils f'Orrn(1 on broad, smooth terraces and shallow drainage ways.
Typically. both are found in stream sediments in the coastal plain. With both of these Soils, the
seasonal high wwater mark is at the surface. Tire soil types; textures, and corresponding percentage of
project area are shown in Table 5 and Table b. While these are the soils that are reported by the
MRCS, it appears that tile; soils have been altered front this state.; due to the development of the West
I laven Apartment Complex.
Table 5 Project Soil Series
Soil Mapping Units % of Project Site Soil Mapping Units % of Project Site
Lumbee 55.6 W ickhaun € A
Leaf 1-7.$ Johns
_
7
Lumbee Series
This series consists of poorly drained soils found on broad, smooth terraces and shallow drainage
ways. They are low in natural 1 rtility and organic matter content. L..urnbec soils are usually
classified as sanely foam. This series has nroderat.e permeability, rnediutn water availability capacity,
and their shrink swell c:rpacity iS usually low. These soils are utiuaily for'rne<l in stre,lrn sediments.
Leaf Series
This series consists of poorly drained nearly level Soils found on broad, smooth terraces and shallow
drainagge ways on uplands. The seasonal high writer table is at tlae Surface. Leal' soils are usually
classified as sandy, loam. This series has slow permeability, high wateravailability c rpacity,and their
shrink swell capacity is usually high. These soils are usually formed M stream sediments.
T'able6 Project Soil Textures*
Soil Texture % of Project Site I
I onni 27.8
i11V I I: tinini; 9. t°5>qf the SOits <ur ctst5sRIC(las Loamy Sand.
Dewberry
Ili addition. soil testinu and seasonal hrgta water elevation Information was obtained as part of the
gcotechnical testing performed by S&ME, Inc. The geotechnical report is provided as a separate
doCtlane:nt front the Restoration Plaii.
5.4 Plant Communities
For a description of the project plant communities, the project area was categorized int:c? two sections.
Oak Street effectively bisects the project: ilatoi ala upstream eastern section and a downstream western
section.
The upstream section of the project i5 to the cast of Oak Street. The malority of the riparian buffer Ili
this section is rolttiilely snowed riy.dht up to the stream bank, Ilowever, there are sonic large scattered
trees within the riparian zone. they area is dominated by sweetgum (Liyuidanibar styruciflua)
typically covered in poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Other lesser specie: include willow oak
(QuercuS pliellos), American chin (t.lmus Americana). tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red
maple (Acer rubr-um), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), black cherry (Prunus serotiria Ehrh ), sycar'iore
(Platanus occidentalis), Chinese privet (Ligustruin sitiense Lour,). sugarberry (Celtis laevigata
Willd), winged chin (IAniusalata Micfzx.and river birch (Betul,a nigra I,.). The Chinese privet is not
widespread, but will be removed durilag construction. The existing grass will need to be removed or
eradicated within the buffer zone to allow for more native plants, to take: o4cr the area after
construction.
The downstrcarn section of the project is to the west of Oak Street. This area includes the louver
portion of the UTBlJD, as well as the entire; portion of the UT. Both have similar vegetation
characteristics. The majority of this area Is less ti-e<luently maintained th<.in the upst.leana section,
I lowever, the majority of' the norilieni side of the L'1.13FD is nuiwed regularly, except where loblolly
pine Winus taeda) is growing and shading out tilt lawn grass. The southern side of' the UTBFD as
well as along the UT has some lal'ge trees made: up of sweetguni (Li(juidamhar st.yracifliu2) arid
willow- oak (QuerctlS phelk0S). Other IeSSer Species include. sycamore (PlatanuS occidentalis ), cistern
rut cedar (Junlperus vjrginlana L.); Chinese privet (Ligustrum Slnense ].our.), and black willow (Salsa:
nigra). Only portions of the do"11SH-COM Section will he altered as part of this project. This is the 275
feet of the upstream of the UT and 13MP site that abuts the UT on t:he Fast Mid the UTBFD on the
,North, Alterations to the buffer will be limited to these areas. The Chinese privct is not widespread.
but will be removed during construction. The extSting grass will need to be removed or eradicated
within the buffer- zone to pillow tier more native plants to take over the area after construction,
5.5 rhreatened/Endangered Species Study
A search of the I_'nited States Fish and Wildlife Service (I.tSFWS) and the North. Caroliria Natural
heritage program (NC'NllP) indicates three endangered or threatened species (Table 7) could be
potentially found Ili Wayne County and Ili the Northwestern Goldsboro 7.5 minute 1 SGS Quadrangle
Map (Appendix A-2: USOS T5 ''Minute Quadrangle Map).
` able 7 Endanocred Species
0
Ma'or Group Scientific Name Common Name *State Status *Federal Status
Bird Picoidcs borealis Red-cockaded E E
MO IIUsk Stro phitis undulatus Sctiawtoot F F'SC
Mollusk Villosa delunabi,s Eastern
Creekshell I FSC
*Stntc Starus Ahhve4iations:E'_ t?udsi11L"-I cd, r= 111reinened. & FSC= F'edca3 Spccic,ot'Conceem
Dewberry
It can be reasonably assumed that the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) is not found on or near the
project site due to the lack. of suitable habitat on the project site. The red-cockaded woodpecker has
highly specialized habitat requirements, which account for its endangered status
(http://wsyw., ?,?)citik?s.coin/fleartl<to<115960fiIts cavity trees are found only in mature
pine forests containing trees greater than about 60 years of age which are fairly open and free of a
hardwood understory. The project site has very few pine trees and is typically too crowded by large
hardwood trees, which would not be favorable for RCW nesting.
Neither of the mollusk species is reasonably assumed to be present within the project limits. Given
the urban nature of the project watershed, the poor water quality resulting from significant
commercial and industrial runoff; and the relatively lows base flow in the streams, the: project streams
are assumed to be not suitable for sensitive rnolltisk species. The consistent presence of large
alilollnts of litter in the stream also serves to dirnin_ish water quality and aquatic habitat.
The assumption that these species are not likely to be fotnld in this watershed cannot t>e substantiated
without a full investigation by a qualified professional, which is beyond the scope of this project.
I Iowever, the existing conditions of the project site suggest. that there is no reasonable expectation of
finding any of the above listed species within the project site.
5.6 Rosgen 5uwey and Classification
A stream survey and classification has been performed using Rosgen methodology. A morphological
investigation of the streams is a key component of the survey. It includes the collection of cross
sections and an asse,ssrnent of stream drrrrensions, pattern, profile, and substrate materials. These
characteristics were collected and evaluated using the techniques outlined in a uUnlber of references,
including:
Applied River Morphology (Rosgen, 1996
The United States Forest Service. General Technical Repot R M-245 (I larrelson et al., 1994)
,Strerant Restoration: A :lratural Channel Design Handbook prepared by the North Carolina
Stream Restoration lnst.ituteand North CarohnaSea Grant.
• Publications from several State and Federal Agencies including, but not limited to, the United.
States Geological Survey (US(;S), the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), were also consulted as part of the stream
analyses
The CJTBFD study reach can generally be characterized as a low gradient stream, lacking in well
defied riffle-pool sequence, and having significant areas of bank erosion below its confluence with
the UT and in areas near existing stormwater outfalls. The UT can be similarly characterized as
hiving a very low gradient, lacking well defined riffle-pool sequence, and having significant bank
erosion along the study reach.
Field observation of the streams indicates the LJTBFD upstream of the confluence with the U"f is a
Rosgen F5 stream type and below [lie UT the stream is a Rosgen G5 stream type. The UT was also
observed to be a G5 stream. Both strearns have sand beds and have area of active erosion.
Rosgen's class] fication, based oil Rosgen survey, on the Upstream reach of tine UTBFD (upstream of
the confluence of IJT) was inconclusive. The stream is, and is believed to have been historically
maintained along and within the channel Scour and erosion indicators were observed during the
survey, but these indicators are for discharge events that occur more frequently and at lower stage
than bankfull. Bankfull indicators were riot observable in the field and the data presented in "fable 9
Dewberry I-)
represents 1 aloes based on the observed scour fines and are for inf'orrnational purposes only. Table 9
indicates the erosion indicators surveyed are entrenched and would tend to create an Unstable streann.
Review of the field conditions. the field survey and the watershed hydrology indicates bankfull is
entrenched within the majority of the upstream reach, indicating an F5c streann. The areas where
bankfull appears to be less entrenched are generally inconsistent in dimension with the upper reach
and are bclicvcd to be modified, possibly by nnaintenance, and not goon indicators of the stream type.
The downstream reach (below- the confluence with the UT) of' the t;Tl3IJD, based on Rosgen survey,
has a width to depth ratio of' less than twelve to one (12 to 1). Front downstream of' the confluennce
with the. UT, to the pro ect iin}its. the. LJ]"BI,1) is classified as a Rosgcn 65c stream type. The
cntrenchrnent ratio in the dola-nstreann portion of the U'l BI'D is 1.3 on average which results in an
entrenched classification. The average width to depth ratio is love at 71 and the sinuosity is low at
I M. This reach is constrained by buildings on the north ovcrbank.
The UT has 470 linear feet of entrenched sand bed with low sinuosity and a width to depth ratio of'
less than twelve to one (12;1). Based an the Rosgen survey, the. 1..'"1' is classified as a Rosgen G5c
stream type. The UT is entrenched with a 1.2 average entrenchnnent ratio. The average width to depth
ratio is low at 6.0 and the sinuosity is low at 1.16. This reach is also constrained by buildings on the
cast overhank. '('here are two 90-(le(,re.e tuns just bclorc its confluence with the UTIM).
The discussion below describes the methodology and results of each portion of the stream survey and
classification.
5.6.1 gross-sections
Survey of the streams included collection of a stream profile and cross sections for both study
reaches. Cross sections were taken at representative riffles, maximum pools, and head of pools. The
data collected at each cross-section included lotl(litudi_nal and cross-sectional stations, bankfull station
and elevation. thalweg location and elevation, edge of water location and elevation, breaks in slope,
flood prone area, and top of bank. A topographic survey, including large diameter tree location, was
performed with a 150 foot approximate width, centered along each project stream Icilg,th.
The reach of the U1'1311). upstreatnn of confluence with the UT, is comprised of several riffle-pool
sccluctnces. In total eleven (l I) pools and tcn (10) riffles were identified along the approximately
1.810 linear foot reach. It was note(] that each of the features are weak and the stream has a u neral
lack of' profile tcatures. Cross sections were collected at three (3) representative riffles and finer (4)
representative pools.
:Hong the UT13FD, downstrearn of` the confluence with the UT, three {3) riffles and two (2) pools
were identified along an approximately 360 linear feet reach. A representative cross section w'as
collected for each feature type.
Weak riffle-pool sequence was noted along the study length of the UT. Three (3) pools and three (3)
riffles were identified along the approximately 470 linear feet of strearrn. A representative riffle cross
section was taken.
5:6.2 Dimension
The most dominant bankfull indicators were the highest scour line and break in slope on each Arca n
bank. Point bars and inner bean, which the Army Corp of Lngineers often refers to as the Mean I ligh
Water Elevation, were minimally present and are weak Features. Review of the field data and the
watershed hydrology indicates the indicators located during survey were for discharge events that
Dewberry 1

Table 8 Misc. Dimension Measurements
each :.: n patio Fntr.etw* 5, :i ? ixr
UTBFT?), up_,ti vnu of Oak St. Not observed* Not obsetA ed*
(J 'T"13FD -- downstream of Oak St. 7. l 13
1
6,0
5.5.3
A .? . t' ?,. i?,h tie 1.1cx1 nnc 75 t?et to I'cc;t,
.r ,E . , . 1? too C'ttrt? ?tsr?'l t1.??'cP'i? _ , . °1lTc
'Ind ;?S a r,:Slll it
he,
t t 1 _ _. 1
5.(x.4
The t PHM) drof, , pproxirnatcly 9.5 feet in elevation while traveling 2,334 feet through the LA"13FD
Pro ject site, including the length of tlrc culvert under Oak Street. This results in an overall slope of
0.0044ftlft or 11.44` <,. The LJTBFD and the UT lack a true riffle--pool sequence, but for the purpose of
this report the channel features will be categorized and reported as riffle and pool features. Over the
entire reach the LJT 3FD consists of approximatelyr 51(/, riffles and 49% pools The average pool to
pool spacing is 172 feet and the average riffle to riffle spacing is 161 Iect. These distances exceed
Dewberry 14
what would be expected of a stable coastal strearn of this bankfull width. Most of the features are
weak and the reach is predominately run. Complete profile measurements can be found in Appendix
B-4:Profeet Site Profile. Data and "fable 9.
Above the confltirence with the UT the existing stream falls 8.6 feet in 2,005 feet, R)r a slope of
0.0043ft/ft or 0.43`ro. The upper reach contains a similar number of riffle and fools, specifically 57`/o
rifles and 43" 0 pools. The average pool to pool spacing rs 190.4 feet (roughly 17.5 bankfull widtins).
The ati erage riffle to riffle spacing is 164 feet (17.5 bankfull widths).
Below the confluence with the UT the slope is lower than the upstream reach. 'The downstream
portion of the UTBFD has a channel slope of 0.0026 ft/ft or0'6°,0. Unlike the upstream portion, the
strearn is dorninated by pools and runs. Riffle features make up less than 15" o of the reach
downstream of the UT. The average pool to pool spacing is 24.0 beet (roughly 2.9 bankfull widths).
The average riffle to riffle spacing is 150.1 feet (approximately 18.3 bankfull widths). Complete
profile measurcrnents can be fOund in Appendix 13-4: Project Site Profile Data.
The UT has very poorly defined fcatures. In its current state, it is rnore like a drainage ditch than a
sand bed stream. The lctiv weak features it has are spaced a considerable distance t onn each other for
a strearn of the UT's bankfull width. The av erage pool to pool spacim, is 167.6 feet (approximately
28.3 bankfull widths). The average riffle to riffle spacing is 170.9 feet (29 bankfull widths).
Complete profile measurements can be fotund in Appendix B-4: Project Site Profile Data.
5.5.5 Pebble Counts
Pebble counts were taken at eight (8) locations along the U-1T31-1). Six (6) of' these locations were
taken above the confluence with the unnamed tributary and two (2) were taken below the confluericc.
Two (2) locations were sampled along the UT. At each location, one-hundred ,aniplc:s were, taken.
and the D5, for all of the reaches was determined to be 0.5 mm. Data sheets can be tournd in
Appendix B-5: Project Site Pebble Count Data.
5.7 Pavement and Sub-pavement Samples
A representative riffle was chosen for the pavement and sub-pavement sarnples. The sarrallles were
extracted from the portion of the riffle with the most aggradation (not in the thalwcg}. A `-i e (5)
gallon bottornless bucket was used to define the sample area and shield it from flow. The ,:miplc was
processed by a geotechnical lab for sieve analysis tests. The DS„ of the pavement, was d,2tci mined to
be 0.89 m.m. The Dsr} of the sub-pavement was 0.87 mm, Data sheets can be found in Appendix B-6.-
Project Site Pavernen11ub-pavement Data.
5.8 Topographic Sm-vey
A topographic survey was completed using conventional and (TPS survey techniclues within the
stream and along the immediate overbatnks. The topographic survey included the location of top and
bottom of banks fir each stream, stream thalw-eg, and breaks in slope. Additionally, location of
bridges, culverts, large trees, buildings, and utilities were included. Cross-sections for both hydraulic
modeling and for Rosgcr) analyses were also surveyed.
Horizontal and vertical corntrol was established from two Trimble 4700 Global Positioning System
units. The ((BPS) static observations were made at multiple locations on the project site. The data was
then analyzed usirig the Online Positioning t ser Service (OPUS) provided by the National Geodetic
Survey (NGS). The NGS operates the OPUS as a means to provide, GPS users` easier <aeccss to the
National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). OPUS used the "POND 1097" NGS base station
Dewberry 1
(monument) with a point identification nnmhers (PID) of A16453 in its analyses. OPUS provided
NAD83/95, positions (North American Daturn of 1983/ epoch 1995) and NAVD88 (North Antcrican
Vertical Daturn) elevations. Due to the f3MP site being added by amendment after the contpletion of
the site survey an alternate data source, was utilized. The survey data on this site was supplemented
with Lidar data from E EP to complete the topography for the entire site. The vertical and horizontal
daturn for the Lidar data is the san-i as the. survey data.
Table 9 Morphological Table - l?.\isting Conditions

Parameter Units

A Reach Name
Stream Type
Drainage Area min
Bankfull Discharge, QgKF CIS
Bankfull Velocity, VaKF fttS
Bankfull X-Sec. Area, AexF If?
Bankfull Width, Wsxr it

c
a
m Bankfull Mean Depih, .Dear

WirittVDepth, WeuFl Dw
Bankfull Max D th, Duwc it

it
E
p
Dr,,{J NKF
W. Flood Prone Area, WFPA it
Entrenchment, WFP 1 WaKF
Bank Huigiii na6u, faith;
Parameter Units
Meanuur Length, Lu If
M.L.Ratio, LMtWaxF
I Radius of Curvature, Rc it
Q. RC Ratio, Rc,WBKF
Belt Width, WseT fi
BW Ratio, Ws,TI WsKF
L.Pooi Spacing, L. it
P.S.Ratio LP„/WsxF
Pool Width, W. ft

g P.W. Ratio, WuAte ,....._.....
Pool Depth, 0
It
a. P.D. Ratio, D / DeKF
V_altey Slope, SVg
Channel Slope. Sra+
Sinuosity, K
Pool Sto e, SP
D,s • Channel mm
.0 D•;, Channel mm
an D,,, - Channel mm
Existing Existing Existing Existing

UTBFD G's
Oak Street UTBFD,,1; '

Oak Street
U/S UT-
UTBFQ D/S
of UT"

UT"
FS 05
0.08 .0:.?
.
Z
.
73 ................
.
._...
...._
160

6.1 12.0
11,2 11.5 -

0.6
1.0 -

21.5 _...._._.
1 0
1.2 1 9
2.0 1.8
17.5 1.6
1,5 1.6
P4 1f1
Min Max Miry Max Min Max Mfr: Max
75 646
6.9 59.4 No existing
tt
i

2.7
1011 ern
n
pa
? this portion
0.3 9.5 of the
?
t

5
86 pr
ojec
reach.
0.5 7.9
49.5 346.9 24.0 210
4.5 31.9 4.0 4.0
82 18 5 8.8 6,6
0.7 1.7 11 1.1
0.6 1.0 1.6 1.6
0.06 W-11 0.27 0.27
0:46°0 0.260
0.43°,b 0.26°x0
1.11 1.01
i
0.07°Ta
0.07%
Silvcla SUt/Cia
0.5
5.7
" - % alai., presented are for the sour lines observed (luring survey, but are not for banktull (rata and are
inclu,!,M for infitrmational purpo,cs only, The information provided is tier discharge event, tr., than Bankfull
and are shown to indicate cnlrend n ent ol'the observed data and indicate otierali channcl tnstahility.
11 Dewberry to
- Tliis <lat<t was collected Ixil Vuil.l not Ix applicd. '1'1le fetich dowilst:rea111 of' the 1-11 will not have €Zc:,; r,a.
methods applied to its design due to die constraints i n the area and length of this rulch.
IBc ause of, the shortness of the reach only limited field data was collected 161- the portion of the stream
b tweeii die UT and Onk Street. This sq'ilrcut was found to tx generally consistent witil the portion of strv?irn
downstre rri of dae. UT for Pattern, Profile arld Substrate. liereli>re, these v<1111es WOV tr.?ctl f >r both stream
segments.
5.9 Bank Erosion Hazard Index
[Bank Erosion Ilazard Index forrns were completed at 9 representative features thrc}ugllout the lcrrrith
of the UTfBFD and the UT. Seven (7) of tyre nine (9) BEHI evaluations were per1,61-nled in the
upstrearn portion of the Uf1BFD. One (1) BEHI evaluation was completed in each the downstream
reach of the UTIBFD and the UT, bight (K) of nine (9) of the 13EHI evaluations resulted in either a
high or extremely high potential for erosion. These forrns earl be found in Appendix B-I3: Project Site,
BEHI Data Streets or in summary Colin in Table 10.
Table 10 Summary of BEMI Evaluations
C
Cross Section # Index Value Rating
1 25.9 Moderate
2 34.9 High
3 45,1 Vcry 1ligh
?
-
I 4 3:3.7 H1411
5 36.8 111gh
6
7 37.7
44.85 Hi III
Verv High
9 (UT) 33.1 I{i?tt
9 ( Downstream) 40.E -.Veryy 1°r,-h ..
5.10 Wildlife Observed
At the time of wildlife assessment, much of the project site had recently been denuded as part: of a
maintenance operation. Consequently, this potentially resulted in loss of habitat for Some species.
During the wildlife assessnent, a limited variety of terrestrial species were encountered. A few
species seen on-site include American (:'rows (Cori,us brachyr'hynchos). Cardinals. (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Snapping Turtles (Clielydra serpentina), River Cooters (Psewietnvs concinna), grey
squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and other unidentified small birds, snails, and frogs. Residents have
seen raccoon (Procyon lotor) and several varieties of'snakes along the project site.
A ininirnally diverse aquatic corrrrnunity was noted along the project reach. Crayfish (Procamburas
clakii), unidentified leaches, and unidentified small fish l ere sighted.
5.11 Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Findings
Neither of the study streams are strearns that have been studied by FEMA and, consequently, are riot
subject to regulation under Federal. Fniergency Managernerit Act (FFMA) National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), The (it IA has requested that a flooding potential study be pertormed for tlus project
to evaluate the risk of increased flooding potential that could result from the stream restoration. I'll is
has been provided in section 5.1 1.2.
Methodologies- used to develop the flooding study for this project have been made largely c« lrsistell
with those methodologies used by the State of North Carolina Floodplain Mapping. Design flows for
Dewberry 17
this project have been determined based on (Jrban Regression Equations presented in L,stinxation q1'
Flood Frequency Characteristics cf' Sma# urban Streanis in ti'orth Carolina, USGS report 96-4084
by Jeanne C; Robbins and Benjarnin F Pope III.
5.11.1 Hydro>k)ff
The equations used to determine design flows are presented in the Table 11, In the formulas listed
below: Drainage Area (DA) is given in square-inilcs, Impervious Area (IA) is given in percent, and
Flow (1.1,} is given in cubic feet per second. Watersheds can be viewed in Figure 2.
Table 1 I Urban Regression Equations
Urban Regressn
F Design Storm Equation
10-yrstorm U,()= 109-DA0625'1A0: 15
25-yr storm U25 = 209*DA057°*1A`' 4
50-vr storm U?,,= 280*DAO5561A0.`i
100-yrstorm Urw= 363*DAU541`lAQ"358
Table 12 Summary of Calculated Flows for the Project Watershed
•

Basin 10 Cum.
DA Cum.
1A
1A
U10
U25
U50
U100
acre acre %a cfs cfs afs cfs
6 30.10 12.60 41.86 110 186 223 260
6+5 76.81 30.61 39.85 193 311 369 426
6+5+4 109.25 3723 34.08 222 355 422 488-
6+5+4+3 248.57 91.43 36.78 386 587 689 787
6+5+4+3+2 255.50 92.90 36.36 391 593
4 696 795
v
6+5+4+3+2+1 259.00 92.94 35.88 391 594 698 797?
As discussed in Section 4.4, the project watershed can be considered to be in its ultimate "build-out"
condition. Therefore, the flows calculated based on existing conditions are considered to be
reasonable, representative ultimate condition flows.
A stream gage was installed on Jur3c 16,2004, along the UTBFD just upstream ol* its confluence v,ith
IJT. Data collected from the stream gage can be used to better understand the hydrological
characteristics of the stream and can be used as ancillary data to calibrate flow estimation, However,
at the time of this report, no storm data has been collected. Final calculated flows can be reterenced
in Table 12.
Dewberry
1's
n
L...1
Figure 2 Map of Sub-watershedsshowing the Industrialized/Urbanized Nature of the Basin

5.11.2 Hydraulics
A l,ydraUlics t7Ioclel has been cievcloped far the project site to determine the existinu floo ding
potential risk and the flooding potential risk for the proposed stream restoration condition. The mcxlel
was prepared in a manner largely consistent with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
methodology for each of the design storms, and has IxCIl included in Appendix D-4: IlydraLilic
Model. The proposed channel design reduces the water surface elevations from existing conditions.
Theret re, this project is not anticipated to increase flooding potential. The average decrease in flood
elevation is 0.08-ft with the most significantdecrease being 0.29-ft at the i,no st upstream extent of the
model. just downstream of N. Astor Cf.
Cj
Dewberry 19

n
Factors that were evaluated to select reference streams, include finding a stream with comparable
watershed sire, watershed soils, stream bed/bank soils, stream classification, stream stability,
watershed land use J land cover, impervious area, valley slope, stream slope, and steam corder to the
project reach. While many sites were investigated for potential as a reference reach, finding a stable
strearn in good condition in an urban setting is clrallearging. To enlist a full compliment of Rosgell
reference parameters, two (2) reference streams were analyzed.
The first reference reach analyzed is an t.rnnamed tributary (REF- 1) to the l.Attle Raver (Appendix ('-I:
Reference Site Dimension L)ata). REF-1 has an urban watershed comparable in size and impervious
coverage; to the project watershed. The R1 F-I stream is located in close proximity to the pro}.?ct
watershed (southeast of the project watershed and within the ('ity of Goldsboro). and the R1
watershed borders the project watershed. (:haractenstics of REF- I used in (lie natural channel :?. inn
methodology include: dimension, profile, and sediment transport measurements. As with many urban
streams REF-I has been artificially confined and its natural pattern has been truncated.
A second reference stream (REF-2) was required to supplement the pattern data provided by R3 F-1.
REF-2 is situated in a much less urban watershed in Moores Crossroads, NC (.Appendix
Reference Site Pattern Data). This reference stream was analyzed by the North Carolina State
Extension Service (NC'SES). Data from REF-2 used in the natural channel design ulethodc7lc>gy was
focused on stream pattern. The REF-2 watershed is much larger and more rural than the project
. w-atershed. REF-2 does have a favorable channel slope, sediment. transport capacity, stream
classification, and patter measurements when compared to the project reach. Meastrrernents and
values are provided in the morphological table for this reference and were provided lay= the N('SF;S.
Data presented for REF-2 was not collected by Dewberry and was taken directly from \( SE'S.
6.2 Rosgen Classification
REF-1 has an entrenchment ratio of 1.7 and a width to depth ratio of 9.7 to 1. The sinuosity is 1,0
and the slope is 0.221'4,. The Der, of the stream is a 0.25 iiin particle. The REF-I stream is a stable. l b`i
stream that is nested in a large valley that is a G Rosgen stream classification. Thus. the
entrenchment number of RFF-1 is artificially lower than would naturally be associated with an h
strearn classification. This condition is a frequent condition found in urban streams. The width to
depth ratio, slope, channel material, and site visits indicate that the strearn is a Rosgen I-15 strearn. In
addition to the mean values mentioned above, the complete reference measurements and ratios can be
found in the Morpholo(,icalTable I Fable 13).
RF -2 has an entrenchment ratio of 21.9 and a width to depth ratio of 5.2 to 1. The Sinuosity is 1,2
and the slope is .46%. The D ,, of the stream is a 1.0 nazi particle. These characteristics indicate that
the stream is a Rosgen E5 stream. Reference measurements can be found in the Morphological Table
(Table 13).
62.1 (::rosy-sections
Cross-sections were taken at representative riffles, maximum pools, and head of pools along RFT-1.
The data collected at each cross-section includes longitudinal and cross-sectional station, bankfull
station and elevation thalwet, location and elevation, edge of water location and elevation. breaks irr
slope, flood prone area, and top of bank. Topographic survey was completed within the REF- I aild
along its banks.
V Dewberry 0
6.1 Site Identification and Description
r?
r.?
E
0
['he suavyc:d reach of hEl?? IN col gwkcd of scvcmI riffle ?Ivol sequcnC;es. ??hcrc: we`re 1 fctrtur "
Identified aOng M 459 foot sit idy length of 1011 L Mint of to features aw in quol can Vkm and
crosti-,CctioIIl,wcrc sul-v'c\cd at throe (3) r"eprcaSenmti:c ritticsand Iwo (2) roprosentat:i,. .
622 Dit lerlsioaa
Tlie most dounnani bankfull oidicator w <is the hrcak in slope oil each stream Kink. The highest scour
lime and inner berm, Wich IN Army Corp of kngincers often refers to as the Mean I lit;h Water
1.1cvatiori. vN-°crc minimally present and typically were wal features. Point bars wov ab on along in
the REI'd channel,
value of 13.5 Wt. These values pre duce tm average bankfull niean depth of 1.5 feCt With tI range of
1.3 to L. feet. C'rc>yo"tiwi data fir REF-1 can be found in :appendix C-1: Reference Sitc
Dimension D<at<t.
Ile bankfull area at be r pmwntath e rlf&s nun ?.d Rom 21 A to 2?.4 feet. cc ith Lill al oragu area o
231 square Net. The avemp bankfull i idth %as 15.0 rcct C?ith a ni;ixiaiuni of' 17.5 turd :I iiitnii iuni
62.3 PatWrn
As stated prcviotlsly, the 14FInI "act- lied has tzl: ny shnilarities to the project ?vatcrshcd, including
vvcak pattern mea',UrcMC;uts, Much need t,? he supplemented. RF -2 is Icss c;loscly related to the
project watershed. duc to it 1-Icing, i orp r. A Mm RFKI- but has str? ;pattern Irlcastaremc:nts.
was, thercioi,c, used c"nlv to the nccc;,sary patte,I iu. RI-T-2 has a
valley length of 219 to and a strcam longth or 204 to, which indicaf I sinuosity of 1,2L Twig
Deft vvidth inc Isinern ants were taken am! mcasumd ,appiohnate,ly 24 and 34 fcs. The meander
Wd OIcngth tv,.is takers at t"m locadons, and Ie whod A nic dremem of nm h y M) < nd 62 feet. The
radnIS of cl.nwaturc Iricasurenlents ranged thorn a radius of 15 fact to one of 29 tes with a I'nean value.
of 217 Is. Pattern data O REM can be round lit Appca& C'-2: 12efetrence Site Pattern Data.
6.2.4 Profile}
I he sure cued reach (R 1; F0 bras an clc mioi drop of 11) its along a chaos cl IcngW of 459 W.,
w-1iich I-csiilis in all oierall slops: of (l.(M22 ftT or 229L The average Hite to pool spacing is 14 1" !
or n aghly 205 WWII widths. The avenTe pawl to pool spacing is 97 Ws. or roughly V bankfull
widths. Ile average riffle to riffle spacing; is 120 t'ect or approxii-natcly 8 bankfull bvidtlis. 111-c`ile
data bw RFF-1 can be hnind in Appe ahx 1Zc:ferenccSite Profile Data.
62.5 Pebble Counts
A pebble count study was performed akmT R1tFA. Pebl le count, were taken at two (2) riffles and
two (2) pools. Ile pebble counts indicate a salad bed stream `kith a Q of .25mm. completc pebble
count data slleC:ts call b-' lound in Appendix C 4: Refcrencc Site Pebble Count Data.
6.3 Morphological Table
Based on the data collected. RosWn parameters and ratios were gmemted for the klJ - and RFF-2.
'Faille 1 ? stimiil<Ii'iLes the kcy morphological values for heath rc?,iche°s.
10 Dewberry 1
0 Table 13 Morphological Table - Reference Reaches _
Ref. Reach
Parameter Units ReL Reach 1 2
11
Reach Name REF-1 REF-2
SIream Type E5 E5
Drainage Area mil Q.43 2 28
Bankfull Disahar e, ?aKF cfs 73 66
Bankfull VelOCit , VBKF tt/S 31 41
Bankfull X-Sec Area ABKF itz 232 16.2
Bankfull Width, WBKF ft 15.0 92
Bankfull Mean Depth,
DaKF
ft
1.5 1.8
Width/De th..... WBKF/ DaKF 97 5.2
Bankfull Max Depth, DnAx ft 2.0 1.9
E DaAx / DBKF 1.3 1.1
W. Flood Prone Area,
WFPA
26.1
200.
Entrenchment, WFPA
WBKF
1.7
21.9
Rrnk Height Ratio, RHR 1.0 1.0
Parameter Units Min Max Min Max
Meander Length, Lm ft 60 62
c _
M.L.Ratio, L„/WBKF Nominal
tt
i 6.6 6.8
m
Radius of Curvature, Rc ern
pa
n
ft this portion
15,0
29.0
RC Ratio, Re t WOO of the
R
f 1.6 3.2
Belt Width, Wall erence
e
ft reach. 24.0 34.0
BW Ratio, WBLr / WaKF 2.6 3.7
L,Pooi Spacing, L ft 86.91 106.4 25.0 69.0
P.S.Ratio. L ,WBKF 5.8 7.1 2.7 7.5
Pool Width, W it 192 194 11.2 14.1
P.W. Ratio, W , WBKF 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.5
e
Pool Depth. DA _
_ _...._......_.......
ft
2,2
2.5
1.6
1.6
o P.D. Ratio, Dp/ DBKF
- 1.50
w 1.7Q_ 0 7 .92
? 0.92
ValleySlopr,Svni 0.22% 0.56%
Channel Slope, S_ Q.22% 0.46%
Sinuosit , K 1.005 1.205
Pool lope, Sp 0.03% 0.02%
D16 - Channel mm
y Silt/Cla
Dso - Channel mm 0,25 1.0
a
N
DM - Channel
mm
1.0
1.0
6.4 Plant Communities
The reference site was found with a thin riparian buffer along each side, which consisted of forested
vegetation approximately twenty (20) feet wide. Outside of that area was open mowed fields. The
vegetation was thick and the stream was completely shaded. The vegetation was found to be
relatively free of invasive species. The site was dominated by canopy trees with some midstory on
the field edges and little herbaceous cover. The site was found to contain A nerican elm f Mmus
Dewberry 22
Americana), ringed elm (tJlmus alata Michx ). sugarberty (C'eltis laevigata W'illd.).loblolly pine
(Finus taeda), red mulberry (Morus rubra), sycamore (Platanus occident.ilis), black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), black willow (Salix mgr<:i), and silktree (Albi/iajulibrissin). The soil was
characterized lpy a relatively high percentage of organic material in the upper surt'ace.
6.5 Current I-.and Usel I..arid Cover
fills section deseribe the 1x111(1 rise of the relc:rence watershed for R1:1"-1. The I, I _•reji•;e watershed is
an urban wat:er,,Jw l largely characteri/ed by cornrncrcial and residei tial use (Appendix (_'-5:
Refe.retice Jicd I xid UsefLand (?'ovc r lap rind Table 14). Al)f)rvxiirirttcly 44`io of t:lie project.
tvaiershecl liar, i °,. luatial land use, rouglily 32`?o is used Tor cornineircial purposes, and 4t little n1ore
tlia.n 17 % of the ':tcrshed is open space. less than 10°4a Of the space in the Watershed IS Used f<rr
i idustrial sites.
'Table 14 Watershed Land Use /Land Cover
Land Cover (REF-1) % by area Area (Acres)
Residential 44.4 120.3
Commercial 31.6 85.8
C) en S ace
.... - --._.-..__....... _.....

Industrial
_-..
Totals 17.4
.

6,6

10010 ?? 47.'? ..-

_
................. .....---.._.......... .....
18.()
. ............-..
271.2
Table 15 shows a comparison of the project watershed to the reference watershed for IZ F-I. Both
have nearly 4011/o commercial and 401%, residential land usaoe. Open space or industrial sites comprise
the remaining percentage of each watershed. Neither of these land uses exceeds 15"10 in either
watershed.
fable 15 Comparison of Watershed Land Use /land Cover

Fro'ect Watershed - ............ .......
Reference Watershed (REF-1)
Land Cover % Acres Land Cover % Acres
Commercial 39.4 100.9 Commercial 31.6 E 85.8
Residential 37.4 95.7 Residential
. -
.
- 44.4 120.3
.
. ...... .
Industrial 14.0 35.8 _.....
..
Industrial .
..
6.6 18.0
Open Space 9.2 23.7 () vn Space 17.4 47.2
Totals 100.0 256.0 Totals 100.01 271.2
6.6 Soils
The reference watershed for RLF-I contains several soil mapping units, namely the Johns, Kalmia,
l.?umbee, Wickham, Norfoll<,and Myatt (Appendix (7-6: Reference Watershed Soils Map). Lakeland.
Ruston, and Kenansville cure also found in smaller amounts. Table 16 lists the soil mapping units and
their corresponding percentage of the watershed area. The RC F'-1 watershed soils are predominately
sandy looms and to a lesser degree loainy sands (Table 17). 1.)escriptions of the soil mapping; traits
found in the largest percentages are provided below.
Table 16 REF-1 Watershed Soil Series
r:

Johns 35.0 Norfolk 7.9
Kalmia 23.4 my rtt 6.8
Lumbee 11.4 Lakeland 2.7
Wickham 10.0 Ruston/Kenansville <2
Dewberry
"' 3
?1ohns Series
1.,Jke the Norfolk and Kalinia sails, Johns Series soils are foUnd predorninantly art broad, sinooth
terraces and short slopes aril upland divides. 'Typically these soils are fonried in str•eatn seditnettts.
Like the Nort ilk and Kalrnia sails, Johns aeries soils are low in natural fertility and organic matter
content. This series has moderate permeability. tned.iurra water availability capacity, and their shrink
SWCII capacity is usually 10%V. Most. Johns soils are classified as sandy loans.
E
r:
Kahl tia Series
lllis series consists of Poorly drained soils found oil broad, srnooth terraces and Shallow
drainagew,tys. Infiltration is Moderate and surface ruriofT` is usually slow ,.,ith most K;ilri-ii,;i soils.
Kahnia soils are usually classified as 108.111y sands. This series has rncxl ,:: permeability, medium
water availability capacity, and their shrink swell capacity is usually lc:t . These sails are usually
f 7rnied in Stream sediments
LuInbee Series
I his series consists of poorly drlined soils found on broad, smooth terraces and shallow
(trainage),vays. Like the Norfolk 'series they are also low in natural fertility and orgc;ctric matter
content. L;umbee soils are usually classified as sandy loams. This series has moderate permeability,
medium water availability capacity, and their shrink swell capacity is usu,111V i(m These soils are.
us1.1a11y forrt3ed in stream sediments.
'liable: 17 Watershed Soil Textures
Soil Textures % of Watershed
.......
Sandy 1 oa n 53.1
Loaniv Sand 44.2
?Thcrcmuiii? ,?3?tiitil?;:n'cci,tsif<ci9a,saiAd.
"The sail series (Table 18) and the sail tc ,lures (Table 19) in the reference site compare well with
those found in the proje- t ,? <<t?? shed.`i'lre soils are listed a.lph abetrcally for contparisorr purpose
Table 18 Comparison of Watershed Soil Series
Johns
Kalmia
Lumbee
Norfolk.
Wickham
Other

2L I I Johns
2.5 Kalnaia
14.9
44.4 Lumbee
Norfirlk
11.2 Wickham - -
6.0 Other
d
3>.0
23.4
11.4
T9
100
n
{
? _...
_
}14
Table 19 Comparison of Watershed Soil Textures
Project W atershed Reference Watershed (1C E 1)
Soil Textures % of Watershed Soil Textures of Watershccl

Loam Sand
58.0
;Sandy Loam ...
53.1
Sandy Loam 38.7 Loamy Sind 4Y 2 ?
Loam 33 Sand 2.7 Dewberry

24
7 NATURAL CHANNEL. DESIGN AND STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
The proposed restoration will prinnarily include two (?) restoration approac'hn on the U TM-D. For-
the reach beteccn the culvert and the UT, cnhancerrrent will include construction of a. bankfull or near
bankfull bench and bank grading to decrease bank slopes to a more stable configuration. From a
point 80 teet upstream of the culvert to the Upstr-earn project limit; the approach will be a combinatior)
of Priority ? and Priority 3 restoration to create a C5/E5 channel with overbank grading to establish a
bankfull bench and floodprone area. A short reach, 335 feet, at the upstream project limit is
constrained by a nan-ow easement width, and as a result the reach will have the design bankfull
channel that is slightly incised based on the available floodpronc area and resultant entrenchment
ratio.
7.1 Design Considerations
Tlie project 'site is located in in active ai-ban apartment complex, and has a rtunrber of pliysical
constraints that limit the design and restoration. Sonic of the most significant design) corrsidcratiorrs
include: limited conservatism easement (average width of'40 feet), proximity ofexrsting infirtrstructurc
(buildings, recreational areas, etc), maintaining specified grade control points at stream crossings, the
presence of multiple utilities that run along or cross the stream, and the preservation of large trees.
7.1.1 Infrastructure Constraints
The Goldsboro 1-1ousing Authority and LLP have agreed upon the establishment of a conservation
easement that will protect the proposed strearn and a limited portion of its riparian buffer Zone. 'l'ire
riparian hi.iffer Zone is as ShOWn or) the flans and has a variable width {rs.>m the stream banks along
the length of the stream. In many areas it is not feasible to protect or restore any part of the riparian
buffer zone. I hose are areas where the stream constraints require the use of the entire casement. I'hc
project stream flows through .in active urban apartment complex and the maximum vvic:ltli Of' the
easernent is sixty five feet with an average of forth feet, so the space available to irnplennent pattern irr
the stream and buffer zone is riot feasible beyond what currently exists and what is required to
accommodate adjt:tstrnerits due to utilities.
The proximity of buildings to the project guided the decision of whether to r.rise the stream to its
existing floodplain or to lower the floodplain to the existing stream. The lroposed rratcrral channel
design recommends the construction of a floodplain at the stream's current elevation in an effort. to
limit increases in water sc,rrf C elevations.
7.1.2 Grade Control Points
"fete project stream has two types of stream crossing,,; pedestrian bridges and a culvert, wlrcrc both are
located along the upstream reach of U BFD. As part of` the design, G1-IA acrd FIE"P have requested
that the culvert crossing be maintained in its existing state and that two pedestrian crossin4-, along the
strearn be replaced. -Elie culvert located along UI BFD under West Oak Street is a single barrel, 48-
inch corrugated metal pipe. This culvert is to be maintained with the proposed natural charinel
design, which results in a grade control point that must be maintained in the proposed design.
- There are three existing bridge locations along the upstream reach of UTI3l?D. The GI IA and I?fi:P
have requested Dewberry to replace at least two (3) pedestrian crossing points along U 1'I3FD as part
of' the natural channel design. Dewberry evaluated the feasibility of rc-LISHIg the exist.irrg steel
pedestrian bridges and determined that the length of the existing bridges was too short tc7 re-use the
bridges with the proposed restoration cross sections. Re use of the existing brrdocs would limit the
,trearn cross section through the bridge opening and increase flow velocity t.llrough the opening likely
Dewberry 25
causing additional erosion potential. Table 20 summarizes slopes determined at each grade control
loc,a.t.ion.
Table 20 Summary of Grades at Grade Control Points
Stream Reach Upstream Slope
Project Start (Pipe) to Bridge 1. 0.08
Bride I to Bridge 2 0.30
Bridge 2 to U/S Invert of Culvert 0.58
D/S Invert. of Culvert to Land of Project (PIPE) 0.85
7.1.3 Utility Constraint.
Within the project area there are multiple utilities, including: electric, gas, water, telephone, cable
television, storm water, sanitary sewer lines, and farce mains. While utilities have been located as
part of the Restoration Plan development, contractors wilt he responsible for verification of all utility
information prior to construction. Each utility crossing has been considered in the development of
the natural channel design, since they provide both vertical and spatial constraints. The location of
the force main, gravity sewer line, and manholes were given additional review because they are all
within protected easements and the cost to relocate these utilities would be prohibitive. In general
conflicts with the utilities are bein`(y avoided where feasible by maintaining the current vertical and
horizon4rl location of the stream thalweg. I lowever, utility adjustments of minor utilities such as
phone, cable television and gas will be required in limited areas. The contractor will be required to
coordinate relocation of these utilities with appropriate utility companies.
7.1.4 Preservation of Large Trees
The stream has minimal tree stand along the project reach. It is the intent of this project to preserve
existing large trees. The locations of trees along the project study reach have been surveyed, and the
tree types and diameters have been noted. Tire size and location of trees are an important
consideration in the development of the plan and profile of' the natural channel design, particularly in
areas where large trees are sparse along the reach. The proposed design will utilize root structure of
the large trees as a part of the design to encourage stream stability of the proposed stream.
7.2 Proposed Stream Classification
The proposed UTBFD will have a C5/E5 classification. Flood prone areas will be graded to increase
the entrenchment ratios until they exceed 2.2, resulting in a slightly entrenched classification. The
design width to depth ratio is 12.7. The sinuoSON will be increased by relocating the stream in two
short reaches, but the pattern and pattern improvement is limited due to site constraints. The L-!. f will
not be modified as part of the project.
Sections 7.3 through 7.8 provide brief general discussion of the issues, analyses, and constraints that
affected the proposed design. Detailed design values are presented in "Fable 21.
7.3 Rosgen Priority Level
I historically, the I-lousing Authority site was at a lower elevation, but the property was raised to build
19 the housing complex. This has artificially raised the floodplain, resulting in incision and removing
pattern.
Dewberry 26
To offset the incisions upstream of Oak Street, the proposed restoration will be a Priority Level 2/3
restoration with 46 percent as Priority 2 and 56 percent as Priority 3. Most of the proposed reach will
be re-attached to the floodplain, by excavating the existing soil to the bankfull elevation. This will
lower the bank height ratios and increase the entrenchment ratio. Priority 2 areas will include
relocation of the stream.
The constraints noted herein limited the proposed stream design which minimized the restoration
options, including changes to the stream length and stream sinuosity. The low grade along the stream
also limited the length and slope that could be provided in the proposed design.
7.4 Bankfull Discharge
Manning's equation was used to develop the bankfull discharge for the project reaches. Typical
existing cross sections were used to develop parameters used in the equation. Bankfull discharge
values ranging from 73 to 81 cfs were established for UTFBD above Oak Street. Below Oak Street
discharges increase to approximately 85 cfs.
North Carolina's coastal regional curves were considered during the development of bankfull flows.
However, the supporting data set used to formulate the coastal curves is limited and does not yet
include areas with greater than 10% impervious area. The project watersheds were determined to be
over 35% impervious area, so the regional curves were not considered to be applicable for this site.
7.5 Dimension
The proposed cross-sectional dimensions were based on a combination of data collected from the
project site and from the reference site. For reasons stated in section 7.4, the North Carolina's
regional curves and dimensions measured at the reference sites were not used during the development
of the proposed bankfull flows.
The cross-sectional shape for UTBFD has been designed with a more narrow width to depth ratio
than the existing conditions. Channel banks are provided at 3:1 slopes, stabilized with erosion control
matting and rip rap near existing utilities. In general decreased bank slopes will reduce BEHI scores
and will help improve bank stability.
7.6 Pattern
The pattern predominantly matches the existing stream geometry except in two reaches. Some of the
most significant design constraints include: proximity of existing infrastructure (buildings,
recreational areas, etc), maintaining specified grade control points at stream crossings, the presence of
utilities along and crossing the stream, and the preservation of large trees.
7.7 Profile
The existing and proposed profiles for the UTBFD are constrained by several grade control points
including: stormwater outfall pipes along the reach, the culvert under W. Oak Street, and the culvert
under US 13-117. The project does not include relocation of the outfalls and culverts, so the
proposed channel inverts are consistent with the existing channel inverts. To the extent possible,
existing riffle and pool features will be maintained. The large number of site constraints prohibits
construction of additional features.
x_11 Dewberry 27
0 7.8 Morphological rI'able
A IZosgen Level 1 through 4 analyses was completed on the LIT131,I), the LIT, and the reference
reaches. Sections 3 through 6 of this report. sttrnmarize this data, and also detail the results of the fair
levels of investigation for each of the stream reaches.
Using the data collected in Sections I through 5, Rosgen parameters and ratios were generated for the
reference reaches, and the UTB D. Table 21 sulnnrtat7res the key morphological values for the
reference reaches, the UTBFD, and the proposed or design values for the UTBFD. The Valdes ill the
table include the channel dimension, pattern, and profile data for both the existing conditions and the
proposed desiLn.
Table 21 Morphological Table - Comprehensive

•
Parameter I Units Ref. Reach 1 Ref. Reach 2 Existing Proposed
l 1 UT8FD U;S UTB" t) U/S
Reach Name REP-1 REF,-
of Oo S of Oak St
- _ i
Stream Type _ t b Eb f5 CSiEb
ainage Area nit 0.43 2.28 n 06 0.06
Ficnkfull Discharge. QeKF cis 73 66 „ 71, 73
Eanktuil Velocity. V.Kr Ws 3.1 4-i 3.0
Brinkfuii X-Sec Area AaKF ft' 212 i 162 6.1 24,2
E'rnkfull Width, Went ft 15.0 9.2 112 17 5
Bankfull Mean Depth DeKF it 1,5 1.8 0.6 1 4
C0; Width/Depth. WBKP/ DtjKF 9.7 5-2 21,5 127
E Bankfull Max Depth. D,,,,x it 2.0 1,9 1,2 23
DMAx / NKr 13 1.1 2,2 1 15
W Flood Prone Area, WFPA it 26 1 200 17.5 40.0+
t , ? ,;;hment Ratio. WF,: l Wi„l t.7 21 ^ 1 2 3:.
.
--- Rar n RHG1 (Ci " `? 4 ?. r1
1 r
Parameter - Units Min Max ! Agin Ma--X f Min j -Ntax Min ? Marx
-- -
r ,n i.r l en ! L it
75 46
Nominal Nominal
I L Hato, 46, pattern in 6.0 8 6.9 59.4 pattern in
adius of C RC ft ! this portion 1,,.0 2u.u 21 1:73,.1 this portion
RC Ratio, Belt Width. Wye R If of the i 1.6- 1 3.2 O.3 9.5 of the
aerBnae
ft 24.0 34 0 5 86 Reference
Reach. - Reach.
E3W Hatio, Weir / WexF _ 2.6 3.7 0,5 7.9
-' L. Pool Spacing to , it
66.9 106 4 25,0 69,0 49 346.9 869 106A
P S Ratio. L ,Wafer t, ( 5.8 71 21 i 7.5 4,5 31.9 4.9 60
P+__.. ..
P^ai Width, W, it 191 194 11.2 141 8.2 18.5 12.3 15.8
P W. Ratio. Wp, WBKr. 1 3 1 1 1 1.2 1.5 01 1.7
4, 07 0.9
m .... _. ... i_. _...._ i .......... . _.. . q
_..._ i
_P __. 0.1 Ratio, Dp DR- it 21, 1,15 1,6 06 1 l) 42 ! 1,61 ... 0.92- . 0,92 006 i 0,09 1 S 2.9
6 ^1
Valley-lope'. Seat 0.217% 0.557% 0.46% 0,40'
,
Channel Slope . Scn 0.216m» 0.462°°n 0.43% 0,2H :
Siriuosi . K 1.005 1.21 1 11 1,10
--
Pool Slope.. Sp 0.03° 0.0210 0.07% O 02-
P, Channel mm
---_i_. _ .....
Ds,, Ghennei mm 0,25 1,0 -- 0.50 -- 0.50
--
l
D• Channel I olio ' 1.0 1-0 5-7 5.7
values presetlteci are for the scour lines observed duriuLl surrey, but are not for hankfull d.at<a and arc
ili tided for informational purposes only. The information provided is for disch.arnc evenls lea than Bankfull
and are shown to indicate entrenchment of the ohserved data and indicate overall channel insiahilily.
Dewberry
x
01
7.9 Sediment Transport Analysis
C'hartncl bed and bank materials uatluencc many stream characteristics, including the cross-sectional
ortti, plant-vic,t?, attd lotrgitudirt tl i'arofile. They also deterntirae the extent of seditnertt transport arad
provide the means of resistance to Ii. cdratllic stress (Rosgcrr, 1996). The torn "charnrel materials"
refers primarily to the sttrlacc; particles that make, up both the bed <md banks NvIthin the bankfull
channel. TVI)ically, streams will haz c coarser material comprising the stream bed, which is referred
to as pavement. Filler particles, sub-Iavement, are normally found under the pavement. The sub-
pm etilcnt is ira(licative of the ratage of >izcs of sediment that are Ilkcly to be rraol)i.lizccl when stream
flows are approachingor are at bankfull discharge levels (Rosgen, 1996).
The pebble count method NvaS used fins field determination of the particle size distribution of channel
materials (Rosgen 1996). Pebble coutats were sampled by Dewberry in riffle sections for the t `TFBD.
Pebble count data has been analyzed b?. Dewberry to determine the median size of bed scclirnetlt, I ) o,
for the upstream section of* the UIT E31) (upstream of conflttenc-e with the the downstream
section of the L.YFFBD (downstream of cot)fluctlcc With the and the entire study reach of the
L. TFBD. This data is presented in Table 22.
Table 22 Summarv of Pebble Count Analysis
Stud Reach Dsa(mm)-.
lJTF13D. a stream section
UTFBD, entire reach
n
Based on this analysis, the stream lx _1 is conaprisetl of niedrtun sand for tile UITH31),
Ira addition to taebble counts, a Ilavctncntlstab l7avemcratcore kvas takea7 at the di viistream section of
the UTBFD, just downstream of the cotrtlucnce with the UT. Fidel inspection of the pavement. sub-
pavemcnt. and the material beloW tllc sttb-patyemcnt revealed nearly Itoniogencous soils far a depth
tarttch greater than that of the sub-pavetracrat.. Sieve analysis (completed by 1--roehlirt4g & Robertson.
inc..) was performed on this sainpte and is stlinniarizcd III Table 23.
Table 23 Summary of Pavement/Sub-pavement sample for UTFBD
-
Sample --
11)„x,} (mm) j
Pa1e.m:n1 t) tit)
Sub pavement t) S7

'I he study streams for this project hayc sand beds, so some of tlrc. more comnrotr sediment traarst)ort
,analysis equations, includill" the Shields cyttauon, arc not suitable for this stre'aw
The Blanch Re-Ime T orntula has bccn selcet.ed lo) Ilse for sediment transport analysis Tor the study
reach. This lormula is interulcd to app1V only to sand bed streams that are in equilibrium acid have
dtarae-covered beds (Vamarti, 1977). The study reach is characterized by sated bed throuf ltoatt, thus
this formula has been selected as a tool to calculate seduncrrt transport.
The Blench Regime Formula is cited in Vanoni (1977) as equation 2.232.
9 Dewberry 2<
(1+0.12x1W (err?y))11/12
1 + (1/233 x 10)(C,,,/y)
3.6:3 g blrsgl;l2s
114 0i11 1112
k_u in which C,,,= sediment discharge concentration, n1 pounds per cubic foot; dgo.,,,,,,= median size of bed
seditent, in millimeters; b = width of stream, in feet; k =a rncandercoeflicaent with values of 1.25
for straight reaches, 2.0 for streams with well-developed meanders, and 2.77 for very sinuous streams,
g = gravity in ft/s2, q = water discharge, in cubic fect per second per foot of width; v = kinematic
viscosity ill ft' /s; and y = specific weight of water in pounds per cubic foot. The Blench Regime
Formula. for sand bed streams can be used to calculate sediment discharge concentration, C:,
To maintain that the proposed stream has similar sediment transport capability as the existing stream,
the proposed stream's sediment discharge concentration (C, J,p,wd) must be equal to the existing
sedimentdischarge concentration (C.:', eY,,, „R}. The sediment discharge concentration is the only
variable, so the left side of the equation will be equal for the existing and proposed conditions.
Therefore, the right side of the equation must be equal for the existing and proposed equations. All
variables for the existing condition are known, and we can solve for the median size of bed sediment
transported in the proposed condition.
Eidstina Condition

3.63 g blsqul'S
knu"4(l.9(d,?,u„)t?s?nrln =
3.63 r b114q"'S
k.„1) 1141 L9fd... ,,,, )?ssf M2
Table 24 below summarizes the equation variables:
Table 24 Summary of Sediment Transport Equation Variables
Existing Proposed
Variable Value Value Unit
D50 0.87 0.781 mm
b 11.2 17.5 ft
k,„ 1.25 1.25
Y 62.4 62.4 Lb/fta
q 6.52 417 _ Ff /s/ft
S 0.0043 0.0038 Ft/ft
V 1.217E-05 1.217E 05 Ft /s
g 32.2 32.2 Ft/s
0
Solving the equation for D , in the proposed condition, D50 equals 0.781 mm. The median sire of
sediment in transport for the proposed condition is similar to the existing size for seditrnent in
transport for the existing stream: the proposed stream should be adequately sized to transport similar
sized sediment.
JJ# Dewberry
0
DRAWINGS
8.1 Typical Cross-Sections
The proposed cross-sections will modify the UT13FD to a stream with a C51 H5 Kos-en stream that is
reattached to the floodplain. The proposed cross-sections have a bankfull cross-sectional area of
approximately 24.2 square feet, a bankfull width of 17.5 feet, a bankfull maximum depth of 2?5 1ect:,
r and a bankfull mean depth of 1.4 feet. The width to depth ratio is approximately 12.7 and the
entrenchment ratio will modified to greater than 2.2. The typical section is shown in the provided
plan set in. Sheets 24 and 25.
81 Structures
Natural stream design structures will not be used for this restoration due to constraints noted
previously.
Two woad bridges built on concrete abutments have been designed to span the constructed stream.
The bridges will be built so that the low chord of.the bridge sits above the floodplain bench. and will
transition back to grade based on ADA requirerlients. Structural drawings can be viewed in Shect 30
in the provided plan set.
8.3 Channel Plugs
Channel plugs will be necessary for the locations where the new channel leaves the old channel.
Permanent erosion control matting will be used in place of root wads in high velocity areas due to
conservation cascmcntand utility constraints.
0
Dewberry 11

911 Stormwater Best Management Practiice Selection
The EEP has expressed an interest in constructing a best management practice (BMP) capable of
reducing nitrogen since the submission of the original Conceptual Plan (submitted July 6,2000.
Through investigation of the site and its limitations, it has been decided that a constructed wetand
will provide the greatest amount of nitrogen reduction potential based on area available tilt- use
(presented in Amended Concept Plan submitted January 28.2005).
Pocket wetlands offer characteristics that make them the most favorable nitrogen reduction BMP
application for this project site. Pocket wetlands that are designed following the recotmnended design
guidance offer the most nitrogen reducing credit; reducing the nitrogen load by 4W`(). Tltis will
provide the most efficient BMP for removing nitrogen at. this site. In addition, constructed wetlands
are shallower in nature, providing a safer environment (when compared to wet detention ponds will)
lat ?`e areas of open water) for the residents and children of the G1 IA_
9.2 Constructed Wetland Description
'rile proposed wetland will be located oil property owned by the NC Department of Tra nsportatio1h.
and receive flow from the UT to the UIBFD, The LT is a jurisdictional stream, and regulatory
agencies typically will not permit treatment facilities, such as BMP's, to be located on-line with the
jurisdic(iotial stream. Consequently, this BMP will be located off-line from the contributing drainage
area and will rely on an inflow weir from the channel bank of the Ur to provide flow into the BMP.
The inflow weir will be, located above the bankfull elevation, such that the base flow for the
jurisdictional stream will not be diverted into the BMP, but only excess flow during; storm e? eats will
be diverted. This BMP cannot be designed in full compliance with tlhe Design Guidelines for BMP's
established by NC'DENR (on-lime). I-herefore, tile nitrogen load reduction can only be estimated as a
portion of the total potential removal of an on-line BMP.
The drainage area to the LTT is approximately 125 acres with approximately 50 nacres of
imperviousness. The existing Nitrogen load to the UT at the location of the BMP is azpproximate ly
1229 lb/yr. It is anticipated that the BMP will receive flow during several storm events each year, as
the typical one inch storm event and tine one year de.sigrt storm are expected to overtop the weir In 1.8
or 17 feet, respectively.
9.3 ". Design Parameters
The proposed wetland design follows the guidelines provided by NCDE.NR to establish characteristic
features such as I.ow Marsh, High Marsh and Open Water sedimentation forebays. Certain
guidelines were modified such as flow regime and percentage of area dedicated to each marsh type
due to site constraints. The completed design based on NCDENR guidance is provided in Appendix
I)-2: Supporting Wetland Design and Nitrogen I...,oad Calculations.
9.4 Control Structure Evaluation
The design of the inflow and outflow control structures for the wetland was evaluated based txa a
series of flow calculations. These include the I-inch flow, estimated base flow and 2-vr flow for the
UT. These flows and corresponding water surface elevations were used to cstahlisb the appropriate
inflow elevation fi-orn the UT that would comply with DWQ reclaurelnents. Further these flows and
f Dewberry
the seasonal high ,routidwaterelevations were used to establish the normal pool tuxl treatment
elevations of the wetland. The final design inflow elevation is 69.5 NAVD which is also the normal
pool of the wcdand. The supportingcalctdations for the flows and elevations can be l6und in
Appendix D-3: Supporting Wetland Inflow Calculations.
r:
0
An evaluation of flow control devices was also performed at the request of I;L P. The Following table
Summarizes the factors considered l )r each device:
Table 25 Flow Control Device Evaluation Summary
Device Relative Cast Lirrtilations Benefits
Concrete Riser high 1. Requires placement of ! Low maintenance
concrete or within ? 1(H) yr life cycle
stream buf'Icr if cast-in-
place
?. Requires the use of
heavy equipment to
i
install as pic-cast
3. Fixed control elevation
CMP Flashboard Miser Moderate. 1. Rcquiresextavatioll I. Installation by I
within stream hand or small
2. Limited life cycle (50 cquipnlcnl
yrN) 2. 11_1?lsily adjusta.hIc
C011trol elcl ltion
Concrete Welt' I Iigh i . Rc.grnres placement of f . Low ryinintCnan4el
concrete or within 2. I(H)vi life c ? clc
stream buffer if cast-in-
place
2. Requires the use of
heavy equipment to
install as pre-cast
I=ixed control elevation
4. No backflow control
Stabilized Bcrm Overflow Low I. No backflow control I. Low maintcnancc'.
2. Fixad control clc%ation ?. Unlimited lifc
cycle
3. Installation by
hand or small
ec utPlucnt
Rubbcr"duckbill" IIit'll I Cost I. Low maintenance
backflow preventer 2 50 Yr life cycle
3. Installation by
Rand oi- small
cqui mcnt ,
Aluminum Flap gate Lmv I. Moli maintenance l Installation by
2. Clan fail to ,hut or open hand or Small
if' not maintained equipment
j-- 3. 5-10 w Iifecycle
Based on the information provided above Dewberry recommends the, use of C N'IP flashboard risers
for both structures with a tubber "duckbill" backflow pre-venter on the inflow Structure.
Dewberry 3 ;
X1.5 Maintenance Recommendations
Constructed v,,etlands require periodic rnaintenance. This is drte to design intent to retain portions tat`
the storm flow for removal of` Nitrogen. This Function also results in the settling of solids firom the
water column in the quiescent pool of the wetland. In order to Iirnit the impact to the wetland frorn
maintenance a forebay, or, deep settling pool of open water is incorporated in the wetland design. The
majority of' the large particle settling wilt take place in this area limiting distribution of sediments into
the rest of the wetland.
Since: the base floe will not be treated in the proposed BMP for this site the amount of sedirrrents
trapped should be less than norrnally expected. It is recommended that- the forebay be nionitored for
depth annually and the wetland visually inspected for sedimentation deposits. A reduction of 301.1%0 of`
the depth of the forebay or- niore indicates the need for- maintenance. This can be accomplished by
manual or nuchanical rernoval of the accuniulated sediments front the, forebay. Further if
sedirtrcnt-ation deposits are observed within the wetland these should also be rernoved rnanwilly taking
if possible. Il' the quantity of sediments, in the «vc.tland is not icasible to be removed by hand
rnechanieal eLlUipme17 Can be used. I loweycr, came should be Taken to rninintize the disturbance of`
tile: vegetation Nvherc possible. It is anticipated that periodic rnaintenanceof the BMP will be required
on a 10 year cycle.

Dewberry
34

10.1 Riparian Buffer
As part of' the stream restoration, the project will include the restoration and repair of the riparian
buffer along the project reach. Within the project reach, the riparian buffer is in need of' varying
levels of restoration ranging from complete restoration to augmentation.
The riparian buffer augmentation and restoration will extend out from the stream channel to the limits
of the easement boundary. 'T'hree zones of planting were established based on hydrologic reginne.
The first zone is the bench, an engineered levee beginning at the edges of the thalwcg and Nvithin the
main channel. Zone One (I) is designed to receive the bankfull flood. Zone Two (2) is the slope
front the bench to the top of the greatcrchannel. Zone Tvvo will receive less freeltrent flooding than
Zone One. The third zone extends frorn the top of' the slope to the Knits of the easement. Zone.
Three is within the 100-year floodplain of the stream.
Zones One and Two will be planted with a density of 400 wordy saplings per acre and 10,CAX)
herbaceous plants per acre.. The plants to be planted in these Zones are hydrophytic and flood,.
tolerant. Zone Threc will be planted with herbaceous plants and six (6) specirlnen trees.
The buffer will be planted with a seed mix of native permanent grasses, graminoids and woody plant
seed. The seed rnix is a combination of hardy cool and warns season grasses designed to create a
stable and durable riparian zone.. In conjunction with the permanent seeding. a temporary seed rnix of
annual grasses will be applied for immediate erosion control purposes.
Table 26 Streain Channel and Riparian Zone Plantings (entire easement area except BM P)
(4

PLANT SCHED ULE: Zones 1, 2 and 3
Scientific Name Common Name Spacing Minimum Stock Zone Distribution
00 On-
Center
TREES ANT) SHRG`BS
Samhucus ranadensis Iilderbern> T Live stake or I of 2 12aundom mix
tubelin
Salix ni,,ra Black Willow 2' T.ive stake or I or 2 Random mix
tubelin
Sa&r raroliniana S"anap Willow 2' Live stake or I or 2 Ranrxiom rrr ix
tubelin
Cornus arnornuXn Silky I)ogwoxl 2' Live stake or I or 2 Random rn ix
tubelin
Platanus orcidentalis Sycamore 2` Live stake or I or 2 Random nix
tubelin
Betula ni ra River Bich 2' Live stake or 1 or 2 Random mix
tubelin
11yrica cerdf'era Wax Myrtle 2' T.ive stake or i or 2 Ran(enll mix
wNlin g
Liquidambar Sweet Gtm 2" Live stake or or 2 Rallndom mix
stvraci ua [esbelin>
Alnus serrulata Alder L i v e stazhe or or ' lice' n d o n i m i x
tubelin
l.Xitdet'a l3eXJt,dnX1 spicebush G ` Live stale or I or 2 Raundor n m i x
tubelin
Dewberry
35
0

C
PLANT SCHEDULE: Zones 1 2 and 3

Scientific Name
Common Name
Spacing; ;Minimum Stock
(ft) On-
Center
'hone _
Distribution I

--
HERBACEOUS T
Ascle>ias incarnala Swum milkweed 2' Plu, I or 2 Random mix
Carex vul plnoulea Fox Sedge 2 Plug I or 2 Randoni mix
Carexstrlcia Tussockscd'e 2' Plug' (t>r ? Random mix
Iris virginica Southern Bluella-, 2' Phlu 2 Random mix
seignis luvratilr's River Butrush 2' _
Spaqunhim
ctrnerictuutrrt Eastern BUrrecd 2' t'lug ? I or2 Random illx
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower 2' 1 quart of 2 Randcn
n mix
Mertensia virsinica Bluebells 2' Plug 2 or 3 Random prix
Saururus cernurrs t.irard's Tail 2' Plug E l or 2 Random mix
r
;.ctrna atdlatK'a
Wild Rice
?
_.._
Plug
?
2
?
Random Im

Bu patoriurn pe blr'arunr
Perforated Bone.sct .
... ......_ ? ?i
..
Plug .,
....?.?.?-
L R.itid
Sc:irpus atrovirens Green Bulrush 2' P1u ? 1 or 2 Random mix ?
Vernonia
noveboracensis New York
Ironweed 2' or 3 Random lilix
Vernorna i rantea Giant Ironwecd 2 P1u ? 2 or.; Random mix
anicurn viQafunr Panics
?ra!is
2'
2 or _?
RU1dUlit mix
PCrrslernon 1l1NVrgfltits Beitfd
ton ue 2' plu 3 Random mix
Baptista alts (B.
lac:tea) Wild Whitt, Indigo 2' Plug 3 Random mix
Phlox caroliniana Wild Blue Phlox 2' Plu ? ? Random mix
Rudbeckia hirta Blacke ed Susan 2' Pius - 3 Ran,iont rrfix
Cinrici a >a racenrosa Black Cohosh 2' Pir
I 10tidmil fill \
Monardct rstnlosa Ber<,amol 2' _
„
_
Plug ? Ranti?,in m
Corer psis tinctoria Tickseed 2' Plug 3 Runtlum mix

* A minimum of six (b) of the scheduled species per zone mutt be planted. Within c ac'h zone the
plant species are not to be clumped, but randomly mixed. Minimum density of X400 trees and shru4x
per acre and 10,0()0 herbaceous plants per acre.

PLANT SCHEDULE: Zone 3 m._...... .....
Scientific Name Common Minimum Minimum zone D?strfhution
** E Name Stock Cali er
SPECIMEN TRL'LS
Quercus phellos Willow Oak B&B Where n{aced
flex _o racer American MIN B&B Z Where noted
Betula ni gra River Birch B&B 2" ?t Whrrc
Platantts Sycamore B&B Whcrr rn?tctl
occ ulc ntalic
lurr?erus rir?iniana Red Cedar B&B p" ? ? 4Vhcrc noted
**A minimum of three (3) of the scheduled species per rune mtist b : planted,
Dewberry
to

PLANT SCHEDULE: Permanent Seed Mix for Zones one (1) and
two (2
Scientific Name Common Name
Elvinus virginicus Virginia Rye
Hhnmscanadensis wdd Rvc
C"hasmanthitun lati ulium River Oats -
EA-mus hvslri< fl/vstric gar„ la) Bottlebretsh Grass
Dichantheliuin cornnnuaunn Variable. Witchorass
Schi aditl'triaurt scr? ?uriun7 Little Bluestein
Anelro ion wi virginicus [3rcxrtnse<I c
Andro o>on s;erardii Biro Bluestem
particuntvir>ation Switchgrass
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower ? ?
Erianthas gi ganteus Plutnc Grass
Rhu_s ?Iahra Sttu>uth Sumac
Samhacus callctdensis Iilderbem
C ornus amommn Silks I ogvk,Uod
Benda to gra River rttrch -??
Plf7tanlts Od°c'idt'ntaltl' Sveamore
Seed mix is applied to all disturbed areas.
10.2 Riparian Vegetation
Within the planted butter, species survival will be determined by ve,et ttive plots established at the
completion of conStntctt0n. Species density and survival will be documented, aloigw with Species not
installed drtring, the butter planting.
10.3 Constructed Welland t3iNN1P Vegetation
C
As pate. of' this project. a constructed wetlaiid will be constructed to treat: stormwater flowing from a
vet); o.rbanized watershed. In order to obtain maximum benefit of the treatment: effects of the
constructed wetland. I Troup of plants will need to be planted that are adapted to shallow water
conditions as well as to deeper intrequent 1100d condition,.
In order to provide the correct plants for the coilstntc.ted N-vetiand, the 13,,W) area was broken down
into three (3) plarrtirt" zones. These. three (i) zones are Low- Marsh (1.k1), Noll %,Iarsll (11M). . and
BUITer (13f). The ldnv nlarSh zone will be those areas of' the constructed wetland with a permanent
water depth of Ci to 12 inches. The high marsh zone will be those areas of the constructed wetk uid
with a permanem water depth of 0 to 6 inches. The buk'ker zone will be all those areas o1' the
ci:mstrttcted wetland above the pern?ianent pool water elevation.
The boner zone will also iruClude the maintenance corridor alonz; the perirtteter of' tile COllStrUcted
w"etlandl 13NIP. The plants, such as switchgrass, can readily handle intermittent vehicle traffic and
etert can be covered by ackclitiottal soil/sediment and quickly recover. llowever, this area should not
be mowed reeul<:trly a5 this would be detrimental to these species.
Dewberry 37
Table 27 Planting Zones and Plant Species list for the Constructed Wetland BM P
I.ow Marsh I M : 6 to ?2 inches below narmul pool
Spacing (ft)
Scientific Name Common Name Layer On-Center Plant Size Distribution
Schoenoplectus
tabemaemontani or
Sci us validus 5oftstern Bulrush Herb 2x2 N my Lame Mass
Pontederia cordata Pickerel Weed Ilerb 2x2
_ Plug 1..-arm: Mas
Zizaniopsismiliacea Giam Rice Cutgrass Herb 2x2 Plug I.argc Mass
High Marsh (HM): 0 to 6 inches below normal pool
0

Scientific Name
Common Name
Layer Spacing {ft)
On-Center
Plant Size
Distribution
Iris i?ir ginica Blue L la a Iris Herb 2x2 Piu111 L.ar Ic NIfass
Juncus .s'1'w hush Ilerh _ 3x2 Pluo I.arec Mass
Pc ltamlra i•ir giniea Arro" arum Herb 2x2 P111" l.arve Ntatiti
Pontederia cordam Pickerel Weed Iferh 2x2 PIu0 I.aree Mass
Sa ittaria lati olia Duck Potato Herb 2x2 Plug I it ?tas5
Saururuscemuus Ii/,aid'siail Herb 2x2 Plu 1 1aweMass
Schoenoplectus
tabemaemontani or
Scir us validus

Softstem Bulrush i

herb

2x2

IM!

Largc, Mass f
Buffer B : All Areas Above Normal Pool
Scientific Narne Common Name Laver Plant Sue Distribution
Permanent Seeding -
Panieum vir atum Switch=rass I lerb Seed Broadcast Mix
Juncus effusus Soft Rush Hods Seed Broadcast Mix

El mus vir inicus Virginia Wild
Rvc
Herb
Seed $
Broadcast Mix
Temporary- Erasion
Seeding

g
Lolium multi orunt _ Annual R e
rass Herb Seed Bro icic ast Mix
Setaria italiea German Millet f lerb Secd tiro tdc ist 'lie
10.4 Constructed Wetland B MP Vegetation Monitoring
Within the constructed wetland BVII. plant survival will be determined by vegetative plots
established at the completion of construction. Plant coverage and health will be documented, along
with arty other noted issues during the mcmitorinl visit.
Dewberry
38
E
L'
1-1
11.1 Cross-Sectional anti Longitudinal Geomot-phology
Following construction, the restored or enhanced section of the t'Tf3} D will he resurveyed
longitudinally and at permancntly established cross-sections. Photo points will also be established for
tuturc visits. One vcar tolloWing construction, the restored or enhanced sections of the UTI3I'D will
be resr rveycd longitudinally and at the permanent cross-sections. Photographs will again tx taken.
The stability of the channel will be assessed by comparing this survey to the as-built surtiey and the
survey of' the permanent cross-sections. Monitoring will be perlorrned in accordance with the latest
monitoring protocol and fiormat template.
Dewberry
39
12 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
12.1 Monitoring; Report
The results of the channel survey and vegetative surveys will be summarized in a post,-construction
monitoring report and presented alone with photographs to I F;P. The First annual Inorlitorin` report
will be completed by Dewberry and delivered to EEP one year after construction. Additional long-
term monitoring will be the responsibility of' the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Monitorin,,,,
will be perCorrned in accordance with the latest monitoring protocol and format template.
11
•
Dewberry 40
13 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING
The general sequence of construction will proceed from upstream to downstrearn and is described in
general terms below. Variance fl-om the construction sequence as shown on the construction plan and
specifications will need prior approval from the engineer of record.
13.1 Prior to Construction
Prior to construction, a pre-construction meeting will be held. Following this nreetirrg, and prior to
staking, the contractor will coordinate with the landowner and engineer to locate suitable staging
areas. The contractor will stake the stream alignment, mark the limits of grading and clearing, and
mark the Limits of Disturbance (LOD). The contractor will then install tree protection measures.
Sediment control devices and runoff control measures will be installed. Following inspection of''
protective measures, all vegetation marked for removal will be removed. The staging, entry. and
access routes will be cleared and then constructed.
13.2 During Construction
Each days work will be limited to the amount of work that can be completed and protected with
permanent or temporary reasures before the work day's end. Sediment and erosion control incasures
will be inspected and repaired/adjusted claily.
The stream channel will be protected from construction by diverting the natural flow opposite the
bank that is under construction. Techniques to divert stream flow may inclUdc, but are not limited to:
( I ) edging with sandbag,, (2-}conveying water with corrugated metal pipe or corrugated plastic, or (?)
bypass water by pump around.
Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled to be placed over fill as needed. The channel will be
excavated, and in-stream structures will be installed. The structures will be surveyed and streani
banks will receive final grading to design cross-sectional shape. The channel cross-section will be
surf eyed and modified as needed.
Finished slopes will be stabilized with coir matting and the area will be ternporarily or permanently
seeded according to the plans and specifications.
All land disturbance activitie, associated with the restoration are to be in accordance to the NC;
Erosion and Sediment (:ontrol Planning and Design Manual and the NC Erosion and Sediurrcut
Control Field Manual. Sediment and erosion control measures will be shown in detail on the
construction plans and a sediment and erosion control plan will be submitted to the NC Division of'
Land Quality, for permitting when construction plans are completed. Section 13.3 provides a general
overview of several important sediment and erosion control issues for this restoration.
13.3 Sediment and Erosion Control
Sediment and erosion control measures to be used may include, but are not limited to, diversion
ditches, sediment basins, check darns, outlet protection, tree protection fencing, silt fencing,
temporary seeding!, mulching, and erosion control blankets. Work will be limited to the length of
stream that can be constructed and stabilized before the end of the work dav. All sediment and
Dewberry 41

0
E
erosion control rpeasures will be inspected daily and li>llw ing s101,€11 events, and will be adjusted
and/or repaired as needed.
13.3.1 Tree Protection
The site contains a large number of mature overstory trees. Tree preservation and protection
rlletrsures will be used to prevent daniage to designated trees. Grading around trees that remain if]
place will be done to minimize soil compaction over the roots.
13.3.2 Erosion Control Features
Silt funding will be used where necessary to control sediment transport: and to protect: exposed and
steep grades. Additional protection will be required ('c>r denuded areas that are not at final grade
within seven days, and frown any slope that seeps water fiorn the slope face.
Sediment basins and traps, perinlcterdikes, sediment barriers and other measures shall be constructed
as a first step in any land disturbing activity and will be made functional before upslope land
disturbance takes place. Stockpiles will be stabilized or protected with sediment trapping pleasures.
1.3.3.3 Temporarily Impacted Areas
Temporary stream crossings may be required for this project. These crossing will be restored pricer to
the conlllletion of the project.
When stream reaches require deNvateririg, a lnnnp around detail must be provided to the engineer Im
review prior to installation.
and/or mulch, weed free straw, hydro-mulch, cover crop, erosion control btanket, or sirrrilar. A
suitable temporary seed mixture will be provided on the construction plans. Silt fence will be used as
needed in addition to temporary seeding.
All disturbed areas above normal water level will receive temporary stabilization with vegetation
Temporary accesses, storage, and staging areas are to be restored to preeonstructiorlcorutitiorrs. The
soil will be restored to alleviate compaction. l',xposed areas will be stabilized in a planner similar to
disturbed areas described above. Where vehicle access intersects paved public roads, provisions shall
be made to minimize transport of sediment by vehicular traffic. When sediment is transported to
paved surfaces, the surface shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Washing will not be
allowed until the surface has been shoveled or swept and sediment: disposed in a sediment control
area.
All temporary sediment and erosion control measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site
stabilization or after the temporary measures are no longer needed. ']'rapped sediment and disturbed
sail areas resulting from the disposition of temporary pleasures shall be perinancirt1y stabilized to
prevent further erosion arid sedimentation.
Dewberry
42
0 13.4 Following Construction
All temporary erosion and control measures Nvill he removed within 30 days after final site in>pection.
An as-built survey and as-(x.?ilt plans will tv pe,rl'Ormcd and prepared by the contractor to ensure that
the locatior3 and elevation of the all',m rent and in-strc?uaa structures arc in good a-rccment with the
design plans.
0

Dewberry 43

Brockman, C. Frank, illustrated by Merrilees, Rebecca. 1968. Trees of North America. Golden
Press, NY, New York.
C:'arolinaRaptorCenter. httP.wllw4a,v__c?roi,inara.f7.t+ rc nter,t?r?(rs hawk.nhv
Doll, Barbara A. et. al,. 2000. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams Throughout the
Piedmont of North Carolina. American Water Resources Association.
Doll, Barbara A. et al. "Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain
Streams". As published in Stream Restoration: A iVatural Channel Design handbook, prepared t7
the North. Carolina Stream Restoration Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant.
FISRW'G (1011998). Stream Comdor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. 13N, the
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (F-lSRWG) (15 Federal q,encics of the US
gov't). GPO Iterri No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-93421 3-59-3.
Harman, William A. et. al,. June/July 1999. Bankfull I-lydrauhe; Geometry Relationships for North
Carolina Streams. American Water Resources Association Summer Symposiurn Proceedings.
Harrelson. Cheryl C.; Rawlins, C. 1..; Potyondy,.lohn, P. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
[ley, Richard D. and Dave Rosgen. 1997. Fluvial C eomorpholoEgy for [l;rrgirrccrs. Wildland
Ilydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of' Water Quality
Section. October 1995. Basinkvide Assessment Report - Neuse River. Notch Carc7hna Division of`
Water Quality, Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina 1.)epartrnent of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. August 1997. Common Wetland Plants of NC. North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Raleigh, N.C.
North. Carolina Department of Environment. and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. August 2000. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. April 2001. Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina. North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, N.'.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Nonpoint
Source Management Program. httt,a/h3o e nr wtate.nc uslrrt,;/uwrc oltrr.?i(
North Carolina Office of Environmental Education- North Carolina River Basin Maps
htt:!/www.t;e c.nr stt?te nc.a?slecoadrtWatershuis-NC-nta .html
Dewberry 44
North CaroIIII?IStreiana Restoration In, titute 199N. 1Ziver COLKS S 1- 1. North Carohna State Bio-Ag
Fngineerrng Coopernt.iae i;.?tension Service Water Quality Group, lZaleigh, NC'-
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute - Recornmended Coastal Plain Native Plants
htU:f(?i??5.f>ae.nctiLa.z:dtr/t7rcirraw/etecastoralutriflZ?cttr?ints°nded`r'f)'a'r?
es. lit tn#Coeast<aI'/(2(Wi kin`_/e )OlZe_,i?_n`t
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute- Rural Coastal Regional Curves
h.*t ://,%yw w,bae,xtensiordw ?r sri/coa,sta1,1Itrrr
Radford, Albert; Ahles, I larrv, and Bell, C. Ritchie. September 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
United States Dish and WlldlifeSer ice.
United States Department of ArrieLilture. et al. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration Principles,
Processes, and Practices. United States Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C
United States Department of Agriculture. Plants Database. htt ,/t lants,usda l
United Stages Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June 1974. Soil Survey of
Wayne County. North Carolina. Soil Survey Staff. United States Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C.
Varaoni, Vito (1977). Sedimentation l nrineering. New York: ASCL.
0
ff Dewberry 45
Click on the Desired Link Below
Appendices